Odprto pismo Avtonomne Tovarne Rog strokovni komisiji za izbor in nadzor Evropske prestolnice kulture
poštovani člani komisije,
pišemo vam z namenom, da vas informiramo in vas spodbudimo k temeljitemu premisleku o posledicah in vplivu, ki jih ima lahko vaša odločitev o Evropski prestolnici kulture (EPK) za mesto Ljubljana. Ker že obstajajo številne publikacije, ki problematizirajo sam projekt EPK tudi na ravni EU, se bomo omejili na lokalni kontekst, ki je za nas koncev koncev najpomembnejši.
Pričujoče besedilo je hkrati tudi odprto pismo, je tako poleg naše želje po javni in transparetni komunikaciji, namenjeno širši javnosti.
Vse odkar se je pojavila možnost, da naslov EPK preide v roke mestne občine Ljubljana (MOL), kritično izražamo skepso in strah. Našim kritikam se je pridružila tudi široka kulturniška scena,ko je postalo očitno, da je že pristop h kandidaturi MOL za EPK zaznamoval tipičen ekskluzivističen značaj. Kar mi v svojih krtikah že ves čas imenujemo avtoritarni pristop MOL v primeru EPK ni nič novega, vendar se zdi pomembno saj tokrat ta predvideva podporo večmilijonske naložbe Evropske Komisije.
V Februarju smo objavili izjavo (http://atrog.org/o-nas/izjave-za-javnost/464-izjava-at-rog-ob-dogodku-produkcijski-pogoji-za-kulturo-izziv-in-dolznost -za-epk-kino-siska-20-02-2020) v kateri smo opisali odnos MOL do splošne kulturne in umetniške scene in do naše ustvarjalne skupnosti, ki deluje v Avtonomni tovarni Rog (AT Rog). Večletne izkušnje s to občinsko oblastno strukturo jasno kažejo na to, zakaj smo do trenutnih obljub MOL o koristih, ki jih bo imelo mesto prek EPK v najboljšem primeru skeptični, do naše skupnosti pa je ta zaničljiv odnos še več kot očiten.
Zavedamo se, da ste ste bili že v prvem selekcijskem krogu vsaj do neke mere seznanjeni s situacijo. Prebrali smo vaše poročilo v katerem priporočate številne prilagoditve, vključno s pozivom k nekonfliktni rezrešitvi z „odprtim in konstruktivnim dialogom.” Zdaj, na začetku drugega krogaizbora in ob vašem drugem obisku, vam pišemo neposredno o razvoju dogodkov od takrat. Upamo, da boste v ob tem prepoznali upravičenost naše skepse, previdnosti in nezaupanja.
Za začetek v svoji oceni ugotovite, da "..vez med osrednjim konceptom v prijavi - "Solidarnost" - in samim programom trenutno ni jasna." S kančkom cinizma, tudi nam ni povsem jasna. O solidarnosti je zapisanih veliko praznih besed, ki postanejo žaljivo hinavske, če pogledamo dejanske prakse in politike MOL. Pod županovim vodstvom beseda solidarnost sistematično oskrunjena ne le z ignoriranjem realnih težav, temveč tudi z ustvarjanjem razmer, iz katerih težave sploh nastanejo,zaradi lastnih interesov in koristi ter navade kronizma, z namernim onemogočanjem dialoga in s poskusi, kot so rekli dekani umetniških akademij, "obrniti eno kulturo proti drugi."
Ni še leto tega, kar je Zoran Jankovič na cesto vrgel organizacije in posameznike, ki so delovali in ustvarjali v stavbi na Kersnikovi, katera je za ljubljansko sceno in sodobno umetnost nosila tudi velik simbolni in historični pomen od začetkov neodvisne produkcije v tem prostoru. Hišo je prodal podjetnemu hotelirju. Z evikcijo so grozili tudi Srednji šoli za oblikovanje in fotografijo ter Zgodovinskemu Arhivu Ljubljana. Med tem ko se MOL v svoji prijavi hvali o spodbujanju sodobne kreativne industrije, pa ne gre pozabiti na zavrnjeno predkupno pravico, ki jo je imelo mesto v primeru Tobačna mesto, kjer so prav tako domovale številne organizacije, med drugimi izredno uspešen Kreativni center Poligon. Pred muhastimi destrukcijskimi manevri župana tako nisi varne niti večje institucije, kaj šele manjše in manj uveljavljene ustvarjalke in ustvarjalci. Izredno restriktiven in zavirajoč odnos župana predvsem do ekonomsko najšibkejših se kaže tudi v nedavno sprejetih regulacijah glede ulične umetnosti ter uličnih umetnikov in umetnic. Prav tako so velike besede o reševanju kulturnikov z "Odprtim odrom" le polresnice, saj so bile znova pri koritu le redke večje organizacije, večina ustvarjalcev in ustvarjalk pa do njega ni imela dostopa.
