{"id":210624,"date":"2026-03-18T03:36:09","date_gmt":"2026-03-18T03:36:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/whos-responsible-san-antonio-abad-collapse-sparks-dispute-between-cdmx-government-and-cuauhtemoc-mayors-office\/"},"modified":"2026-03-18T03:36:10","modified_gmt":"2026-03-18T03:36:10","slug":"whos-responsible-san-antonio-abad-collapse-sparks-dispute-between-cdmx-government-and-cuauhtemoc-mayors-office","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/teknomers.com\/en\/whos-responsible-san-antonio-abad-collapse-sparks-dispute-between-cdmx-government-and-cuauhtemoc-mayors-office\/","title":{"rendered":"Who’s Responsible? San Antonio Abad Collapse Sparks Dispute Between CDMX Government and Cuauht\u00e9moc Mayor’s Office."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
\n<\/picture>
The collapse of the building in San Antonio Abad left three dead and revealed tensions between the Cuauht\u00e9moc mayor’s office and the CDMX Government over supervisory responsibilities.<\/figcaption><\/div>\n

The Incident<\/h2>\n

The collapse of a property undergoing demolition at San Antonio Abad 124<\/b> on March 9<\/b> resulted in the tragic death of three workers. This incident has ignited a fierce debate over the supervisory responsibilities between the Cuauht\u00e9moc mayor’s office<\/b> and the Government of Mexico City<\/b>.<\/p>\n

The Exchange of Accusations<\/h3>\n

This unfortunate event has escalated into a public exchange of accusations, primarily revolving around the interpretation of the \u201cadministrative facilities agreement\u201d<\/b>. Implemented after the 2017 earthquake<\/b>, this mechanism was established to expedite the demolition of buildings at risk of structural failure.<\/p>\n

Mayor Rojo de la Vega\u2019s Claims<\/h3>\n

Mayor Alessandra Rojo de la Vega<\/b> has asserted that the capital government not only authorized the demolition but is also obligated to coordinate and oversee its execution. She emphasized: “Here it is not about opinions; it is what is written in its regulations published in the Official Gazette… little paper speaks.” This contention raises vital questions about accountability in urban management.<\/p>\n

Conflicting Interpretations of Responsibilities<\/h3>\n

Rojo de la Vega believes the Housing Secretariat<\/b> should have overseen the demolition, while the Secretariat of Comprehensive Risk Management and Civil Protection<\/b> was responsible for ensuring the safety of the surrounding property. The mayor claimed, “They ignored all our warnings. It was not a mistake. It was a decision.”<\/p>\n

The Government’s Response<\/h3>\n

In contrast, Secretary of Housing Inti Mu\u00f1oz<\/b> rebutted these claims, maintaining that the facility agreement does not alter the existing legal framework regarding supervisory duties. According to him, “The surveillance and verification of demolitions and constructions correspond to the mayor’s offices… with or without a facility agreement.” He further clarified that the agreement merely streamlines administrative processes without absolving mayors of their supervisory responsibilities.<\/p>\n

The Importance of Clarity in Responsibilities<\/h2>\n

The core of this conflict lies in the interpretation of the facility agreement. While the mayor’s office argues it concentrates power within central government agencies, the city’s administration insists it does not disrupt the current legal framework.<\/p>\n

Investigation and Future Implications<\/h3>\n

The Attorney General’s Office of Mexico City has initiated an investigation to uncover any potential administrative or criminal responsibilities. Both parties have pledged to provide documentary evidence as they navigate this complex dispute, which highlights institutional tensions and possible gaps in coordination between different government levels.<\/p>\n

Consequences Beyond Accountability<\/h3>\n