This week two newspapers (La Vanguardia and El Pais) ran articles about a proposal by the PSC and CiU parties soon before the City Council which would ban nudity and near-nudity from streets near the beach, including the infamous Las Ramblas area. (see link to El Pais.) http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cataluna/Barcelona/chastened/elpepueng/20110121elpcat_1/Ten
La Vanguardia suggested that the proposal would certainly be passed in March, just in time for this year's tourist hordes hitting the city at Easter. (Presumeably tourists are the main offenders?) This is pure speculation of course but that's newspapers for you.
It seems there could be several 'grey' areas here - as well as pink ones! A definitions of what is 'nude' (and therefore attracting a fine of up to 500 euros) shouldn't be too difficult for the lawmakers. But deciding what is 'semi-nude' (attracting 300 euros) could more problematic. El Pais suggests that being shirtless for men and wearing a bathing costume for women could come under 'semi' or 'near-nude'. But what about bikinis, or shorts with a tiny top or bra? No bra? And doesn't a short dress with buttons undone, or a mini-skirt reveal as much of the human body as a bathing costume? In any case would feminists be right in protesting here that any definition is, de facto, biased against ways in which women habitually dress in summer -. in any country? And after all don't you see men repairing the streets who aren't wearing shirts, don't you? And statues only wearing paint? Are they nude or semi-nude?
So far few voices have been raised against the idea - which suggests the law will be doomed to failure. El Pais quotes one: Jacint Ribes, chairman for the Association for the Defence of Nakedness (Yes, it does exist !) who feels a new wave of 'nudophobia' has arrived. He suggests proposals like this only come up at election time. He states that the City Hall used to be a defender of personal freedom. Now it's favouring people who want to be free not to suffer others' lack of respect!
Another criticism is that police have enough to do to keep abreast of the rising 'normal' crime in the city without checking out what people are - or aren't wearing. A police spokesperson was reported to have they would insist on people getting dressed properly before officers took down their details, and that they would not keep photos on police files to catch consistent offenders (liable to a 600 euro fine). Would patrols be organised so that a policeman and police woman work together to make for a more objective decision? One cynic thought that the whole thing was just a ruse to get more recruits into Barcelona's Guardia Urbana police.
To decide questions of taste and fashion is always a tricky and subjective thing. 'Beauty - (and in this case semi-nudity) are in the eye of the beholder'. I suspect that the originator of that much over-quoted phrase, Keats would not have objected to the sight of over-exposure of the female body. Byron might unless the shirtless perpetrator was handsome. In any case a softly-softly approach rather than a hardline one might be a better policy, since strutting your stuff (in a semi-nude state in the streets) is only a seasonal occupation.
This weekend it's minus 5 degees out on Las Ramblas. Not a chest hair, bare leg or plunging neckline in sight.
Sunday 23 January 2011
Your second home is not your castle.
In Spain second-home owners have long trembled where lawmakers tread. Since the 80's I recall local governments and builders taking advantage of foreign owners who clearly didn't know the ropes. Or they did know them, but the Town Hall kept changing the goalposts. OK, I know that's a mess of mixed metaphors but not such an ugly mess as a heap of rubble which was your house and which represented all your savings. It's difficult to win when bent local government officials, lawyers, estate agents and builders are in cahoots, all after a big slice of your money for some building that isn't legal - or is only half-finished as is the case today with builders going belly-up so often. And then once you've spent it, they want to knock it down 'cos the law says they can. In this case it's not Spain's law but sod's law when this happens so often.
Valencia seems to be one province (but not the only one) which has a reputation for being unfeeling when dealing with what is and what isn't legally built, and one which seems to have it in for foreign residents. On numerous occasions its municipalities have demanded bulldozing of properties, appropriation of land, payment of fees for new roadways, extra taxes for services and utilities etc. So much so that many affected residents banded together (in a group called PNALC) and took their complaints successfully to Strasbourg. Everything seems to hinge round how one interprets the 1988 central government environmental law (La Ley de las Costas). Theoretically it imposes restrictions on new building after1988 and declares illegal dwellings or parts of dwellings if they infringe this law. Today the socialist central government seems to have decided to apply more severely this law which is putting the fear of God into anyone with a house within sight of the sea. La Ley's aim is to allow access to the entire length of the Spanish coast to you, me and the dog. Secondly it seeks to stop erosion and mass building.(see footnote link for a full explanation)
Good, I hear you say. Illegal building and the resulting speculation has been rampant far too long in Spain. There are far too many places where ugly hotels and blocks of flats label a nice strip of sand 'Private Beach' and put up a razor-wire fence to stop you passing through. Far too many huge private villas whose snarling Dobermans snap hungrily at the muscled bottoms of hikers as they walk the coast. Teach them a lesson. Give Spain back to the people. Agreed. But its hardly the scenario as when in good faith you've invested your life savings in a modest place on the coast after being assured by both the builder and the Town Hall that everything was kosher and then ten years down the line one morning you find a bulldozer revving outside backed up by the Guardia Civil waving a court order for demolition of 'Casa Mia', your bolthole to the sun.