Lažnivost velikih besed v programu EPK o solidarnosti in vključevanju ranljivih skupin se kaže tudi na drugih nivojih socialno izredno slabe slike mesta. Nenehna opozorila v medijih in široke družbe, vključno z našimi, pričajo o tem, da je življenje v mestu postalo neznosno drago in se še naprej draži. MOL je vedno znova dala prednost premožnim investitorjem in turistom pred prebivalci mesta. Novogradnje so samo še luksuzna stanovanja in hoteli. O izključevanju in ekonomskemu nasilju MOL nad prebivalstvom jasno govori npr. zgodba Akademskega kolegija, do nedavnega najcenejšega študentskega doma v Ljubljani, namenjenega socialno najšibkejšim. Čeprav so se stanovanjske razmereskozi čas le slabšale, je leta 2019 MOL nameravala prebivalce iz Akademskega Kolegija eviktirati in objekt spremeniti v donosnejši hostel. Študentje so se takrat že soočali s pomanjkanjem dostopabivališč in mnogi so bili prisiljeni plačevati turistične takse za bivanje v hostlih. Z uporom so študentje to začasno preprečili - za dve leti - vendar pod pogojem, da se je najemnina občutno zvišala. Afera je sprožila velik in glasen družbeni odziv, gibanje za pravičnejšo stanovanjsko politiko. Evikcija Akademskega kolegija ostaja del programa MOL za EPK.
Namesto da bi MOL vlagala v nujno potrebno infrastrukturo, ta uporablja kulturo za ustvarjanje fasad v turističnem zabaviščnem parku. Novi centri, ki jih MOL gradi in vzpostavlja v tem trenutku, kot je npr. Cukrarna, so bili s strani mnogih akterjev in strokovnjakov zavrnjeni, saj so glede na potrebe kulturne in umetniške produkcije v mestu zastavljeni vsebinsko nesmiselno, centralizirano, monopolistično in popolnoma predimenzionirano. Po vsem tem je jasno, da MOL svoje politike ne usmerja glede na to, kaj mesto potrebuje in ne naslavlja potreb prebivalcev in prebivalk. Župan dela za fantazije in dobre posle svojih pajdašev in iz lastnih revanšističnih vzgibov.
Poudarjate, da "... program izriše sofisticirano strukturo za spodbujanje dialoga z zainteresiranimi s področja umetnosti in kulture v okviru EPK, vendar ni jasno, v kolikšni meri je bila ta struktura uporabljena pri pripravi programa." Večina razočaranj nad zgoraj omenjenimi primeri je privrelo na površje ob enem od takšnih poskusov spodbujanja dialoga, in sicer na "javni tribuni" v organizaciji MOL, kjer je ta poskusila organizirati dialog z akterji s področja kulture in umetnosti. Mnogi so namreč bili osebno prizadeti iz teh izkušenj, prav tako pa so bile izražene številne frustracije glede nezadovoljstva o postopkih priprave projekta EPK in jasno je bilo, da organizatorji tribune niso bili pripravljeni na takšen scenarij. Pravi odprt, pregleden in konstruktiven dialog, ki naj bi se namreč dogajal ves ta čas, je bil končno prisiljen k uresničitvi, četudi le za kratek čas in samo enkrat. Dogodek je sicer posnet, toda se je nekaj dni kasneje razkrilo, da je akutna odsotnost medijev na takem dogodku, pomemben predvsem zaradi svoje edinstvenosti tako odprtega in iskrenega dialoga med MOL in vsemi zainteresiranimi (vsaj s strani slednjih), bil dobro preračunan ukrep, saj je omogočil, da je bila napeta izmenjava mnenj uporabljena izključno za, ter mojstrsko urejena v, kratek promocijski posnetek za MOL.
