The announcement of the American University of Malta project at Marsascala, initially proposed to be built on 90,000 square metres of virgin land at Żonqor Point, unleashed a series of controversies none of which have actually gone away.

The selection of the Jordanian developer behind the project, the country’s tertiary education standards and the social impact of this huge undertaking were among the issues raised. Yet, foremost among people’s concerns was the fact that the project was to be located on ODZ land.

The very idea that huge swathes of land earmarked for a park were to be taken over by buildings brought environmentalists out into the streets. The government partially bowed down and downscaled the Marsascala development by bringing in Dock 1 in Cospicua into the equation.

In the heat of that debate, a spokesman for the developer said that had government asked for a commercial price for the ODZ land, the project would have been compromised. The implication of that statement was twofold: at discussion stage ODZ land must have been among the cards put on the table; foreign investors are finding a government prepared to bend backwards, even to the point of changing a law to accommodate them.

The Nationalist Party, in its proposals for the Budget, came up with a novel idea to try avoid Żonqor happening again. It suggested to raise the cost of land outside development zones to the same level as land in prime development areas.

This would add an additional financial deterrent over and above existing safeguards, especially those arising from the country’s planning and environment laws. It would also go some way to discourage speculators from trying to build projects on ODZ land because they know they can get land there from the government on the cheap. The idea received a generallypositive reaction from environment groups who, however, stressed that ODZ land should not be developed on principle.

The government, on the other hand, shot down the proposal saying it would spell environment disaster and open all ODZ land to development. The Finance Minister called the whole of the Opposition’s proposals “amateurish”.

Half-way through its legislature, the present administration is in no position to ridicule ideas that could help protect our fast-receding open spaces. One area where this government has surely disappointed the vast masses that voted for it in 2013 was the environment.

The demerger of Mepa, the new powers being given to the planning minister, the new and vague structure plan, and the government’s policy of appeasement towards the building lobby have severely damaged any environment credentials Labour may have had.

It is clear that Labour has learnt nothing from the terrible mishandling of the Żonqor project. The government’s excuse for wanting to build on ODZ land was that the Jordanian project was for “educational purposes”. The government is now planning to pull the same trick again, this time with the proposed race track.

Sports Parliamentary Secretary Chris Agius did not exclude a racetrack on ODZ land because, as he candidly admitted, one of the few ways a project can be built on ODZ land was if it were deemed educational. Hence, the government is referring to the racetrack as an “educational and recreational motor sport park”.

Given this government’s blatant misuse of the word ‘educational’ to justify building projects anywhere, the PN proposal on the pricing of ODZ land suddenly does not sound so “amateurish” anymore. It may be just what this country needs to stop the assault on our dwindling countryside.