Ghadira project would be abandoned if studies are negative
All environmental and scientific studies on the Ghadira road project are to be held and if these prove negative, the project would be abandoned, the Infrastructure Ministry said.
Replying to a statement by the opposition, the ministry said the government was to hold all the studies required by law so it was not true that it was using the case to divert attention.
In a statement this morning, the Labour Party's spokesman for the environment, Leo Brincat said there were clear indications that the Ghadira Road issue was raised at this moment in time to divert the public's attention from the new water and electricity tariffs.
But the people's anger over this project was so big that the government was in a state of panic, Mr Brincat said.
He observed that the Prime Minister had remained silent on the issue and used a spokesman from his office to promise that a scientific study would be held before the government bound itself with the proposal submitted by Infrastructure Minister Austin Gatt.
Had there been a serious government, Mr Brincat said, it would have said whether studies were held to indicate that Ghadira Bay would suffer if a status quo was retained, how it would suffer and over what period. It would also have said whether studies which clearly indicated that the proposed project would halt such a loss had been held.
The government, Mr Brincat said, should also say if there were ongoing studies on coastal erosion.
Mr Brincat asked how ethical and acceptable it was of Dr Gatt to confirm in a news conference that the government would forge ahead with this project when next to him he had the environmental consultant who had prepared the strategic environmental assessment for Ghadira in the name of the hotel which the media had been speculating would greatly benefit from Dr Gatt's proposal.
The ministry said that the 2004 study by the environmental consultancy firm Adi Consultants showed that the current road was badly affecting the ecology of Ghadira Bay.
He said it was not serious and ethical of the opposition to doubt a professional report just because this was commissioned by a hotel in the area. The fact remained that this report concluded that the development of the current road in the 1980s had badly affected the bay.
The government wanted a holistic solution which addressed the infrastructural, environmental and economical aspects and its project would be based on the studies to be held in the coming months.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
20 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kevin Chircop
Dec 12th 2008, 20:26
To All PN Apologists:
Question:
Do you know why you never complain about the sorrow state of roads in Malta?
Answer:
BECAUSE YOUR GOVERNMENT IS TAKING YOU FOR A RIDE ALL THE TIME AND YOU DON'T EVEN NOTICE!
Joseph Micallef
Dec 12th 2008, 17:52
Ok I will obey Mr.Saliba lest I'm doomed. You know and understand it all...wow you can even read between the lines and brain neurons. Am I not eternally grateful to be living in a land abounding with such people.
If I may only dare suggest....next time ask what I meant, before jumping to conclusions.
One last thing.....you wouldn't by any chance know next week's Super 5 winning combination.
John Saliba
Dec 12th 2008, 17:39
I don't see any reason why you're considering my conclusion as if it was inspired by some divine hand. Your comment is full of big words but at the end of the day you still fall short of explaining what your real intentions behind these comments are. Now if this isn't illogical, I wonder, why did you add your comment in the first place? I presume because you had something to say about the embarrassing situation that minister Gatt is putting ppl in, right? Or was your intention was precisely that of "diverting people's attention" from the real things. Please, if you're going to comment again, do not spare us any of your hidden thoughts, otherwise you really don't need to add anything. As I said before, we understand.
P.Schembri
Dec 12th 2008, 17:14
@A. Mangion. Are you by any chance of the email receivers sent by PBO by mistake? Because you're always singing the same song and ringing the same bell!!!
Joseph Micallef
Dec 12th 2008, 16:22
Oh! I see Mr. Saliba, so you confirm that you did not find anything in my comments to peg your prefabricated illogical reasoning but you just felt the divine right (typical) to decide what I thought. Good to know! After all birds of a feather........Oh no let me refrain!!!! as otherwise I run the risk of being told that I favour the hunters lobby or birdlife…..or maybe the poultry industry…or the nay-turkey-in-the pot association campaigning against the forthcoming slaughter.
lgalea
Dec 12th 2008, 15:08
All the projects being proposed by Gonzipn and Gattpn are simply to alienate the people from the budget burdens that they have been burdened with and if any of them takes off it will be to take care of friends and friends of friends.
