Heart of Var: the Department-Region war is invited to the debate

Normally, we're not fans of political politics within the Cœur du Var community of communes. But for the last item on the council's agenda, the elected officials dove headfirst into the squabble between the Var departmental council and the regional council of the South region. And even if some of the exchanges suggested intelligible arguments, in the end, as Thierry Bongiorno, mayor of Gonfaron, puts it, the resolution in question would have passed like a letter through the post "if it had been presented last year."

Yes, but here's the thing: the request to elected officials to support the process of creating the Maures-Estérel-Tanneron Regional Natural Park (PNR) was put on the agenda for this meeting, and the context means that the letter ultimately did not reach the post office. To cut short any suspense, no, Cœur du Var does not support the PNR project. "Not yet," Yannick Simon, mayor of Cabasse and president of the inter-municipal authority, wants to point out.

Political politics in the heart of Var

Why such a position? Why such a refusal? Before addressing the admissible arguments, let's talk about the famous context. A context made explosive by the statement in our columns by François de Canson, mayor of La Londe and vice-president of the Region. To evoke the reluctance of some to support the PNR, the elected official noted "systematic but ideological oppositions", notably with regard to the map of municipalities that have not yet deliberated, which he considered to be close to that of the municipalities "notorious opponents of President Muselier" .

In short, being against the Regional Natural Park (PNR) means being against the Region. And since the relationship between the Var and Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur isn't exactly in great shape, despite the ostentatious smiles, one might be tempted to say that being for the PNR means being against the Department. These are shortcuts, of course, projections, no doubt, but you'd have to be pretty naive not to at least imagine that this analysis is disconnected from reality.

Vote on whether to vote

So much for the context. Back to the Cœur du Var community council. Faced with the potential heated debate that the deliberation would provoke, Yannick Simon will attempt a formal defusal: "I'm going to ask you, all the community councilors, to decide whether or not to vote." Vote to know whether to vote. An approach deemed clumsy, particularly by Christophe Cortès, mayor of Carnoules: "Either it's on the agenda, or it isn't." If the president defends himself by indicating his desire "to add democracy by involving everyone," and not just the community office, he will end up accepting the criticism since the vote on the deliberation will not be preceded by a vote on the vote.

A vote, against, therefore, motivated in particular by the elected officials of Le Luc, Dominique Lain at the head. The mayor will underline for example "the principle of free administration of the communes" , which could be flouted if Cœur du Var commits to supporting a PNR that Le Luc (and others perhaps) does not support. "Community support would amount to denying the position of a part of the communes, and therefore weaken the bond of trust between these communes and the intercommunality." An argument swept aside by Marjorie Viort (mayor of Le Thoronet and regional councilor) and by Jean-Luc Longour (mayor of Le Cannet-des-Maures), both saying in essence that the interco spends its time voting for projects that do not concern all the communes, "like the high school of Le Luc for example" .

Dominique Lain had other arguments, notably on the constraints that a PNR could impose on member municipalities, in terms of urban planning, development, financing, and governance. All of these points are absolutely legitimate... if it were a debate concerning adherence to a charter. "All we're asking here is to support the project to create this charter," Marjorie Viort emphasized. "A PNR is the direction of History ," Jean-Luc Longour said. "It's an advantage for the territory, it's a perspective for the future."

Convincing? Apparently not. Because at the time of the vote, 23 votes were cast to reject the resolution and 13 "for" (two abstentions). Democracy has spoken. And while the discussions were sometimes fueled by interesting positions, the impression remains that the debate was indeed disrupted by external issues. That's what local politics is all about!