IS VENICE DOOMED BY APATHY AND NOT BY WATER?
aut.c | 08.06.2006 15:10
Reaction to a Time of London commentary there is no need for further public donations to keep Venice from sinking since the city is doomed and should be allowed to die by turning off its life support.....
June 7, 2006
IS VENICE DOOMED BY APATHY AND NOT BY WATER?
From Uli Schmetzer
www.uli-schmetzer.com
If the world seems in a precarious state these days much of it is due to the apathy of a public which seems to take its political guidelines from corporate-controlled television broadcasts and corporate-controlled dailies, rarely casts its vote unless compelled and if it does, usually votes in ignorance. A good example of this apathy and misinformation is the city of Venice. As everyone knows La Serenissima has been sinking into its lagoon for centuries and probably will continue to sink for more centuries despite doomsday predictions it is about to vanish.
The sinking phenomenon has caused more anxiety among fans of Venice abroad then among its own citizen. The English dailies this month even advised the concerned English public against further financial donations to save a city they said was doomed to die and now only served as a Disneyland theme park where tourists are fleeced. The Times of London even claimed Venice was ‘dissolving itself like a lump of sugar in a tea cup’ ignoring not a single Venetian palace has ‘dissolved’ itself in the millennium long history of the city - and is unlikely to do so according to the experts.
The rationale of the Times exhortation ‘to let the city die’ could have been applied decades, even centuries ago. But then the writers of these calls for a Venetian euthanasia would never have seen the great city on water. Instead of letting Venice die international and Italian financial aid has turned the city into a far prettier and much renovated metropolis over the last decade. The Save Venice funds not only renovated old Palazzi but reinforced the banks and canals of a city-republic unique in its watery habitat and famous for its cultural and artistic treasures. In spite of its age and rising ocean-levels this constant maintenance work has cleaned canals and shored up the banks on the lagoon reducing the effects of high tides and virtually eliminating Venice’s much vilified canal odors. In fact the English media’s obituary on the Death of Venice is slightly premature and a product of ignorance by writers who obviously have not visited La Serenissima for decades.
Unfortunately it is this kind of ignorance which has also infested the citizens of Venice who appear more concerned with raking in money from the city’s booming tourist trade then promoting a viable remedy against tidal waters or defending their city against the commercial opportunists peddling fabulously expensive recipes to ‘Save Venice.’
The sad truth is only a small number of concerned local activists have bravely battled against a government project, a gigantic and highly dubious undertaking, to regulate the tidal flow in the lagoon, a project named MOSe.
Not surprisingly similar public lethargy has made sure our corporate-political systems manage to perpetuate, inflate, enrich and expand. After all the people who run our lives rotate between company boards and government ministries, with one foot in each camp, ensuring the welfare and growth of their corporation and the future of this lucrative corporate-political symbiosis.
The city of Venice is no different. When billionaire Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi two years ago promoted a four billion Euro mega-scheme to save the city from freak high water few took the trouble to find out exactly what this monstrosity in steel and concrete would do to their watery habitat. After all the consortium running the lucrative project included many of the major Italian corporations, buddies of the premier, all participating in what was hailed then by critics as the biggest handout of public funds for decades.
The warnings of ecologists, environmentalists, engineers and dike experts that the scheme was an outdated abomination, rejected decades ago by expert dike nations like Holland, and would not save Venice from sinking deeper into its lagoon was simply ignored. So was the argument the project would compromise the natural flushing system of the lagoon and change the lagoon’s environment. Ignored too was the presentation of far cheaper, far more effective projects to keep the tidal water at bay. Brushed aside was the common complaint only a portion of the money spent on the project would suffice to further renovate the lagoon banks and the city’s canals, a far the most efficient measures to combat high water.
All objections fell on deaf ears. Most Venetians argued the great Silvio was finally doing something to save Venice from getting its feet wet.
