A new arts fund to be financed from fees paid for high-rise building permits has sparked controversy, with members of the creative community raising questions over using money from this source.
Culture Minister Owen Bonnici announced that the Cabinet had approved the fund, which would be linked to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) policy.
Speaking during a cultural forum organised by the Arts Council Malta in Parliament on Monday, he said fees would be collected at the decision stage of the Mepa application and transferred to the arts council.
The council would then administer the money in support of culture.
Fees range from €25,000 to €100,000 for permits issued under the FAR policy.
The minister compared the scheme to lottery funding, under which Maltco Lotteries is bound to contribute €50,000 a year towards the Responsible Gaming Fund.
Ultimately, there will be no change in any development policies
Arts Council Malta director of strategy Toni Attard explained the new fund will not replicate existing funds in its scope but probably be used to support cultural infrastructure and spaces. It is not yet clear what role Mepa will play in allocating the funds.
“I understand the ethical considerations,” Mr Attard said.
“There is an ongoing debate on the use of such funds, such as corporate sponsorships and the lottery fund which ultimately incorporates the limited disposable income of low-income families. “But ultimately, there will be no change in any development policies – the contribution will be over and above what already exists.”
Theatre director and former St James Centre for Creativity director Chris Gatt likened the fund to a poll tax, although he would like to see more details on how the fund will work.
“The problem with such taxes is that they offer little by way of perceived benefit to the taxpayer, in this case the developer. Indeed the developer can see this as blood money which gives him or her 'carte blanche' to continue to create less than beautiful buildings for people to live in, as he has paid his dues.”
Mr Gatt said the fund could also possibly create an unhealthy relationship between the artist and the developer, many of who have suspect credentials when it comes to our environment.
University lecturer Mario Aquilina said there was an uncanny similarity to the “polluter pays” principle, which required that the costs of pollution be borne by those who cause it.
Likewise, the pooling of funds into cultural spaces to compensate for the space being taken up by high-rise buildings was tantamount to conceding that the FAR policy was not a positive thing.
Sourcing money to be channelled into the arts was a positive measure but the amounts were a pittance in light of the irreversible environmental damage caused by multimillion high-rise projects. “Culture should not be used as a kind of leverage for controversial projects.”
Edward Duca, project manager of the Science in the City festival, termed the fund’s source as “questionable”, adding that high-rise buildings were spoiling the Maltese skyline.
“I don’t want to promote high-rise buildings but perhaps some good may emerge from it.”