The government is adopting a take-it-or-leave-it attitude with landowners in the area where the new university is planned, saying no more than €500,000 will be paid for the 10,000 square metres that is not public land, according to a spokesman.
Times of Malta reported yesterday that 11 per cent of the land needed for the American University of Malta is privately owned and located at the centre of the site in Żonqor Point, limits of Marsascala. The people involved include names connected to the late, controversial Labour public works minister Lorry Sant, such as Michael Axisa (il-Lay Lay) and Piju Camilleri.
However, the idea that the planned deal would benefit old Labour Party stalwarts is being dispelled. The government is adamant the project will not be used to raise the value of the outside development zone, agricultural land by any individuals owning the land.
“What we are saying is ‘take it or leave it’. If you don’t agree to the offer, we will expropriate the land in the public interest,” the spokesman said.
The precise area of the allocated land chosen by Mepa as suitable to host the new university has not been specified.
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil said the Nationalist Party would be mounting pressure to ensure the project respected the basic principles of good governance and transparency.
PN will ensure good governance rules are respected
Times of Malta revealed that the American University of Malta had to be built on ODZ land or the project would not be financially viable. Any ODZ land has a much lower value than land allocated for development, which is the price government is prepared to pay.
The land required covers an area of 90,000 square metres – the site identified is mostly public land, which brings down the cost.
Yet the 10,000 square metres that is privately owned lies at the centre of the site. The negotiations with private land owners are therefore crucial to the project, and it is understood the government will not be allowing the individuals involved to jeopardise the deal.
The land will be given to the investors, Sadeen Group, through a concession on temporary emphyteusis through a parliamentary resolution. The duration for which the land will be given to the group is not yet known.
The contract for the land will stipulate it can only be used for educational purposes and it will not be included in local development plans. It will remain ODZ, so any speculation on development in surrounding areas will be impossible.
However, the Opposition is saying it will not take this development lightly. “The Opposition is very concerned the construction of the new university project will take place in a pristine area which is ODZ. The PN questions how the area was identified and why it was identified by Mepa, whose role it is to protect ODZ zones – not assign them for building purposes,” Dr Busuttil said.
Mepa must explain who identified the area and whether it was instructed by the Office of the Prime Minister to do so, he added. It should also explain what studies for site selection were undertaken and if alternatives were considered.
“If so, why have these been discarded? The Opposition will mount pressure to ensure this project respects the basic principles of good governance and transparency,” Dr Busuttil said.
Meanwhile, a government spokesman replying to questions by Times of Malta on the site’s identification said Mepa had conducted a preliminary exercise: “A site had to be identified for investors before the contract with investors Sadeen Group could be signed. But the necessary studies will be done,” he said. This leads to questions of how the government can consider expropriating land when the planning process has not yet cleared the site. For example, the ODZ land identified is not served by major road networks and is likely to necessitate new infrastructure.
When Times of Malta asked the government whether this had been given due consideration, the reply was that “a traffic impact assessment is carried out as directed by Mepa during the planning process”.
This situation illustrates the complexity of negotiations. The government can expropriate private land in the public interest, but if Mepa does not give its seal of approval an alternative site needs to be found.
This could give rise to fears that the Mepa exercise would only consist of ticking the boxes to give the project the green light.