Michael Falzon's article in The Sunday Times of March 7 is marred by a basic misunderstanding.
The actions of the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa) in refusing building permits or imposing conditions do not in the least impinge on the right to have and enjoy property.
They only limit the owners' ability to change the property, for example, from a garage into a workshop.
One may buy a farmhouse in Baħrija with a lot of land and farm the land and enjoy the views forever and ever, or one may buy a palazzo with a huge garden in the heart of Sliema and enjoy the peace and quiet as well as the great parking without limitation.
However, if one wants to change the nature of the property, one needs a permit. That is because such a change has a potentially detrimental impact on the neighbours' or community's enjoyment of their rights.
In principle, permits should only be withheld or conditions imposed if this is necessary to safeguard the reasonable rights of the neighbours or the community. The problem is, of course, that 'necessary' and 'reasonable' in this context are completely subjective.
A reflection of this is that most people seem to feel Mepa is incompetent or corrupt, or both. Differences between Mepa's officers, its board and its auditor, as well as between developers and NGOs, underline how difficult it is to agree on 'necessary' limitations.
Mr Falzon starts his article by admitting that he is all in favour of allowing the owners of Villa Bonici to put a number of apartment buildings on the property.
But just because he feels that way does not mean it is right. It does not mean the Sliema Residents Association does not have a legitimate case in objecting to further development, increasing traffic problems and air pollution in Sliema, which is already overdeveloped according to existing plans, and in suggesting a more community friendly use of the property.
It is not a given that, when Mepa issued the permit, it was doing the 'right' thing.
It is also possible that, at the time, it looked like the right thing but does not anymore.
If this is the case, Mepa should revoke or buy back the permit, depending on the circumstances. Let us not forget that when Mepa issued the permit it in fact gave a lot of value to the owners.
I am not surprised Mr Falzon thinks his reasoning about what is 'necessary' is better than Mepa's. I too am convinced mine is better than Mepa's, and possibly even better than his.
The parallel between freedom of expression (and, I would add, freedom to dispose of money in a bank account) and property rights is so far from perfect that it does not need to be addressed here.