Again, I find myself between a rock and a hard place asking myself, why can't I sit back and watch things unfold before me without being thrown into convulsions?
Town and country planning, environmental planning, or just simply planning are all references of this most important science and are self-explanatory. How else can we allocate land resources to achieve sustainable development? How can we embrace and reconcile economic, social, environmental aspirations of a nation?
What has more weight in determining property prices? The Malta Chamber of Planners has always tried to explain what planning is all about (www.kmap.org.mt), but, unfortunately, we do not have the sheer numbers that other professional bodies have to apply leverage. Alas, ours remains a cry in the wilderness, even though we continue to discuss Malta Environment and Planning Authority matters in the appropriate fora.
Although many seem to fancy their chances at shooting fish in the barrel and criticise the Mepa or patronise us with what the way forward is, ironically no one tells us why we came to this. Yes, Mepa has a multitude of shortcomings, but most of the horrendous developments on the island are not the authority's fault.
Mepa was not paid professional fees to design and construct developments in Outside Development Zones, medium-rise towers in streets that are no wider than 6 m, or developments that plough through our village cores and quickly become luxury slums. As a regulator, Mepa has failed, and many times stifles creativity because it is tied to a cumbersome policy framework. But those involved in constructing ugliness didn't display a particularly sharp civic sense either, mostly because few resist the lure of cash.
As professionals, we have a duty to guide clients to what is and what is not acceptable, what is worth discussing with Mepa and what is a far-fetched long shot. This is particularly important when guiding clients at the initial stages, when they are making investment decisions. Once commitments of huge sums of money are made, sometimes misguided by 'professional advice', it is so very convenient to blame it on Mepa - this huge faceless organisation.
Politicians also need to know what they want. Most of the inconsistencies do not come from thin air. The huge disparity in treatment between the development possibilities of foreign investors and local developments/investors is not something Mepa has fuelled. The sudden fear of Non-Governmental Organisations, development decisions in favour and against particular projects taken outside Mepa, the appointment of board members at executive levels and the uncooperative or very slow government agencies to provide feedback are not aspects Mepa has control over.
I remain surprised that each time a planning-related issue hits the national press, all hell breaks loose, even though, curiously, the big media houses shy away from having a debate about Mepa reform on television. Clearly, nobody mentions the need to officially recognise planning as a profession, which is the root of all good, if we are really committed to make things better.
I suspect that as a very passionate people we shy away from this for a reason. The same reason that everyone is an environmentalist unless it is about curbing the use of one's private cars or about one's land being included in the development zone.
We are afraid that having qualified planners making planning recommendations and being actively involved in taking decisions, therefore having more transparency and knowing what to do in those many grey areas, would close that little back door we all love.
Phrases like 'Nirrangalek jien (I'll sort it out for you), 'Halli f'idi' (Leave it to me) or 'Lil min ser inkellmu?' (Who shall we speak to?) will quickly lose their effect if things run as they should do and many people will lose out. We seem more comfortable to have NGOs and local councils conducting guerrilla attacks against development proposals instead of having a truly inclusive planning process from which everyone will benefit.
What is the problem of giving planning to professional planners? Is it any different from giving law to lawyers, architecture to architects, medicine to doctors? Why are professional planners not given the same access rights to e-applications as architects? Many ashes remain under the carpet. We seem to have lost the power to communicate sincerely in person. Many are so eager to take the moral high ground, shrouding the ugliness of greed, latent vested interests and obsequiousness, others hide amid blogs.
Most of us know what is good and what is not. We know the rhetoric by heart.
Nevertheless, we must have the courage and humility to do what is right, even if it means burning some bridges; and yet again, one must ask whether these ties are worthwhile or keeping us hostage.
tobydais@maltanet.net