Opposition motion urges government to stop underground extension of St John's museum

Raymond Sammut

Jan 24th 2009, 21:48

@ F Cassar

The government of Malta, not Dr Muscat, is title holder of the land on which the cathedral is build. The cathedral itself is technically government property following the expulsion of the Order by the new French administration in 1798. The British administration, in turn, allowed the Bishop of Malta to have a seat at the cathedral, but not more. It is, therefore, not a matter for the government to "poke" but to safeguard this irreplaceable national asset.

Furthermore, as Astrid Vella is pointing out, the Foundation is a 50-50 effort between the government and the Church. So again, the government is not "poking", but is playing its important and necessary role in this matter, as much as the Church authorities should also do.

This government role, entailing the entire coterie of MPs in parliament (some 69 of them) must centre around a body of more than a thousand letters that have been signed and submitted over the past several months by members of the public (or civil society if you like) to Dr Gonzi both as head of government and as head of MEPA.

Astrid Vella

Jan 24th 2009, 21:25

@ F Cassar:

Of course I'm not advocating that Government takes over matters of civil society - didn't you read my piece highlighting the ways in which the public has been deprived of its rights to access information on the project?

On the other hand I maintain that Government must carry out its responsibilities in the interests of the whole community, and not just small sectors. Once the Co-Cathedral has devolved to Church and State, they are both obliged to work for the greater good. The Foundation statements that it has St. John's interests at heart impress nobody, given this project's threat to the Cathedral's very stability.

Given the availability of alternatives that are much less risky, damaging and expensive, this project only benefits the architect and developer who carry it out. For that reason we cannot understand how the Monsijuri not to mention our politicians, can support such a project.

F Cassar

Jan 24th 2009, 20:31

@ Astrid Vella

Are you proposing that Government pokes his nose in matters of civil society?!

I hope you don't ax inkella im seriously disappointed!

Astrid Vella

Jan 24th 2009, 20:02

@ F Cassar:
Government DOES have a role in this.Government controls 50% of the Foundation through its appointees who include Richard Cachia Caruana,a Foundation Director who also 'happens' to have a large say in decisions on EU funding, a conflict of interest if ever there was one.

You are right that the decision on this should be taken by civil society, but civil society has been deprived of that opportunity from the start,when the Foundation tried to slip the MEPA applications through without going to public consultation as should have been done with a national monument. The Foundation's written requests to MEPA to pass the project as soon as possible are further proof of this as was the fact that the presentation to the NGOs was closed to the general public and to journalists.

Even the public's input in the submission of the Terms of Reference has been limited by the fact that the Project Description Statement was not available from the Local Council as publicised.

F Cassar

Jan 24th 2009, 19:15

Does Joseph think that Government should poke its nose in everything?!

This IS NOT a Government project so please Government keep out of it!!

Whether there should be the extension or not is up to civil society to decide u la Joseph u l-ebda politiku iehor!

Joseph's attitude is big brotherly like and definetly NO European!

Astrid Vella

Jan 24th 2009, 19:00

You can sign a petition against the desecration &possible damaging of St. John's on: http://www.ambjentahjar.org/ We suggest that anyone interested in the protection of Malta's heritage and environment sign up with FAA(free of charge)to be updated on ongoing developments.

As regards alternatives to this project, we have maintained all along that we were the first to support the Foundation in expanding the museum,but in a way that has a less damaging impact on Valletta.

Several venues have been proposed, including dilapidated palazzos which are for sale just opposite St. John's.If the Foundation wants the tapestries to be viewed together,there is the old market,or better still,the great Knights' Hall at the ConferenceCentre,that would make an excellent setting not only because of its suitable proportions but also as a prestigious knights' building of world renown.

However the Foundation won't hear of any alternatives,quoting an argument that only held water 300 years ago,that the tapestries should be kept at St.John's.This argument falls the moment they are not hung in the nave,the place they were intended for.

The Environment ImpactAssessment can never be impartial once those paying for it,the Foundation,refuse to study alternatives, an essential part of any EIA

Albert .G. Cunningham

Jan 24th 2009, 17:40

www.facebook.com/group.php?=51377542060
"Say No to the Co-Cathedral Project" -------for all those who disagree with this project!!

James A. Tyrrell

Jan 24th 2009, 17:39

I fail to see what all the arguing is about here as the very idea of such a project is madness. The Foundation who say they would never do anything to cause harm to the structure of the Co-Cathedral are proposing to do just that.

This is the same foundation that prevented a shop next to St.John's from digging a basement due to possible harm being done to the Co-Cathedral!

I also find it interesting that the motion by Joseph Muscat is basically word for word what Astrid Vella has been saying since she first brought this development to light.

To Adrian Galea who asks if any constructive proposals as to viable alternatives have been made I say where have you been sleeping? Read the excellent proposals put forward by Ms. Vella and FAA.