John Saliba
Dec 12th 2008, 15:03
@Joseph Micallef
What does it equate to then? You have refrained from giving us lot, your logical thoughts about this issue. It seems you fell short of any plausible arguments that will not shade darker shadows upon the minister's attitude and action... "but then again......well, never mind! " we understand the embarrassment that all this is creating, what we cannot do is tolerate it anymore.
E. Anastasi
Dec 12th 2008, 14:37
No, E. Gatt - Socialists expect government to put people's/society's interests first and not some hotelier's capitalist interests. It has become widely acknowledged, even by the new PL statute, that environmental detriment is fundamentally equal to the detriment of society. If it takes saying a "no" then it is well merited.
Joseph Micallef
Dec 12th 2008, 14:29
Dear Mr. Saliba
How you equate my comment to "you whole heartedly agreeing to this way of doing things in Malta" is mysterious! The quality of your logic defeates my common mortal capabilities, but then again......well, never mind!
michael fenech
Dec 12th 2008, 13:55
@ E.Gatt.
Mr.Gatt please wake up and smell the coffee before it's to late.
Mr. J.Saliba, VERY WELL SAID.
E Gatt
Dec 12th 2008, 12:49
The country is moving ahead on number of fronts but the Socialists expect everything to stop to address one issue. They are really living up to their name: PL Partit tal-Le
John Saliba
Dec 12th 2008, 12:33
@Mangion & Micallef
With your statements are you whole heartedly agreeing to this way of doing things in Malta? In this specific case you are both agreeing with minister Gatt's proposals to go ahead with these plans notwithstanding the undeniable facts that there is a hotel involved which is pushing for this project because it will stand to gain a lot from all this. Furthermore, this is not about whether government is capable of doing more then one thing at the same time, its however about government being able to do the right things at the same time.
A Mangion
Dec 12th 2008, 11:38
How petty! As if government can't do two tasks at the same time! Labour has become a press release production machine!!!
Joseph Micallef
Dec 12th 2008, 11:25
People are multi-channelled and are able to prioritise for themselves. But then again I understand that being a socialist, or as you call yourselves recently - progressives, makes you fell you need to take care of the lesser mortals.
M Grech
Dec 12th 2008, 11:11
so finally someone is putting things in their REAL perspective. I hate being treated as stupid.
J. Borg
Dec 12th 2008, 11:10
Would GonziPN and/or Austin Gatt act in such arrogant and deceitful manner, if the PN was in coalition government with Alternattiva Demokratika?
Sure not......maybe that was why GonziPN strived so much to emphasise that it will not be in the (N)ational(ists) interest that Malta has a coalition government!
This twisted logic becomes more apparent, if one considers that the same GonziPN, was ready to "risk" (according to some) having Dr. Alfred Sant as PM, rather than having AD as a sensible check to any minister's arrogance or to subtle and not so subtle party interests.
J calleja
Dec 12th 2008, 11:08
@jp borg
And I do not
Pierre Paul Portelli
Dec 12th 2008, 11:07
I couldn't agree more and here I'd like to emphasize and stress on the fact that this should not turn in a politcal pig pong ball once again. As a citizen of this country I feel that this government doesn't really have there bearings straight yet!
I mean let's face it, why is it that we're constantly mentioning new projects that cost millions of €s instead of putting everything on hold for the next 2 years to survive the upcoming credit crises and especially these ridiculous surcharge bills!
Dr Gonzi keeps saying, "look at the positive side of things" & "Judge us on what we do and not on what we say". Dr Gonzi's politics would be good for the people in a Socialist idealistic country but when one is constanlty brain washed by the party medias, that eventually turns into faith & everyone starts to adore you, like what happened in the past elections. But Alas Mr PM the honeymoon period is over, looking back 9 months, I can honestly say that the PN did everything possible to win the elections just to cling onto power & we all know that
power = money. MALTA WAKE UP !
A C Camilleri
Dec 12th 2008, 11:06
may I add two other spins; the Valletta citygate project and the huge oil wells Malta is sitting on.....perhaps the latter will be left for election time.
jp borg
Dec 12th 2008, 10:41
I totally agree with Mr Brincat..