Zamisel za ta dogodek je verjetno navdihnila javna tribuna, ki smo jo leta 2019 ponudili MOL, strokovnjakom na različnih področjih in zainteresirani javnosti, v kateri bi lahko poskusili preseči razhajanja in oblikovati skupno prihodnost Roga in mesta. MOL se je odločila, da bo povabilo prezrla, potem ko smo zavrnili njihovo ponudbo dialoga za zaprtimi vrati - taktika, na katero smo nasedli leta 2016, ko so po pogovorih le te uporabili v igro svoje različice tega, kar se je pogovarjalo proti naši. Leta 2019 smo ponudbo predložili takoj, ko smo opazili, da je MOL objavila razpise za izvajalce gradbenih del še preden se nam je sodno varstvo končalo junija istega leta in nato na enem od sten tovarniških prostorov postavila gradbišče. Čeprav smo se želeli izogniti scenariju iz leta 2016, je njihova zaskrbljenost zaradi kakršne koli javne ali strokovne kritike privedla do njihove odsotnosti. Tribuna torej morda načeloma ni bila povsem uspešna, vendar smo od javnosti in strokovnjaki raznih panog dobili izredno podporo za naše prizadevanje in trud.*
V programu je predvideno uničenje Avtonomne Tovarne Rog, enega največjih kulturnih središč v mestu, ki so ga prebivalci ustvarili od spodaj navzgor in kjer že 14 let obstaja samonikla skupnost ustvarjalcev in ustvarjalk ter je kot taka pristen odraz potreb in ustvarjalnih procesov prebivalcev in prebivalk mesta. Res je, da ne ustrezamo viziji zabavljaške turbo-kapitalistične in elitistične kulturne produkcije, kot si jo zamišlja naš župan. Čeprav nas je tribuna MOL posebej zadevala in nismo bili povabljeni (kljub temu smo se je udeležili), lahko priznamo, da ste v vašem poročilu izrazili svojo "... [močno spodbudo], da se konflikt med občino in skupnostjo Rog reši z odprtim in konstruktivnim dialogom.. “ šele kasneje in tako občini takrat še niste namignili v pravo smer. Glede na to pa bi utegnilo biti presenečenje, da sta kmalu po vašem poročilu dva od osmih bivših uporabnikov Roga, ki jih je MOL sicer že tožila leta 2016 in katerim jim je nato sodišče naložilo, naj izpraznita Rog, ostaneta zunaj njega in plačata na tisoče evrov sodnih stroškov, bila zopet tožena, brez izzivov in na osnovi izmišljenih razlogov. MOL je vedela, da bo tožba povzročila le pravno nadlegovanje, stres in dodatne pravne stroške, dokler obtožena ne bosta dobila primera, vendar si MOL to lahko privošči, mi pa ne. Poleg tega pa sta župan in njegov odvetnik med zaslišanji večkrat navajala laži o tem, kar sta domnevno videla v Rogu, o tem, da inšpektorji nimajo dostopa do prostorov za opravljanje svojega dela, da so bili prostori privatizirani itd. *
Dialog, s katerim se hvalijo v prezentacijah na lokalnih, nacionalnih in mednarodnih odrih, dejansko ne obstaja, saj jim ni v interesu. Edini načrt, ki ga predvidevajo v tem odnosu, je deložacija trenutne skupnosti in destrukcija že uveljavljene množice ustvarjalnih procesov in bogastvo različnih dejavnosti. To je evidentno že iz odsotnosti resničnega dialoga - tudi po poskusih z naše strani - kakor tudi iz nasilnih intervencij MOL v prostor AT ROG: s poskusom pričetka rušilnih del ob treh ponoči brez ustrezno zavarovanega območja, z najeto tolpo varnostnikov z neonacisti v njihovih vrstah, ki so ljudi pretepali, s sodnimi postopki in finančnim izčrpavanjem že tako ekonomsko povsem prekariziranih, zdaj nekdanjih uporabnikov AT Rog, z grožnjami odškodninskih tožb, javnim blatenjem in lažmi župana in njegovih zaposlenih, uperjenim proti uporabnikom in uporabnicam Avtonomne Tovarne Rog.
