Shame, shame on you!

The two major political parties are at it again, playing MLPN duopoly, and hence they both deserve a resounding 'shame on you' - shame on the PN for devising these despicable scheme revisions and shame on the MLP for limiting itself to being an armchair critic and not assuming an active role by, for example, objecting on a locality-per-locality basis and meeting up with local residents, etc.

The Times editorial of June 19 hits the nail on the head: "A government that has failed to deliver on some important manifesto promises - the long-awaited revision of the Rent Act is one example - does not achieve sudden credibility by resuscitating a promise made eight years ago to revise boundaries that have been standing for 18 years." The Times is also spot on when arguing that these scheme inclusions will fuel another rat race for further inclusions later on, before or after 2016.

Some impertinent questions

It is no secret that Polidano Brothers will have part of their property in Xemxija included in the revised schemes but what about other building contractors or businessmen (at least five) who will benefit from the scheme revision? Have all MPs declared their interest in the issue? To date, just three have.

Such speculation can only abate when the full list of property owners who would be benefiting is published.

The way maps were hastily drawn (three days, compared with the 17-year local plan process), not by MEPA, but by a few at the seat of power, raises more than an eyebrow. In fact, MEPA just drew the maps with the sites having been cherry-picked before. You might also object to the use of the clichéd 'grapevine' but do you, by any stretch of the imagination, picture the Lands Department revealing the identity of the property owners who will directly benefit from the scheme revision? Will anyone supplying such information ever stick his neck out?

When confronted with the reality that Piju Camilleri was to cash in on the scheme revision, Minister George Pullicino shrugged off the fact by stating: "The argument is simple. Has Piju Camilleri's land been included by MEPA on the basis of the Cabinet's criteria? If yes, I am not interested whether the land belongs to the Archbishop, to Piju Camilleri or to the Prime Minister's son." Now that it is clear that there will be more than one Piju Camilleri involved, how will the whole thing be justified?

There's a way out, George

I will join the growing chorus of those encouraging Mr Pullicino to backtrack on the whole rationalisation idea by making a few suggestions to him. The Sant'Antnin recycling plant impasse was a step in the right direction with the government reducing greatly the initial amounts of waste destined for recycling at the plant.

Also, by doing so, Mr Pullicino showed he is able to make a complete break with the politics of yore when Government rode roughshod over citizens.

My suggestions are:

Publish the list of all the property owners who will directly benefit from the scheme revision - only then may we know if injustices are really being addressed with this exercise or if else new ones are being created.

Abandon the whole 'rationalisation' idea and lobby Government to grant Lm2 million over a number of years as compensation to those with whom an injustice was committed way back in 1987. Is the figure of 200 individuals negatively affected by the 1987 exercise a conservative one? Lm10,000 granted to each of these is adequate, I suppose, applying property values of the time. I cannot fathom Government stating that Lm2 million is too prohibitive a sum. After all, the owners of land at Tas-Sellum in Mellieha were handsomely compensated with alternative land in Mellieha - officialdom has it that ecological considerations were behind the move, but what about the stability of the land at Tas-Sellum? It seems that the Tas-Sellum area is not that amenable for development due to its geological and slope characteristics.

Mr Pullicino stated that "closing of development boundaries will benefit the environment" - as is evident from the maps issued by MEPA, boundaries should already be closed due to the existence of a road cordoning off further development beyond its point. A case in point is Attard, where the proposed development will encroach in front of the existing road - in such cases, no need exists for further revisions since boundaries have already been sealed off by existing roads.

Rally post-mortem

One can see why Mr Pullicino took exception to a placard carried at the Valletta rally on June 10 equating him with the late Public Works Minister Lorry Sant - the two certainly belong to diametrically opposed lines of environmental thought. However, in the eyes of many, Mr Pullicino is going down the same lane as Mr Sant through the scheme revision schemes.

The organisers cannot control all that happens during the rally - hence, if individuals turn up with makeshift placards with their own personal message, rally organisers have no say over that. They can only actively control which NGOs or groups are affiliated to the rally. Having said that, freedom of speech should be safeguarded by allowing such placards rather than chastising the rally organisers because of them.

Management of sites by NGOs should not be used by those in power to threaten punitive action.

Heartening news

There is a glimmer of good news about the scheme revisions but they are not of the same genre as those highlighted by Charles Pace in his piece "The good news about the building zones" (The Sunday Times, June 18). In fact, I disagree with him that the eye-catching good news about the rationalisation process is that 42 per cent of the additions constituted by government land will be moved out of green areas to be used for 'social purposes'.

Is Mr Pace so naïve as to think that this whole exercise is being done to keep property prices from shooting up further? Does anyone believe that this exercise will lower property prices? Such prices should already be low since, as has been reiterated for the umpteenth time, there is space to develop 98,000 dwelling units till 2020 (and we need just 41,200) - hence, supply is not the problem.

One of Government's undeclared objectives is to profit from the selling of plots on its land which is to be included - little thought will be given for 'social purposes'. I agree with Mr Pace on one thing, though: while the public was given the luxury of voting for the euro coin design, it was not consulted on the criteria presented to Cabinet. Only then can Government boast about a fully consultative and transparent society - let's publish the names of those who drafted these criteria, please!

Government must concede that the writing is truly on the wall, with all sectors of society stretching every sinew to oppose the scheme revisions. A case in point is the exhortation by Paul Vella, Nationalist mayor of Mgarr, who lashed out, together with leading members of the Mgarr community, against plans to develop the area adjacent to the church parvis.

As a yardstick of the public dissent out there for the scheme revision, one could use The Times online poll, where (at the time of writing) a staggering 78 per cent of those who voted stated that they were against the scheme revision, with only 18 per cent in favour and a further four per cent saying that the decision should be delayed.

