The Sète Agglopôle Development Council meets in plenary session this Tuesday, December 17. The opportunity to take stock of this participatory body with its president Bruno Arbouet.
The Sète Agglopôle Development Council, which you chair, is holding its plenary meeting this Tuesday, December 17. What will be the main themes covered?
The plenary sessions are intended to take stock of the work undertaken the previous year. There, a majority of citizens wanted a live dialogue with elected officials, who accepted it. This Tuesday, five vice-presidents will answer our questions: Jean-Guy Majourel on the high-speed line, Laurence Magne on youth, Michel Garcia on food, Loïc Linarès on development and the coastline and Yves Michel on the question of water and the pond.
What is the Development Council's position on the High Speed Line?
This project now dates from 2009! We are not opposed to the principle of a high-speed line linking the North to the South of Europe, nor to it crossing our territory. We are open to the subject. On the other hand, we are fiercely opposed to the proposed route, which includes the Poussan viaduct. It must be reviewed for a new route which would become at the same time the high-speed line, the freight line and the line serving the territory, since the current one will eventually be condemned by rising waters. This undoubtedly means creating a new multimodal hub around Poussan.
During the first public meeting in Poussan, you even said “not wanting to participate in a coloring workshop” and spoke of a “denial of democracy”…
This made an impression. In the event that the route is maintained, we have no confidence in the commitments made by the SNCF in terms of local services.
We do not dispute the role of elected officials: it is up to them to decide. But we would prefer that they decide, informed by our opinions
Beyond the laudable objective of citizen participation, what is the real weight of a consultative body thus backed by a community?
Locally, our role is modest. But it is rather exemplary because here we have a quality of listening and relationship. We are careful to be neither a sounding board for the majority of the Agglomeration, nor the expression of all oppositions. We are on a balance, a crest path. We are in a demanding but peaceful and constructive relationship. We do not dispute the role of elected officials: it is up to them to decide. But we would prefer that they decide, informed by our opinions in advance. On the other hand, if elected officials do not follow our advice, they must explain why and take responsibility. On the LGV, we took a position a month ago. Fifteen days later, all the elected officials followed. I'm not going to say it's because of us. But we may have contributed to it, modestly.
Is a Codev a good way to move away from citizen mistrust of politicians and engage in participatory democracy?
It seems to us that the more citizens are involved upstream in public decision-making, the better it will be. We don't have to decide. Elected officials have this democratic legitimacy. It's up to them to be enlightened by what we can say. The citizen is no longer satisfied with slipping a ballot into the ballot box every five years.
