Some pigs are less equal than others
What we can do and what we should do are two different things - the law allows you to cheat on your spouse, but....
Well, that’s what I thought when I read about the latest tiresome controversy. Astrid Vella and her rag-tag band of freedom-fighters marched on Bahrija (“Oh my God, do you have a map? How do I get there? Isn’t that where Daphne lives? Oh, that’s Bidnija! Right! So I drive up to Rabat and then what?”) to claim that the Nationalist Party’s president had abused the system by getting permission to build a house in the valley there.
Or perhaps they claimed that the planning authority had abused the system to accommodate him. I’m not quite sure which.
Whatever it was, the overriding message was clear: the Nationalist Party president got that permit only because he is the Nationalist Party president.
So some pigs are more equal than others.
What Astrid and Jason Micallef – who was demonstrating with her – appear to be saying here is that if they were to apply for a permit to build on their land in Bahrija, they wouldn’t get one, because they are not the president of the Nationalist Party. I’d like to know on what basis they have reached this conclusion, given that neither of them has tried to apply for a permit to build in Bahrija Valley.
You’re not going to get Astrid whining through a megaphone behind your front door unless you are the Nationalist Party president or some other Nationalist Party politician, so I would say that the opposite is true. Some pigs are actually less equal than others.
If you’re involved with the Nationalist Party and Astrid decides she’s going to march down on you with a bunch of people who don’t know Bahrija from Bidnija, then you have a problem.
Let’s put it this way, if you’re the president of the Labour Party with a building permit in Bahrija Valley, you’re not going to find Edward Scicluna demonstrating in the dust outside, as the president of the Nationalist Party did.
No, he’ll be too busy totting up the cost of the power black-out last week and then speaking to The Times about it as ‘an economist’ rather than as a Labour politician with a raw agenda.
Unlike everyone else who can proceed in peace once they have that all-important permit, if you’re a prominent member of a political party you have to back down, submit yourself to police investigations and a zillion enquiries and risk having your project derailed. Nobody knows more than I do that this is what comes with the territory of being both in the public eye and politically active.
But the point is that, precisely because of the democratic workings of the free press and demonstrations of concerned citizens, people in the public eye who are involved with politics are not more equal than others. They are less equal.
Unlike that housewife in Astrid’s band, who told the cameras that she has lived in Rabat for all 65 years of her life but had never been down to Bahrija before the demonstration (“I came to see it now before they ruin it.”), I have been there many times, mostly in a state of high dudgeon and surrounded by legions of wet boys liberally coated in rank mud. So I reserve judgement on whether that permit should or shouldn’t have been issued.
What I will say is that the president of the Nationalist Party – and, for that matter, of the Labour Party – has certain duties towards his public image and that of the political party he represents. There is no room for equivocation on that.
Victor Scerri should have factored in the fall-out when he took a decision to apply for a permit to build there. He should have decided what he wanted more: the permit or his political position. In his place, I wouldn’t have done it, or I would have resigned my position first.
Yes, there are some people in his sort of position who argue that they don’t see why they should behave correctly when so many others are doing far worse and getting away with it. I can’t bear that line of reasoning – “everybody’s doing it so why not me”. It can only end badly.
The president of the Nationalist Party has precisely the same right as you or I to apply for a permit to build in Bahrija Valley. But this is not about rights. It is about integrity, that annoying word that circumscribes the lives (or should do) of those in public life.
Put simply, it’s like this: if you know that by your actions you are going to bring the political party you represent into disrepute and by extension cause harm to the government formed by that political party, then you avoid those actions. You might have a right to those actions, you might desperately long for whatever it is, the criticism and objections might be horribly unfair, but that’s sod’s law.
There are always going to be rabble-rousers around ready to pounce on a house being built by a politician while ignoring the great swathes of hideousness built by Mr and Mrs Private Citizen.
If Victor Scerri is to be chastised for anything at all, it is for failing to resign his post before applying for a permit that he knew was bound to be highly controversial and to rebound on both party and government. I certainly wouldn’t chastise him for applying for that permit or for doing what he could to get it, as any other person would.
