Tag: MEPA

Categories
Constitutional Development

More fool the law

more fool the law _ akkuza

An evil soul producing holy witness is like a villain with a smiling cheek, quoth the bard. In matters legal we are often confronted with devils citing scriptures for their purpose and recently there seems to have been quite an upping of the scripture-quoting ante, if you get my drift. The Ian Borg planning permit saga drags on without so much as a whiff of a preventive suspension of duties. PM Muscat was quite clear, in his usual style used whenever clarity and convenience collide, that it was up to Borg to do what he should do. Borg, having adamantly proclaimed his innocence and shown that he does not give two hoots about whatever investigations may result declared firstly that he would proceed with his development. It was only after a sobering comment by Muscat that Borg retracted – on facebook of course.

Muscat’s comments were the most worrying in fact. He was definitely not satisfied with Ombudsman Report on Case no EP 0032 and did not hesitate to openly allege that it was beset with inaccuracies. In fact, not only does the modern day leader of steel not agree with the Ombudsman’s conclusions but also promised to set straight certain “mistakes” that are apparently contained therein. It really does beg the question of why bother listening to the Ombudsman in the first place if you are not going to give any weight to anything he has to say. Well, probably Muscat has been listening to a few scripture-quoting devils who have opted to dabble in the arcane arts of legal interpretation within their self-declared hobby/profession of all that is to do with planning.

What really sticks out whenever you read any of these apologia pro Ian Borg in the press is a quasi-autistic literal-mindedness that belies any knowledge of constitutional responsibility. You see a literal approach to the law can provide some very interesting and confusing results. The Ian Borg Saga is not about any old pesky MEPA application but about the “incorrect application of policies and procedures in processing and determining” a particular  application in Rabat.

Legally (and by this I mean also to include the literal application of the law)  there is the issue of sticking to the procedural minutiae of an application and whether what might seem to be ridiculous situations – such as a non-owner making an application- are actually allowed by law. There is also a second legal question and that is whether the permit application as filled led to MEPA wrongly acquiescing to the request.

Outside the box of literal-minded application there is an important constitutional element. A member of parliament – a parliamentary secretary to boot – is involved in this application. I say involved but ultimately we can say committed in the same way that in an English breakfast the chicken is involved but the pig is committed. The property that is the subject of this controversy is owned by Ian Borg. He is not denying it. Nobody is. The problem lies that if it should result that Borg, a government secretary, abused of MEPA procedure in order to obtain a go-ahead for this development in a property owned by him he has constitutional obligations that go beyond the mere examination of whose name appears on the application and whether that is legit.

Reading through the Ombudsman’s Report (that could admittedly have been a bit more clear) we find two important issues that tie to the constitutional responsibility of Ian Borg.

  1. The issue is not whether or not it is permissible for someone to apply on behalf of a third party. The issue is whether, when doing so, it was clear that whoever the applicant was, if he was not the sole owner (or not an owner) then he indicated that he notified the owner of his intention to apply. This is provided for in Section 15 of the application form (under article 68(3) of the Planning Act). The point that the Ombudsman makes in page 6 of his report is that in this particular application the applicants who were not the owners did not indicate as much – they actually “incorrectly stated that they were owners”. This is when the Ombudsman opts for the words “it is strange that Dr Borg chose a somewhat devious method to file the application”. The application contains an untruth. While it is true that you can still apply if you are not the owner, you are meant to do so while declaring that you are not the owner and indicating that the owner has granted his consent. This is what results from the Ombudsman’s description of the case. Given Ian Borg’s parliamentary position the omission assumes constitutional importance.
  2. The second important point made by the Ombudsman is, to put it simply, that the description given in a previous application that ended up being refused by MEPA was altered in this new application. The result is that notwithstanding that “there was no change in policy in the intervening period between the refusal of PA 1637/12 and the submission of PA 2708/14”, MEPA seems to have requalified the new application in order to get the green light for the application made by somebody for the development on Ian Borg’s property. One defence being made here is that a literal application of the planning policy  would lead to the green light being given because the former application had a built up area of less than 50 metres squared while the new application being for a 100 metres squared building would qualify. Now bear with me for a moment but what we are effectively stating is that when a plan for development was for less than 50 metres squared MEPA would object to such development tooth and nail BUT by exploiting a loophole in the law if we present a larger development plan that transforms magically “fresh land” into a backyard in the building suddenly everything is fine and dandy.

