Problems and Purpose
The renovation project of the historic center of Termoli, the subject of public debate (DP), concerns a complex intervention of 19 million euros, of which 5 million from regional funds and 14 from private sources as project financing investments ; in this case the works must focus on functions and services that must produce a profit to remunerate investors.
The DP, through its website (link 1) and 3 public discussion events (October-November 2016), organized in 3 workshops and 4 thematic tables, aims "to inform citizens on all aspects of the project, accept the observations of legitimate stakeholders and allow the Administration and the company to evaluate the results produced by this phase of participation. Within 15 days from the publication of the final report of the debate, the manager of the company declares, adequately justifying the reasons for this choice, if he intends, also in acceptance of what emerged from the debate and from the report of the guarantor: a) submit his own changes to the project; b) submit the changes implemented; c) confirm the project "(link 1).
The intervention involves an area of the historic center of 17 thousand square meters, with a sea front. A new 5-level underground building is planned to house parking lots, commercial and residential areas, terraces, an auditorium with 448 seats; in addition: play and entertainment areas, a new square, the redevelopment of the current piazza Sant 'Antonio, pedestrian areas, an underground passerby (called a “tunnel” by the committees against), a new roundabout, a belvedere terrace (link 1).
Background History and Context
Termoli is a Molise town of 33,000 inhabitants on the Adriatic coast. Fishing village in 1861 had 2,533 inhabitants. In the following years it has seen a constant demographic growth, more accentuated between 1961 and 1991. Today its plain is occupied by various industrial activities and the beaches are the main attraction of the tourism sector.
Of Christian Democratic tradition, previously Termoli was also governed by the center-right and was commissioned several times. The current municipal council is made up of a mayor of the Democratic Party elected thanks to a coalition with Italia dei Valori and local civic lists. In his program there is no mention of participation or participatory democracy or of major projects for the historic center. The first objective is the restoration of "real and perceived well-being", other points concern the prevention of needs, attention to social issues (translated as the elderly, women and children) to the return of young brains on the run, to quality tourism, promotion of the "culture of well-being linked to health" as "promotion of prevention and fitness and physical activity". For the economic sector, everything is focused on tourism, on the PRG of the port, urging the Region to implement it, to consult with the “balneatori”, to pleasure boating and to religious tourism. Finally, for the environment, a “System of Urban Parks” and the “ordinary maintenance” of the historic center are proposed [1].
The Project and the Committees' Demands for More Democracy
“The elaboration and approval of the urban restructuring project” object of the DP “began with the resolution of the Municipal Council n. 245 of 25/9/2014, with which a policy act was adopted to start a competitive confrontation aimed at formulating an integrated proposal for the design, construction and management of a multi-storey underground car park in Piazza Sant'Antonio "(Olivetti 2016 , p. 3). Furthermore, to complete this project, ancillary and redevelopment interventions were planned for the surface areas, squares and accesses. On 25/6/2015 with resolution GC n. 161, “the preliminary design of the tunnel connecting the road between the Port of Termoli and the Cristoforo Colombo waterfront was approved” (Ib.). A month later, the Government asked the Region to merge this project, financed by the Region itself for 5 million, to the previous one, using the missing amount, to project finance (Ib.). “Following the exploratory notice and the work of the Commission of selection, the Municipal Council, with resolution no. 291 of 5 November 2015, declared of public interest the proposal received, presented by De Francesco Costruzioni SAS, who from that moment took on the role of 'promoter', with the right of pre-emption in the subsequent tender phase for the identification of the concessionaire. [...] The project, as envisaged by the legislation on project finance, was included in the three-year planning of public works and placed on the basis of a tender with the notice of 25 November 2015 "(Ib.). “Following the completion of the tender, which ended with the identification of the most economically advantageous offer in the one presented by the promoter De Francesco Costruzioni, the only participant, with the resolution of the Municipal Council no. 115 of 23 May 2016, the organizational unit responsible for the procedure was identified, also in order to approve it in the manner indicated in art. 27 of the Code of Contracts or with the application of the provisions relating to the conference of services envisaged by articles 14-bis and following of Law 241 of 1990 "(Ib., P.3).
"On May 27, 2016, a preliminary services conference was therefore convened, which met several times between June and August 2016, also through technical discussions" (Ib.).