I am quite sure that if all those people marching and demonstrating in the valley had a piece of land there with the possibility of a permit to build something, they would do exactly the same. The sight of Jason Micallef demonstrating against a potential house in Bahrija valley was particularly unconvincing.
So no, I don’t think Victor Scerri was wrong to apply for that permit or wrong to go ahead with the building once the permit came through. But I do think the president of the Nationalist Party was wrong to apply and wrong to go ahead.
I’m pleased to see that the architect on the project, Robert Musumeci, has sued Astrid Vella for libel. It’s about time somebody did. She doesn’t seem to understand that there’s a difference between speculating about people with friends over coffee and speculating about people through a megaphone in messages that she knows will be broadcast through the news media.
It’s interesting to see that the lawyers fighting his case against Astrid are my old chum Labour MP Jose Herrera and former Super One journalist Veronique Dalli. This leads me to wonder whether the Labour Party will be staying off this one and letting Astrid Vella do its job by default instead. But perhaps not. This is the land of the Two Hats – and they’re not what Edward de Bono had in mind, either.
This article is published in The Malta Independent today.
50 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Do you reckon this article is accurate?
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/2009/06/21/t1.html
It’s accurate. Sammut, a notorious man from Mqabba, bought the Bahrija land from the Sicilian, along with Norman Zammit and others. They have been trying everything to get a permit to develop it.
I can’t say I am in favour of this development. But I agree with Daphne. Victor Scerri was targeted because he is the President of the PN.
Woe betide you if you are somehow involved in politics and want to build somewhere questionable. Needless to say, this incident puts Astrid’s movement fairly and squarely in the Labour Party’s camp, I’m afraid. How they must be laughing their heads off in the House of Glass. Using the Sliema koccuti against the president of the PN – that’s rich, isn’t it?
Alla jbierek hadd ma tkellem fit-tlett okkazjonijiet li dan l-izvilupp tela bord tal MEPA.
This is another occasion where Astrid Vella et al are trying to undermine the rule of law, by shouting as loud as they can. They believe that by doing so, they can somehow take over the MEPA’s legal role.
Oh, the power of oratory. How easily people are swayed by it! We are in danger of being ruled by unelected satraps and strident housewives with nothing better to do. The next chap to bear the brunt of their anger is poor old Piano. I can see it coming.
Countless people have built or restored farmhouses in ODZ areas. Funny, but I didn’t see Astrid in any other protest except this one. And how come the FAA is so vociferous about Fort Cambridge and is saying nothing about the proposed Tigne tower? Isn’t that a tower as well?
Ahjar elf Vince minn Astrid wahda.
What worries me more, rather than whether the applicant is the President of the PN or the PL or Ahmedinejad himself, is the fact that the permit was issued notwithstanding several boards’ refusal…notwithstanding the fact that it doesn’t take a degree in environmental sciences to realise that it would be a downright shame to spoil one of the few pristine scenes left on the island…notwithstanding that the PM promised radical change in such matters…
For the record Ian (and Astrid too, by the way), the permit was issued many years before the PM had promised “a radical change”. The decision by the DCC may have been questionable but it was a legally valid one and I don’t think the permit can be revoked unless there is proof of some wrong-doing.
It is only Victor Scerri himself who can voluntarily renounce his right to build and neither MEPA not the PM can do anything about it now. Those who scream that the PM should “intervene” and block the development do not know what they are talking about; he would be breaking the law if he did.
[Daphne – Yes, it’s ironic that Astrid Vella wishes the prime minister to behave like Lorry Sant, using his personal power to over-ride and breach the law, but the woman appears incapable of understanding basic democratic concepts – which is why, I suppose, she sees the government as the Lord of Darkness and the Collation of Change as Malta’s salvation. So very, very tiresome.]
And so very dangerous. Many in MEPA are afraid of being named and shamed by her, so they do nothing controversial that might raise her hackles.