Quite frankly the combination of the two issues listed above put Ian Borg in dangerous waters. Even with all the goodwill he may claim to have had there is still definitely more to this than meets the eye and it does the PL no good to hang on behind its young soldier. We’ll have to wait for the Commission against Corruption whose remit is closer to the constitutional factors that I mentioned than the Ombudsman’s.

 

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

By Appointment

appointment_akkuzaI was asked recently to give my two cents’ worth for an article being prepared by a MaltaToday journalist. He was looking into the recent history of KSU and more particularly the trend of ex-KSU council members becoming politicians (even more particularly Nationalist politicians). Was the university student council simply a machine geared to churn out potential nationalist MPs? Why only nationalist? Was (is) the university a nationalist party enclave? Is there a reason SDM still win a majority of votes at the elections? And of course… what is wrong with the “first past the post” system?

I will not delve into the answers that I gave here but what intrigues me is the perspective that is taken on the question of what we can call political careerism. Let me just say (I admit rather idealistically) that the whole KSU structure as conceived in the mid-90s only becomes counterproductive when allegiance to representing political party interests takes precedence over the aim of student representation. Back to careerism. The question is, is it only the nationalist side of our great divide that operates a school of aspiring careerists? A place in SDM, eventually a seat on the KSU council, a bit of coverage, maybe a spot of Local Council sparring and then a place in the party mechanism only to be nominated on a board or two once your party is in government. Who knows?

Would it take an anthropologist to really uncover the liens that intertwine in our very local and islandish form of networking that uses certain DNA traits such as “better the devil you know”? Take one step back. Look at the Aaron Farrugia’s of the Labour constellation. Sure they may not have made it to the coveted KSU executive post (though, had they done their representation homework properly they would have discovered that they had quite a role to play in the Social Policy Commission through Pulse). Still, you will find that the current administration is peppered with young, green, inexperienced hopefuls that are projected (many would add undeservedly) onto various committees, boards, and whatnot. All By TaghnaLkoll Appointment you would say. And you would be right.

It’s two sides of the same coin though. 25 years of nationalist administration, plus a petri dish of cliches as is the university population might have meant that SDM had the upper hand and were more prone to scrutiny when it came to careerism in the public eye (particularly after the idealist non-affiliated SDM petered out following its three year stint battling the impossible). This does not mean that what was true for the nationalist greasy pole is not true of the labourite one. People are so obsessed with this idea that there is some kind of nationalist infiltration of the university that they tend to forget that the two “schools” of partisan interference have sown (and reaped) their seeds in the university campus.Whether it is intentional or just an adaptation of the campus to the realities of political careerism is anyone’s guess.

It’s not just university you know. The ivory tower is only one field of recruitment. The networking system upon which our political parties have relied means that in every sector – from business to health to entertainment – there are massive interests that very often verge on the economic. We have seen how in the last few months the Labour government has scarcely been able to hide the web of interests that lie behind every supposed “policy” move. The brazen approach of discovery taken by Caruana Galizia’s Running Commentary is expediting the discovery of a web of interests that is being accommodated. From advertising brochures to insurance contracts to appointments on public boards. As Benigni would say “Qui è un mangia mangia generale”.

Surprised? Surely not. Also today former PN activist Frank Psaila “blogs” on MaltaToday about “The untouchables“. His is a particular slant about “people of trust” being necessarily appointed in particular strategic posts. Strategic to the government of course. Psaila can say a thing or two about what happened during the time of the PN administration because he was part of it. Caruana Galizia will have multiple willing “leakers” eager to disclose the secret entanglings of labour.

The real question is whether had there been an equally popular system of discovery during the previous administrations – one that lends itself to subtle contributions by “international networks” – whether it would have also uncovered a similar web of intertwined interests and favours. We had a former PN secretary general refer to a system of barter to explain how the party works. Combined with the aforementioned “better the devil you know” approach, you get the nagging feeling that just as a series of not too serendipitous connections would link the PM to a newly formed advertising agency or insurance company nowadays,  you could have done very much the same exercise a while back.