This public apathy allowed the construction to go ahead, despite serious doubts about its legitimacy. The MOSe was never approved by the city’s municipal council and the European Commission has stated the MOSe’s environmental standards do not conform to European specifications. Even worse, under Venetian law dating back centuries, all projects altering the city’s water courses must be reversible. The MOSe is not.
For those who oppose the project the greatest hope is the knowledge funds to finish the eight-year-long works will not be found in Italy’s impoverished public coffers. Nor will the 35 million Euro a year for the project’s maintenance cost.
But building goes on. Vast amounts of concrete have been poured onto the lagoon’s sea floor to house the inflatable steel floodgates across the three channels that connect the lagoon to the Adriatic Sea.
While Berlusconi was Prime Minister an active public relations network constantly praised the project, aggressively vilified detractors and threatened with legal action the small No-MOSe group that organized protests on work-sites and in the city.
But with the Great Communicator gone the municipality of Venice in May decided perhaps it should take another look at the project, at least this way in the future the city fathers would not be blamed for its failure.
By now, however, large amounts of money are circulating tied to the project, much of it among constituents of the very councilors trying to bring some order into floodgate sites no one in their right mind considers today a solution to the problems of Venice. In fact the so-called MOSE project is rather counter-productive for it erodes the badly needed funds to shore up the lagoon banks and canals, the main weapons of the battle against rising waters.
But the worst is yet to come: The city council now concurs that the expensive floodgates will only be raised at exceptional high tide, perhaps once or twice a year. For the rest of the year the autumn and winter high tides will continue to flood Venice an average sixty times annually, forcing citizen and visitors to walk on duckboards, inundating ground floors and weakening the city’s foundations.
One would have thought with this knowledge about the negative side of the project the council voted at once to halt all works pending further investigation of the MOSE’s viability. Not so. Perhaps there is already too much money at stake. Anyway the council took the Italian solution: Let the works continue (until the money runs out) and create one of those interminable committees to examine the project and see what alterations can be made, obviously to accommodate everyone concerned. There is no talk of scrapping the MOSe which is rising like a monstrosity at the entrances to the lagoon.
After all during the decisive Council meeting on the project’s future in June barely a hundred concerned Venetians turned up to protest against this white elephant.
ends
IS VENICE DOOMED BY APATHY AND NOT BY WATER?
From Uli Schmetzer
www.uli-schmetzer.com
If the world seems in a precarious state these days much of it is due to the apathy of a public which seems to take its political guidelines from corporate-controlled television broadcasts and corporate-controlled dailies, rarely casts its vote unless compelled and if it does, usually votes in ignorance. A good example of this apathy and misinformation is the city of Venice. As everyone knows La Serenissima has been sinking into its lagoon for centuries and probably will continue to sink for more centuries despite doomsday predictions it is about to vanish.
The sinking phenomenon has caused more anxiety among fans of Venice abroad then among its own citizen. The English dailies this month even advised the concerned English public against further financial donations to save a city they said was doomed to die and now only served as a Disneyland theme park where tourists are fleeced. The Times of London even claimed Venice was ‘dissolving itself like a lump of sugar in a tea cup’ ignoring not a single Venetian palace has ‘dissolved’ itself in the millennium long history of the city - and is unlikely to do so according to the experts.
The rationale of the Times exhortation ‘to let the city die’ could have been applied decades, even centuries ago. But then the writers of these calls for a Venetian euthanasia would never have seen the great city on water. Instead of letting Venice die international and Italian financial aid has turned the city into a far prettier and much renovated metropolis over the last decade. The Save Venice funds not only renovated old Palazzi but reinforced the banks and canals of a city-republic unique in its watery habitat and famous for its cultural and artistic treasures. In spite of its age and rising ocean-levels this constant maintenance work has cleaned canals and shored up the banks on the lagoon reducing the effects of high tides and virtually eliminating Venice’s much vilified canal odors. In fact the English media’s obituary on the Death of Venice is slightly premature and a product of ignorance by writers who obviously have not visited La Serenissima for decades.