And they are so selective about their protests, aren’t they? To think that the PN was toying with the idea of asking her to contest as an MEP. Whatever were they thinking?
[Daphne – Ma kellhomx il-Vince?]
Daphne, If I remember well Lorry Sant did not revoke building permits. He issued building permits after he or his friends bought land that was outside the building zone. So Astrid is asking the Prime Minister to stop people in power from acting like Lorry Sant.
[Daphne – Wrong. Astrid is demanding that the prime minister breaks the law, on the principle that ‘l’etat, c’est moi’.]
What Lorry Sant did was wrong and what JPO and Vince Scerri did is just as wrong.
[Daphne – You’re not going to sell me that line, Grace. I was around during the reign of Lorry Sant, remember.]
I am sure no Tom, Dick or Harry would have been awarded such a building permit.
[Daphne – You may be sure, but you’re wrong. I know this through experience. You forget that I live in an ODZ area, where I have spent the last few years watching huts and hovels being transformed by ‘nobodies’ into sprawling villas.]
It is about time we start judging actions for what they are and not by whom they were committed, before Malta ends up one whole city with no green areas.
The debacle on the issue of buiding permits by MEPA to certain individuals to develop land outside the perimeters of approved development zones or in other words in ODZ regions have been raging for years and has from time to time been made into a political issue which even during the last general election nearly cost the party in government the election which was eventually one by a mere 1500 vote majority.
ODZ mean Outside Development Zone and its significance and meaning are clear enough. But it does seem that there are certain architects who can circumnavigate around the rules and through their own admission (as published in the press recently) through their expertise and knowledge of the system they get permits approved for their clients. Meaning they know all the loopholes and are able to abuse them ar will.
In my view if an architect is employed by MEPA or is appointed on any MEPA boaard (DCC, etc) and also owns a private practice through which he can apply and acquire permits outside ODZ regions he has a direct conflict of interest which is illegal . Applying for such a permit is illegal and if approved as has been the case in numerous cases someone is breaking the law. If not then why do we have areas that are marked as being ODZ?
In the forthcoming MEPA reform, the Prime Minister should make it clear that architects with a private practice are not to be employed by MEPA or appointed to serve as board members on any board especially DCCs.We have seen enough abuse, and wonder of wonders these people always try to come out with clean hands from any issue.
MEPA board appointees should be chosen from the judiciary (serving or retired) with jurisdiction to implement the letter of the law and to investigate, warn or even put an architect’s warrant on the line if found to be abusing the law or to acquire permits in ODZ areas through any means.
Daphne, a little ‘off topic’ but still ‘topical’ re: inequality. Just read this in my local Swiss newspaper, http://www.laliberte.ch. This is ‘liberally’ translated from French. “Malta is sinking with illegal immigrants. It’s not possible! Illegal immigrants arrive by thousands each year on the small island of Malta. Its 400,000 inhabitants live on an island fives times smaller than the canton of Fribourg. There is no room. The Minister has appealed to the United Nations.” The Swiss, of which I have four grandchildren, are presently voting to tighten their immigration laws. Somewhat sad, methinks.
[Daphne What about that referendum on whether there should be a ban on the building of more mosques there? A Swiss friend told me about it: a ban on mosques goes against the Swiss Constitution (freedom of worship), but apparently the government thinks it best to hold the referendum (100,000 signatures were obtained) and let people get it out of their system. A No verdict will settle the matter, and a Yes verdict can be overturned in court.]
The Swiss are quite xenophobic – mostly the German-speaking population (60%). My Swiss daughter-in-law has a PhD in religious studies – thesis: ‘Islam in Switzerland’. She hopes the ban will be rejected, however, fears the ‘worst’, due to the above-mentioned xenophobic nature of the majority.
D- I couldn’t agree with you more. Victor Scerri should have either resigned his political post before entering the fray (he must have known it was coming – he is certainly not an idiot), or else he should have given a procura for somebody else to apply, and to let it take its natural course.
[Daphne – Er, haven’t we been there already?]
