All those of you who helped Astrid, read this
This comment has been posted under ‘In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.’ I’ve pulled it up here because it is a crucial point. All those of you who were unseeing enough to have helped Astrid in her foolishness, wake up and realise what you have done with your own hands. You have helped create a monster – and by monster, I don’t mean Astrid Vella herself, but what she stands for: the rule of subversive idiocy, the very thing so many of us fought against for so many years during the premierships of Mintoff and Mifsud Bonnici.
Antoine Vella
I’ve just finished writing a letter to the The Malta Independent on Sunday regarding Astrid’s article. I hope they publish it because her article contains an underlying message that is worrying. The title (The Experts DID decide the St John’s project) shows a disregard for the law that is worse than a lack of understanding.
In a country where the rule of law exists, it is not up to the experts to decide on development issues but to MEPA. The Authority may consult experts and commission EIAs just as it may hold public hearings, talk to NGOs, invite the public to file objections and do whatever else is necessary to take an informed decision but, ultimately, this decision lies with MEPA and no one else: not the experts, not the public and still less the FAA.
One might disagree with some of MEPA’s decisions, just as one might disagree with some decisions of the law-courts but it remains the authority established by law and the idea that a lobby cartel can take over this role is essentially subversive. If such institutions are undermined it would be the weaker members of society who would ultimately suffer, the semi-literates who do not know the difference between ‘waste’ and ‘waist’ or ‘hung’ and ‘hanged’, the clueless ones who are blissfully unaware how they have been manipulated.
9 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Anyone bothered to read what Mr Joe Magro Conti had to say re the project(according to the minutes taken) when MEPA’s Heritage Advisory Committee met on 17Th October 2006? For more info check on the experts’ report that is freely available online.
[Daphne – Sybil, before you embarrass yourself further by sounding like somebody who has just joined in the conversation, scroll back through my most recent posts.]
I find the experts’ report a lot more interesting actually.
[Daphne – Experts in plural? The FAA had just one: a geologist called Peter Gatt. Scroll back through the older posts, Sybil. And another point: a geologist is not a civil engineer.]
OK , what can I say? Start a crusade against this Peter Gatt, then. In the meantime, I have a number of relatives of mine (some now long dead) whose professions included knowing what’s what underneath the whole of Valletta and I have seen old maps of that city, too. What is underneath Valletta is all protected by the Cultural Heritage law and I think Prime Minister Gonzi did the right thing in putting a stop to what was going to be a definite catastrophe to that city otherwise he would have ended up being compared to the “Barberini” in the well-known saying., ” Barberini did to Rome (in this case Valletta) what the Barbarians failed to do”
My two cents worth anyway.
[Daphne – You stun me, Sybil, with your scientific approach to the matter.]
http://www.ambjentahjar.org/library/expertsreport.pdf
Many on the CHAC and others seem to have been thinking that there was going to be an unreasonable risk taken by excavating to a depth of five-storeys in front of the cathedral, in addition to (presumably) some form of tunnel between the entrance (where the cathedral courtyard now is) to the gaping hole in St. John’s Square. Geologist Peter Gatt’s over-view seems to confirm their fears. Considering the learned views, I would say the fears were very real.
[Daphne – You seem to be saying, Moggy, that should I find an unexplained lump on my leg, I should seek out the nearest retired lawyer/archaeologist/geologist and consult them about it, rather than consulting you, the doctor.
Let me spell it out very clearly. An archaeologist, a lawyer and a geologist are not in a position to say whether excavation can safely take place in front of the cathedral. The geologist has a role in this, but his only role IS AS A CONSULTANT TO A TEAM OF CIVIL ENGINEERS who are the only ones who can say whether it can or can’t be done. And as any civil engineer will tell you, anything can be done, using the right tools and with the money to pay for them – hence a suspension bridge spanning 26km of water, or a skyscraper built on reclaimed marshland. Just to explain it to you in terms you can understand (perhaps), the geologist is in the role of a radiographer. He takes the X-ray. But a radiologist interprets it and takes it from there.]
