What people don't need

Minister George Pullicino (The Sunday Times, March 19) tried to tell the populace what it needs, forgetting that the electorate is now sophisticated and knowledgeable enough to know exactly what it needs and to see through such paternalistic and passé politics.

So now we have it from the minister that Government's first priority is the creation of new jobs, and if Maltese heritage architecture has to be demolished in the process, so be it.

This is nothing new, as John Dalli said as much a few months ago. But the exceedingly short-sighted aspect of it is that the construction jobs created by demolishing old buildings last only as long as the building works. Employment in tourism, on the other hand, can last a lifetime.

Jobs in the construction industry have become so unpopular among the Maltese workforce that contractors have to resort to immigrant labour, as Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi confirmed on Xarabank earlier this month.

This is great for immigrants, but Mr Pullicino's words about creating employment rings hollow once we know that we are losing our heritage to provide short-term jobs for immigrants. What would really create jobs for Maltese specialised workers is the restoration of old houses, which, as everyone knows is much more labour-intensive than new construction, but not as lucrative for developers. The reality is that the only thing we are providing is opportunities for developers and those in their pay, to get rich.

The real job-provider, tourism, is in one of its worst slumps ever, the declines in revenue from tourism not helped by the destruction of Malta's unique character.

Even young English-language students express shock at the way old buildings which would be preserved lovingly in their country, are demolished, let alone more sophisticated ones. No wonder that cornering the cultural tourism market has remained a myth which is ever more unlikely to materialise now that we have lost so much - while other newer tourist destinations, like the Czech Republic, are doing such a brilliant job in attracting them in spite of a host of unfavourable conditions like their weather and language.

As a politician, Mr Pullicino's message swings according to circumstance. Although supposedly in favour of the use of public transport, seen on bus stops for Car Free Day photo-ops, he lashes out at the temerity of a Sliema resident who suggests that the best way to approach Sliema centre should be by public transport.

He berates Qui-si-sana residents for not wanting a car park when they have repeatedly made it clear that it is not the car park they object to, but the accompanying plethora of commercial outlets. The richest one, however, is the allegation that Qui-si-sana residents are selfishly depriving the rest of Sliema of a public utility being set up for the benefit of the residents.

If Government really had the residents' needs at heart, and not those of the developers, it would not pack five car parks into one quarter of Sliema just to suit the shops, but spread them out for the real benefit of Sliema residents like those on the Dingli Street side who are desperate for parking places. Public utility indeed!

Minister Pullicino's piece is shot through with deliberate misinformation. How can he claim that "scheduling of buildings and the designation of UCAs are instruments which are used regularly to protect the historic character of our urban cores" when he knows that no scheduling has taken place for the last four years!

The relevant department within MEPA can hardly cope with its workload and has been starved of additional personnel. By a strange coincidence, lack of protection of our heritage buildings is very much in the interest of developers.

Minister Pullicino's statement that "today we have a planning system able to protect historic houses better" is amply disproved by the Sliema Baroque house experience. From the outset, neighbours took the steps to protect it as described by the minister, and we were assured by MEPA sources that we need not worry as "there was no way that a permit to demolish such a house could ever be issued".

In spite of this, and in spite of our dogged and unrelenting battle, the application 'miraculously' flew over hurdle after hurdle, to the shock even of some of MEPA's own top brass.

Abuses and shortcomings abound; contrary to set guidelines, the Super-intendence of Cultural Heritage was not called in at the early stages of the process. It was only brought into the fray by the objectors, and not by MEPA, as prescribed. Even then, the insistence by MEPA's Heritage Management Committee and the Superintendence that the building should not be demolished was completely ignored.

Similarly, Chapter 445 of the Cultural Heritage Act in the Maltese Code of Law covering this property was pointed out by objectors but ignored by MEPA's DCC board. Article 97 (1) (n) of the Police Code regulating the height of buildings in old streets was also ignored. At the last DCC hearing the Legal Office's instructions to investigate the developers' claim that the building dated to 1920 was not even followed up, even though six maps showing the house in place since 1728 had been submitted.

Transcripts of this session show it to have been run like a show-trial, with 20 minutes of loaded questions and manipulated instructions leading inevitably to a verdict to demolish. Besides these blatant violations of the laws and regulations of our land we have documentation to prove all of these statements. Is this what Minister Pullicino means when he says "with regard to the Ghar il-Lembi case, all applications for development within the Urban Conservation Areas are assessed in a rigorous manner"?

The fact is that since MEPA's regulations were drawn up and are applied by those who have an interest in demolishing old buildings to make way for profitable new construction, they are weighed in favour of developers and against the preservation of heritage.

One of the most glaring examples being the ludicrous decree that a building may be demolished before the appeal is heard. This is no better than legalised abuse. When there is no such weighing, there is almost inevitably a loophole. When there is no loophole, the law is blatantly ignored. Simple!

It has recently become very convenient for politicians to hide behind the excuse that legislation now precludes the intervention of politicians on individual decisions.

With so many of the people on MEPA's different boards being political or ministerial appointees, he does not even need to interfere, as there are plenty of people to toe the party line. If ministers are not intervening, then anomalous decisions like this one indicate that someone else is. And if the legislation they are hiding behind has been known to be flawed for years, then their lack of action to correct it makes them conspirators to the abuse.

The minister may try to exploit people's fear of unemployment with his misguided politico-talk, but we have the facts, the letter and the chapter of the violated laws to speak for us. And truth not only speaks louder than fiction, but is reverberating loudly across every corner of our once-beautiful islands.