Tuesday, 24th February 2009 - 10:37CET
FAA calls for closure on St John's
Flimkien Għal Ambjent Aħjar (FAA) said today that it had no problem in confirming that it was summoned to meet the St John’s Foundation to discuss the proposed museum extension, but this, it said, came about only after it (the FAA) made the project public.
"No attempt at public consultation or any sort of contact was made during the two years that the Foundation had been dealing with MEPA on the project since 2006," FAA said.
In a statement to react to comments made by a number of columnists, the NGO said a call 'demanding' its attendance was made on a Wednesday afternoon for the following day or Friday, however its representatives had prior commitments which could not be cancelled.
"We offered to meet on any day the following week however that was not accepted by the Curator who insisted on meeting within 48 hours, ie by Friday. That Friday coincided with the last day of the State presidency of the St John’s Foundation as the following Monday it was to be handed over to the Church presidency."
FAA subsequently attended a presentation which the Foundation held at Din l-Art Helwa’s premises which was limited to NGO leaders and heritage authorities but excluding the public.
"In spite of what has been claimed about exclusive presentations, project presentations of this sort are normally made to all the environment NGOs together, in this case the presentation was attended by officials from DLH, FAA, Ramblers Association and Friends of the Earth. On the other hand, in projects affecting the general public or national monuments, the project should also be presented to a wider cross-section of the public and the press before the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment, as was in fact done in the case of the Grand Harbour Regeneration Plan and the Dock One project," FAA said.
As regards the accuracy of its references to the cemetery at St John's, FAA said the area was referred to as the 1577 Cemetery in publications by Leonard Mahoney, Marquis Nicholas de Piro, Dominic Cutajar (former Curator of St John’s Co-Cathedral Museum) and Dane Munro, an academic on St. John’s Cathedral.
"It is surprising that certain people can’t come to terms with the fact that this case is now closed and prefer to indulge in disparaging remarks and nit-picking. FAA calls for an end to this assault on the public’s democratic and EU rights to participate in the decision-making process of our land and calls for the focus to be directed toward more positive initiatives," the FAA said.
RSS
Comments
majority the case is far from closed. People feel cheated.
Everybody has a democratic right to air their views if they so wish.After all we are not sheep and we do not follow the shepard that is Astrid. Before you think that I am making fun of FAA, be informed that is exactly how one FAA member described herself and Astrid. Did FAA turn into a cult without us knowing ?
The majority of Maltese people, blue,red,transparent or green have brains. We do not believe blindly what we are told. We like to evaluate things , we do not rush to conclusions.
When we read what Mr Musumeci, Mr Andre Zammit and Dr.Alex Torpiano ,real experts this time,said about the project i.e. that it should not have been stopped before real investigations and consultations had even started we ask how the EXPERTS in FAA can call this a victory.
I am sure you are not going to allow pitiful political apologists dampen your zest. You and the FAA deserve all the admiration of all well-meaning citizens. In Fact, Malta is proud of you.
1. FAA (Astrid) denied the application/investigative/consultation process from taking place: The process was not cut short by FAA but by the Prime Minister & Archbishop whose permission had not been sought for this project.
2. The public will never know how safe the project would have been with regards to the Cathedral: It would not necessarily have known from the studies which are not infallible. We have just been informed that the same studies proposed for St John's have "proved conclusively that no remains are to be found" in another area of Valletta, an area where we have photos of an underground passage of over 50ft long, lying just 3 feet under the street.If the studies could not trace a whole network just below the surface, what hope was there of tracing a rock crack 4 floors down.
5. Not accepting the invitations by the Foundation to evaluate the project : You are either unable to read, seeing we proved above that we did attend,or you are not aware that repeating untruths in the media is libellous.
Given this lack of honesty, I'm not even going to bother with the rest.
1. FAA (Astrid) denied the application/investigative/consultation process from taking place.
2. The public will never know how safe the project would have been with regards to the Cathedral.
3. Fanning the fires of the poorly or uninformed removed any traces of fairness and left the impression that there was something fishy with the project.
4. FAA politicized the issue by its close association with the LP who saw an opportunity to capitalize on the issue.
5. Not accepting the invitations by the Foundation to evaluate the project, Astrid showed her contempt towards the project even before public consultation was necessary. The public does not evaluate a project employing expertise, because the majority are incompetent in technical matters, so having 'the majority' against is meaningless.
Astrid wishes that this will be forgotten and has the audacity to suggest that defending the project was an ' assault' on the public's democratic rights!
Funny, many consider her statement an exact reversal of the truth!
It is the Foundation that has lost all credibility, especially now when we have learned, from the Archbishop himself, that the Foundation did not have the Church’s blessing on this project.
I am sure that an FAA campaign will not be necessary especially in the light of the fact that Renzo Piano has already indicated that two sites are to be built, both the Opera theatre ruins, and Freedom Square, which of course gives the possibility to accommodate both buildings.
As with most projects, with a bit of goodwill, a solution can be found.
Talk about pre-judging an issue! No project proposals have yet been published and already Mr. Fenech is 'looking forward to a campaign!" It is so sad to see public projects become simply political footballs with crusades being launched to see if one can "pull it off." Our country deserves better!
"I look forward to a campaign on the City Gate/Opera House project to bring everyone to their senses again. You might just pull it off!". Pray explain what the problem with the City Gate/opera House project is? Do you have access to information the rest of the country does not? How can you judge the project if it has not been proposed other than some ideas?
This is precisely what the problem with this country is. As the Chairman of the FAA wrote in a letter to this newspaper "We cannot rely on well-meaning but non-professional people anymore."