Dr Scerri is a serious man and I have no doubt of his integrity, but a bit of foresight would have diverted the unfair attention being given to him. As it is, this is now another problem (as if he has not enough) for the Prime Minister who will be strained to justify this application made by one of the most trusted persons around him.
Do you remember the Gozitan Labour ex-minister who built a villa in a green area some years ago and managed to get away with it? That was a real outrageous scandal, and if that one could be forgotten; it is not surprising that other people in power take such calculated risks.
I know nothing about his integrity, but based on this incident he certainly has behaved like a fool. And no he should not have taken a calculated risk based on a previous foul action by a Labour ex-minister. It is time that our politicians demonstrate some real integrity. Not all that is legal is actually right. The people who presume to lead should be a couple of notches above the rest of the marmalja.
Daphné the referendum is not against mosques, it’s against minarets. The Swiss don’t want to be woken up to the sound of ‘Alla u akbar’… but the imams say that there will be no muezzin. We will be voting very probably in November.
[Daphne – Thanks, Fanny. I’d forgotten there are so many ‘Swiss’ on this blog!]
Hi Fanny,
What’s a mosque without a minaret? A church? Will ask my daughter-in-law.
I do not care if the person involved is the president of the PN or my uncle. The whole matter is wrong in principle. Why is it possible, according to the law, for anyone to obtain a development permit in an ODZ?
Why do we have to always go through this charade where somebody obtains a permit and then afterward calls are made for a police investigation and so forth? Of course I was not impressed by the lack of sensibility demonstrated by the politician concerned.
A friend has emailed this comment to me:
In the place of the proposed building there was already a farmhouse in existence. Therefore, reconstructing it and extending it a bit in terms of the law should not have been a big deal. I don’t necessarily agree that Victor Scerri should have resigned. The biggest harm that has been done is by the contractor who is carrying out the works. It seems that he removed the layer of blue clay when excavating for the building.
This is apparently not allowed because blue clay is important geomorphological layer for underground aquifers. In my view that was the biggest problem. Any self-respecting Environment Impact Assessment should have highlighted this. I don’t know whether excavations went ahead before an EIA was drawn up.
There is another issue besides the one mentioned in the emailed post. When permission is given for an extension it is understood that the original building will be left standing and a small appendage added to it. The same applies when the application is to renovate or repair an existing structure. If a building is dismantled and rebuilt it is normally treated as a new development and, if it is a residential one ODZ, permission is normally refused. This condition is always stated clearly when the permit is issued. Now, I haven’t been on the site in question but, from published photos it seems that the original building has disappeared.
Further to what I have said, a development the size of a house (even a largish house) does not require an EIA.
Daphne, your friend has mailed you a load of rubbish. The contractor did what he was contracted to do, be sure of that.
The original structure was totally demolished and all debris removed, even if it might have had protected beams and stone, roof slabs which cannot be demolished by law.
Plans were drawn by an architect in accordance with the owners requirements, and the architect knew full well that he was applying for an illegal permit on behalf of his client in an ODZ area.
Property in ODZ regions can only be refurbished internally, and maybe a room or two added using similar stone works to the original structure.
Stables, and a space for a swimming pool was what Hyacinth of Keeping Up Appearances used to wish for. Maybe this guy Dr. Scerri or whatever had the same ambitions. Pity that he threw the PN and his Prime Minister in hot water in the same way as that Mistra dentist.
When are we going to grow up in this country and stop treating Joe Citizen like a fool.
ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL DISCUSSING THE BAHRIJA DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ISSUED BY MEPA, RUBBISH AND MR. SCERRI AND MR.MUSIMECI KNOWS THAT!
[Daphne – Run off and chew over the deficit then. There’s a nice man called Edward Scicluna who has a calculator you might borrow.]
There is a lady who lives 200m away from Scerri’s land who has requested some very minor alterations to her house and her application was turned down. And like her there are many others because the area is one of the most ecologically sensitive in the Maltese islands.That is why those protesting at Bahrija believe Scerri’s political position was of great help to him. There’s no way he would have got what he got if he weren’t who he is.
