Shield Areas: An nth observation. Reason for hope? The local press has recently been echoes of the shield project areas, by our socialist colleagues in response to the famous and controversial tax shield (
also under threat from Brussels ), but mostly in response to the plight of our campaigns.
Creuse, Aubusson particular constituency, seems concerned at the highest point in the concept. Nevertheless
was there any need to remember once again how much our department or our region suffered from its location. Problems related to the partitioning of our territories, the exodus of our people, mainly youth, to the weakness of our economic fabric, the depletion of our public services. Some would willingly talk of abandoning the State whose responsibility is to be accessible to everyone everywhere.
All these statements of fact that is mentioned again and again, do not date from yesterday, however, are known and arch-known to us all. I studied myself during my college years, the inglorious fate of our "diagonal vacuum", and he was writing A few months ago an article
on the subject, and perked up again recently on a fact
medical supply in our area.
Rurality indeed requires that we look seriously at the subject, but we could not do before? Was it not possible to draw the Sonett alarm sooner? Was there not among our elected officials, persons sufficiently visionary and competent to understand the issues facing our country, anticipating the current situation?
The shield project areas, and the media coverage that accompanies it, is it really
"campaign to the countryside", or rather "campaign for LA Campaign , in view of future elections during which mingled hopes, promises and demagoguery?
Indeed, many questions remain unanswered, including the definition of rural areas, services to
public are essential to providing ...
Rurality not be approached not in any way, and if the questions are so numerous, it is because the imbalances and inequalities important territory to another. But whose fault is it??
Can we consider the countryside in the Puy de Dome in the same manner as in the rural Creuse? There-there are no major differences, not least as structurally?
needs Aubusson are they the same as The Underground? Asking the question is to answer it.
It thus appears difficult to have a general design of campaigns, both local particularities, the deficits in terms of infrastructure, differences at all levels, are legion. It would therefore hold true States-General Countryside. But after all, why
not ??... There are more than a year, campaigns in France ... All these findings
premises, and these differences from one country to another are likely the result of ineffective policies implemented so far, but the lack of consensus among our elected officials, linked to rivalries partisan, and endless petty battles. Yet the subject and the actual situation, deserve the involvement and support of all!
However, like many of Creuse, we wanted a renewal for our country, and more, we want to believe.
But the state, which has too often played for time on an issue unknown to him, and too often play the game of the assistantship (direct infusion) that breeds easily, and does not encourage the development and initiative-taking, is not the only answer to rural problems.
The state must be present everywhere , but it does not quite manage to be the source of everything. Its role is to ensure the structuring equity bid for the population, and the opening up of territories. In this sense, the main road network should be part of the absolute necessities to insure. For example, the decommissioning of the former N-141 did not she represented a disaster for South Creusois?
 |
| The Basement: large green spaces ... |
 |
| ... modernity. |
But as regards the development of our country, their potency, that is our workload and that of our elected officials, according to their skills and functions.
So, as my colleague so aptly
Nathalie Pagani, us call in to the
enthusiasm, the creativity
the
responsibility and
pragmatism !