To those who say that there is a consultation process going on and that Joseph Muscat should not be making political mileage regarding it, remember that if it hadn't been for Astrid Vella and FAA bringing this matter into the public arena the first you would have known about it would have been when the trucks started rolling!

lgalea

Jan 24th 2009, 17:15

A.Gauci Cunningham
Link?

D Vella

Jan 24th 2009, 16:48

Mark Tanti, not that this has anything to do with the article in hand but JPO brought his own fall., He didn't need anyone else to do it for him.Cry no tears.. It's a pity that you have to bring down a proposal like this to the level of gutter politics. Most people I know,on both sides of the political divide are against the 'Selling' of St John's you know.

Come up with a valid argument' for' the proposal and at least we might listen to you.

L Aquilina

Jan 24th 2009, 16:24

I think we can forget the bit about Valetta looking like a building site for a while Albert,after all most buildings need maintenance especially old ones,dust,holes etc are an inevitable part of that.

However I am against this assault on St.Johns for all the reasons eloquently put elsewhere.

As a matter of fact there already is a petition against all these proposals, somewhere on the internet to which you can put your name to. Name escapes me.

Manuel Micallef

Jan 24th 2009, 15:33

I don't understand certain PN supporters writting here;

In a democracy, which I hopefully believe PN wants Malta to be, you have issues which are discussed in Parliament and after deputies vote on them. Why is PN so concerned to discuss this issue in Parliament?!

A.Gauci Cunningham

Jan 24th 2009, 15:30

@ Astrid Vella and all those who feel strongly about this project-----I have just started a Facebook group called " Say No to the Co-Cathedral Project"......I'd appretiate it if you joined and told people to join too!!

We will not stand idle while our Heritage is abused of when there are far better options!!

Thanks and regards
Albert Gauci Cunningham

Enzo Caruana

Jan 24th 2009, 14:54

I agree 100% with Mr Gauci Cunningham's comments on this issue. In a previous comment he correctly brought in UNESCO in the argument. Valletta is a World Heritage site and nothing should be done that harms or goes against this prestigous classification. St John's courtyard should remain as it is. Turning it into a cafeteria or a souvenir shop is blasphemy. There are other solutions and alternatives for creating more space to accomodate these money making outlets and Govenment must not waste EU funds on an ill conceived project such as this.

Joseph Muscat's motion is to be congratulated and supported by all those, parliamentarians included, who really care about our historical and cultural heritage.

Well done Joseph Muscat!

P.Scicluna

Jan 24th 2009, 14:17

What consultations????????
Goverment is already committed
This is a big joke

Dr Gonzi listen to the People.

A.Gauci Cunningham

Jan 24th 2009, 14:03

@ Mark tanti---why don't you give your little bit to the debate and tell us mortal, low class fools how this project will impinge on the aesthetics of our Capital!!!??

@JPO----Pullicino orlando is against this project as is the majority of this population and if he votes in favour of it he will only be ridiculing himself and his Party!! The PN needs people to stand up and say what needs to be said!!


@ A.Zammit----You can't be more mistaken than you are................why don't you tell us what's so good about digging a quarry in the center of valletta????

@Adrian galea----If you've bothered to read this article most especially para.5 you will have read that JM and the PL are indeed offering solutions!! As are FAA of the Astrid vella fame!!

............my....my.....PN supporters are starting to sound more and more like Labourites in the worst of the worst times of Dr.Alfred Sant's leadership!! X'jinkwetakhom Joseph il-baby!!!!

Astrid Vella

Jan 24th 2009, 13:57

This a matter that transcends any politicization; the arguments brought up by Joseph Muscat are those that have been raised by 'civilians' of every political belief.

The fact is that the so-called public consultation process is seriously flawed.More than half way into the allotted time period and the print version not only lacks 4important plans but is not available to the public from the LocalCouncil as publicised,&hard to obtain from MEPA.

The PDS is extremely sketchy and lacking in important aspects.There is no provision indicated for emergency exits or air-conditioning,air ducting and generator plants.Although the Foundation claims that these will be supplied later,how can the public submit its suggestions if it doesn't know where a generator-room is to be sunk in St. John's Square?

More importantly, the PDS lacks the geological studies of the rock bedding-planes which would indicate the stability of the rock near the Cathedral.If these are found to be unfavourable,they would immediately indicate that the project has to be reduced drastically or is not feasible.That is why the studies should have been done at this stage,to save the expense of up to 120,000 Euros Foundation( taxpayer) money and more in MEPA costs.

A.Gauci Cunningham

Jan 24th 2009, 13:43

First of all this project is crazy and will undoubtedly immensely harm our capital city, its environment and the businesses there.......imagine a huge hole the size of a "mini-quarry" bang in the middle of our capital, with trucks, lorries and what have you passing through the newly paved Merchants street leaving dust everywhere and causing havoc day and night!! Imagine what cruise passengers would say as soon as they land in a UNESCO heritage site which looks like a construction site at its best and a slum (as parts of Vallettea actually are) at its worst. Imagine the inconvenience this would cause to the self-employed there who would have to go through years rather than months cleaning the mess and counting their losses!!

