Although initially the Planning Authority (PA) turned down the St Julian’s local council invitation to participate in its public consultation meeting, it finally found the courage to face residents and NGOs over the Paceville master plan proposal.
Although the PA is obliged by law to hold such public meetings, it did its very best to limit our participation. For a start, the chosen venue was not ideal. The location of Hotel Meridien in Balluta was far from Paceville. Various elderly residents who wanted to participate were unable to so. In fact, during the local council’s public consultation meeting held at the Millennium Chapel hall the week before, many elderly residents were present and voiced their concerns.
Secondly, the PA wanted to separate the participants in small clustered groups. Although the PA did its best to adopt a ‘divide and rule’ tactic, it failed miserably. We stood our ground. All participants present refused.
The PA’s executive chairman, Johann Buttigieg, had the cheek to say that it was the local councils that had requested that participants should be divided into small groups. This is unfounded and dishonest, to say the least.
It was admirable to see that all those present remained seated as one group. It was a classic example of a collective passive resistance. I admired and thanked the many young University students and others who were present for standing with us. Together we stand and together we fall.
One speaker after the other decried against this master plan, or shall I call it a master flop?
On my part, I restated that the community is not against a master plan per se. Our concern is about this version, which was exclusively drawn up to satisfy the wish list of particular fat cats wanting to become fatter at our expense. My opinion, supported by many, is that this master plan is a desktop exercise that safeguards the interests of the few over the interests of the many.
It was made clear that we are also against the expropriation of private property and the land reclamation as being proposed. I insisted that this master plan is flawed on the basis that no social and other technical impact assessments were commissioned and presented.
It is unacceptable that a small number of people decide the fate of others. This might be a dangerous precedent and a throwback to an era when our country lacked democratic credentials.
The voice of the residents is loud and clear. This master plan must be aborted. Residents are demanding that the PA draw up another master plan and involve all the stakeholders. We want to be an integral part of the decision-making process rather merely an appendix to the said project.
My sincere appeal to the PA is to take note of our assertive feedback. Residents have spoken. It is now up to the PA and the government to listen to our voice. Not doing so would be very undemocratic.