We therefore misunderstood: the city of Noyon never intended to put theSaint-Marie-Madeleine church. She also did not want to part with the communal buildings of the Paris street and kick out the associations that live there. “It was a mistake,” pleads Sandrine Dauchelle from Courrier Picard.
Since the LR mayor of Noyon has the principle of never answering Oise Hebdo’s questions, let’s look at her explanations in the columns of the daily, on November 14: “We have had public estimates carried out for this church and the whole real estate at 33 rue de Paris, but not with the aim of selling them. We have rectified it, because it involves calling on patrons for their restoration, a possibility that has been offered to us since the municipal council deliberated in this direction for municipal heritage.”
On October 27, we explained how the city had, in an attempt to save its 2024 budget, decided to put up for sale a certain number of municipal buildings, including the decommissioned church from the 12th and 13th centuries. As well as the building at 33 rue de Paris which houses a number of associations. Sales whose advertising flooded the streets of the city, also displayed on the home page of the city’s website. All this sparked a real outcry from Noyonnais and the associations concerned.
When the heritage assistant justified the two sales
But by a new conjuring trick of which she has the secret, Sandrine Dauchelle assures, almost a month after the start of the publicity given to these sales, that the old school and the old church were never for… sale.
Twenty days, during which the Heritage Deputy Philippe Llose notably declared to justify these sales:
- This church “requires a major renovation” (Actu60, October 29)
- “We must not let them wither away (especially the church, Editor’s note). At some point, they will have less value. For all these goods, there is a property tax, insurance and heating to be paid by the Noyonnais” (France 3, October 31)
- “Nothing has been done over the last two terms and (the church) continues to deteriorate. If this continues, it will become a pile of stones. Inside, there are no more stained glass windows, nothing left (…) we prefer that it be sold.” (Le Parisien, November 12)
Lies and a few snakes?
Does the mayor want to make her deputy look like an idiot? He who would not have understood that the buildings were not for sale? He who would not have seen the error (of the services?) or who would have committed the terrible blunder personally? Or by pleading “error” and choosing the path of lying, is the mayor instead asking her to swallow a few snakes so as not to have to admit that she is turning around in the face of the anger of the Noyonnais?
It’s up to everyone to judge (but we have our own idea…).
For Fabien Crinon, “Sandrine Dauchelle is looking for arguments so as not to appear ridiculous”
Fabien Crinon, former elected official in charge of heritage under the previous municipality, was one of the first to react to the sale in particular of the church. He also has his own idea about this improbable about-face. “On the site, there were indeed publications on the sale of the old Sainte-Marie-Madeleine church and 33 rue de Paris,” he recalls. Oise Hebdo was the first to publish an article and other media outlets took over. During October, Philippe Llose responded in particular to France 3 Picardie and argued in the direction of a sale decided to bring in revenue.
The former elected official dissected the question well: “In the opinion of the areas concerning the church, it is clearly indicated that the objective of the municipality’s request to state services was to increase budgetary revenue” . Another proof that the elected officials intended to sell.
“It’s quite pitiful”
Concerning Sandrine Dauchelle’s new explanations: “Madame Dauchelle’s argument is to say that advice was needed for patronage actions, but when they requested the Stéphane Bern Foundation for the rood screen room, the room of rood screen and the cathedral were not submitted to the Domains: it is therefore an argument which does not hold up. Fabien Crinon also wonders about this patronage: “Someone would come and invest to renovate the old church, but to do what with it? We have the impression that nothing is anticipated and that it is done in haste and that they have reversed course given the outcry it has caused.
In short: “They are trying to find arguments, to play with words so as not to appear ridiculous: all of this is quite pitiful, it’s a great bluff, Madame Dauchelle.”
However, for Fabien Crinon, this double setback is ultimately double good news: “Because selling a heritage building which can be enhanced by visits, for 39,000 euros – a very low amount – was ridiculous”, and because that “the conservation of 33 rue de Paris is also good news for the associations which had learned of the sale through the press, which is very sad.”
