Vidos and Lazaretto are integral part of the town
The incident with the scouts involving a gas cylinder, the cancellation of the municipal summer camps, shuttered facilities, and deteriorating infrastructure all point to a pattern of systematic neglect on Vidos.
The cancellation of this year's summer camps and the questioning of the Scout groups, after decades of continuous presence on the island, are not simply the result of a single incident—one that, in fact, was dealt with immediately and to which we ourselves gave greater prominence than it ultimately warranted (Editor's note: and we apologize for that, although the initial reports of a fire and Fire Service intervention came from the Fire Service itself). (It is also true that two Scout groups left the island on Thursday. The Corfu Scout groups remained.)
Rather, the overall picture points to the clearest symptom yet of years of neglect.
The incident involving the gas cylinder required the removal of the gas cylinders—which was carried out—and an inspection of the electrical network, which was also completed immediately, according to the Scout leaders overseeing the camp. But the problem runs much deeper. Vidos has not been neglected since yesterday. It has been neglected for years.
The restaurant remains closed. So does the café. The wooden platforms have deteriorated through the combined effects of time and neglect. The caique that once served the island is rotting where it is moored at the pier. Infrastructure is steadily declining, activities are becoming increasingly limited, and now even the Scouts—perhaps Vidos' most consistent and committed users—are being singled out.
And yet, Vidos is not some remote islet. It is an extension of the town. Together with Lazaretto, it forms two historic sites that help shape Corfu's identity. Instead of serving as examples of good public stewardship, they have been left to the mercy of time. No one explains why.
At the same time, discussion has resurfaced about entrusting the management of Vidos to a non-profit corporate initiative. Clearly, any serious civic initiative deserves a warm welcome. But the question remains: is civil society being asked to make up for the public sector's inability to manage its own assets?
If this becomes the new normal, then why stop at Vidos? Why not gradually hand over thetown's neighbourhoods to civic organisations so they can run them more effectively? The argument may sound absurd, but it is not far removed from the logic that is taking shape: the public sector withdraws, and volunteers step in.
There is, however, one crucial difference. Dedicated volunteers and people who contribute out of love for their community have limits. Eventually, they grow tired or move on. And then the powerful investor appears—the financially strong "saviour," the wealthy benefactor—offering the solution. At that point, the debate is no longer just about who will manage Vidos. It becomes a question of who will determine its future.
GIORGOS KATSAITIS