[Daphne – You know that for a fact, do you. I can think of plenty of people who are ‘nobodies’ and who got the same, if not more – around 10 of them round where I live.]
Scerri’s initial applications were also repeatedly refused for blatantly breaching numerous MEPA regulations. He also requested a much larger piece of land for development than the area of the previous dwelling. His proposed development lies not more than three metres away from the natural spring where the endemic Maltese crab lives. There is the blue clay issue, there are protected plants in the area and many other issues. Nobody except the DCC board can understand how he got that mysterious permit.
Any person of integrity would never have applied for a permit like Scerri did. It’s not about harming yourself or the party; it’s more than that. It’s about denying present and future generations the right to enjoy the countryside.
[Daphne – Oh for god’s sake. How big is that house he’s building? Ten miles across? Don’t undermine your argument with this kind of hysterical rhetoric. I’ve just been gagging over Astrid’s exhortation to The People to stand up and not allow their children to be deprived of their rural heritage. One man tries to build a house in Bahrija valley, and our rural heritage is lost to all generations to come.]
That’s the whole issue. Now if you happen to be the president of a political party and you still cannot fathom this simple fact then you don’t even deserve to be in that position.
The people who protested at Bahrija (some of whom like Nature Trust are experts in their field and have compiled meticulous scientific studies about the area before the controversy erupted) are more intelligent than you seem to imply in your article. They’re not a rag-tag band of freedom-fighters. They have the environment at heart. That is the main reason why they went there. And they’re not in any way jealous of Victor Scerri or his land.
[Daphne – Funny you should bring that last one up, because I took great care not to do so myself. I rather suspect that, Nature Trust apart, most of the people on that demo would sell their grandmother’s right leg to have a house in Bahrija Valley. Look at the way they obsess about the fact that I have a house on Bidnija valley. They define me by where I live. They wouldn’t do that if I lived in a 1960s flat in a Sliema sidestreet or in a maisonette in Fgura.]
Jesomond, do you know who Joe Micallef is, who on 6 September 2005 (application no: 05560/05) applied for the building of 26 apartments (five of which are duplexes) and 24 underlying garages just few metres away from the watercourse of Wied il-Ghasel? http://mapserver.mepa.org.mt/malta_geoinfo/SQLresult.htm
He is a well known Labourite from Mosta, and the uncle of Jason Micallef. When the latter was contacted by the committee of residents to give his opinion, smiling Jason replied that there is nothing irregular in the granting of the permission for this development (which was given in March 2009).
Since Astrid loves protecting freshwater crabs which live in Bahrija, she was there indeed protesting against this development in Wied il-Ghasel. The Labour Party media did somehow show the story. However there is a eerie silence about this case … nobody really wants to follow it up. Perhaps Jason Micallef knows why
Isn’t it strange that Astrid Vella is already collecting money to pay for her libel case? It’s almost as if she knows she’s going to lose.
Daphne it takes one stone falling and rolling down a hill to start an avalanche. It takes just one Victor Scerri to start raping Bahrija and the whole of Malta follows suit. The development is illegal and everyone knows it.
[Daphne – Please don’t use that word ‘rape’ in respect of the countryside. It is such a boring cliche. It was first used in the 1980s as part of a PN anti-government advertising campaign and The Times refused to carry the advert because it didn’t permit the word ‘rape’, tending to prefer ‘carnal knowledge’ instead – which obviously wouldn’t have worked. Since then, all the clever people talk about raping the countryside. ‘The development is illegal and everyone knows it.’ What everyone knows, on the contrary, is that the development has a permit – and that’s what people are protesting against. Hence, it is not illegal, but legal. Whether people like the legality or not is another matter.]
Asking the police and MEPA to investigate after the permit was issued is a lot of codswallop.
[Daphne – Would you have said the same thing if it had been Astrid and the FAA who demanded a police investigation?]
