Having after due consideration presented its reactions to the Local Urban Plan, and having like 99% of those who commented chosen Scenario 2, the Kythera Green Citizens« Movement was surprised to see that at the last minute, the leader of the major opposition declared his support for some otherwise unknown »Scenario 4«. We were even more surprised to read (on a social networking site, not on the city's website) a joint press release from the majority and major opposition leaders jointly rejecting all three proposed scenarios in favor of their own »Scenario 4". It is rather uncommon for a municipal authority to castigate and reject proposals presented under its auspices, and even more uncommon for a local government to flagrantly ignore the legitimately expressed opinion of the majority of residents in favour of narrowly partisan interests.
Scenario 2 didn't come out of nowhere. It is the joint invention of three experts, civil engineering professors at the three largest Greek universities, a lawyer, a monitoring committee consisting of representatives of the Technical Chamber, the Ministry of Environment and the Municipality, and five institutions specialised in construction, design and studies. During the presentation, the experts concluded that of the three scenarios, the second was the one that best served the interests of the island. Without wishing to minimise the experience of the two leaders of the factions, can their experience be considered equivalent, let alone superior, to that of the experts and professionals who prepared the first three scenarios?;
It is not at all coincidental that the Joint Press Release of the two factions is addressed to «compatriots», when the term clearly describes those of common local origin. In modern political language, this is called «dog whistle politics», a tactic that exploits well-meaning codes in order to exclude or demonise a particular social group. This is an unrepentant attempt to divide the island's inhabitants into two groups, marginalising those who, although they are citizens of third countries or Greeks of non-Cirigonian origin, nevertheless live on the island permanently or for a large part of the year. Kythera is home to many nationalities who live, work and contribute to the maintenance and development of the island. In fact, it is certain that without them, the island would be in every sense and in every way poorer. Their views have merit, and deserve to be heard.
Contrary to what the Joint Press Release implies, a single comment on the ministry's portal endorsed scenario 1. With the exception of a few undecideds, all comments supported scenario 2, i.e. in favour of soft growth. The characterisation of this large majority as allegedly harbouring «stagnation and maintenance mindsets» is both insulting and deeply untrue. Do you really believe that the Kythira Foundation for Culture & Development, which supports scenario 2, is «steeped in stagnation mindsets»? Would you dare to say to the face of the Cerigo Tourist Accommodation Association of Kythera Island, which has also chosen scenario 2, that it supposedly has «attitudes that do not respect either the island or its permanent residents»? Where are you, gentlemen of the majority and minority, in what century are you living in?;
Kythera, Friday 14 February 2025
Source: Kythera Green Citizens' Movement
mail@kytheragreen.net
