Development zone perplexities

The Cabinet's decision to extend development zones has dominated the headlines since the proposal was launched, and the public reaction is swiftly gathering momentum. The initial protests are assuming the nature of an uproar.

The Cabinet's sudden decision has been considered by many as, by far, the shadiest act of the government since Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi assumed the leadership of his party.

Deliberately opening a can of worms, the government by-passed and pre-empted the planning process as established by the 1992 Development Planning Act.

The Malta Environment and Planning Authority was originally established, under Nationalist government auspices, as the competent regulatory authority, as well as the government's adviser on matters concerning spatial development planning and policy. It was meant to exercise an independent role, free from any form of political pressure.

What was good in 1992 did not suit the government in 2006. Mepa has been rudely swept aside for the Gonzi government has now decided to do its own thing according to its own specifications.

There has been no prior public consultation. The government set new criteria and proposed new sites for development, and then placed the onus on Mepa to identify even more sites, fitting with the new criteria.

The Cabinet's criteria potentially double the amount of land earmarked by Mepa for inclusion in the development scheme, and this despite the fact that the government itself estimates that there is sufficient vacant land within the existing development boundaries to develop 98,300 units, while only 41,200 dwellings are estimated to be needed by the year 2020.

The government's logic is baffling and the non sequiturs deployed by its apologists has been markedly perplexing.

It is as telling as it is remarkable that no single government minister assumed responsibility for originating this manoeuvre - it had to be the Cabinet that decided to assume collective responsibility!

In the context of a small country such as ours, it should be assumed, as a matter of common sense, that space is a limited resource, and what is available after so many years of feverish development should be used in the best way possible.

The government's move has been variously interpreted as a ploy to pander to the interests of "friends of friends", to give more momentum to the construction industry and the interests associated with it, and to win votes by dangling the prospects of big money to segments of the electorate.

In Malta, speculation is rife and comes cheap, particularly when surreptitious and plainly controversial decisions are sprung on the electorate during an electoral run-in.

The sovereign electorate surely has as big a stake in the matter as the handful of latter-day millionaires who hover on the peripheries of the development zone.

What is certain is that the common good should come before individual interests in this matter. The extension of the development zones is not a solution to Malta's problems.

As the Church's Environment Commission has pointed out, the sustainable use of land means that better use should be made to vacant buildings within the existing development zones before one turns to other land.

It certainly makes no sense if the government goes out of its way to solve the genuine problems of a few individuals by depriving the rest of Malta's citizens of their right to enjoy the environment. The government has, moreover, the obligation to protect the people's common heritage.

Common sense and the vagaries of politics do not always mix smoothly. When they clash, public opinion has a legitimate right to demand explanations. And where perplexities befuddle the issue, public opinion has good reason to be suspicious.