O pomenu sedanje AT Rog za mesto govori tudi dejstvo, da je tudi sama strokovna skupina, ki pripravlja kandidaturo za EPK Ljubljana, razdvojena glede ustreznosti Molovega projekta novega Centra Rog in vsebin za kandidaturo. Mnogi se zavedajo, da bo kakršenkoli poskus uničenja AT Rog povzročil v Ljubljani konflikt in bo negativno vplival na kulturno-umetniško sceno v mestu. V zadevi AT Rog gre za osebno zamero, revanšizem in trmoglavljenje župana Jankovića in njegovega projektanta Grilca, ki žal vztrajata, da uničenje AT Rog ostaja del programskih vsebin kandidature EPK Ljubljana. Številni, ki so doslej nasprotovali ali sprožali vprašanja, so bili odpuščeni iz ekipe EPK.
Predlagate, da mesto kritično ocenjuje izkušnje, pridobljene s takšnimi naslovi, kot je Zelena prestolnica EU 2016. Ena od takih lekcij bi lahko izhajala iz razmisleka o njihovi odločitvi, da cele skupnosti vrtičkarjev po mestu vržejo s parcel, da bi institucionalizirali to kulturo, nakar se jih je le nekaj vrnilo v novo postavljene pogoje. Izbrisali so celotne dele samoniklih vozlišč življenja. Ta izguba pa je v njihovem delovanju popolnoma prezrta in dodatno vzbuja dvom o njihovo pripravljenosti, da se učijo iz preteklih neuspehov. Namesto tega biti "zelen" še naprej pomeni pripisovati si zasluge za delo novega gibanja mladih za podnebno pravičnost, hkrati pa višati cene javnega prevoza, omejiti dostop do odlaganja odpadkov itd.
Pomembno je, da zaključimo z vašim opažanjem, da ".. ni jasno, kakšne posebne koristi bi lahko prineslo EPK v smislu, da bi mesto lahko uresničilo zastavljene cilje in tako spodbudilo že obstoječe projekte in pobude." Nam je zelo jasno. Ta zelo cenjen mednarodni žig odobritve v obliki EPK bi upravičil njihovo sprevrženost koncepta solidarnosti. Za številne prebivalce Ljubljane bo to še en korak v vrsti poniževanja, teptanja, ignoriranja, laganja in kraje, zdaj pa ne samo s strani lokalnega avtoritarnega župana, temveč tudi z ravni EU. Posledično bo MOL za primer Roga poskušala oblikovati širšo podporo za nasilno izselitev kopice kljubovalcev (to je skupnost več kot 200 umetnikov, aktivistov, športnih skupin, izvajalci itd.), ki naj bi ogrožali uresničitev veličastne "nove ustvarjalne duše" mesta, in - s tem, da je to (vsaj denarno gledano) eden osrednjih projektov EPK - ta želeni naslov in vse njegove obljube za mesto.
Enkrat boste tu in nadzirati boste morali tudi številna mesta. Mi pa tu živimo in nam je za svoje mesto, sosede in življenje v njem zelo mar. Naš cilj ni, da bi mestu odvzeli dodaten vir financiranja od katerega bi lahko imeli mnogi korist, nenazadnje tudi po nenadni krizi COVID in posledično socialni, ki je na obzorju. Skrbi nas, da bodo sedanji ljudje na oblasti izneverili proces, ki je resda lahko obetaven pri zagotavljanju novih, celovitih priložnosti za našo kulturno, socialno, ekonomsko in okoljsko blaginjo, ter ga izkoristili v nepopravljivo škodo.
Za konec bi, ob izposoji vaših besed, zagotovo "... ponudbo okrepilo, če bi [vi pokazali], kako bodo [vaše] ugotovitve uporabljene za zagotovitev pozitivnih dolgoročnih kulturnih, družbenih in ekonomskih učinkov [pri obdarovanju z naslovom] EPK. "
Ne želimo si, da bi bilo naše mesto naslednje v vrsti Wroclawa, Corka, Liverpoola, Turku, da omenimo le nekaj, katerih obris se je na mnogo nezasluženih načinov spremenil.
