From the Roman airport to the former Pirellino, the investigation into Coima reveals manipulated municipal opinions and a system that excludes the territories from the urban choices
Milan the “participatory city” promised by Beppe Sala And from his center -left junta he never existed. It was supposed to be the symbol of the Democratic Party: neighborhoods listened to with a central role, shared urban transformations. Instead the municipalities remained without power, relegated to extras in large real estate games. The cards of the investigation into Coima of Manfredi Catellain the memories deposited to the review by the prosecutors Marina Petruzzella And Paolo FilippiniThey clearly show it: municipal opinions ignored or even overturned in the minutes, commissions that decide instead of the territories, private interlocutions between entrepreneurs and administrators who guide the route of transformations. Other than participation: the Milan model worked excluding who should have represented citizens. There is an episode that tells more than many public statements. On March 7, 2024 the municipal commission for the landscape examines an intervention at the Roman airport, inside the Olympic village. That day the representative of the Town Hall formulates a negative, detailed and severe opinion. In the official report, that evaluation appears as positive. The investigators speak of error, but it seems almost a manipulation. So much so that it will only be corrected in the next session, after the protests of those who had expressed it. In the meantime, the project gets the green light, “despite coarse gaps”, the prosecutors write. For investigators it is the plastic proof of a system that not only marginalizes the municipalities, but even empties them of the possibility of leaving the faithful trace of their dissent. The script repeats itself several times. In via Crescenzago 105, Town Hall 3, the territorial representative opposed “strongly”, but his vote was not even verbalized: the practice passed the same, only to then the Court of Auditors criticize the managers for having “set up uncritically” on technical opinions without enhancing the findings of citizens.
In via Stresa, the “Torre Milano” of the Town Hall 2 advanced despite requests for compensation and a municipal opinion opposite: today that building is at the center of a process. In Piazza Aspromonte, Town Hall 3, the “Hidden Garden” continued even between disputes until the seizure of the construction site. In Valtellina/Lepontina, Town Hall 9, residences and Studentati received the green light from the commission, while the local objections remained dead letter. The pattern also emerges north of the city, in Bruzzano, in the area of via Senigallia. Here in the spring of 2023 the Unipol project for a multifunctional hub, signed by the architect, landed in the landscape commission Giacomo de Amicis.
In the commission there were oppositions and criticisms put in the minutes also by the representative of the Town Hall 9. But then in the end the project was approved.
A detail? Not exactly. Because the designer, De Amicishe was not only the author of the intervention: he was also a member of the same landscape commission (Mandate 2022-24, then reconfirmed in 2025 and subsequently resigned). And close friend of the former president Giuseppe Marinoniat the center of the investigation. A network of relationships that throws shadows on the independence of opinions and the actual function of the municipal body. The memory of the prosecutors also reconstructs the political level. In the chats between Manfredi Catella and the councilor for urban planning Giancarlo Tancredispeaking of the former Pirellino (P39), the entrepreneur writes: «Good morning Giancarlo, we can feel or cross for Pirellino. Even today if simpler ». Then he insists with an articulated message, citing regional rules to support the disposal of the building and prevent the exclusion of the project. It is the photograph of direct pressure on the public decision maker.
With the former general manager Christian Malangone The dialogue is equally explicit: “Honestly, as a profane they seem to me that of the duration of the convention and soil occupation … so much in the end they will apply 3 400 thousand. I don’t know if ». Catella He replies: “Spig (spaces or services of general interest) are those where we can attribute greater compensation. Let’s see how possible”. Finally Tancredi He puts the seal: «An agreement is always needed on the spig. Which, as you know, is a complex point. In any case, we immediately put ourselves at work ». A chain of requests, technical translations and operational promises that photograph a consolidated mechanism. Don’t dating sporadic, but a constant flow. The agendas confirm this: “Dear thanks for the meeting … I would propose to plan a biseptimanal meeting for the next two months”, he writes Catella In 2025, while discussing Porta Romana, the Olympic village and Pirellino.
Until 2024 the municipalities could also send their elected councilor to the landscape commission. He had no right to vote, but it counted as a political presence: a channel through which the neighborhoods made their voices heard on skyscrapers and properties that had a direct impact on them. It was not a small peculiarity, because often those councilors belonged to the same political color as the majority in common, that is, the Democratic Party. Thus it happened that the urban regeneration projects supported by Palazzo Marino were criticized by representatives of the same center -left.
A political short circuit that must not have gone unnoticed, also because many projects approved by the landscape commission were precisely contested by dem representatives. And this perhaps explains why, with the reform of the regulation approved in October 2024, this possibility has been canceled. From that moment the municipalities must be represented only by “technical figures”.
With the new regulation, the Central Administration is precipitated by any possible objection by the municipalities and also prevents them from evaluating the use of urbanization charges.
