The ongoing debate on development in ODZ areas is a step in the right direction, but is it enough? I certainly do not think so and, I suspect, neither do most.

For the vast majority the acronym ODZ has become synonymous with abuse, arrogance, greed and more, even if it does not have to be so. For others there is simply no distinction between ODZ and other developments within building zones, such is the irritation and frustration of many when faced with the steady destruction of their villages in the name of progress.

Much of what we knew and loved is being sacrificed capriciously, without proper planning and scientific studies, without logic and without any regard for our architectural and natural heritage.

We watch helplessly as the Mediterranean characteristics of our beloved Malta are deformed day by day, with no regard to symmetry, visual contours and suitability, each development approved in splend isolation.

Within development zones one has to just look at the Sliema, St. Julian’s, Gżira and Xemxija areas to visualise the cannibalistic monstrosities that some call development, but which I call disfigurement, and monuments to bad taste, vulgarity and myopia.

Yet it all could have been so different and with relatively little effort, and above all without sacrificing development itself. All it required was goodwill, common sense, proper design and what the Italians call amor proprio.

That, unfortunately, is now in the past, but what can we do about it in the future? How can we learn from our mistakes to avoid repeating them? Do we skirt around the issue with small, insignificant and ultimately half-baked measures or do we grab the bull by the horns and embrace real, meaningful and enduring change?

Do we continue to seek compromise, middle-of-the-road initiatives and short-term solutions, or do we pluck up the courage to lead our nation to pastures new, to a different level, to a new beginning?

We know where we stand with the Labour Party. It stands for development at all costs which, as the Prime Minister recently said, cannot and should not be stopped. Brutal, blind and irresponsible some may say, but it is the Labour Party’s position. We have to respect it, even if we don’t accept or understand it.

We also know where Alternattiva Demokratika stands. They have been very consistent in their approach and policies in this area and they deserve credit. However, it is clear that history has passed them by and they have ultimately remained a pressure group.

Difficult to say much about the fledgling Democratic Party, except that there is a great big distance between ideals and reality on the ground in electoral terms.

I am not all that sure that the country requires, wants or can afford another centre-left outfit.

That leaves us with the Nationalist Party, a party which historically always rose to the occasion when the country needed it, and the only party that can realistically alter the course undertaken by Labour.

The PN needs to decide whether it wants to pussyfoot around the issues in the hope of pleasing everyone or whether it wants to stand on the side of the people

Our electoral system and Constitution makes this amply clear, so beating around the bush and dreaming of alternatives only serves the purpose of solidifying the current ‘development at all costs’ hegemony we find ourselves in.

Having said that, the PN itself needs to decide whether it wants to pussyfoot around the issues in the hope of pleasing everyone, or whether it wants to stand on the side of the people, of common sense, of our architectural and natural heritage and ultimately of our future.

The ODZ issue is one such choice.

I believe in a PN that knows how and when to take the right decisions in the true long-term interests of this nation, as it has done so many times in the past notwithstanding all the odds being against it. I believe in a PN that will not speculate on the future of this country out of a fear of threading on some toes. I believe in a PN that will embrace science, logic and common sense in its decisions and that it will always choose the path that favours and values the well-being, health and real quality of life of the people.

It is in this spirit that I believe that on the ODZ issue we need to go beyond the conventional and embrace real change. To start with, we need to enshrine the principle that development will not be allowed or sought on ODZ land beyond what will be very narrowly and explicitly defined in the law.

In this respect the law will be amended in consultation with all stakeholders, but with the balance and bias being in favour of avoiding ODZ development. Where the law would specifically allow certain narrowly defined exceptions, it will be drafted in a manner to ensure that any such development can never be speculative or for other commercial purposes, and that it must be intrinsically tied to the ‘collective good’ as will be very narrowly defined.

Political discretion currently afforded via the expansive and abusive interpretation of terms such as ‘national interest’, ‘public good’ and so on needs to be totally removed, thereby doing away with all loopholes and removing uncertainty. The effectiveness and durability of the law should be further ringfenced by means of a requirement that the law can only be amended with a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives.

These proposals aim to not only underline the bias against ODZ development and to provide clarity and remove discretion, however, they also guarantee a long-term vision for the country as well as security and peace of mind to our people.

In those very narrowly defined exceptions when ODZ development may need to be taken into consideration, which, in any event, will never be for speculative or other commercial reasons but would, instead, be intrinsically tied to the ‘collective good’, as narrowely defined, we could also introduce an element of participative democracy in the process.

Following the professional evaluation and approval by the competent planning authority, such development could be made to pass through one of two further tests, or possibly both, namely a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament sanctioning the development and a simple majority in a referendum to be held in the relevant electoral district where the development will be located, thereby introducing a concept of participative democarcy present in certain countries such as Switzerland.

This will guard against any potential abuse of the law and the narrow exceptions defined therein.

Linked to those very narrowly defined exceptions when ODZ development may be considered, I also propose the introduction of a categorisation of ODZ areas, based on proper values that will take into account a whole set of criteria.

The aim of this exercise would be to introduce the concept that any developer on ODZ land, government included, even if within the very stringent definitions of the new law, will have to compensate the country, depending on how the particular ODZ area is categorised.

The core principle should be that ODZ areas are worth far more, in terms of intrinsic value to the nation and its well-being, than development areas, and accordingly compensation has to correspond to this maxim.

This will also serve the purpose of removing the scourge of expropriation of ODZ land, a process that has wrought way too many injustices in the name of the common good.

A ‘common good’ that infringes on the rights enjoyed by others is hardly worthy of that name.

Let us embrace this change with gusto and lead the way.

David Griscti is president of the AŻAD Foundation.

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.