As the construction industry keeps going “at full throttle”, to use the industry chief’s expression, hundreds of people living next to building sites are suffering the brunt of inconveniences that go far beyond what is normally acceptable in the circumstances.

The developers may well have all their construction permits in order but the way they are going about their business is causing a great deal of distress to a lot of people. What is galling is that, in the face of all this, the government, at both central and local levels, appears impotent to bring order to chaotic, and, in some cases, even anarchic, situations.

Why is there so much insensitivity at official level to hardship suffered by people living next to construction sites?  To whom are residents going to turn for protection?

As the skyline gets even more blurred by the crisscrossing structures of tower cranes, down on the ground building sites have become veritable dust bowls, with the health authorities appearing to be losing not much sleep over the impact this is having on the people’s quality of life and, particularly, on the health of the young, the infirm, and the elderly.

Cowboy building developers are indifferent to people’s feelings and often act as if they are untouchables.

Sandro Chetcuti, president of the Malta Developers’ Association, was far from convincing when, in a recent newspaper interview, he answered a question about the inconvenience that all this frenetic development was creating to the people.

This is how he reacted: “I understand these people but it is a fact that progress also has its inconveniences. It’s like when you are whitewashing your house. It’s very inconvenient but it needs to be done and, at the end, you will be living in a better environment.”

The comparison does not hold for the people living next to construction sites are suffering undue inconveniences caused by others (the developers) not by works in their own homes.

So, the least residents expect from the developers is that they do not cause unnecessary inconvenience and health hazards through abusive work practices. Besides, pulling down town houses and replacing them with nondescript concrete flats can hardly be described as progress.

When it was remarked to Mr Chetcuti that he was assuming that everyone was observing the law, when he was aware that what was happening was quite contrary, he replied: “That is wrong.”

And when it was pointed out to him that enforcement of regulations was nearly non-existent, he replied that one could not police every single development. He felt there was a limit to how much one can enforce: “With all this current work, it’s almost impossible to enforce as one should.”

His argument is unacceptable; the contrary should the case. The more construction expands, the greater ought to be the effort to control the industry, to ensure that residents in building areas do not suffer unduly, as they are doing now in St Julian’s, Pembroke, Attard, Mosta and in so many other localities.

The government appears to be closing both eyes to the problem, one that will continue to grow and fester as more and more projects take off the drawing board.

When will the government get down to seeing to the problems facing people at community level?