Dying seems less sad than having lived too little

The death of the Corinthia Jerma Palace Hotel on March 31 has hit us southerners, and all Maltese who want our tourism to thrive, right where it hurts most.

Owned by a Libyan government company (LAFICO) and managed by Corinthia Hotels International, the Jerma Palace, apart from being an important cog in the wheel of the economy of the south of the island, showed that the southern part of the island, despite what some in the government believe, is an important part of the whole tourism picture.

Actually, it has to do less with the hurt that the Jerma has died and more with the disappointment that the hotel and all it symbolised lived too little.

The truth is that, as things stand today, in the south of our island, after the demise of the Jerma, there is not a single four- or five-star hotel left to cater for tourists who would like to experience this cultural and traditional part of the package which we can offer to foreigners.

The south can boast of the most ancient Neolithic temples, the most intriguing fortresses and palaces, the most formidable bastions, some of the most beautiful scenery and offers a unique view of "Maltese tradition" through the different way of life of the southerners. Nevertheless, despite all these assets, after the death of Jerma, we in the south have been left with an absolute void, with no four- or five-star hotel.

This, in turn, brings with it a whole negative domino effect. Take, for instance, the bars and restaurants in Marsascala area. Without the Jerma Palace providing them with a sizable amount of foreign patrons, they are set to suffer a big blow. Or take the workers who, after the hotel's closure, are now looking for another job. If we all agree that "it is the economy" which we must constantly keep in mind, then you would soon realise that the death of Jerma is the signal of much worse things to come.

Apart from being a life-long resident of the Zejtun-Marsascala area, I spent a brief but important time working as a member of the Jerma sales team of Jerma under Gino Mifsud, and so I can perhaps speak with greater conviction about the wonderful opportunities which a four- or five-star hotel in the south of Malta can offer.

I still remember clearly a sizable list of major foreign group organisers who used to tell me that they had repeatedly, week after week, chosen the Jerma to host their groups precisely because of its location. Some used to take pride in offering their clients a sub-aqua holiday. Others offered nearly exclusively cultural holidays and I used to see them growing and prospering.

Those who succeeded me in my job when I decided to study law, have assured me that since my time the sales aspect of the hotel was always doing reasonably well, despite the absolute disaster which this government has led the tourism sector into.

I wonder what these group organisers are saying now that the Jerma is gone or, worse, whether they are still believing in Malta's potential as a tourist destination.

What was even more insulting for us residents of the south was the way in which the death of the Jerma took place, being shrouded in absolute mystery.

Indeed, after long months of speculation, it was only in the middle of last month that the hotel's employees were told that their job was at stake.

During that period, it was reported that a local company, J.P. Brothers, had signed a promise of sale over the site with the intent to turn it into a residential complex. If this is true, we have not only witnessed the death of a hotel but also the end of any hope of having another hotel in the immediate future. However, if the prospective buyers intend to turn the hotel into a residential complex, there are two important issues to be kept in mind.

One concerns the extraordinary legal instruments used in the original transfer of the site and the additional requisites needed to ratify the subsequent change of use. The second issue deals with the Local Action Plan and MEPA's role in this situation.

Let me discuss the legal aspect first. The situation is very simple. Since the site on which the Jerma was built was transferred to LAFICO back in the Seventies by the then Labour government, this transfer, according to law, had to be ratified by the House of Representatives.

Furthermore, it is very logical to suggest that, either expressly or implicitly, the transfer of the real right, which could have been either temporary or permanent, must have necessarily carried the condition that the barren land de quo was being transferred uniquely for the construction of a hotel.

Therefore, independently of the relationship between the manager and the owner (i.e. Corinthia and LAFICO) or the owner and the subsequent owner (LAFICO and the prospective buyers), the House of Representatives has to approve a resolution to allow the prospective owner to change the use of the Jerma from that a hotel to a residential complex.

The question at this point is simple: when this resolution is presented to Parliament, how will the Tourism Minister vote? Will the representatives of the third electoral district on the Nationalist side approve it? What about the Prime Minister himself?

The second issue is from the planning side. Replying to Parliamentary Question No. 21315 by Labour MP Silvio Parnis, Environment Minister George Pullicino replied that the development of the Jerma site is regulated by policy SMMS 15, which is found in the South Local Plan.

This policy contemplates the creation of a development brief with an emphasis on tourism and can include both residential and commercial components.

The minister stressed that due attention should be given to the site's strategic position and reiterated that this development brief is bound to be issued for public consultation.

The most interesting thing to note about policy SMMS 15 is that for some reason or another it was nowhere to be seen in the first draft local plan, which formed the basis of the consultation with the respective parties, including myself as councillor of Marsascala. In fact, the original draft sent over to the local council, did not include SMMS 15, with the policy numbers arriving only to 13.

So am I correct to suggest that SMMS 15 was introduced in the South Local Plan very late in the day, with the government fully aware of the intentions of the prospective buyers?

What is even more disturbing is that the emphasis on "tourism" which the minister placed in his parliamentary answer is greatly watered down in the actual text of SMMS15, giving MEPA the power to alternatively decide between Plan A (tourist accommodation) and B (other comprehensive development options). Admittedly, as much as it may sound to be a fine line, it can be easily distinguished by anyone with an attentive mind. Indeed, let me reproduce SMMS 15 verbatim:

"Any development proposals on the Jerma Palace Hotel site will be subject to the submission of a development brief to be drawn up following terms of reference provided by MEPA. While the development of the site should focus primarily on the provision of tourist accommodation, MEPA will consider other development options, which would include residential and commercial development, provided these are part of a comprehensive development of the area and should include sufficient public urban open space while retaining access to the foreshore.

"The site currently occupied by the Jerma Palace Hotel site should be mainly used for tourist accommodation in view of the strategic location of the site for such purposes. However, a comprehensive development of the site, including residential and commercial uses, may be considered provided this forms part of a development brief for the area. MEPA will provide terms of reference which will include planning parameters, e.g. site coverage, building heights, to guide the submission of development options. The brief should consider providing for public urban open spaces as well as retain public access to the foreshore."

Both MEPA and the Environment Minister can rest assured that all the parties in Marsascala will unite to ensure, with all possible means, that the development brief contemplated in SMMS 15 will not be a repeat of the shameful acts by MEPA in the recent past. We will be vigilant, we will be strong and united as we have been on the other issues hitting Marsascala and the south of Malta.

These will be (dis)pleasures yet to come, though they will come about very shortly. They will find us prepared, ready to take all legal action to which we are entitiled.

In the meantime, we need some time to come to terms with the idea that not only the Jerma is no more, but that Jerma has lived too little.