However, a part of the population does not appreciate the operation and its implementation methods and, organized into committees (PartecipaTermoli and Termoli Decide), starting from August 2015, submits to the administration the request for a consultative referendum, as required by the art. 10 of the Municipal Statute (Ib). The question posed by Termoli Decide concerns the construction of the tunnel [2], while the first committee focuses on safeguarding the former Adriatic cinema-theater and the soundproofing of the railway but also supports the objective of questioning the tunnel [3 ].
Responses to such requests are delayed and the committees initiate a pressure campaign through symbolic communication actions (eg warnings and posters), social media and public events. In the meantime, the collection begins, reaching 3,000 signatures (Olivetti, p. 4). The referendum commission is appointed by the City Council only on February 17, 2016 and in July the news of the rejection arrives [4]. However, the citizens did not give up and gathered in the No Tunnel committee re-proposing the referendum initiative by reformulating the questions and organizing a campaign in support of it which is still ongoing (August 2017).
At that juncture, the idea of a DP appears in the online pages of primonumero.it on 9/5/16, a local online newspaper, signed by Dr. Basso Antonello Barone, director of kcomunicazione (politics and viral strategy), a political marketing company from Termoli. De Francesco Costruzioni and the Giunta like the idea, which formally approved the idea on 18/7/2016 (Olivetti, p. 5). Barone, as director of kcomunicazione, is entrusted with the organization of the DP, who will also make use of some technicians of the municipality and of Studio Pragma (the designers of the work) and to prof. Marco Olivetti (professor of public law, LUMSA Rome and columnist of the daily Avvenire, originally from Termoli) the role of guarantor (Ib.).
In October and November 2016, 3 public discussion meetings (workshops) of the DP are held and as scheduled on 30/11/2016 the joint declaration of the administration and the successful bidder is held on the results of the DP, which in their opinion, despite the boycott for defection of the opposing committees, it met their expectations and convinced them to proceed with the project (link 1 - news).
According to the plans, after the joint declaration, the process of the final conference of services would start as early as December 2016. As the Guarantor writes: "It will make use of the results of the public debate in the coming weeks and, after its conclusion, a decision-making services conference may be called in December 2016, which must be expressed within a maximum of 90 days. on the project "(Olivetti, p. 3).
Yet the first meeting of the decision-making services conference is held on 10/8/2017. Also present in it is the spokesman of the No Tunnel committee, who is not slow to publicly highlight how the Superintendency has expressed a negative opinion on the work in relation to the impact that would fall on the geological formation called "Falesia di Sant'Antonio" as well as always an opinion negative was expressed by the Territorial and Landscape Planning and Management Service of the Molise Region [5]. In August 2017, therefore, the final decision has not yet been taken and the committees continue to call for a referendum on the issue.
Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities
The public debate was promoted and financially supported by the company, former concessionaire of the project (link 1 - What is the DP), De Francesco Costruzioni SAS with the approval of the Municipality of Termoli, following the public solicitation of Dr. Basso Antonello Barone on the online pages of primonumero.it (a local online newspaper). To Dr. Barone, director of kcomunicazione (Termoli) is then entrusted with the task of organizing the DP. The DP staff is also made up of members of the town planning technical office of the Municipality and of the technicians of Studio Pragma (Termoli) who designed the work on behalf of the De Francesco firm. The DP, as can be seen from the logo on the pages of the site, is also promoted by the Molise Region. The cost of the DP is not available on the DP's website.
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The whole organization of the communication of the DP was handled by kcomunicazione directed by dr. Baron. He was always present at press conferences, events, and was a visible point of reference throughout the process. The Guarantor is a university professor (LUMSA of Rome) of public law originally from Termoli, but there is no information on the methods of choice and remuneration of this figure. In addition to the Guarantor of course and the promoters, the manager of the administrative procedure (arch. Livio Mandrile) and the consultants of the De Francesco company, the designer of the work (Studio Pragma di Termoli), and a consultant for each of the following aspects: geological, archaeological, traffic / mobility flows, shipbuilding and financial (Olivetti, p. 12). Furthermore, the discussion tables (thematic tables), 4 for each workshop, were led by 4 moderators: the Guarantor himself and 3 other professionals (corporate communication consultants), 2 of whom are not resident in Termoli. The owner of the company and mayor were instead present during the official public conferences and at the final events for the presentation of the results and the related joint declaration.
