Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-13-Speech-4-148"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051013.27.4-148"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The urban dimension should figure in regional development policy.
The existence of small and medium-sized towns in interior, outlying and rural areas boosts development in these areas and helps to offset disparities between areas and combat the effects of agglomeration that the large urban centres have on the interior of a country.
Whereas towns and cities are capable of stimulating development, they also bring a range of complex problems, such as congestion, accommodation requirements, pollution and social exclusion, owing to the economic, social and regional planning policies currently pursued.
In this context, a policy of urban renewal and regeneration is vital. In this field, properly resourced cohesion policy can contribute with a Community initiative, as in the case of URBAN concept, with adequate financial resources. We might look into additional Community aid, for example, to support the building of affordable housing.
Unfortunately, this is not happening. Making the urban dimension an across-the-board policy in a context of budget savings might pit objectives in competition with one another and this may jeopardise support for the least favoured regions.
In spite of this, and our objections to the ‘role of towns and cities’ and the so-called ‘urban dimension’ being beholden to the neoliberal Lisbon agenda, we lend our overall backing to the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples