A call by two veteran environmentalists to boycott the Gasan and Tumas groups over the Sliema and Mrieħel high rise projects has elicited mixed reactions as Kurt Sansone found out.

Protesters marching against the development in June. Photo: Mark Zammit Cordina

Martin Scicluna’s and Edward Mallia’s separate appeals for a commercial boycott of the Gasan and Tumas groups received both support and derision from commentators.

It was to be expected. Online reactions to their views ranged from the simple “I’m in” – meant as a show of support – to the equally plain “ridiculous”.

Others, opposed to the projects, however, were more sceptical that such a militant strategy would reap the desired results. What about the thousands of workers employed by the two groups, some asked.

How effective a boycott will be depends on the organisational strength and pulling power of those behind it and, for the time being, there is no such effort.

The boycott call was an individual appeal by two veteran environmentalists to green groups and civil society.

“Developers will only respond to kicks in their pockets,” Dr Mallia wrote in a Facebook post. This may be true but, reacting on his blog, Carmel Cacopardo, Alternattiva Demokratika’s deputy chairman, injected a dose of pragmatism into the debate.

“Although a boycott has its merits, it is an old tactic and, to be effective, it has to be sustained over a period of time,” Mr Cacopardo said. Instead, he argued, environmentalists should target the financial instruments used to finance such projects.

Mr Cacopardo said the guns should be turned onto the “the bank and the stockbrokers who will handle the bond issue” that will finance the towers. He believes this will be a more effective strategy because its impact will directly target the tower projects at Mrieħel and Townsquare. His views were later taken up officially by AD that urged opponents to the project to unite on the matter.

Whether such an appeal will gain traction over the weeks and months ahead still has to be seen but the anti-towers camp speaks with different voices.

While Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar agrees with a boycott strategy of sorts, heritage group Din l-Art Ħelwa adopts a more cautious tone.

FAA coordinator Astrid Vella said the group agreed with any legal action through which the public could show disapproval at “the voracious destruction” of the urban landscape.

The way it is being done is indeed barbaric

“In this respect, we also urge the public to be supremely cautious when considering purchase of the bonds that may be issued to finance these mega tower monstrosities,” Ms Vella said. She urged the Malta Financial Services Authority to exercise greater scrutiny and insist that any such bonds be subject to a credit rating from a certified EU agency. “The public has a right to be fully informed as to the potential perils of unrated and unsecured bonds and financial instruments,” she said. Maria Grazia Cassar, Din l-Art Ħelwa’s executive president, expressed hope that the democratic process, which included transparency and good governance, would prevail.

Martin Scicluna is among those calling for a boycott.

“This government, elected on the call ‘A government that listens’, should listen to its citizens and hear their concerns regarding the introduction of high-rise buildings on this tiny island,” Ms Cassar said.

She urged the government to put the common good above that of speculators.

Ms Cassar said Mr Scicluna’s article was poignant and evocative of the feelings many Maltese felt as a result of the high-rise projects approved by the Planning Authority.

“What is at stake here is much more than a simple planning decision; high-rise buildings will change Malta forever and the way it is being done is indeed barbaric, without even a master plan in place,” she said.

What DLĦ lacked in militancy was made up for by the Democratic’s Party temporary leader, independent MP Marlene Farrugia, who called for direct action reminiscent of the 1990s when activists opposed to the Portomaso project went on hunger strike and tied themselves to barges transporting construction waste out to sea.

In a Facebook reaction she cast doubt on the effectiveness of a boycott, including one that targeted the financing of the projects. “No boycott will stop them. The only means is to camp on the site. I am ready to do this,” she wrote.

So far, the voices have been sporadic and divergent in scope and depth. While some are adamantly against high-rise projects, others prefer to reserve judgement on a case by case basis. Yet, there are individuals who see no problem with Malta going high rise while the concerns of some are more of an economic nature and not environmental.

It also has to be seen whether opposition to the projects, especially the Townsquare residential block in Sliema, transcends the confines of the 10th electoral district.

And, here again, some cannot understand the outcry in Sliema when the locality’s character has long been transformed by tall buildings that started sprouting up in the 1980s and exploded in the 1990s.

Reconciling the different voices may be a hard nut to crack for environmentalists if they decide to up the ante on the projects.

But there is discomfort with the planning process and pertinent questions over the Townsquare approval by a single vote in the absence of Environment and Resources Authority chairman Victor Axiaq remain unanswered.

Petra Caruana Dingli, a columnist and former environment protection department director, captures this sentiment in two words: bad planning.

“Unfortunately, we are returning to the situation we were in years ago, with desperate calls for boycotts expressing anger and frustration at bad planning,” she said.

She insisted that big developers should not shrug off the difficulties and inconvenience their commercial ventures caused others. “Their suggestion [made in the Townsquare social impact assessment] that neighbours should live with their windows closed was insulting.”

Dr Caruana Dingli said people felt powerless and desperate that the government was ignoring good planning and enabling speculation.

Defining who those people are remains the biggest question mark anybody pondering a boycott of sorts will want to answer, if at all possible.