The sudden proliferation of property development projects has numerous implications but there is one aspect that should not be overlooked: the rights of the taxpayer. Many of the projects are being built by the private sector on public land, which has been granted on emphyteusis for a distinct purpose.

The government first determines the economic policy behind the concession: does it need to stimulate economic activity and, if so, what kind? This has varied over the years. For decades, tourism was a prime motivator and many of the five-storey hotels were built on government land, giving the sector a crucial kick-start.

Specific projects, like the Freeport, led to an economic sector that thrived, giving considerable benefit to the country. And certain developments created upmarket residential complexes that catered for an influx of investors and high-net-worth individuals.

The brief for these concessions would have laid out what the government envisaged and what the public benefit was going to be. Interested bidders sat down and worked out how much they needed to invest and what revenue they could generate. Based on their calculated return, they would then submit a bid to the government outlining what they were willing to pay for the concession, usually a lump sum and a recurrent fee.

The government then determined the benefit in terms of jobs and economic activity, chose the preferred bidder and eventually the agreement would be submitted to Parliament for its approval.

The point of the exercise is very clear: both to ensure a fair and level playing field for all potential bidders and also so that taxpayers would make the very best of such a deal. It is this quid pro quo – and nothing else – which justifies a government giving public land for private gain, never forgetting the environmental aspect, of course. It is therefore imperative all the powers that be do ensure there is such a quid pro quo in every decision they make and that relevant watchdogs are in place see to it that, first all the right conditions are laid down and, then, that they are scrupulously observed.

And such monitoring needs to be done consistently and constantly. This because such concessions usually extend over decades and both economic and investor needs evolve over the years. If the original agreement is carefully drafted, it will include clauses to cover this and should ideally include provisions facilitating both monitoring and enforcement.

Certain unsavoury happenings involving public land and the purchase by the government of private property underscore the need for the conditions imposed to be as foolproof as humanly possible and for transparency and accountability to prevail throughout.

While acknowledging that certain information could be of a sensitive commercial nature and so cannot be published, all other details connected to any deal of this sort must be released to the public without undue delay. Failing to do so not only fuels suspicion but, more dangerously, gives rise to abuse by greedy developers and untrustworthy civil servants.

This sort of scrutiny and governance is definitely needed on the projects in the pipeline. Work on some of them has not started and, yet, they are already mired in controversy.

The taxpayer needs to be assured that if a concession is negotiated on the basis of given conditions, be it the number of storeys, upfront investment, jobs created or tourism accommodation, then, as soon as any aspect changes, Parliament would act.

Otherwise the government would be betraying the taxpayers’ trust.