In recent days, catastrophic news has covered various media at the national level and has focused on Dénia. The publication, by the Ministry of Ecological Transition, of the demarcation lines for the Maritime-Terrestrial Public Domain has generated great commotion and fear among many residents at the idea of losing their homes. But, what is true about the supposed announcement of demolition of thousands of houses in the beaches from the city?
«In order to promote effective protection of our coasts and to increase the legal certainty of the holders of rights on the coast, the demarcation lines of the entire Spanish coast are published». This is how the Ministry introduces the information that has recently come to light about the demarcation. "After a long and laborious process, it has been possible to represent in digital format the line corresponding to the more than 10.000 km of maritime-terrestrial public domain assets of our coastline."
The representation of the demarcation lines was something that had been demanded by the administrations for a long time, but it has not prevented its publication from generating much discontent among the owners of the first coastline. And it is not for less, because this information points to many buildings in the capital of the Marina Alta for occupying public domain land. Of course, this is because the buildings were built decades ago, when this limitation did not exist. However, the facts are there and now it is stated that their land does not really belong to them.
The unfounded fear of demolitions
"Better late than never," he says. Maria Josep Ripoll, Councilor for Urban Planning of Dénia, when asked about the publication of the Ministry. Ripoll has been satisfied by this publication, which she admits was necessary and she has wanted to deny all the news that is being generated around her, which explicitly assumes that the demarcation will imply demolitions.
According to the councilwoman, it is not true that any house that remains within the protection easement zone is going to be demolished. Although the City Council does not have powers on the coast, it confirms that the residents of the coast will be able to maintain their properties as a land concession. In fact, it should not affect the new documentation or the sale of affected properties, simply the buyer would have the information of what the situation is.
Where is the real problem of the first line? In the receding of the coastline that, as happened with the first stretch of Les Deveses, causes the sea to gain ground to the cement and causes damage to the constructions of the place. When these disasters occur, it can be, and has been, the case that it is prevented from recovering the building as it was and advocates keeping the public land “natural”. Above all, this prohibition has been applied when it comes to long construction terraces. At the moment, never to the house itself.
What does the virtual representation of the demarcation mean?
The only direct implication is that the extension or construction of annexes to the houses already built on this public domain land will not be allowed, but it will be possible to carry out repairs and aesthetic arrangements.
Ripoll sees this virtual representation of the boundary as something positive, because "now we know how the line looks", and that it offers an opportunity to the neighbors for dialogue, since during this month they will be able to present allegations about the delimitation plan.
I mean, first I'll stab you and then we can talk about whether you're paralyzed or they just give you a few stitches. But what dialogue do you want when you run out of property?
good morning, reading the comments from one side and the other, I draw the conclusion that whoever itches should scratch it, but I think that it is not like that, all those who bought land or houses in those coastal areas is because the government of the day and the city council gave the legal permits at that time and it is not worth that for reasons of one government or another they change the laws to their liking and on top of that without compensation this is a scam against the people, because of that rule of thumb I live in the salt flat walk, come the ecologists on duty and evict me from my house because I am in some salt flats from 200 years ago, if they want to modify the laws and regulations that the country pays, as the one who bought the houses paid and paid the corresponding taxes all within the law, gentlemen, fight, this is another democratic dictatorship, go to the European parliament and say the cacicadas that occur in democratic Spain, greetings and encouragement.
Why doesn't the town planning councilor declare her house in a sociocultural center and she lives, instead of being the owner, as a dealer? Total, according to her nothing happens. Apply it ma'am. Call an urgent meeting now in the assembly hall of Denia to give explanations face to face with the thousands of people affected. But first read the law and regulations of the Coasts, so you won't be so ridiculous. TIME and DAY and PLACE NOW!!
Pd thanks to this means of communication for breaking the news.
Please can you tell me where I can find the maps for Platja de l'Almadrava & Deveses B
Look in the internet:. GVa cartographic viewer. Then move the scroll towards Denia, north of the harbour, click.
If it's easier on Google Earth or Google Maps you can find it too.
Good luck!
I would like to know if Mrs. Ripoll would be so happy if one of those houses were hers or her parents', houses built many years ago and all, all, with permits from the coast and from the town hall, houses with mortgages and with owners who they have bought in a legal and private property rights environment that is now changing.
It is a good way to defend the rights of the citizens of Dénia that Mrs. Ripoll has.
If the article reflects what this policy said, it is not well advised and does not explain the truth of the demarcation that the State has initiated, directed by the government of Spain. The house that is included in the maritime-terrestrial public domain in the new demarcation will eventually end up being demolished, this is the fundamental objective of being included in the public domain as it is declared necessary, to pass to the State. But not only that, but the owner has the obligation to pay the cost of the demolition and all this without the right to any compensation, he only has the right to use a temporary administrative concession whose duration will be set by the State, it is as if it were a free expropriation. The State and above all, the municipal political representatives should defend the rights acquired with great effort, promote the conservation and regeneration of the Coast, and not launder the abuse of power and privileges of the State. This is a setback to fundamental rights that reminds me of that word of a dictator that I do not want to name! EXPROPRIATE! It's like a slow, almost imperceptible EXPROPRIATE, but in the end the houses will disappear, if we don't do something.
In the supposed protection zone right now there are areas of the Marinas with large cranes and workers erecting urbanizations... what a country we have. Licenses are granted to earn income at the same time that the land maritime protection line is changed. What happens to the citizen who has mortgaged his future by buying off-plan? Or does the line come and go according to the interests of the politician on duty?
We have no solution.
No, we have no solution when we continue buying off-plan, or on the seafront 10 meters away, or in a flood zone... and then we cry that we have been deceived. In addition, it is one thing to buy to live and another to speculate because most of these properties are bought to speculate. No, we have no solution.
I would like to know the opinion of those politicians if their property title will be exchanged for their houses in Madrid or Dénia by a notification that simply considers them as a concession.
Let's see if someone once and for all puts these criminals on the trail who have built their houses on public land that belongs to all of us. It seems that in this country the theft of the public has a bull.
Many of those homes that you say belong to "criminals" are 60-70 year old buildings that at the time were 80-100 m from the sea and that today are closer due to regression, not because their owners had built them. above the sea Inform yourself with old photos, cadastre, etc. before posting your comment.
They are private properties, they have never been public, nor have they been owned by all, these properties have been bought by people with their efforts, the pleasure of some to appropriate what belongs to others is the people who think like you.
I mean, first I'll stab you and then we can talk about whether you're paralyzed or they just give you a few stitches. But what dialogue do you want when you run out of property?
"...In fact, it should not affect the new documentation or the sale of affected properties, simply the buyer would have the information of what the situation is...."
But who is going to buy one of those properties? Who is going to spend money on something that is sentenced by the sea? How many of these houses are registered as such in the Land Registry?