True. The Labour system is much more outrageous and ostentatious with its careerist appointments. Competence and relevance (of qualification) are thrown out of the window. Within 21 months we have been able to witness arrogant dog-headedness and a multitude of forms of brazen nepotism. A dark shadow looms on most government tenders and nowadays when you hear the prime minister say that “he respects the court decision” (as in the case of the prohibitory injunction on the transport issue) you get the feeling that the tone is more “I will tolerate for now” than “I will humbly prostrate myself before the decision of the courts of law”.

In essence Labour are much more expert at exposing the ugly warts of the way our democratic system functions. What is sure is that 25 years of nationalist administration failed to strengthen the appropriate watchdogs that would be barking madly at this point. “Authorities” of all sorts are feebler and weaker. Labour fast-forwarded this weakness in the system by exploiting it further and further. The decline and fall of the police and army system under the able (not for good reasons) hands of Minister who has long lost the plot is the most obvious example. Weakened institutions – the ombudsman, the attorney general’s office, MEPA come to mind – abound. Elsewhere ministers disband independent committees with a simple phone call, MPs are suspected of toying around with tender documents… need I go on?

So the tune has not changed. The need for new politics remains greater than ever. The tragedy is that the system is ever so desperately ingrained in its methods that it becomes harder to see a way out. In such a small democracy as ours it it difficult (or impossible) to imagine the ultimate watchdog turning out to be the catalyst for such a change. Who is the ultimate watchdog? Oh that would be “the average voter”. But he might be too busy trying to expectantly get his foot into the gravy train (by appointment) to bother with the complicated nuances of the absolute reform that is ever so urgent and necessary for this country.

That is the sad truth of it all. A truth that Joseph Muscat turned into the secret underpinning of his strategy: That within the vast majority of the electorate lies an illusion of a legitimate expectation to get a piece of the pie by appointment and for free. So long as that illusion lasts the nation will continue to resemble a suicide of lemmings running towards a cliff’s edge*.

 

* Actually this is an urban myth. Lemmings do not really commit suicide** by collectively jumping off cliffs (see here for example). Voters on the other hand….

 

** The collective term for lemmings, though, is actually a “suicide” of lemmings. As we say in Maltese … Ħu il-fama…

Categories
Mediawatch Politics

Agrodolce

MaltaToday reports that the public has been given only one week to send in comments on the proposed new policy that will affect ODZ (outside development zone areas) “to facilitate the redevelopment of existing farm buildings into agro-tourism establishments or visitor attractions.” This is never going to be an easy issue. The very character of an agriturismo is such that implies preservation and utilisation of natural and environmental assets without causing any damage. Farmhouses and whole estates are adapted to be able to host a sustainable number of residents (no multiplex) who would opt to visit in order to enjoy the natural habitat as well as learn in different contexts (cooking, horse riding, nature rambles, historic visits etc).

It is of utmost importance that the excuse to “develop” (adapt) within areas that would otherwise be a no-go for the ugly word is not abused of. A policy that is aimed at encouraging agri-tourism must be holistic and also be aware of the huge potential for abuse. Whole swathes of land from Mistra to Ghasri run the risk of being cruelly exploited under some feeble excuse of “agri-tourism” conversion. This is the country where a squatting group of caravans suddenly develop “legal rights” thanks to the wheeling and dealing of consecutive governments. Can you imagine a free for all with our rural areas?

Conversions and adaptations for agri-tourism can be a gold mine as the mafia soon discovered in Sicily. EU subsidies, special permits in ODZ areas and more will attract the worst of the worst unless the policy is carefully thought out. It’s not a good start – just one week for the public to react. It seems to signal the beginning of the end of another scarce resource in Malta.

Plus ça change.

Categories
Rubriques

I.M. Jack – The Saturday Protest Edition

Saint Julian’s

Paceville’s suburb and older neighbour is sending out an SOS for help. An Old Aloysian prefect of discipline has set up the SAVE SAINT JULIAN’S campaign after having noticed an alarming amount of planned projects concentrated within a small area between Balluta and Spinola. Yes, in many ways it could look like another NIMBY story that occurs when a community has had enough of concrete and high-rise. In other words it could seem to be another egoistic ploy to save one’s own corner of this rock condemned to unfettered development.