I can’t find Astrid’s article. Is it not on the online version of Sunday’s Independent?
[Daphne – It doesn’t appear to have been uploaded on-line, but I have the actual newspaper here, and essentially, the article is a version of this press release http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090215/local/faa-insists-experts-did-decide-on-st-johns-museum-extension
Re Experts
Once in Naxxar, I was clumsily boarding a bus, using crutches since I had a broken foot. When I finally managed to sit down, a man started chatting me up. He introduced himself as an ‘expert in doctors’ stuff’ because he worked at St. Luke’s Hospital, and gave me lots of medical advice regarding my fracture. It took me quite a while to draw the truth out of the guy: he was a caretaker. I met plenty of those self-appointed experts on the rock.
There’s something in the debate on this topic (not just here) that doesn’t quite add up.
FAA bases the validity of its claims on views expressed by ‘the experts’, by which they mean members of the heritage advisory committee (HAC)at the MEPA. What appears to set those experts apart from their peers, in FAA’s view, is that they represent the MEPA, which FAA does not trust. That prompts three questions.
1. If the FAA believes in the expertise of the MEPA consultants it cites, why subvert their official position in the planning process? Wouldn’t it have been more in keeping with FAA’s stated position to allow the HAC to fulfill its function in the context of established planning processes?
2. If the FAA believes that MEPA and established planning procedures are unreliable because the MEPA officials and consultants are untrustworthy, why rely on MEPA consultants rather than commissioning independent reports?
3. If it is the planning processes that are defective, rather than the people engaged in them, then wouldn’t it be more effective all round to lobby for securing planning procedures – a line of action that could dovetail with lobbying for the protection of the cathedral and its artefacts?
[………..his only role IS AS A CONSULTANT TO A TEAM OF CIVIL ENGINEERS who are the only ones who can say whether it can or can’t be done…….the geologist is in the role of a radiographer. He takes the X-ray. But a radiologist interprets it and takes it from there.]
A terrible analogy at best. A radiographer is never a consultant whom a radiologist needs to consult, whilst a geologist is – as you so rightly point out (this time) – consulted by civil engineers, and the information he/ she provides seriously and carefully analysed.
[Daphne – I get your point and you, I hope, get mine.]
Moggy
“Many on the CHAC and others seem to have been thinking that there was going to be an unreasonable risk taken by excavating …….”
The CHAC makes recommendations to the DCC or the MEPA Board and, in this case, expressed their preoccupations regarding the project. In their Memorandum of two and a half years ago (Doc04) quoted by FAA they were not commenting on the application itself but on a preliminary presentation of the project and on the ‘Specifications for the Design Brief’.
I can categorically state that they never expected to be quoted by Astrid Vella as saying that everything should stop there and that EIAs were not necessary and a waste of money. In the same document they remarked unfavourably on the fact that “there has been no thorough and scientific study of the condition of the foundations, the existing underground structures and spaces and the nature of the geology of the area.” The implication is that such studies were needed.
More importantly, during a meeting held at the end of July 2008, they also recommended that “the Case Officer should consult the EIA Team as to whether this project qualifies for an EIA or other studies where the CHAC objections … are to be specifically considered. In this case, the Committee asks MEPA to establish Terms of Reference in order to carry out these studies.” While objecting on certain points, they were also requesting studies to address these objections.
So, while Astrid is saying that the experts had decided and there was no need for more studies, the very experts she quotes are calling for such investigations.
The FAA press release also carries a long quotation “excavations in the vicinity of the cathedral would not be favourably considered due to the risk these might pose to the structure of one of Malta’s foremost monuments and the art treasures within.” attributed to unidentified “MEPA Heritage experts”, I have searched for this quote in the experts’ documents provided by FAA but could not find it anywhere. Is this another version of the truth by FAA?