As for actors and the public, the workshops could be accessed by "all the citizens of Termoli" (link 1) as listeners. They could only enter questions / proposals in the ballot box, which would then be extracted and read to give answers to some of them. To participate in the tables, however, it was essential "to be bearers of legitimate interests (representatives of institutions, trade unions, environmental associations, city associations, trade associations, etc.)" and it was necessary to register through "the website starting from 5 September until 30 September "(link 1). For each table 5 seats were available and in them were present, in addition to the moderator, a representative of the municipality and one of the company, without the right to speak unless asked by the moderator (link 1).
Official data shows that 38 associations registered, 61 seats were booked at the tables, and a total of 350 people participated in the workshops (Olivetti, p. 10).
There are no reports available for every single workshop - despite their existence having been declared (Olivetti, p. 9) - but in the news section of the site summary videos have been uploaded for each event and a photogallery. From the images it is not possible to accurately detect the presence of non-participating listeners who, however, appear rather scarce (link 1). The event was followed by the local media, also present with their correspondents at the events, and was promoted in conferences dedicated to public participation of national importance: at the Urbanpromo Convention in Milan and at the presentation of the national report Nimby Forum in Rome , in which the DP Termoli 2020 was "included as one of the best experimentation practices of the new institute envisaged by the Procurement Code" (Olivetti, p. 9).
Methods and Tools Used
The Dèbat Public (Public Debate) , was introduced, by law, by the French government in 1994. Following the virulent protests of local populations against the route of the Lyon-Marseille high-speed line (TGV), the French government decided that the design of major works should be subjected in advance to a public debate among all interested parties. With the Barnier law of 1994, partially modified in 2002, an independent authority was established called Commission Nationale du Débat Public (CNDP), which has the task of opening the public debate on all preliminary projects of large infrastructures that meet certain requirements. The debate lasts four months and concerns not only the characteristics of the project, but also the opportunity to carry out the work. The public debate is preceded by a broad information campaign, characterized by pluralistic information; all citizens, associations and groups who wish to participate in it. A contradictory phase then opens, usually through public meetings, called in various ways (worhshop or laboratories, terms that Italy generally means an exchange of arguments between people, some of which with technical-political decision-making roles) as well as written forms ( Les Cahiers des Acteurs - The Notebooks of the Actors). In this dialogue phase, the contributions, then classified by category (questions, At the end of the public debate, the president of the commission draws up a report in which he illustrates the arguments for and against that emerged over the course of the four months. Within three months of the publication of the report, the proponent of the work must communicate whether he intends to continue his project, modify it or withdraw it. The procedure of Débat Public suffers from an excessive uncertainty of the results, and instruments for measuring the representativeness of preferences are not usually applied.
The Public Debate introduced in Italy with the regional law 69/2007 of Tuscany and then renewed with the regional law 46/2013 is in the method openly inspired by the French model and does not differ much from it, apart from the fact that the Tuscan DP is a regional scale policy and is launched and supervised by the Regional Participation Authority.
The Termoli DP was set up in a similar way although the regional guarantee structures are absent in this case. Furthermore, as declared by the organizers themselves and by Senator Violante (PD) at the Nimby Forum 2016, the DP of Termoli is a successful pilot experiment that will contribute to the definition of the national Public Debate model that was introduced only nominally with the new Procurement Code. and which still awaits procedural regulation.
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
On 25 July 2016, the Public Debate began with the online publication of the dedicated page. In it, ample space is dedicated to the project and to the good reasons for supporting it (link 1). This was followed by a communication and promotion campaign through the press and the web, public conferences, 18,000 brochures, 4 6x3 posters, facebook (Olivetti, p. 10). The heart of the DP were 3 public discussion events, called workshops, which were held in the spaces of the MACTE (Museum of Contemporary Art in Termoli). The MACTE is located 16 minutes on foot from the historic center and 13 minutes from the train station. The 3 workshops and the final meetings were always held on Saturdays and were opened around 2.30 pm by two introductory reports, one by the guarantor (Olivetti) and one by the head of the organization (Barone), and by the introductory reports to the themes of the workshops organized by the consultants of the company, and concluded after the presentation in plenary of the results of the day, which took place around 18:30 (link 1 - news)
The workshops were held on 22nd, 29th October and 12th November 2016 on the respective topics: 1) the technical project, aspects of environmental, archaeological and geological impact; 2) the life of the city during the construction phase; 3) project financing, economic aspects.
