"How long, Goran, is there an end to your concrete?" The question comes from Biljana Ivanovska, former head of the State Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and a resident of Centar, addressed to mayor Goran Gerasimovski after the public presentation of the draft detailed urban plan for the J 05 - Barutana area, on the slopes of Vodno.

Ivanovska raises two arguments. The first is historical: Lower and Upper Vodno were resettled, and the hill was forested precisely so that the city would not flood. "It would be good if the mayor learned the history of the city," she wrote, judging the Barutana plan to be a backwards and damaging process for all citizens "except for those few with a financial interest".

The second is sharper and concerns absence. Ivanovska points out that the mayor neither turned up at the public hearing, nor offers any guarantee for citizens' safety in the context of the planned urbanisation.

An answer that becomes a different subject

Gerasimovski's reaction is not about Vodno, about flooding, or about the number of plots. At a Council session he demanded a public apology from the councillors' group "Chance for Centar" over their conduct toward the Council president and the municipal administration during the presentation.

"At the public debate there were individuals who had clearly been infiltrated in order to stage theatre, to film with mobile phones and then selectively broadcast only what suits them," the mayor said, adding that the selective filming created a distorted picture in public.

Note the exchange. One side asks whether Vodno may be built on. The other replies that the manner of filming the hearing was improper. That is not a clash of arguments - those are two different subjects unfolding in the same room.

The court annulled the previous plan

Gerasimovski also says something factually correct and important: the previous plan was annulled by a court decision, and the municipality has a legal obligation to start a procedure for a new one. "The plan is neither adopted nor justified by the mayor - the expert services and competent institutions are involved in the procedure," he noted, rejecting the stories about "some new 25 plots".

The obligation exists, nobody disputes that. But an obligation to draw up a new plan says nothing about what should be written in it. A court annulled a plan - that is not an order for an identical plan with a new date.

Which is exactly why Ivanovska's question remains unanswered, regardless of the tone in which it was asked. If the previous plan was annulled by a court, who drew the lessons from that ruling and how did they enter the new draft? That is a question about documentation, not about politeness at a hearing.

The draft plan for Barutana is out for public consultation. Vodno is waiting to see what gets written into it.