Srečno,
Avtonomna tovarna Rog
24 november 2020
PS: Če imate kakršna koli vprašanja v zvezi z našimi izjavami in potrebujete nadaljnjo utemeljitev trditev, smo vam na voljo.
* Posnetek / celotna izjava je na voljo na naši spletni strani
++++++++++++ENG+++++++++++
Open Letter of the Autonomous Factory Rog to the European Capital of Culture Selection & Monitoring Panel
Ladies and gentlemen of the panel,
We are writing to you with the aim to inform you and encourage you to thoroughly consider the possible consequences of your decisions in your European Capitals of Culture (ECoC) venturing, and understand the possible impact your decision may have on the city of Ljubljana. As there are numerous publications problematizing the ECoC project itself, even at the official European level, we will stick to the local issues, as it is also a matter of urgency for us.
This is simultaneously an open letter and therefore meant for wider audiences in addition to functioning as transparent and open communication.
Since the possibility emerged, we have raised concerns and expressed our horror in several ways over the prospect of the management of the ECoC title in the hands of the municipal government of Ljubljana(MOL). We were joined in our critique by a wide community of local cultural actors as it became evident that the ways in which MOL went about its candidature was marked by its typical exclusivist approach. What we call an authoritarian approach of MOL is nothing new, but in this case it presupposes the support of a multimillion euro investment by the European Commission.
A statement we published in February (http://atrog.org/o-nas/izjave-za-javnost/464-izjava-at-rog-ob-dogodku-produkcijski-pogoji-za-kulturo-izziv-in-dolznost-za-epk-kino-siska-20-02-2020) included a description of the ways in which MOL has been conducting itself in regard to the general cultural landscape and in regard toward our community of Autonomous Factory Rog (AF Rog). Several years of experience with the municipal government paint a clear picture for the reason why our attitude toward MOL’s current promises of wonderful benefits to the city through the ECoC is skeptical at best, while in regard to our community in particular, its typically contemptuous approach could not be more obvious.
We understand that you were made aware of at least some of these concerns in the first round of the selection process, and we have read your assessment report in which you recommend many adjustments, including a call for a non-confrontational resolution through “open and constructive dialogue.” Now, at the beginning of the second stage of selection and the coming of your second visit, we write to you directly about the developments since then. We hope you will recognize these developments, as we did, to be another justifiable confirmation for our skepticism, weariness, and mistrust.
To begin with, in your assessment you find that “..the link between the central concept of the bid – ‘Solidarity’ – and the programme itself is not clear at the current stage.” Perhaps with a trace of cynicism, it isn’t clear to us either. There are a lot of empty words about it that turn offensively hypocritical once looked at in their actual practices and politics. Under the management of the mayor, the word solidarity has been systematically desecrated, by not only ignoring real concerns, but by creating the conditions from which they arise, out of self-interest and through the habit of cronyism, intentionally undermining dialogue, and trying, as the deans of the art academies put it, "to turn one culture against another."
It has not yet been a year since Zoran Janković (the mayor of Ljubljana) threw out organizations and individuals who worked and created in the building on Kersnikova Street. It carried a great symbolic and historical significance for contemporary art and the Ljubljana scene as we know it today, since the beginnings of independent production. He sold the house to an enterprising hotelier. The Secondary School of Design and Photography and the Historical Archives of Ljubljana were also threatened with eviction.
While MOL boasts about the promotion of the modern creative industry in its ECoC application, we must not forget the rejected pre-emption right that the city had in the Tobačna mesto case, which also housed many organizations, including the very successful Creative Center Poligon. Not even larger institutions are safe from the capriciously destructive maneuvers of the mayor, let alone smaller and less established artists and organizations. The mayor's extremely restrictive and inhibitory attitude, especially towards the economically most vulnerable, is also reflected in the recently adopted regulations regarding street art and street artists. In addition, the big words about rescuing cultural workers with an "Open Stage" are also only half-truths, as it was again open only for a few larger organizations and most of the artists and cultural workers did not have access to it.
