Foundation welcomes Church, DLH positions on museum extension

Sergio Galea Vincenti

Aug 28th 2008, 11:21

Consistency and credibility are something which I always ascribed to Din l-Art Helwa and the Foundation but this case has substantially tarnish both of these organisations' standing:

a. If the Foundation was serious about its intentions, it would have carried out public consultations and studies before submitting planning applications to MEPA.

b. To what extent was Din l-Art Helwa's position on the proposal for St. John's motivated by the fact that the Curator of the St. John's Co-Cathedral Committee is a member of Din l-Art Helwa's Executive Committee?

c. Why is it that Din l-Art Helwa is now calling for an EIA and suchlike when in other instances it categorically and correctly pressed for the respect of buffer zones and invoked our international obligations. For those interested, please have a look at the following PR on DLH's site: http://www.dinlarthelwa.org/content/view/85/69/

d. Why is it being conveniently forgotten that not only FAA expressed itself the project as proposed but also other entities such as MEPA's Heritage Advisory Committee, the Valletta Local Council and especially the Church's own Commission for Catholic Heritage?

Before these questions are answered honestly, I believe that a lot of doubts shall surround the honesty involved in this proposal.

Astrid Vella

Aug 28th 2008, 10:26

@ABC,IvanTanti:Take your favourite expression”Knee-jerk reactions”-we studied the files at MEPA three times,held sessions with consultants and those involved-is that a knee-jerk reaction?The truth is that further delays would have made our objections invalid at MEPA, which of course would suit the Foundation just fine.

Our arguments have been based on the law,ie the Cultural Heritage Act, Grading of monuments stating“Grade 1 Buildings of outstanding architectural or historical interest shall be preserved IN THEIR ENTIRETY. Demolition or alterations which impair the setting or change the external or internal appearance, including anything contained within the curtilage of the building, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. Internal structural alterations will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances for keeping the building in active use.” We base our arguments on the law and you accuse us of basing on emotion. As a lawyer surely that must take the cake!

We have proposed alternatives,yet you repeatedly say that we do not want any upgrading to happen.Our opinion is that shared by the MEPA Planning Directorate,Heritage Advisory Committee Valletta Local Council, VFRC and the Church Commission on Cultural Heritage yet you say we are isolated.

Could you answer all the above points, with no digressions

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Aug 28th 2008, 07:38

Franco Farrugia - my only gripe against FAA (and everyone else who had a knee-jerk reaction) was that they lumped the Foundation in with the sort of bloated plutocrat who would have wanted to build a tower-block instead of the Cathedral. I don't want to sound patronizing (well...), of course we need NGOs and citizens to be on their guard, but this does not mean they are immune from criticism themselves if they are perceived to have gone too far. The thing is, because they are righteous, they sometimes come across as self-righteous.

When all the evidence is in, we'll see who was right or wrong. I, for one, am reserving judgment on the merits, because there's probably much more (or less) to the proposals than we, the public, know.

I meant no disrespect, implied or otherwise, to the eminent clerical gentlemen you mentioned, my point wasn't to make fun of them.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 28th 2008, 04:37

@ Mr Tanti - Hate to have to contradict you, but the only NGO mentioned in this 'episode' is the FAA which you choose to attack so vehemently.
Yes, I DO defend FAA because it is a much-needed NGO and we need more like it.
Just because and if we, the so-called 'detractors', are 'isolated', it still does not mean that we are wrong.

James A. Tyrrell

Aug 27th 2008, 23:18

@Mark Tanti. You make out that the only people in Malta who are against this proposed development are FAA. That sir is wrong and you well know it.

Valletta Local Council’s architect is against it, NGOs are against it, the vast majority of Maltese people who have commented in the blogs are against it and now we learn that even the Church Commission on Cultural Heritage is against it, oh and Mepa itself has described it as a non-starter. FAA must be proud to be 'isolated' in such company!

mark tanti

Aug 27th 2008, 21:31

Mr Franco Farrugia, You see how resposible NGO's operate ? You see what a constructive position these two NGO's took ? Do you realise that FAA is isolated in this issue. ? Are you perhaps thinking that you and the FAA are the only people in Malta who do not want to see any damage done to St John Co-Cathedral ?
In a previous comment of your's you suggested that I should remove my blinkers, Well now you can see who is wearing the blinkers because it is evident that you are on your own defending the position taken by FAA which in my opinion was a rushed position but which in the future could be changed to a constructive position.
Mr Farrugia we might not agree but we should always remain friends :) :)

James A. Tyrrell

Aug 27th 2008, 21:15

@Ivan Vella. You talk of the seriousness and prudence of the comments made by the Church Environment Commission and from Din l-Art Helwa's president. May I remind you that it has taken weeks for these serious and prudent comments to be dragged screaming and shouting into the daylight and then mainly due to the good work of FAA and pressure from the public. Why has it taken so long? You say that In Malta, an increasingly conservative mentality is growing of 'leave everything as it always was'. That has a familiar ring to it for some reason. Almost tempted to say your slip is showing! Whatever, the point is that St. John's should be left as it is forever. As a tourist I come to see the history and the wonderful heritage that surrounds your country. Any 'hidden treasures' should be displayed in a separate building renovated specially for that purpose. The most important people in your history, the Knights, gave this Co-Cathedral to the country. What right does anyone have to risk the structural integrity of the building or to disturb the resting-place of the Knights themselves, in the name of tourism?