At each workshop the thematic tables opened at 3.30 pm composed of the moderator, a technician from the company and one from the municipality and 5 participants, delegates of "legitimate interests" recruited through online self-application. The tables were always 4 and each workshop focused on the following topics: 1) technical project; 2) environmental, archaeological and geological impact; 3) economic data and project financing; 4) the construction phase (link 1).
Finally, again at MACTE on Saturday, at 4.30 pm, it was possible to attend the final presentations by the Guarantor (19/11) and to the joint presentation by the mayor and the owner of the company (30/11).
As also explicitly stated in the final report (Olivetti, p. 14), a part of the citizens, organized into committees, delegitimized the DP by opposing the process and boycotting it, i.e. not presenting itself to the opportunities for confrontation it put in place, preferring channels of own and autonomous communication, not structured by the administration. The DP himself was therefore challenged. However, another part of organized citizenship, associations, voluntary work, trade unions followed the work and provided contributions which the guarantor then reported in his report. Therefore, among the participants there are those who, evaluating the work negatively, ask that its realization be renounced. Then there are those who add concerns to the overall appreciation regarding its realization. Among the main recommendations of the Guarantor there are procedural indications, which emerged in part also in the tables, namely “a monitoring group (therefore an independent control committee) composed of citizens and representatives of citizen associations. This Committee should be given the task of following and controlling all the executive phases of the construction site and project implementation, configuring itself - to use the metaphor suggested by the facilitator of the II Thematic Table - as a sort of "green shareholding" inspired by organizational forms used by Anglo-Saxon environmentalism. According to this proposal, the independent control committee - or a reformulation of it - should then continue to carry out a monitoring action once the work has been completed, to stimulate its use in harmony with the needs of the citizens of Termoli "(Olivetti, p. 14). The Guarantor himself suggests to continue the dialogue with those who have remained outside the DP and to activate an Urban Center in this regard to continue to inform citizens. Other concerns relate to the use of the land and the fate of the former Adriatic cinema, or the insurances concerning the company: "Given the burden that the work places on a private company, it was envisaged that it would be useful to resort to to insurance mechanisms that guarantee the municipal administration with respect to any events that may affect the company, with repercussions on the realization first and then on the management of the work in question "(Ib., p. 15). Other criticisms have concerned the tunnel and in this regard it has been asked to evaluate alternatives that do not foresee its construction. To these are added concerns related to its safety, maintenance and impact on urban traffic in conjunction with that of the port (Ib., P. 15). Other issues concern parking and the risk of degradation for underground structures as well as future policies in its management, prices, reserved seats, access for the handicapped, etc. Also with regard to the auditorium, an important modification has been proposed relating to the extension of its height (proposed to 6 meters) and the renunciation of the planned restaurant room below it (Ib., P. 16). Important requests have emerged in relation to the outdoor recreational play areas, the need for requalification and equipment, and in-depth studies on the issues of vehicular traffic; other indications concerned the future management of commercial spaces which, according to the participants, should favor the establishment of small local and typical businesses to the detriment of large multinational brands (Ib., p. 18). The workshops provided clarifications to those concerned about the guarantees of project financing and gave the opportunity to provide numerous indications for the worrying management of such a complex construction site, on various aspects with specific requests regarding detailed plans and programs regarding: timing, waste, dust, traffic, noise (Ib., p. 19). Finally, the archaeological aspect has attracted great attention because the remains of medieval turrets and rooms could emerge. The company has shown the utmost openness and willingness to make the most of any findings and make them an opportunity for the creation of museums or spaces for special cultural use (Ib., P. 20). The Guarantor, in his final declaration, thus packages the results, by their nature still very indeterminate, in 4 more defined proposals:
1) continue the work of information and dialogue: an Urban Center for Termoli; 2) A city control committee on the execution of the works; 3) An auditorium to strengthen the city's cultural offer; 4) An extreme attention to a management of the construction site compatible with the life of the city. He adds “some further ideas” regarding the guarantees concerning again the management of the construction site, the attention to the handicapped and the enhancement of the archaeological assets; however, the re-evaluation of alternatives to the tunnel are not mentioned in the final considerations, implicitly considering them as a request that cannot be separated from the opportunity to carry out the entire work.