The mendacity of big words in the bid book, of 'solidarity' and 'inclusion of vulnerable groups', is also reflected at other levels of the city, which has an acutely substandard social image. As has been continuously pointed out in the media and by a wide social sphere including ourselves, life in the city has been and is still becoming unbearably expensive. MOL has shown again and again its preferences for wealthy investors and tourists over the inhabitants of the city. New buildings are only elite apartments and hotels. The exclusion and economic violence of MOL against the population is clearly stated in such examples as the story of Akademski Kolegij, which until recently has been the most affordable student dormitory in Ljubljana, and included a few non-profit apartments - it was clearly intended for the socially weakest. In 2019, even though the housing situation was worsening, MOL wanted to evict this and turn it into a more profitable hostel, while students were already facing shortages of residences, and many were being forced to pay tourist taxes for staying in hostels. By resisting, the students prevented this temporarily - for 2 years - but on the condition that the rent increased significantly. The affair sparked a vocal and large new social movement demanding and working for fairer housing conditions. The eviction of Akademski kolegij remains a plan of the MOL ECoC program.
Instead of investing into critical infrastructure, MOL is busy using the cultural brush to paint facades for a touristic amusement park. New centers that MOL is building and establishing at the moment, such as Cukrarna, for example, were rejected by many figures and experts, because given the needs of cultural and artistic production in the city, they are set up in ways that are substantially senseless, centralized, monopolistic and completely oversized.
After all this, it is clear that the City of Ljubljana does not direct its policy according to what the city needs, and does not address the needs of the inhabitants. The mayor works for the fantasies and good business of his cronies and out of his own revanchist impulses.
You make the point that "..the bid outlines a sophisticated structure for fostering dialogue with stakeholders from the field of arts and culture in the context of the ECoC, but it is not clear to what extent this structure has been employed in preparing the bid.” Just as an example, most of the frustrations with the above mentioned cases boiled over to the surface at one of such attempts of fostering dialogue, namely at MOL's “public forum” event where it attempted to stage a dialogue between cultural actors, many of whom were personally affected by those experiences, and the ECoC project management. It became clear that the panel of representatives quite obviously did not prepare for such an onslaught of criticism from the participants. The real open, transparent and constructive dialogue that was namely supposed to have been taking place all along was finally forced to realization, even if only for a short time and only once. There is recorded evidence of this, but in a very interesting turn of fate it was revealed a few days later that an acute absence of media at such an event, important particularly because of its uniqueness of such open and honest dialogue between MOL and the all of the stakeholders (at least from the latter’s side), was a well calculated measure, as it allowed the however strained exchange of opinions to be used solely for, and masterfully edited into, a short piece of MOL promotional material.*
The idea of a public tribune was probably inspired by the public tribune we offered to have with MOL, with experts in various fields and the interested public in 2019, during which we could have attempted to overcome differences and forge a common future for Rog and the city. MOL chose to ignore their invitation after we refused their offer of dialogue behind closed doors - a tactic we had fallen for in 2016 when after the talks they turned it into a play of their version of what happened against ours. In 2019, our offer came as soon as we noticed that even before our court protection would end in June that year, MOL was already publishing applications for contractors and then set up a construction site on one of the walls of the factory premises. While we wanted to avoid the 2016 scenario, their anxieties over any public or expert critique resulted in their absence. The tribune was therefore perhaps not entirely a success in principle, but the public and field experts showed overwhelming support to our cause and our effort.*
The ECoC envisages putting an end to AF Rog, the community of creators and one of the biggest cultural centres in the city, made from the bottom up by its inhabitants, which for the last 14 years has been a genuine reflection of the needs and creative processes of the city's residents. It is true that we do not fit the vision of a turbo-capitalist entertainment and elitist cultural production center as it is imagined by our mayor. And so, although the MOL tribune particularly concerned us as well, we were not invited (we attended nevertheless), but we concede that your panel's “..[strong encouragement] that the conflict between the municipality and the Rog community be addressed by an open and constructive dialogue..“ was offered after the fact, and could not have nudged them into the right direction. In light of that however, it might come as a surprise that not long after your report, two of the eight Rog users that MOL has already sued in 2016, who were thereafter ordered by the court to vacate Rog, stay out of it and pay thousands of Euros in court costs, were sued again, without provocation and on fabricated grounds. MOL knew that the suit would result only in legal harassment, stress, and additional legal fees until the two defendants won the case, but MOL can afford it and we cannot. Furthermore, adding serious insult to injury, both the mayor and his attorney committed perjury at many occasions during the course of the hearings, stating falsehoods about what they have supposedly seen in Rog, about inspectors not having access to premises in order to perform their work, that the premises were privatized, etc.*
The dialogue MOL boasts about in presentations at the local, national and international stages does not actually exist, as it is not in their interest. The only plan envisioned in this relationship is the eviction of the current community and the destruction of the already established multitude of creative processes and richness in the variety of activities. This is evident from the absence of real dialogue - even when attempted from our side - as well as from the violent interventions of the municipal government in AF ROG: by attempting to start demolition works at three a.m. without a properly protected area, by hiring a gang of neo-nazi-infested troupe of security guards to beat its users, legal action and financial draining of already completely precariarized now-former users, threats of lawsuits for damages, with public slander and lies by the mayor and his employees directed against the users of the AF Rog.