Unfortunately it is this kind of ignorance which has also infested the citizens of Venice who appear more concerned with raking in money from the city’s booming tourist trade then promoting a viable remedy against tidal waters or defending their city against the commercial opportunists peddling fabulously expensive recipes to ‘Save Venice.’
The sad truth is only a small number of concerned local activists have bravely battled against a government project, a gigantic and highly dubious undertaking, to regulate the tidal flow in the lagoon, a project named MOSe.
Not surprisingly similar public lethargy has made sure our corporate-political systems manage to perpetuate, inflate, enrich and expand. After all the people who run our lives rotate between company boards and government ministries, with one foot in each camp, ensuring the welfare and growth of their corporation and the future of this lucrative corporate-political symbiosis.
The city of Venice is no different. When billionaire Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi two years ago promoted a four billion Euro mega-scheme to save the city from freak high water few took the trouble to find out exactly what this monstrosity in steel and concrete would do to their watery habitat. After all the consortium running the lucrative project included many of the major Italian corporations, buddies of the premier, all participating in what was hailed then by critics as the biggest handout of public funds for decades.
The warnings of ecologists, environmentalists, engineers and dike experts that the scheme was an outdated abomination, rejected decades ago by expert dike nations like Holland, and would not save Venice from sinking deeper into its lagoon was simply ignored. So was the argument the project would compromise the natural flushing system of the lagoon and change the lagoon’s environment. Ignored too was the presentation of far cheaper, far more effective projects to keep the tidal water at bay. Brushed aside was the common complaint only a portion of the money spent on the project would suffice to further renovate the lagoon banks and the city’s canals, a far the most efficient measures to combat high water.
All objections fell on deaf ears. Most Venetians argued the great Silvio was finally doing something to save Venice from getting its feet wet.
This public apathy allowed the construction to go ahead, despite serious doubts about its legitimacy. The MOSe was never approved by the city’s municipal council and the European Commission has stated the MOSe’s environmental standards do not conform to European specifications. Even worse, under Venetian law dating back centuries, all projects altering the city’s water courses must be reversible. The MOSe is not.
For those who oppose the project the greatest hope is the knowledge funds to finish the eight-year-long works will not be found in Italy’s impoverished public coffers. Nor will the 35 million Euro a year for the project’s maintenance cost.
But building goes on. Vast amounts of concrete have been poured onto the lagoon’s sea floor to house the inflatable steel floodgates across the three channels that connect the lagoon to the Adriatic Sea.
While Berlusconi was Prime Minister an active public relations network constantly praised the project, aggressively vilified detractors and threatened with legal action the small No-MOSe group that organized protests on work-sites and in the city.
But with the Great Communicator gone the municipality of Venice in May decided perhaps it should take another look at the project, at least this way in the future the city fathers would not be blamed for its failure.
By now, however, large amounts of money are circulating tied to the project, much of it among constituents of the very councilors trying to bring some order into floodgate sites no one in their right mind considers today a solution to the problems of Venice. In fact the so-called MOSE project is rather counter-productive for it erodes the badly needed funds to shore up the lagoon banks and canals, the main weapons of the battle against rising waters.
But the worst is yet to come: The city council now concurs that the expensive floodgates will only be raised at exceptional high tide, perhaps once or twice a year. For the rest of the year the autumn and winter high tides will continue to flood Venice an average sixty times annually, forcing citizen and visitors to walk on duckboards, inundating ground floors and weakening the city’s foundations.
One would have thought with this knowledge about the negative side of the project the council voted at once to halt all works pending further investigation of the MOSE’s viability. Not so. Perhaps there is already too much money at stake. Anyway the council took the Italian solution: Let the works continue (until the money runs out) and create one of those interminable committees to examine the project and see what alterations can be made, obviously to accommodate everyone concerned. There is no talk of scrapping the MOSe which is rising like a monstrosity at the entrances to the lagoon.
After all during the decisive Council meeting on the project’s future in June barely a hundred concerned Venetians turned up to protest against this white elephant.
ends
aut.c
Comments
Display the following comment