The subsequent declaration of the company in response to the results of the DP is presented as if it were a full acceptance on all 4 points (Joint declaration, 2016, pp. 4-6): 1) continue the dialogue and information by creating an Urban Center, already provisionally identified in a local area of the municipality, for which the company will bear the management and personnel costs. 2) City control committee on the execution of the works and extreme attention to the management of the construction site compatible with the life of the city; it is foreseen the creation of a committee composed of 3 citizens or members of associations who will request it and will be selected by the City Council by a qualified majority, in order to ensure the involvement of the council minorities. The proposal to pay particular attention to the detailed design of the measures to reduce the impact of the construction site on the environment and on the life of the city is also welcomed. “They agree that this planning will have to be illustrated and discussed in depth with citizens and associations. The Citizens' Supervisory Committee, whose institution has been accepted, will have the opportunity to verify during the work, through periodic meetings with the company and the municipal managers, the adoption of the mitigation measures provided for in the various plans necessary for its functioning "(Ib.). 3) Even in the auditorium, the company expresses its utmost willingness both to expand its capacity and to extend the height above the stage. However, it should be noted that “this design change actually affects the economic aspects of the already sworn economic-financial plan. The first architectural assessments on the design feasibility of the changes and their impact on the previous financial equilibrium of the project financing do not involve, on a preliminary assessment, the occurrence of some obstacle on the part of both the administration and the company. In the next few hours they will agree, and then represent to the citizens the terms of the new economic equilibrium resulting from these changes "(Ib.). Finally, the administration and the company express great satisfaction with “the experimentation of deliberative democracy carried out” (Ib., P. 6).
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
As in almost all DPs, the willingness to negotiate counterparts and mitigations or changes to the project are inherent in the provisional nature of the project and its perfectibility, generated precisely by the public review that a DP puts in place, a public review / consultancy process , which places the credibility and capabilities of the proponents under close scrutiny. The Guarantor contributed to creating the package of clear and concise requests, acceptable to the proposer, posing the question of the zero option (the renunciation of the work) as a choice in which it is necessary to invest: putting it back into play or - as it seems more likely also between the lines - "focusing on a work of 'persuasion' which cannot in any way be considered finished with the conclusion of the debate and which must set itself the high objective of rebuilding a climate of dialogue even with the groups of citizens who have so far refused ”(Olivetti, p. 21). Establishing an Urban Center and a monitoring committee are now widespread and discounted strategies - consistent with the low power transfer modalities of the DP - of a dialogic type, yes, but unidirectional, which have found obvious acceptance by the proponents.
The challenge to the DP, on the other hand, did not have evident effects at the moment, except those that may have probably influenced the considerable delays with which the administrative procedure of the decision-making services conference was restarted (the first session instead of in the first months of 2017 was held on 10 August) and on the contrary positions expressed by the Superintendency and Regional Landscape Protection Service, at that location. It is not possible to provide further data on the popular feedback and consensus that the committees are obtaining and on the potential impact that will have an impact on the next local elections.
Analysis and Lessons Learned
Some explanations were given to the boycott actions by the proponents in the joint declaration: “Nonetheless, we are aware that an active and organized part of the citizenry remains strongly opposed to the work. Certainly, as also underlined by the guarantor, it was a great missed opportunity for those who showed adversity to the project. In the public debate they would have had the opportunity to express their dissent through a guaranteed confrontation with the municipal administration, with the company De Francesco Costruzioni Sas and with the various experts of the technical tables. Dissent cannot be separated from confrontation otherwise it becomes an autonomous and self-referential dialectical exercise ”[6]. As the Guarantor maintains, this judgment refers to one of the principles of the French DP, “that is: an argumentative obligation placed on both the participants in the debate and the public administration” (Olivetti, p. 7). The same in fact specifies that the DP is not a decision-making procedure but a “structured dialogue” (Ib., P. 8).