The importance of the current AF Rog for the city is also evidenced by the fact that the expert group preparing the candidacy for the ECoC is divided on the appropriateness of MOL's new Center project and its contents for the candidacy. Many are aware that any attempt to destroy AT Rog will cause a conflict in Ljubljana and will negatively affect the cultural and artistic scene in the city. The AF Rog case concerns personal resentment, revenge and the stubbornness of mayor Janković and his project leader Grilc, both of whom unfortunately continue to insist that the destruction of AF Rog remains part of the program of the ECoC Ljubljana candidacy. Many of those who have so far shown opposition or raised issues have been fired from the ECoC team.
You suggest the city critically evaluates lessons learned from having held such titles as the EU Green Capital 2016. One of such lessons could have come from reflecting on their decision to kick the whole communities of gardeners all around the city off of their plots to institutionalize this culture, after which only few returned into newly set conditions. They’ve erased entire swaths of self-formed nodes of life. This loss, however, is entirely ignored in their enterprise, and further throws doubt on their willingness to learn from past failures. Instead, being "green" continues to mean taking credit for work done by the new youth for the climate justice movement, while at the same time raising prices for public transportation, limiting access for waste disposal, etc.
After this whole indictment, it is important to conclude with your noticing that “..it is unclear what specific benefits would be derived from the ECoC in the sense that the city might accomplish the stated goals driving forward its already existing projects and initiatives.” It is indeed very clear to us. This highly regarded international stamp of approval in form of ECoC would legitimize their perversion of the concept of solidarity. For many inhabitants of Ljubljana it will be another step in the line of humiliations, being trampled over, ignored, disenfranchised, lied to, and stolen from, now not only coming from the local authoritarian mayor but also from the EU level.
Consequently, in the context of Rog, MOL will try forming a wider support around the premise for a violent eviction of a bunch of defiant, what he calls "rogues" (that is, a community of 200+ artists, activists, sport groups, performers, etc.), that are supposedly threatening the realization of the city’s glorious “new creative soul,” and – with it being one of the central ECoC projects (at least monetarily speaking) – the coveted title, and all its promises for the city, itself.
You will be here once, and also have many cities to oversee. We live here and care about our city, our neighbours and our life in it very much. It is not our aim to deprive it of an additional source of funding that many could benefit from, not least after the sudden COVID crisis and as a consequence of the latter, the social one looming on the horizon. Our concern is that the current people in power will take a process that admittedly shows some promise to bring new, wholesome opportunities to our cultural, social, economic and environmental welfare, and instead mismanage it to that welfare's irreparable detriment.
To conclude in borrowing from your words, it would certainly “..strengthen the bid if [you] .. demonstrated how [your] findings will be used to ensure a positive long-term cultural, social and economic impact of [bestowing] the ECoC.”
We do not wish for ours to be another city in the line of Wroclaw, Cork, Liverpool, Turku, just to mention a few whose profile changed in many undeserved ways.
Best of luck,
Autonomous Factory Rog
24 of Nov 2020
If you have any questions regarding our statements and need further substantiation of claims, we are available.
* The footage / full statement is available on our webpage
Koledar Kompot
Spectrum Game of the Year 1988
Komunalorg
Len 
🍉