Planning matters regularly crop up as a bête noire of the political arena. In the electoral campaign of 2008, it was evident that the environment was a force to be reckoned with. After a series of street demonstrations and Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando’s Mistra meltdown, the government pledged to reform the planning authority. New legislation and structures were in place within two years.

In the next election of 2013, once again the environment was centre stage with a promise of reform. Three years later another fresh set of legislation has just been enacted, with entirely new administrative structures. New, often controversial, policies are churned out each month.

From a regulatory point of view, this is life on a roller-coaster, but without the fun park.

Despite promises of a planning Rinascimento, we are still walking round in circles. On the ground, occasional environmental victories are unimpressive when compared with the destruction that has taken place over the years.

Politics and the environment are strange and ambivalent bed-fellows. Environmental concerns are flaunted on the public stage but regularly ignored and sidelined in practice, enabling construction and speculation. It is clear that worries about over-development, illegal buildings or planning infringements are generally very low priority for the government.

In essence, to understand this mad sector there are two directions to bear in mind. In planning matters, follow the money. In environmental debates, follow the votes.

Let’s take a real example of the political mindset in the planning scenario. Ever since the news broke a few weeks ago that Konrad Mizzi had set up a secret company in Panama, the political temperature has risen dramatically.

Mizzi seems to think that, once he admitted that this was not the right thing to do, all will be forgiven. Unlikely, as this was no everyday minor gaffe; it was a faux pas of momentous proportions and is stifling the government.

All guns are being wheeled out to try to divert attention from the scandal. One of the big guns is being wielded by the Minister for the Economy, Chris Cardona, who is aiming at Beppe Fenech Adami as a deputy leader of the Opposition.

Oddly enough, Cardona has spent the best part of the last two weeks using planning issues as his diversionary tactic, of the kind that are hardly a top priority in the usual political circles. Not to excuse any misdemeanours of course, big or small, but still everything is relative.

In planning matters, follow the money. In environmental debates, follow the votes

Cardona has raised concerns about the Fenech Adami home in Għargħur. Fenech Adami has vehemently denied allegations about his property, and they will now fight it out in court. By the time the case is decided, nobody will remember it.

Cardona is claiming that Fenech Adami’s stance over the countryside at Żonqor is not credible, as his ODZ swimming pool and deck area at Għargħur are too large. On the other hand, can anyone really believe that Cardona cares about the exact size of this pool, when he recently voted to transfer a major tract of ODZ land at Żonqor to a Jordanian company?

This storm in a teacup comes across as a personal spat that has hogged the headlines due to Cardona’s persistence, but is unconvincing from an environmental perspective. It may slightly damage Fenech Adami’s ‘green credentials’, whatever they may be, and score some political points, but the story will gain nul points on the wider green front. As I said, everything is relative. Surely Cardona cannot place this story on the level of the Panamagate and Żonqor scandals? He seems to be treating it as such, but he should not assume that people who follow environmental issues wear blinkers.

The latest at Żonqor is that the regulator has ruled that the Jordanian educational institute does not qualify as a university, and should not be referred to as such. Slightly late in the day, after its banners were splashed all over the CHOGM events promoting itself as a university last November, but never mind.

Not long after this ruling was reported on the front pages of the press, the Prime Minister was interviewed on Dissett and again described the educational institute as a university. When challenged, he just shrugged it off as though the interviewer was being picky.

Other people may not see it that way, but for Joseph Muscat it is evidently fine to still use the legally inaccurate title of university, despite the ongoing controversy. If being a university is a selling point and will attract customers, then why can’t I just say it is a university? Well, erm, sorry to be a wet blanket but no, you really can’t.

Thinking optimistically, the choice of planning matters as a political battleground, in the wake of Panamagate, may give some hope. Perhaps the government has not completely forgotten that an abysmal environmental performance might translate into a loss of votes. Past experience indicates that votes may be their only effective wake-up call.

It is a great pity that instead of attempting to raise the game in planning matters we are all being dragged further down into the mud, in a noisy and exhausting match of political ping-pong over the size of a swimming pool.

petracdingli@gmail.com

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.