According to these considerations, therefore, a dialogue tool, such as the DP, should not even be considered as an instrument of deliberative democracy, but simply a public communication tool, a conference mode of comparison and learning, in which those who do not argue their position or defect is disqualified. Voluntary participants, touched in their interests, cannot be effectively asked for "argumentative obligations", provided that rational argumentation can be accepted as the only possible form of expression, in the absence of a political counterpart linked to a regulated decision-making process. and structured but at the same time political and competitive (Mouffe, 2002). In other words, why participate in a dialogue (also sometimes called "confrontation", therefore in an argumentative challenge) already conditioned and without guarantees with respect to the outlets that the arguments provided can obtain, if not when they can be 'useful' to the project and to the political program that is not shared? Better to defect these opportunities and lose them, to concentrate on initiatives that raise the stakes in relation to the democratic (comparison) method that is considered most suitable for protecting the expressive methods (not only of an argumentative-rational type) of a greater number of citizens, to count their preferences and ensure their effects on decisions.
In this regard, given that these considerations appear in the final declaration, the Guarantor argues that "the referendum is characterized negatively by the dramatization of the decision, which is reduced to a dry alternative (Yes / No), between two solutions, none of which mediation is possible [...] and that it "also risks carrying out the sole function of delegitimizing those who govern at a given historical moment - on the basis of
a popular election held according to democratic rules [...], thus ending up illegally replacing the regular elections "(Olivetti, p. 8).
If not for the commitment to evaluate the extension of the auditorium, requested by an unspecified someone, it seems to us that we cannot notice big signs of mediation obtained with the DP on the issue, if not obvious concerns and attention to better manage a complex operation. Furthermore, we do not think we can affirm that the use of referendums, sanctioned by the Constitution as fundamental tools of popular participation, can be defined as abusive substitutes for regular elections and legitimate rulers. Indeed, they, particularly in Italy, were activated upon request by the citizens when the rulers abused their power, allowing very little space for democratic confrontation and mediation. Furthermore, they are tools that if used routinely and compulsorily also by administrations (see Switzerland) give greater authority and quality to administrative actions for which more resources are spent on the preparation of the decision, its evaluation and mediation with all political and social forces. and much less resources are spent on banal persuasive political communication, of an advertising nature, and on the desperate search for leaders and their media construction, communicatively effective but inconsistent from a political-strategic point of view.
In the specific case, it is suggested to integrate the DP with mediation paths that provide for the use of more quantitative tools, such as the Citizen Jury or the Town Meeting (also used in some French DPs) and then move on, if negotiation availability opens up ( in multi-actor tables integrated with them) and is supported by sufficient consent, to the referendum, which in this case assumes a function of verification and conclusive legitimation of the process, expanding its representativeness and fixing the decisions in the collective imagination.
See Also
References
[1] The mayor's website ( www.sbroccasindaco.it) does not work (ril., 17/8/17), just as the program is not available on his facebook page. The citations are based on a photostatic copy detected (on 17/8/17) on the blog> http://termoli.myblog.it/wp-content/uploads/sites/302423/2015/11/17.jpg
[2] Press release dated 10/8/2015> http://www.mytermoli.com/termoli/40-cronaca-termoli/25090-tunnel-termoli-comitato-termoli-decide-presenta-proposta-referendum (release, 17/8/17).
[3] Post Fb of 5/8/2015> https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1610102162612172&id=1607119079577147 (ril. 17/8/17).
[4] Tunnel, the referendum is not held. The 3 questions were rejected. Project under examination by the Region, 5/7/2016> http://www.primonumero.it/attualita/primopiano/ Articolo.php?id=22361 (ril. 17/8/17).
[5] Tunnel and multistory, committees highlight the no of the Superintendency, 16/8/2017> http://www.primonumero.it/attualita/news/1502899417_termoli-tunnel-e-multipiano-comitati-evidenziano-il-no- of the-superintendency.html (release 17/8/17).
[6] The Municipality and the company: Green light to the proposals that emerged from the public debate, 30/11/16> http://www.dibattitopubblicotermoli.it/2016/11/30/il-comune-e-la-ditta- green light for the proposals that emerged from the public debate / (ril., 17/8/17).
Olivetti, M. (2016), Report of the Guarantor of the Debate, Termoli Public Debate 2020, 19 November.
Mouffe, C. (2002), Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism, in Political Sciences Series, 72.
External links
Public debate Termoli 2020. Let's change the face of the city, together> https://web.archive.org/web/20171015135140/http://www.dibattitopubblicotermoli.it/
External Links
Archived site: https://web.archive.org/web/20171015135140/http://www.dibattitopubblicotermoli.it/