Franco Farrugia

Aug 27th 2008, 18:14

@ Ivan Vella - With all due respect, why take it against the inviduals, Maltese citizens like yourself, for wasting our time in dealing with this issue? Why insult us? Please, read my comments to ABC and you will see for yourself why the immediacy of our 'negativity' as you claim!

You refer to 'hidden treasures' within the Cathedral. There are ALWAYS hidden treasures and articles in museums all over the world - there is never any need for all artefacts to be exhibited at the same time. Not only that, but museums collaborate with each other to make themselves even more interesting: so, you have artefacts belonging to St John's which is on exhbition in, say, somewhere in the States.

'Sweeping baseless statements that passes off as public debate in Malta' - while I thank you very much for your gratitude in our regard, for personally standing up and being counted, I suggest that you study deeper what is being proposed for St John's.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 27th 2008, 18:09

@ ABC: Are you personally satisfied that you have people who attack the work that is done by a particular NGO, such as FAA, with whom I have absolutely no connections, by the way? We scream so much about the need of having valid NGOs and then we try and do our best to shoot one down, just because it goes against our way of thinking and making money (not a dig at you, this time)?

We, so-called 'detractors' - that's what the Foundation calls those that do not agree with it - are being thrown into hell, literally, for daring to comment about these outrageous proposals because, they say, assessments have not yet been made. But do you need an assessment to be made if someone comes telling you that he's going to build a 30-storey hotel next to your house, in a street with only bangalows allowed? Just an example. Or, which assessment is going to take into consideration ALL ASPECTS INVOLVED in the case for building over the graveyard, which is personally, my main concern? Which assessment is going to take into account the spirituality of the issue? Of course emotions are important here!

Franco Farrugia

Aug 27th 2008, 18:03

@ ABC: No, no need for 'the gates of hell' opening at you, Dr BC. I am not like you. I do not attack people who do not attack me personally. If you attack me personally, I will retaliate, if you don't, then we'll just keep on with the arguments, and that is just fine.
But, being who you are, if I were you, I would keep away from the argument. You are not average citizen, the way I am. Let's leave it at that, for the time being, shall we?

Dr BC, I mentioned those people because I know them to be great lovers of art, and they are also quite eminent in local Church circles with regard to their experience in things artistic.

Your way of trying (tongue in cheek, ok, ok!) to ridicule these names by bringing in the 'sacristan of the chapel of San Niklaw ta' Budebus', for instance, is only aimed at these individuals, not at me.

Let me put to you a question: Aren't you interested in seeing the public showing interest and participating in all that happens? Am I not entitled to question the sense of such proposals?

Ivan Vella

Aug 27th 2008, 16:41

At last, some serious and prudent comments from the Church Environment Commission and from Din l-Art Helwa's president (there had already been another favourable statement by Din l-Art Helwa a few weeks ago) regarding this proposed project.
This seriousness and prudence is as opposed to the sensational and immediate negativity by some commentators and an organisation that immediately dismissed this project out of hand even before any studies and impact assessments yet to be conducted.
In Malta, an increasingly conservative mentality is growing of 'leave everything as it always was'. This is very unfortunate as the Co-Cathedral's treasures are right now hidden for lack of space in a 'museum' that is actually a few rooms built in the 1960s.
We should not doubt the genuineness of the Co-Cathedral Foundation even while awaiting the results of a serious impact assessment. Only after these applications move forward and an impact assessment is held can one engage in fruitful debate on fact and without the sensationalism and sweeping baseless statements that passes off as public debate in Malta.

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Aug 27th 2008, 16:23

What about the Parish Priest of Bubingemma, the Mother Superior of the Convent of the Pious Hopes and the sacristan of the chapel of San Niklaw ta' Budebus, for that matter?

I ask with my tongue slightly in my cheek, before the gates of hell are opened all over me.

Anthony Briffa

Aug 27th 2008, 15:24

Should the permit for the excavation of ST John's square be finally approved, along with all the watchdogs mentioned by DLH, we might also add the PAC to investigate why so much public funds were wasted before the election for the paving project. Government should break this silence and express its opinion on the whole project taking into consideration the funds already invested in the area and the disturbance the public in general and the business communiy around St. John's in particular had to endure this time last year. There is total disregard of the people who are earning a living in the area.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 27th 2008, 15:19

Why are there all these attacks against those who are standing up for St John's? Why this negative attitude towards individuals who exceptionally show they care for our heritage?

'rushed and destructive statements that were expressed by a few organisations' - Is this how the Foundation look on the public's participation?

And when you mention the Church, are we sure who the Church is?

What does a certain Msgr. Vincent Borg have to say about the matter?

What about Fr Edgar Vella of Mgarr?

And what about Fr Gino Gauci? What do these three people have to say about the whole matter?

Answers please! Or are we afraid of showing that the 'Church' is divided on this issue?