The Prime Minister must take a stand on this, otherwise his long-awaited reform will be just another piece of useless paper.
[Daphne – I would hate to have the sort of prime minister who takes a stand on this, which is why I rushed to vote Labour out in 1987. The prime minister taking Victor Scerri aside to have a quiet word with him is, on the other hand, entirely acceptable. If the prime minister breaks the law in respect of Victor Scerri by over-riding the MEPA, he can break the law in respect of anyone else. It would be a hideous precedent.]
Daphne, the last sentence of my post in itself does not make sense as you removed an entire paragraph which dealt about conflict of interest practiced by architects from my post. Therefore the last sentence above and your following reply to it are totally taken out of context.
[Daphne – They are not. I deleted that bit because it is libellous. You can easily say the same thing without mentioning names.]
That missing paragraph is the most important, because as you said once a developer has a permit than he is not breaking the law; it is the architect who applied for it knowing that it is illegal is breaking the law and the MEPA board that issued it.
[Daphne – You can’t break the law by applying for a permit. There is nothing in the law which says that. As for the situation with the MEPA board, I don’t know enough about the regulations and clearly neither do you. So please refrain from making sweeping statements because it doesn’t help anyone, least of all your argument.]
When I mentioned the PM it was to remove the anomaly where architects are employed by MEPA and at the same time run a private practice, thus creating a conflict of interest which is detrimental to the common good.
[Daphne – I agree with you on conflict of interest. But I certainly don’t think the prime minister should over-rule decisions taken by a legally constituted body. That would be horrendous.]
If we are debating an issue it is pointless to remove whole paragraphs from contributions.
[Daphne – No, it is essential. This blog, like all other material published in Malta, is subject to Malta’s libel laws. If you wish to libel somebody, use your own name and set up your own website and get sued yourself, but don’t try to use me while remaining anonymous.]
Sorry, but I do not recall mentioning names. But anyway why in heaven’s name are we arguing, when we are having an intelligent discussion about a very hot issue?
[Daphne – I thought you were married. All women argue, unless we are trained from birth not to do so.]
Permits can be removed and revoked by MEPA in the same way as the Lija Belvedere area developments were stopped.
And anyway wasn’t it the same architect who was involved in the Lija development as well as the present Bahrija conundrum? Yes or no please.
[Daphne – Yes.]
As you said you do not break the law by applying for a permit. It is if you are a professional architect, with a warrant for which you are required to take an oath of fidelity to the profession, and at the same time try to bend the law to suit you, your client and your pocket, that constitutes a divergence from the law, especially if you are at the same time employed by the regulating authority which in this case is MEPA.
[Daphne – That’s a matter of personal rectitude. You can’t go around legislating about that.]
This is what the PM should look into before the proposed reforms are made public.
My views have been made very clear in my first post in this discussion, and I stick by what I said.
With reference to the world “rape” it is an action which is looked upon differently by different people. People ravage the countryside or historical sites, or protected areas and monuments, and there are people who term this as rape, then there are others who call this progress.
Women even argue with animals:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjoBKEJj2eI&feature=PlayList&p=BD93FE37B77822CB&index=8&playnext=3&playnext_from=PL
Political intervention is not the answer to this kind of situation. Fixing our laws and trying to close off as many loopholes as possible is what is needed.
@ Grace:
May I point out that MEPA can indeed withdraw a permit. This happened recently in Lija with regards to the proposed three storey building which was to be erected next to the Belvedere. The permit was originally issued in line with the area plan which had been changed a couple of years permitting such a development. When Lija mayor, Dr. Castaldi Paris protested his pants off, the permit was revoked willy nilly. Daphne, kindly replace area plan with the correct term. For the life of me, I suddenly can’t remember what it is.
Wasn’t the same architect involved in the Lija development the same as the one involved in the Bahrija scandal?
What exactly is this person’s agenda?