...................and all this when we have much better options such as the palaces, auberges and dilapidated jewels scattered all over our Capital!


And before I forget can the PN elves here enlighten me as to how a shop next to St.John's was not allowed to dig a basement due to possible harm on the Co-Cathedral and yet the government seems to want to dig an entire "crater"?????? The mind boggles!!!

mark tanti

Jan 24th 2009, 13:30

Well said M.Psaila, do we have another Dom Mintoff in our political scene.? Does Dr Muscat thinks that he can dictates in this manner.. There is a consultation process ongoing why doesn't he participate and give his views and alternatives. Dr Muscat you can forget it if you are trying to bring JPO on your side. I am sure that JPO will never forget who hurted him personally and ruined his politcal career To all those opposing this project I can only say that now is the time to come forward and show how clever you are and what brilliant alternatives you have for this project. Come on particape in this consultation process and not just write on line with six words just like Mr Evans

Alfred Zahra de Domenico

Jan 24th 2009, 13:23

As far as the churchyard, not courtyard please, the project is much more far reaching than just installing a transparent ceiling. The project involves the complete elimination of the raised graveyard plinth replacing it with differently coloured paving making possible for fee paying visitors to cathedral to walk over the graves. Also installed in the grave yard will be ticketing booths and other retail outlets. This amounts to a violation of a historically very significant site.

Under the circumstances I can only say, "Well done" to Joe Muscat.

SV Dimech

Jan 24th 2009, 13:12

Reading certain comments makes you think that the PL must agree in all issues with the government. The ooposition is the government's watch dog. Please don't mention political mileage, we've seen lots of that stuff from the PN!!

lgalea

Jan 24th 2009, 13:09

adrian galea
AS IF NOT ENOUGH VIABLE PROPOSALS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE!

M. Catania
What has the proposal got to do with politics? The underground extension is simply a proposal to alienate the people from the current enormous problems imposed by Gonzipn and will put in danger OUR heritage. It does not belong to Gonzipn or RCC. It belongs to US ALL.

M Psaila
Is it ok for EFApn and Gonzipn to take political out of issues but not OK if ti is the PL?
And it is not political mileage but youe beloved Gonzipn and allegedly RCC are trying to undermine OUR National heritage

A Zammit

Jan 24th 2009, 13:02

JOSEPH MUSCAT IKOMPLI FUQ IL-PASSI TA MEXXEJJA KBAR BHAL MINTOFF U DR SANT !

JOSEPH MUSCAT = GENERAZZJONI REBBIEHA

JOSEPH MA ANDUX GHALFEJN JIPROPONI L-EBDA ALTERNATIVA IMMA BISS JGHID LE

THE ONLY WAY IS UP, LABOUR!

albert leone ganado

Jan 24th 2009, 12:49

For technical objections I would rather wait to see the opinion of technical experts ideally of engineers who have the experience of having worked on similar projects.
As regards aesthetic considerations and objections they are always subjective.Some of the worlds greatest architecture artifacts would never have been built if traditional architectural wisdom had been followed .
Whether the money could be better spent on a general restoration of the buildings in our capital or for other more urgent projects in our capital city is however a very valid issue to raise for the public seems always to be ignored in such decisions. Out of the blue projects of public concern are pulled from the hat, without the slightest decency of effective prior consultation with the citizens who directly or indirectly foot the bill.

adrian galea

Jan 24th 2009, 12:28

any constructive proposals as to viable alternatives?

M. Catania

Jan 24th 2009, 12:14

Political opportunism at its best. Joseph Muscat trying to entice JPO to vote against the government. Ha ha ha the same people who were scandalised before the election with JPO's mistra application!!! Before the election they attacked JPO endlessly!!!!!

keep on hoping Joseph!! JPO will never vote against PN like Mintoff!!!!

Michela Bonavia Gauci

Jan 24th 2009, 12:14

Good work Dr Muscat. The PL is fast becoming "the Voice" for all people of goodwill in Malta. This is not a political issue - just common sense - and it should find the support of all true Maltese (except the usual PN apologists, that is).

Andrew Borg-Cardona

Jan 24th 2009, 12:13

If the objection is technical, there's an argument to be made for it being pushed forward, even though there is a consultation process going on. The counter-argument to that is that since there is a consultation process going on, a Parliamentary debate smacks a bit like grandstanding.

Far be it from me to be surprised that a politician grandstands ... any politician, any side.

Manuel Micalef

Jan 24th 2009, 12:06

To M Paila - forgot the political mileage in parliament PN took over Yaucht Marina in Cottonera? or you don't like it when it is against PN whilst you don't mind if it is against LP?

Steve Evans

Jan 24th 2009, 12:05

At last someone with common sense.

M Psaila

Jan 24th 2009, 11:53

There is a consultation process going on

Joseph should have participated in this process mhux he tries to take political mileage even from this matter!