Valencia Council reiterates Congress’s agreement with a statement defending Valencia
The request from a popular sector prompted a formal inquiry into documents tied to agreements and contracts signed by the Generalitat with Sociedad Estatal Correos y Telegrafos SA. The focus centers on the acquisition of various city properties within the Valencian Community, all under the administration led by Ximo Puig. The public interest in understanding the terms and repercussions of these transactions remains strong as questions about costs and future use continue to echo through political and civic conversations.
In recent weeks, the Popular group advanced a formal presentation and submitted a document request letter to the appropriate courts. They sought access to records of the agreements and asked for the appearance of the current Finance Minister to clarify the total expenditure linked to the purchase of Post Office buildings by the Generalitat under Puig’s governments, along with how those assets were intended to be used. The objective was to present a clear account of the financial implications before the Economic Commission, ensuring accountability in state dealings with a major public enterprise.
Laura Chuliá, deputy spokesperson for the Popular group, described the matter as a serious inquiry into a pattern of dealings that, in her view, points to a controversial arrangement with the state telegraph company. She highlighted concerns about the scale of the acquisitions in the four principal cities of the Valencian Community, noting openings in Elche, Castellón, Valencia, and Alicante over recent years. Specific figures were cited, including costs in the hundreds of thousands to several million euros, with a notable additional commitment tied to the old Gandía Post Office building. According to the statement, an allocation of 2.4 million euros was directed to the Gandía City Council around the time of regional updates, earmarked for rehabilitation projects.
Chuliá argued that the investigation seeks to determine the motivation behind what she views as preferential treatment toward the state company, underscoring a connection to influential figures. The concern extends to questions about public interest and whether the expenditures align with the long-term interests of Valencians, not only regarding the sale of buildings but also their eventual rehabilitation and operational launch. The inquiry emphasizes the need for transparent accounting of how public assets are managed and how such decisions impact local communities and budgets [citation].
The discussion also touches on the broader allocation of resources in the period surrounding the transactions. Critics claim that a substantial portion of the investment—reported as exceeding thirty million euros—might have been diverted from funds originally dedicated to essential services such as schools and public housing. This line of argument suggests that funds were redirected to secure real estate assets within central urban districts and nearby towns, raising questions about prioritization and financial stewardship. Proponents of the transactions insist that the acquisitions were intended to strengthen public infrastructure and provide tangible assets for future use, while opponents urge a thorough review to ensure proper governance and accountability [citation].
As the economic and political landscape continues to evolve in the Valencian Community, the debate over these mayoral and regional purchases remains a focal point of civic discourse. Observers note that the case highlights the ongoing tension between rapid asset accumulation for strategic public purposes and the imperative of transparent, publicly auditable processes. The ultimate outcome will depend on forthcoming access to records and clear explanations of how these properties will serve the public good and contribute to regional development [citation].