Javier Milei's government announced a 25-year concession of the Tecnópolis site in Villa Martelli through a public tender, aiming to cut public spending and end subsidies for deficit cultural spaces. The measure, part of economic reforms, seeks private autofinancing without burdening taxpayers. Kirchnerist sectors criticize it for limiting free access to culture and science.
Chief of Staff Manuel Adorni announced that the government will concession the Tecnópolis site, a hallmark of the Kirchnerist administration in Villa Martelli, for 25 years via public tender. This initiative is part of Javier Milei's economic reforms to reduce spending on cultural spaces with negative balances. The tender, identified as National Public Contest No. 392-0006-CPU25, will open this Monday under the Agency for the Administration of State Assets (AABE), with a possible extension of up to 12 months.
Tecnópolis had accumulated debt exceeding $4.813 million and missing equipment worth $554 million, with a judicial complaint underway. It required maintenance funded solely by the state. Since December 2023, the government implemented an organization plan that cut staff by over 30%, from 333 to 198 employees, and established a public-private scheme. This allowed stopping investments and starting to collect revenue: $600 million in 2024 and $2.429 million in 2025, with a projection of $2.749 million by year-end. Over 500,000 people participated in activities during this period.
Adorni emphasized that the measure will generate 'private autofinancing without affecting Argentine taxpayers.' On his X account, he added: 'it will operate under a private investment scheme: never again a burden on Argentines' pockets.' The initial monthly canon is $611 million, plus $60 million fire insurance, ensuring state asset protection. The terms specify the site will maintain recreational, cultural, educational, non-competitive sports, and community integration uses, incorporating private investments.
Kirchnerist and progressive sectors question the decision, arguing it will turn a popular free-access space into an elitist real estate or commercial project, impacting low-income families who relied on free vacation entries.