And, as in the case of Ampuriabrava, a Venice clone (canals not buildings) on the Costa Brava, things get complicated. La Vanguadia this week ran an article about how owners of houses built canalside would have to demolish parts of their property to allow people access to walk along the canals. Now that would be bad enough if it only meant the public walking through a slice of your ex-garden, but in many cases it's more than that. It's a question of say, the shallow end of the swimming pool, or half the boat garage you built, or in the worse case scenario your extra bedroom where, in the future, Joe Public will be able take a shortcut on his morning walk to get his Daily Mail or Rheinische Post and croissants. It's also not clear who would pay for the removal of any such 'obstacles'. You, the owner, or the Town Hall .
Another complicating factor in the Ampuriabrava case is that many owners over the years, pre and post 1988, without consulting either lawyers or the Town Hall, have taken it for granted they could extend their properties 'just a few metres' and join their moorings up to the gardens - and naturally local construction companies were 'glad to help'. After all Helmut from Hamburg and Gunter from Giessen on either sides of the house have done it and they've been here for years so it must be OK, mustn't it!
Lots of things seem to be unclear with regard to the application of La Ley but what is certain is that it looks like the Battle of Ampuriabrava - and any others like it - will be long and drawn out, since the vast majority of these prime properties are owned by people who can pay afford to pay lawyers so they are not going to take invasion of their privacy lying down. You can sympathise with both owners and the public. Both sections have rights but both want the opposite. The owners want privacy and the public access. Whose side are you on?
Footnote/Link Mark Strickland's site in English which explains the main clauses of La Ley de las Costas and which shows how open to interpretation many clauses could be.
http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/buff/spain/faq/ley-de-costas-coastal-law/
Valencia seems to be one province (but not the only one) which has a reputation for being unfeeling when dealing with what is and what isn't legally built, and one which seems to have it in for foreign residents. On numerous occasions its municipalities have demanded bulldozing of properties, appropriation of land, payment of fees for new roadways, extra taxes for services and utilities etc. So much so that many affected residents banded together (in a group called PNALC) and took their complaints successfully to Strasbourg. Everything seems to hinge round how one interprets the 1988 central government environmental law (La Ley de las Costas). Theoretically it imposes restrictions on new building after1988 and declares illegal dwellings or parts of dwellings if they infringe this law. Today the socialist central government seems to have decided to apply more severely this law which is putting the fear of God into anyone with a house within sight of the sea. La Ley's aim is to allow access to the entire length of the Spanish coast to you, me and the dog. Secondly it seeks to stop erosion and mass building.(see footnote link for a full explanation)
Good, I hear you say. Illegal building and the resulting speculation has been rampant far too long in Spain. There are far too many places where ugly hotels and blocks of flats label a nice strip of sand 'Private Beach' and put up a razor-wire fence to stop you passing through. Far too many huge private villas whose snarling Dobermans snap hungrily at the muscled bottoms of hikers as they walk the coast. Teach them a lesson. Give Spain back to the people. Agreed. But its hardly the scenario as when in good faith you've invested your life savings in a modest place on the coast after being assured by both the builder and the Town Hall that everything was kosher and then ten years down the line one morning you find a bulldozer revving outside backed up by the Guardia Civil waving a court order for demolition of 'Casa Mia', your bolthole to the sun.
And, as in the case of Ampuriabrava, a Venice clone (canals not buildings) on the Costa Brava, things get complicated. La Vanguadia this week ran an article about how owners of houses built canalside would have to demolish parts of their property to allow people access to walk along the canals. Now that would be bad enough if it only meant the public walking through a slice of your ex-garden, but in many cases it's more than that. It's a question of say, the shallow end of the swimming pool, or half the boat garage you built, or in the worse case scenario your extra bedroom where, in the future, Joe Public will be able take a shortcut on his morning walk to get his Daily Mail or Rheinische Post and croissants. It's also not clear who would pay for the removal of any such 'obstacles'. You, the owner, or the Town Hall .
Another complicating factor in the Ampuriabrava case is that many owners over the years, pre and post 1988, without consulting either lawyers or the Town Hall, have taken it for granted they could extend their properties 'just a few metres' and join their moorings up to the gardens - and naturally local construction companies were 'glad to help'. After all Helmut from Hamburg and Gunter from Giessen on either sides of the house have done it and they've been here for years so it must be OK, mustn't it!
Lots of things seem to be unclear with regard to the application of La Ley but what is certain is that it looks like the Battle of Ampuriabrava - and any others like it - will be long and drawn out, since the vast majority of these prime properties are owned by people who can pay afford to pay lawyers so they are not going to take invasion of their privacy lying down. You can sympathise with both owners and the public. Both sections have rights but both want the opposite. The owners want privacy and the public access. Whose side are you on?
Footnote/Link Mark Strickland's site in English which explains the main clauses of La Ley de las Costas and which shows how open to interpretation many clauses could be.
http://www.spanishpropertyinsight.com/buff/spain/faq/ley-de-costas-coastal-law/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)