Women Ejaculation 3gp

ICI on the fees agreed: we were right then?

May 7 editorial of us had expressed our doubts about the denial interposed by the majority that rules the town of Campi Bisenzio eliminate ICI agreed on rent (resulting the so-called "pacts" concluded between the organizations of tenants, owners and those of local authorities). Our units have been subject to a kind of shame on the media all the local newspapers (the last pearl of the parent PD intervention on "common design" - a monthly published by the municipality of Campi Bisenzio), accused of wanting to cause significant economic damage and a consequent reduction in services by the Mayor and the council. A
nothing is worth pointing out the limited economic impact of such a measure. Similarly, it was understood the symbolic value of the measure that in terms of creating a new relationship with the world of small properties. The consequence of this renewed relationship would also have the finding housing now locked in a sort of no confidence in the system of "hiring", due to fiscal problems is that the difficulties arising from inability to repossess the goods as soon as possible, even in presence of evictions for rent arrears.
We were surprised and even shocked, by the statements by the Directorate of housing policies of the town of Campi Bisenzio that literally said "you want to start an argument regarding the use of general tax measures to ease tension and promote the increase of population supply of homes on the market. You may have addressed the issue of ICI, to which there is a sensitivity on the part of small farmers, given that the market for the supply of rental housing is composed of a vast majority of these types of people. " A thesis repeated in the report of SUNIA that "urges the resumption of the negotiating table for the renewal of the regional agreements concluded as far back as 2004 and the possible extension of zeroing ICI as approved by the City of Florence."
Then there is sort one might ask, but the leader of the Democratic Party spoke for themselves or for the majority? And behind this series of attacks there was only a personal position or that of the mayor and council? In other words: who governs at the local level has clear ideas? For posterity will judge.