The scandal broke because the government paid far too much (it gave parcels of land and property in return, that were chosen by the seller) and this was the basis of the investigation.

If the house had been expropriated as a whole, the government would have paid less. And the government didn’t need to expropriate it anyway.

The basis of the report is what should have been obvious from the outset – in other words, you don’t need the Auditor-General to tell you this: that the government has the power to expropriate the whole thing in one fell swoop, so it should have done exactly that.

The government does not need to find and deal with the owners of a building so as to expropriate it. The proof that this was done to favour Marco Gaffarena lies in this simple fact: the government did NOT expropriate the building in one go, but agreed to ‘expropriate’ it piecemeal from him as he bought bits of it.

Because at this point I’m confused. All I’ve seen is haxi. Not “socjalizmu”.

Right. Like the rubberstamp Attorney General will ever lift a finger against the prime minister.

In that case I agree, but if it were the ’80s, which of course it isn’t(!), I’d be really worried. All in all, I for one am sure glad I’m not in their position.

The PN proposed a fundamental shift, market value, when it comes to this. The implications will be enormous, from the resulting suburban ‘quartieri dormitori’, the horrific non-places to the eternal shell mentality and that’s your Calabria Saudita.

It all derives from the state’s unjust commercial mechanics to achieve forced land use.