Argentina asks Cencosud to return land for shopping center and housing | Economy



[ad_1]

Almost 2 years have pbaded the litigation before the holding Cencosud and the State Property Administration Agency of Argentina (equivalent to our Ministry of the National Property) for a plot in San Isidro, north of Buenos Aires.

It is about 60 hectares that would be intended for a shopping center with an Easy and a Jumbo, in addition to a housing sector with condominiums and buildings, as described by Diario Financiero.

Horst Paulmann, founder of the company, said for this cause, while the neighbors of San Isidro demonstrated to ask the municipality to paralyze the project that since 1996 – when the fabric was acquired by Cencosud after a call for tenders – was not able to move forward.

In this process, Cencosud paid US $ 22 million, in addition to US $ 4 to clean it up because it was previously occupied by a public sewer company.

The Trans-African government filed a lawsuit in 2016 demanding that the Chilean holding company return the land to the state, legal action that was extended in May 2017 and which is getting closer to A ruling of the National Appeals Chamber in administrative and federal litigation matters.

The latter, accusing Cencosud violation of an "essential condition" of the contract, with respect to the periods in which the property should be devoted to an urban project.

Therefore, he would seek to revoke the domain of Chilean society, for which they should not even be

Meanwhile, Cencosud argues on the one hand that since 1999 the regulatory plan of the San Isidro community would have encountered multiple difficulties, and that the company was "prevented from realizing the planned real estate development, mainly by dictating conflicting provincial and municipal regulations."

Even, they say, took place a trial between the municipality and the province and that in 2008 a conciliation agreement would have been concluded with both parties.

They also indicated that they still do not receive municipal authorization for demolition plans and, most importantly, they argue that this was never clarified at the beginning of the project

[ad_2]
Source link