Apart from public dissent, some MPs have gone against the grain and denounced, on their own steam, plans to compromise even more land. Dr Frans Agius, for example, said that he hoped that no agricultural land would be lost in the current drive to have a golf course and new road at Manikata, while Evarist Bartolo has again defended the integrity of Manikata, destined for a veritable upheaval.

Fekruna Bay - MEPA forced to backtrack

I have clamoured in the past to spare the Fekruna Bay environs from development and so I am understandably perturbed by its recent inclusion within development boundaries.

The then Planning Authority scheduled Fekruna Bay, excluding it from development in 1996. It had consequently rejected an application to build two villas in the bay in 1998 and, following an appeal by the developer, maintained its position following recommendations by its Environmental Management Unit (report dated December 6, 1999).

The North West Local Plan published in 2001 redefined the development boundary to exclude Fekruna Bay from future development (Xemxija Policy Map 3.7 and Changes to Scheme 4,6 Figure 18.4 refer), and listed the bay as a protected site (NWSP 40, pp. 82, 83).

The developer instituted proceedings in the Constitutional Court for compensation following the scheduling of Fekruna Bay, and MEPA shelved its decision on the developer's appeal.

In 2002, following public concern, MEPA's marketing executive publicly declared that it "will continue to defend its case for this scheduling to be enforced".

However, from MEPA's interpretation of Cabinet Memo on the Rationalisation of Development Boundaries (Map 41a refers), Fekruna Bay is listed within the development boundary and therefore will become available for development following Cabinet approval.

This makes a mockery of all recommendations as per MEPA's Environment Management Unit report and the listing of the bay as a protected site.

Putting your money where your mouth is

Dr Chris Ciantar from the MRAE states that "the environment is not only waste" and he continues in the same vein in another piece by stressing that we should protect biodiversity. I am obviously foursquare with him on this. But how can he then legitimate the taking of so much land with the conservation of biodiversity? He will argue that no ecologically sensitive land will be encroached upon - true, but the development cordon will be moved closer to such land (e.g. closer to the Natura 2000 site at Mellieha).

You would not normally associate David Casa with environmental statements since his direct field of competence is the EU. Writing in The Sunday Times last week he brags about the increase in Government's expenditure on the environment, advances in waste management, tree-planting ventures and the lot, all of which are truly laudable but which all pale in view of what is being proposed.

Mr Casa makes no mention of the scheme revision process, while at the same time proudly tying the government's commitment to a sustainable strategy for the islands. How can one reconcile the two?

The saying goes that "if you can't beat them, join them" - the PN, unlike the MLP (which is more deft at heavy-handed confrontations) is inclined to such foibles (e.g. Mr Casa and Dr Victor Scerri, among others, were present at the environmental rally). The saying should not only be paid lip service but adhered to by the PN, by putting its money where its mouth is and really turn the environment into a priority and embrace the tenets proclaimed by the National Commission for Sustainable Development.

Fading Siggiewi lifestyle

News that the village (if one may still call it that) of Siggiewi is rekindling its agricultural traditions by organising exhibitions and the like in the village core are to be commended.

Such initiatives, however, jar with plans for the village, and can only be considered as the flourishes of a dying culture. Try as the mayor might, the village is nowadays more synonymous with speculation than agricultural verve.

Inside information

Despite my differences with Michael Falzon, I agree with him on three points he raises in his contribution in Malta Today (June 4), namely that while a large percentage of applications (75 per cent) are being recommended for refusal, the figure drops to 25 per cent at recommendation stage; that San Gwann has three town centres ("as if it were New York") and that MEPA is "bound to remain an unpopular institution".

However, I beg to differ with his method in contributing to the current scheme revision exercise. Appearing on Realtà (Smash TV) a few weeks back, he launched a vitriolic attack on Harry Vassallo and the representatives of the newly-fledged Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar for the way they 'incited' their supporters to watch the programme due to the presence of notorious construction bigwigs. Incidentally, Mr Falzon had joined the online forum hosted by AD (Gozo) and submitted a few contributions himself.

What is highly objectionable is that he chose to avail himself of the facilities provided by the 'enemy' camp (no gripe about that) not to contribute constructively to the online discussion but to overview the various contributions and then spill the beans on TV.

Gozo... more madness

The MLP and the Gozo Tourism Association have quite a jaundiced view of what sustainable development for Gozo is all about, especially when one considers their joint statement supporting an airstrip for Gozo. Besides this development, the MLP lists a golf course and a yacht marina as panaceas for the island's economy.

The Gozo Tourism Association should take a page out of the MHRA's book when it spoke against the current rationalisation process and out of The Sunday Times' book when it bemoaned the current pillage of Gozo in its editorial last week - "Is the short-term gain of a few developers on Gozo worth the destruction of the island's greatest assets - its rustic character, greenery, unhurried village life and unspoilt surroundings? Those assets are now under threat as never before. There are various ways to achieve the island's economic progress, but destruction of its soul is certainly not one of them."

With the current controversy about the scheme revisions, I am in no mood to include any silver linings, all of which certainly pale in comparison with what is being proposed. I make an exception however regarding the clean-up at Selmun organised by Dhalia staff a few weeks back. Such a clean-up should be praised, but property dealers like Dhalia would be harmonising their green credentials much better by staving off the current property boom through the use of responsible advertisements.

Property dealers seem to promise heaven on earth, to the tune of gargantuan five-bathroom farmhouses tucked away in remote areas, etc, effectively whetting the individual's appetite for irresponsible property purchases.

deidunfever@yahoo.co.uk; alpra1@mail.global.net.mt