receive, through the group IDRA, the following press release concerning a letter from Citizens for the Trees "in Florence to be sent to the Regional Land and Infrastructure Riccardo Conti. A letter that touches the real problems of the development model on which, those who claim to be the logical alternative berlusoniana of the great works, it must dissolve. In fact, this basic ambiguity on the social model, on the continuous race for productivity-exaggerated and the relationship with the environment ttanno aclune cause for the loss of votes of the left and PD.
Filcams The CGIL Trentino
Here is the letter
Egr. Alderman Richard Conti,
a committee of citizens are born with the intent to preserve the little green space, and with it, health and general welfare of all citizens of Florence. We did not like the way your complaint - Appeared in a newspaper - that 'a left that defends and represents the cypresses and the workers who lose their job is left without an identity': it seems to mean that, in general, anyone who tried to defend 'cypress' having to sacrifice to care for workers and jobs.
We too are workers as well as citizens, and no one of us who actually work every day without the guarantees and all the options offered to the politicians know what it means to live a hard life for some of us firmly on the precarious life, unemployed , housewives, disabled persons, but also artisans out of business, traders with few customers. In short, across a large representation of non-political 'normal' people, left, right, center and another, united by a simple conviction: that the 'green' the public should not have a 'color' policy, being one of the few trees which can be said to belong to everyone, not only across space but also over time, because there is nothing more precious and 'alive' you can give to future generations in terms of beauty and health.
Sorry that your message but it exudes almost the will to believe that anyone involved in preservation of green space is direct or indirect cause of the loss of many jobs, and that the real cause is rather to be found, as we believe in deeply wrong policies based on profit and private interests, in the absence of a far-sighted urban planning regulations in doing projects based on, as she reminds us very well with its reference underpass to the millions of TAV, that make large sums of money and not about the real quality of a city plan.
We are more concrete and perhaps more optimistic about her: we can combine the right to work with the right to health, the modern transport with urban planning based on common sense and brings a real service to the community, that you can spend less but produce more and better by simply changing priorities. If we decide not to destroy a city and then will work? We think just the opposite! If anything will work useless bodies unnecessary bureaucracy will miss the 'real' lazy (not saying who, only they know), that is, those who want to get rich quickly and to the detriment of others so that they will lose their jobs, but not we will all regret.
Moreover, paradoxically, the idea that if it was going to be any good project, even devastating, if you make huge amounts of money = jobs, no one would see the difference with the more serious and radical concept of the importance of the wars in economic sense. We all know that after a bombing there is always a kind of New Deal that resurrects the economy, but perhaps we should endorse the war because it creates many jobs at the time of reconstruction?
We too are workers as well as citizens, and no one of us who actually work every day without the guarantees and all the options offered to the politicians know what it means to live a hard life for some of us firmly on the precarious life, unemployed , housewives, disabled persons, but also artisans out of business, traders with few customers. In short, across a large representation of non-political 'normal' people, left, right, center and another, united by a simple conviction: that the 'green' the public should not have a 'color' policy, being one of the few trees which can be said to belong to everyone, not only across space but also over time, because there is nothing more precious and 'alive' you can give to future generations in terms of beauty and health.
Sorry that your message but it exudes almost the will to believe that anyone involved in preservation of green space is direct or indirect cause of the loss of many jobs, and that the real cause is rather to be found, as we believe in deeply wrong policies based on profit and private interests, in the absence of a far-sighted urban planning regulations in doing projects based on, as she reminds us very well with its reference underpass to the millions of TAV, that make large sums of money and not about the real quality of a city plan.
We are more concrete and perhaps more optimistic about her: we can combine the right to work with the right to health, the modern transport with urban planning based on common sense and brings a real service to the community, that you can spend less but produce more and better by simply changing priorities. If we decide not to destroy a city and then will work? We think just the opposite! If anything will work useless bodies unnecessary bureaucracy will miss the 'real' lazy (not saying who, only they know), that is, those who want to get rich quickly and to the detriment of others so that they will lose their jobs, but not we will all regret.
Moreover, paradoxically, the idea that if it was going to be any good project, even devastating, if you make huge amounts of money = jobs, no one would see the difference with the more serious and radical concept of the importance of the wars in economic sense. We all know that after a bombing there is always a kind of New Deal that resurrects the economy, but perhaps we should endorse the war because it creates many jobs at the time of reconstruction?
Be peaceful, Deputy Mayor, and no illusions. People know what is working and it is precisely because, unlike many politicians who have the opportunity to 'escape' to exotic places, they live and work permanently in their cities, who want to keep their valuable trees, through which, moreover, they are even able to notice the ugliness less than one year to have been built around without harmony. The trees representing all employees, if you remember, giving them oxygen and health, and even those politicians who have no scruples to killing although alternatives. We believe that those who defend 'cypress' defends not just a job, but much more, the worker himself. You are of course free, as we are, to say your opinion, but in a year when we ask for your vote, you remember what you said and our immediate response, we would not hear you stand up at that very moment to champion of 'cypress', but it is known for a consistent person, and will not happen. Citizens for Trees
June 6, 2009 
