A popular cautionary tale says that a frog will jump straight out of hot water, but if placed in some cold water and heated slowly, it will not react until it falls into a stupor. The story ends badly with a boiled frog in very hot water. Frogs don’t really sit still that easily, but it is an apt metaphor to describe complacent human behaviour.
If people living in the 1950s had suddenly caught sight of the amount of building in Malta in 2015, they might have shrieked in horror. Today we are so acclimatised to gradual, creeping construction and concrete that we are numbed and in danger of turning into the proverbial boiled frog. In half a century, Malta has changed dramatically.
In the last election people voted for change but destroying more countryside is not change, it is more of the same. It is actually much worse, as after 50 years of rampant building it should be obvious that it is time to stop, take stock and rethink.
Pointing fingers at past misdeeds is no justification, and is a defeatist argument. Building expansion in Malta is now far beyond the healthy limit and the brakes must be applied.
It is obscene for the government to be proposing that yet more arable land should be taken up for development. Fat cat property developers have eaten enough of Malta’s small cake, but still the Prime Minister is offering another big slice of public land at Żonqor on a plate.
I am no expert on government property, but many sites could be studied as potential areas for regeneration, such as the Luqa barracks and the old Air Malta offices, or the Marsa power station and Albert Town, or Corradino.
There must be plenty of others. Siting new projects in historic urban centres is another possibility to be looked at.
The government will predictably say that these sites are problematic. Well, for many people the land at Żonqor is especially problematic, as it lies outside the development zone and should not be touched. Hands off. Trying to create jobs by gobbling up more countryside is not sustainable.
In this gloomy picture, the private member’s Bill on the Public Domain being proposed by MP Jason Azzopardi is a very welcome glimmer of hope. This legislation would enable citizens or NGOs to recommend heritage properties or tracts of land to be listed as public domain, and thereby prevent their commercialisation and guarantee public access.
The Prime Minister does not seem to understand the value of open, rural and coastal spaces with their cultural and historical resonances
Any government intentions to gift public land to commercial developers, as is happening at Żonqor at the moment, would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in areas listed as public domain.
I hope that this far-sighted and valid Bill does not get watered down in Parliament and that the government does the right thing and backs it. So far, Parliamentary Secretary José Herrera has been reasonably positive about its contents. If the Bill does not gain the support of more Labour MPs, it will not succeed in this legislature, and shame on them.
Azzopardi’s initiative to push this Bill forward reminded me of a lecture given in 2009 by Simon Thurley, then chief executive of English Heritage.
Thurley described how throughout the 20th century, heritage protection was never a primary or even a secondary concern of consecutive British governments.
Instead, heritage measures often depended on the effort of individual politicians, sometimes through private member Bills, who were passionate about protecting the places that were important to them and their constituencies. Starting with Liberal MP Sir John Lubbock in 1882, the conservation of heritage in England was often driven by the “determined and sometimes subversive efforts of individual MPs and ministers”.
A private member’s Bill promoted by Conservative MP Duncan Sandys, formerly secretary of state for the colonies, had led to the 1967 Civic Amenities Act which established the concept of ‘Conservation Areas’ in the UK. This recognised that entire areas could be of historic interest, not just specific buildings or monuments. This concept was later adopted in our planning system in Malta.
In his lecture, Thurley reminded his audience of Julian Barnes’ novel England, England, which explores the commercialisation of heritage sites.
The developer in the story is asked how the inhabitants of the area feel about his large project. He replies that the area “is not full of inhabitants; what it is full of is future, grateful employees”.
People living in the south of Malta are no different to anyone else. They also want to live in a healthy and pleasant environment and must primarily be considered as residents, not merely as potential future employees and grateful workers ready to sacrifice anything for a job. The Labour deputy mayor of Marsascala has pointed out that many residents are against ODZ development at Żonqor.
The Prime Minister does not seem to understand the value of open, rural and coastal spaces with their cultural and historical resonances and their importance for leisure, well-being, creativity and the imagination. These sentiments and aspirations are not easily measured in a balance sheet, but they are real.
petracdingli@gmail.com