Ernesto Galli della Loggia is right when, in the Corriere della Sera, he writes that the mayor Raggi turned out to be a completely unsuitable incompetent to rule Rome. But even his predecessors, Alemanno and Marino, proved to be incompetent and Veltroni himself, at a certain point, seemed to give up governing the city, preferring to deal with its image (the most beautiful city in the world, etc.) rather than taking care of his daily needs (transport, garbage, maintenance of green areas, etc.).
One could be done except for Rutelli who managed the Jubilee well. But behind him was the formidable organizational machine of the Vatican which is the only real structure that still functions in Rome. So, it's not a matter of men. Anyone called to fill this position: even a general of the carabinieri, a high magistrate or a great manager, would be destined to fail (or to die of a heart attack at the age of just over forty as happened to Luigi Petroselli). And this for two fundamental reasons: the first is that the Capitoline "bureaucratic machine" has collapsed (even the ordinary administration no longer works) and the second is that the "governance" of Rome (Campidoglio and town halls) does not allow, I do not say to face, but not even to set correctly the big problems of the city (transport, urban planning, garbage collection). To make Rome governable, profound administrative and institutional reforms are therefore needed which the Municipality alone cannot achieve and for which an agreement with the Region and, above all, with the Government is necessary.
The reform of administrative structures would require a review (to use a euphemism) of the employment contract of municipal employees and the related supplementary agreements (such as the productivity bonus for all), but this is a long and arduous road that requires time and judgement. Instead, the problems of the two municipal companies must be tackled immediately and with great determination: Atac and Ama. Both of these companies are considered technically bankrupt. Repaying debts and injecting new capital without first modifying the organisational, managerial and financial structures would be useless. We need a break with the past which, as things stand, can only be achieved if the two companies are placed in bankruptcy proceedings and then placed under receivership.
From here, a process of internal reorganization can then take off which allows for the revision of union agreements considered illegitimate, to reverse the relationship between direct and indirect, to rethink tariff and maintenance policies. Once things are sorted out one can and must, for Atac, think of a corporate structure that allows it to collaborate and, if necessary, to integrate with other large transport service operators at a national level. Even the Ama needs a radical reorganization to be able to cover the entire waste cycle which, let us remember, goes from waste collection to disposal and which cannot limit itself to storing it and then sending it abroad.
The second necessary reform is the more properly institutional one. Rome, unlike Paris and London, does not have adequate institutions to govern a large urban area and its role as capital. There has been talk of the creation of a metropolitan area for some time but in Rome this is not possible and, in any case, it would not be sufficient. Rome, let no one be offended if we remember it, is not a "big city" (like London or Paris or even Milan and Naples) but it is, rather, a "big city" (like Cairo). To be a metropolis it is not enough to have a large center (which Rome has) but one must be surrounded by Municipalities (or similar institutions) which delimit its borders. In short, the metropolis is a conurbation which, in order to be governed, requires strong coordination between the center and the administrative structures that surround it.
Transport policy, town planning, the choice of areas of specialization (health, universities, research centres, etc.) can only be decided at that level. This is why Greater London was created and now we are trying to give life to Greater Milan. If then, effectively, it were possible to create a real metropolitan area, then it could become a formidable driver of the economic, civil and cultural development of the whole territory. Rome, however, does not have these characteristics. It is a city that has expanded without encountering administrative obstacles along the way, as it has encountered and still encounters Milan, which has Sesto San Giovanni, Cinisello, San Donato, etc. at its gates. which he must take into account and with which he must coordinate if he wants to grow. The model of the metropolitan area is therefore not replicable in Rome. Rome has municipalities that do not have real administrative and managerial autonomy. Strengthening them is certainly necessary but it is not enough.
Perhaps, for Rome, one could usefully imagine the creation of a sort of "District Capital", similar to the one created to manage Washington. An administrative structure, that is, in which the powers of the Municipality, those of the Region and those of the government converge for everything concerning the vast urban area (transport, urban planning, urban sanitation, etc.) and its functions as State Capital. I realize that talking about institutional reforms after the result of the referendum sounds a bit unrealistic. However, something must be done if Rome is not to sink into its crisis. Therefore, the Municipality, the Region and the Government gather around a table. The levels of responsibility and competences of each one are identified and the policies necessary to solve the city's problems are indicated. Perhaps, from this collaboration between local institutions and government on a crucial problem like that of Rome, the debate on the institutional reforms of which the country would have such great need could start again.
