Inconsistencies on underground car park

I do not intend to enter into endless public controversies with Ray Bondin (March 28) but am compelled to seek further clarifications from him. I also want to steer away from the issue of what is ethical and what is not, but I would have some advice to give.

Dr Bondin states categorically that the documents quoted in my previous article "were in no way written in an official capacity and, therefore, the minister has no right to discuss them in public even though I stand by what I wrote".

Today I will quote from an official document, written by Dr Bondin in his official capacity as Executive Co-ordinator of the Rehabilitation Projects Office and sent to former Minister Ninu Zammit on June 21, 2003. In all fairness, it does not vary very much from the document I referred to in my previous document but, hopefully, it will serve to shed more light on Dr Bondin's stance on the now-shelved underground car park project at St George's Square.

In his June 2003 letter, Dr Bondin unequivocally tells Minister Zammit:

"I would like to revive the possibility of undertaking this project (the underground car park at St George's Square). In our programme of works we are anticipating a small cost for preparation of documents etc. for 2004 whilst the actual works will take place in 2005/2006. This project is for the making of an underground car park within St George's Square. This project was originally being planned in 1993/1994 but was temporarily shelved. Some estimates had been done which are obviously outdated.

"The idea is to have a three-level underground car park. One level (the uppermost) will be for the exclusive use of government (MPs, departments etc). This will be controlled by the army and will have a direct access (through underground tunnel) to the Palace. The other two (or possibly three) levels will be for private use.

"My proposal is that most of the cost will be in the hands of the private sector who will get through tender the right to build and run the car park. It has to be discussed whether this is to include also the cost of the upper Govt level or whether these costs are to be shared.

"Entrance and exit to the car park will be easy through (two existing shops) in Archbishop Str. The project will allow for proper paving (and embellishment) of the square.

"I would be grateful for a meeting to discuss further."

Contrary to the impression given through his previous articles, it does not transpire from this document that Dr Bondin was in any way against the project, neither that he knew anything about the extent of the underground passages eventually unearthed. By simply stating that even though he backed VRP he was against the project, Dr Bondin will not forfeit his responsibility.

In fact his proposal was far more invasive than the one proposed by the government, to the extent that it proposed the digging of three underground levels and also the introduction of a new element - the digging of a tunnel connecting the underground car park to the Palace, hence implying digging also directly in the Palace's foundations. So much for the precautions that he advocated in his article dated Febraury 13, 2009.

May I point out that, contrary to what he tries to imply in his latest articles, it is definitely incorrect to state that he proposed the three levels of underground car park as an alternative to the digging underneath St John's Square. In June 2003 no one had ever proposed the project of an underground museum under St John's Square. Yet he proposed the three-level car park and also justified his idea, going as far as giving details of who would use the different levels.

Dr Bondin's inconsistencies on this saga also include the issue of the entrance/exit to the proposed underground car park. He took the ministry to task in his previous writings for proposing this in the Archbishop Street vicinity. It seems that our proposal, now shelved after honouring our promise to stop in case of any interesting findings, was just identical to his proposal to Minister Zammit in 2003, also specifying that this would be through two existing shops.

I never intended to start any debate on this matter. But I can't stay silent in the face of so many inconsistencies by someone who should know better, much better.