Walking through the backstreets from Sliema to Paceville yesterday I took time to snap some hipstamatic shots of architectural gems that might soon be relegated to the annals of history once a contractor gets his hands on them. The Torregiani Villas nestled among the hideous monstrosity of Le Meridien in Balluta are a clear testimony to all that is wrong with our planning sense. We need not even go into environmental tree-hugging mode to understand the brutality of pen-pushing administrative permits. Aesthetic considerations are close to nil. Kiosks turn into pavement hogging restaurants, old townhouses make way for obscene flats (with little or no car parking opportunities) and a refused application today is only just a hopeful window for an approval tomorrow.

So they want to build in the middle of Balluta valley. They want to choke Spinola and deliver the death blow to what little remains that can be described as picturesque. “Save Saint Julian’s” is less of a protest and more of an appeal. It is the kind of appeal that J’accuse takes to heart. Save Saint Julian’s are asking that the law be applied. Yes. It’s that simple. They are not saying DO NOT BUILD. They are not yelling NOT IN MY BACK YARD. They are painfully aware of the concrete reality that is the Sliema/St. Julian’s (forgive me for mentioning the two in the same sentence) front. They are simply calling upon the authorities to apply the law before which everybody should be equal.

It is useless giving permits to developers who will suddenly blame MEPA when their plans on paper turn out to be the hideous monstrosity that everyone else except the developers had seen (pace Albert Mizzi). It is useless “refusing” a permit if contractors feel invincible and go ahead anyway full knowing that the more development there is the more difficult will it be to refuse the next round of applications (see “Polidano can, if he thinks he can“).

On a day like today, PM Gonzi’s ears are best kept out of the kitchen and in Spinola Square. There’s a bunch of people who have something to say and would very much appreciate knowing that somebody, somewhere is listening.

 

Categories
Politics

Polidano can, if he thinks he can

There’s a story in today’s Times about how MEPA has stopped illegal works being carried out by property developer Polidano. The work in question was being carried out in the gardens of a number of Balzan townhouses that are protected. It’s the usual story, you would say, but what really sets alarm bells ringing are phrases such as:

“(…) Mr Polidano had repeatedly applied to knock down four historic townhouses in the village core to build six terraced houses with swimming pools instead.”

Repeatedly? Forgive my stupidity but can I ask a simple question: Can he do that? What is the point of a permit application system if it is not exhaustive? You apply and you either get or don’t get a permit. I would guess that that should be that. Apparently it isn’t. If someone like Mr Polidano does not like the outcome of his application then he can keep on trying until maybe somebody changes his mind – and then he will get permission to bulldoze 300-year old townhouses to build his swimming pool projects in Balzan.

If there ever was a massive WTF then this is it. Here is my hastily constructed timeline based on the facts in the article:

March 2003 – permission requested for alterations to facade etc  – REFUSED

May 2004 – appeals in relation to refusal – REFUSED

December 2005 – application to transform two town houses into 43 apartments and 121 car underground park (while preserving facades) – REFUSED

April 2007 – appeal in relation to Dec 05 application – REFUSED

July 2009 – asks board to reconsider decision – REFUSED

But some people don’t take no for an answer. Notwithstanding the Inter-style track record with MEPA Polidano’s bulldozers seem to have swung into action  and were busy within the protected gardens (see photos on Times report).

We are talking about gardens in townhouses in Balzan – an area famous for the citrus trees and more. We are talking about at least one of the houses having a historic value with Grandmaster De Rohan having used it as his country residence. I’d love to meet the architect who signs off these “projects” for Mr Polidano. What could be going through his or her mind when he is appending his or her name to such wanton destruction.

Worse still though is the attitude that Mr Polidano has with MEPA. Somehow you get the feeling that all the enforcement notices and orders to desist will not prevent the total destruction of the gardens in Balzan.

All the MEPA orders, and all the enforcement men will never be able to put Balzan together again. 

 

also from Flimkien ghal Ambjent Ahjar