“Article that reeked of favoritism”
“The Congress of State is authorized, according to the provisions of a specific Regulation, to subscribe bond loans, with a maximum duration not exceeding 10 years with a minimum interest rate of not less than 0.5%, issued by project companies established in the Republic of San Marino in order to promote strategic redevelopment, promotion, financing and / or investment plans, including those already in place, in the hotel tourism sector. ” This was the beginning of the 19-bis amendment, inserted at the last hour by the government and then withdrawn due to the (just) protests of the same majority. But what does it mean, in substance? That the state, with the money of all of us, would most likely have lent money at 0.5% or a little more to unspecified “project companies” to finance unspecified “strategic plans”, including investments, in the sector tourist hotel. We translate even better: the State, which has no money available and is indebted to 3.25% with the recent issue on the markets, having lent them for just over 0.5% to “Project Companies” for investments in the sector tourist hotel. Let’s go even further into practice and explain the scenario in which this amendment was born. If some entrepreneur, perhaps one or more politicians with interests in the sector, has to make an investment, perhaps to buy a hotel, but does not find money on loan in the bank (or does not find it at rates he considers low enough), what better idea than having an ad hoc amendment written for which it is enough to set up a “project company”, which then finances the state at ridiculous rates? The whole business world, if it has to do something of this type, has to go to the bank to borrow money, show a business plan, give guarantees, etc … here no, the State finances you at ridiculous rates, just set up a “Company of Project ”and you’re good to go! And the provisions contained in paragraph 2 are of little value, for which the “Project Company” must provide “adequate collateral and industrial plan”: what does “adequate” mean? Who evaluates its adequacy? How can the state be able to analyze a business plan? Who decides if the thing stands or not? It is not enough: the Government had foreseen that the bond issue of the “Project Company” must not pass through the scrutiny of BCSM, as all the other companies that place bonds must do. I wonder why? Perhaps because BCSM would evaluate the congruity between the bond issue and the financial solidity of the issuer? It does not end here: the Government had also provided that all the acts carried out in implementation of that article were “exempt from registration, stamp, transcription, transfer and mortgage taxes”. So not only did the state take a pittance in terms of interest rates, it took nothing even in terms of taxes, while the rest of the world has to pay those taxes and how! However you look at it, the article was totally unpresentable and can be favored by every pore. We believe it is intolerable to use a position of power to prepare amendments of this type. We fully agree with the request for help from the hotel tourism sector: we believe that the refreshments granted have been insufficient and that in recent months we have experienced many advertisements, photos, travels and money spent without there having been a strategic vision for the future. We need to think about how to make San Marino an attractive destination based on the coast, giving tourists reasons to stay and sleep and consume here: reflect that it must involve all the parties, starting from the trade associations, it must provide for specific intervention plans and funds for the requalification and investments of operators capable of achieving the objectives set. Certainly not interventions to favor someone, like this 19-bis which we hope will never be repeated again.
cs Repubblica Futuro