Opposition presents motion for repeal of Mepa tariffs

Joseph Falzon

Oct 13th 2010, 10:39

Mepa should collect funds from those who are damaging the environment. The governement should impose hefty fines to those dumping rubbish in the countryside etc. Paying Euro 600 just by filling up a form for change of use from residential to office is out of this world, let alone the additional costs attached. Bloody too much.......how can we encourage small medium size business to flourish.

karm cassar

Oct 13th 2010, 09:21

But Mepa costs money to run. Who should be paying for that?

joe falzon

Oct 12th 2010, 20:10

@R spiteri....not everybody dealing with construction and requiring permits, etc are doing it for profit. If the developer pays more for permits, he'll just raise the cost of the construction...But what about those who are forced to build or buy because they need a home? The increased MEPA costs is detrimental to them. Why doesn't the govt. help these out by making them exempt from the increased costs? I think there should be a difference between the one building for profit, and the one building out of necessity! as regards the noise and dust, well what can be controlled or reduced should be done so through laws that are enforced. like trucks carrying sand, gravel, etc----their 'covering' to prevent spillage is usually no more than a mesh sheet, fluttering as it is improperly tied and showering pebbles and whatever as I drive behind them! and they make like hansel and gretel by leaving their ''trail of crumbs'' on the streets they pass through!!

R Fenech

Oct 12th 2010, 19:06

@ R. Spiteri I'm sure that the Labour Party had in mind the average citizen, people who buy a house cause they want to start a family or cause they want to have their freedom, or people who want to renovate their house, not developers. Why just a couple of months ago the Compliance Certificate was €11.95 and today stands at €60? this is a financial burden on us common workers, who sweat to earn a living

John Gauci

Oct 12th 2010, 18:43

PRAGMATIZMU F'GHOLA TIEGHU!!!!!!

Robert Zammit

Oct 12th 2010, 18:29

Maybe the answer to this would be to tax empty properties ! That way people will be more accommodating to young couples looking at renting cos they can't afford to buy. In this way developers will also stop building unless they know they will sell the properties. I'm sure that say if a property lies idle for more than a year then a tax comes in it will stop all this rampant building. At the same time people wanting to do alterations to present buildings will not be stopped from doing so !

C.Portelli

Oct 12th 2010, 18:28

I was at the architect with my future house on the drawing board when the overnight price hike took place. We had no time left for the designs to be finalized and submitted to MEPA prior to the deadline.

This price hike was for me much more than a slap in the face.

And by the way I'm not talking partisan. I'm not labourite. This is the painful truth. An honest-working guy who sweats blood to save a couple of thousand euros for that blessed application, only to be told that now my amount due to mepa has more than doubled!!!!!

I cannot but agree with the motion. For once, I'm four square behind MLP on this motion.

Michael Farrugia

Oct 12th 2010, 18:05

Seems like Joseph Muscat walks his talk.

R Spiteri

Oct 12th 2010, 17:48

This indirectly means that labour wants more developers to ruin our land.

This means that labour tries to please everyone. But in politics, you have to make decisions. When you try to please everyone, you re burying your own grave.

No one would like to pay higher mepa tariffs. That's common sense. But however, everyone complains that we have too much dust around, too many empty buildings and noise pollution everywhere. Hopefully raising tariffs will decrease all this.

ct busuttil

Oct 12th 2010, 17:28

I tend to agree. A fine was created for new buildings without sufficient garage space. So what. This is just passed down to the purchaser. It doesn't solve the problems of congestion on the streets. Petrol went up, so bus fares went up and people still drive. Cigarettes went up; they still smoke. We need a permanent solution to the problem of over-development, perhaps alternative sources for investment.