Carmen Azzopardi walked up to the table where the men who had decided her fate were sitting. “Why is our home being taken for the benefit of private businesses. We have worked all our lives for our homes. Għaliex ħa teqirduna minn wiċċ id-dinja?” she asked. (Why are you wiping us off the face of the earth?).
Carmen is a lifelong resident of Paceville. Her home will be expropriated, according to the Paceville master plan, and this is necessary in order “to allow cars to access a basement car park at a lower level, thus minimising the need for access ramps”.
The men shifting uncomfortably in their seats were representatives of the consultant company Mott Mcdonald who had been paid hundreds of thousands of euros to draw up the master plan. They were attending a session of the Environment and Development Planning Parliamentary Committee to answer questions about how they had arrived at their conclusions. Their brief was to draw up a plan that would reflect the “aspirations” for Paceville.
The only thing is that it does not reflect the aspirations of Carmen. Neither does the plan reflect the aspirations of the scores of families living in Carmen’s street. Their homes are also being swept away for the benefit of some lucky private businesses (the chosen few).
Despite the fact that the consultants must have mumbled the word “aspirations” a thousand times during the marathon meeting, the resultant plan can hardly be said to mirror the aspirations of the existent businesses – built up with sweat and tears over the years – and now to be expropriated with the stroke of a pen. Nor does the plan reflect the aspirations of the residents of St George’s Park.
The Paceville master plan was drawn up specifically to accommodate a gang of nine speculators which the Planning Authority has insisted on favouring
There are three mega towers intended for the little strip of land on Cresta Quay. The generously paid consultants were completely befuddled when residents told them that the Public Domain Act, which came into effect last May, required the first 15 metres of foreshore to be in the public domain. That means that it can’t be sold off and that public access and enjoyment of it has to be preserved. The consultants were completely clueless when it came to this law.
They were also completely clueless as to which areas were inhabited by residents. They hadn’t been briefed about them.
The Planning Authority did brief Mott Mcdonald, of course. But this brief seems to have consisted in drawing up a plan for nine key developers and making sure that these nine applications were accommodated and catered for. This is declared outright on page 88 of the Paceville master plan document where it is stated that “the baseline situation has been set out. This reflects the current development proposals for Paceville which have been either submitted to, or discussed with, the Planning Authority”.
The nine key sites comprise Corinthia, Institute of Tourism Studies, Villa Rosa, St George’s Park, Westin Dragonara, Portomaso and the Mercury Business Centre. The final, damning sentence is this: “This baseline assumes that the current development proposals are implemented.”
So there you have it – the whole basis of the Paceville master plan is not the regeneration of the area, it is not any of the guff spouted about creating access to the coast for the public. Nor is it about creating an ‘iconic’ skyline. The Paceville master plan was drawn up specifically to accommodate a gang of nine speculators which the Planning Authority has insisted on favouring.
Since the master plan is drawn up with these nine developments specifically in mind, there is no way they will eventually be turned down. These developments are a done deal.
We might reel in horror at the repercussions of this obscene master plan. In a nutshell it means the applications of nine developers are being given priority over long-term residents and businesses in the area. The latter will be uprooted – wrenched from their community and what they have striven for, simply so that the New Nine can take their place or have attractive new roads and plazas in their immediate vicinity.
What’s more, we – as taxpayers, will have to pay millions of euros in compensation to dispossess our fellow citizens of their homes, even though we think that it is a morally reprehensible act.
What’s worse, if residents like Carmen Azzopardi wish to challenge the proposed expropriation or the compensation paid (calculated according to which rate?) they will face long tortuous years in court with no guaranteed outcome. In the meantime the nine developers favoured will be enjoying the fruit of this coercive dispossession.
If this master plan is actuated as is, it will be one of the most horrific examples of resident cleansing – purging a community of people to favour the select few.
drcbonello@gmail.com