Withdrawing a permit issued by the MEPA, especially this permit, will entail paying a huge sum in damages. A three-storey development in the middle of Lija means many thousands of euros in lost revenue. It was a legally issued permit, just as Victor Scerri’s is. If the MEPA had to ask him to give up his permit, it will have to pay full market value for the land. I predict a bloodbath of epic proportions
The MEPA can withdraw a permit by issuing a “discontinuance order” in which case it has to give a valid reason at law as to why this order has been issued. In this case compensation has to be paid.
The MEPA can issue a “conservation order” if the permit is deemed to have been issued in a protected zone erroneously. In this case no compensation is paid.
In today’s The Times and The Malta Independent there are at least six letters and/or columns dealing with the Bahrija issue. They all have one thing in common viz: the architect involved.
[Daphne – Oh look! The usual suspects:
Lesley Kreuple http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=90122
It was with absolute horror that I read in the English newspapers on 23 June that Astrid Vella was being sued by architect Robert Musumeci….
That MEPA even considers applications made by this person is unbelievable. As far as I am concerned he should be struck off whatever register architects are on and banned from public duty!
Edward Mallia http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090626/letters/mepa-reform-requires-transparency-2
Marco Cremona http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090626/letters/mepa-reform-requires-transparency-1
I have another word for the so-called “expertise and knowledge of planning procedures”. It’s called “loopholes”.
Sandro Bugeja http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090626/letters/bahrija-blunder
“howls of protest” ]
It seems that we cannot be so specific on this blog for fear of a libel suit. If this is the case then this individual is going to have a field day in the coming days. We have to call a spade a spade regardless of what colour the spade is.
[Daphne – It is not because of the prospect of a libel suit that you have to avoid being specific. It is because you have no facts to be specific about. You cannot move from the fact that Robert Musumeci is the architect in project X and project Y to the conclusion that corruption and wrong-doing were somehow involved. That is definitely libellous because you have no proof of corruption or wrong-doing. You can say that you don’t like his face, that you don’t like his work, that you are uncomfortable with the fact that he is involved in both projects, that you think he is wearing two hats, but you cannot say that he is corrupt or that he has broken the law, not unless you have proof of both. It would be wrong to do that, libel suit or no libel suit. Accusations of corruption are extremely serious and can’t be flung around like that, not even in private conversation.]
Daph, you missed the one on page 10 of The Malta Independent. “Total lack of good governance at Mepa, insists Din L-Art Helwa”.
Saying the same things without mentioning names.
A wake up call with trumpets blaring is required, the authorities have been fast asleep for far to long on the MEPA issues and reforms.
Nigel, everybody ‘became’ an architect when discussing the Piano proposals for Valletta and, in this case, Alla jbierek, everybody has ‘become’ a lawyer, without having even skimmed through the relevant laws.
A conservation order has nothing to do with a permit being issued erroneously. Where did you get that idea? It is simply a decision that an area or property is of value and therefore the owner must not destroy or modify it. The order is issued on the merits of the property itself and has nothing to do with any permit. It may however justify the issue of a discontinuance order.
A discontinuance order is not a withdrawal of permit but an order to stop works, rather like a prohibitory injunction by the courts, You might say that the end result is the same but legally it isn’t and the owner is entitled to compensation.
MEPA may withdraw a permit only in “cases of fraud or where public safety is concerned or where there is an error on the face of the record,” (Art 39A (1) Planning Development Act). It is in this case that no compensation is payable and not when there is a conservation order.
Although I’ve been quoting the law, I don’t presume to know anything about legal matters. These should be left in the hands of lawyers (real ones, that is) and the general public should restrict themselves to what they are familiar with.
And Alex Vella, The Times page 8. Best of the lot.
Well done to Antoine Vella who clarifies following misinformation given by Nigel in a previous post.
This is how FAA and Ramblers operate. They dish out misinformation galore sprinkled with the occasional truth here and there. Most people are not sufficiently technical to distinguish between fact and fiction.
There is no means for the PM or MEPA to intervene and have the permit withdrawn except in the case of fraud.
A few days ago Astrid was on Super One and the amount of misinformation dished out to unsuspecting viewers was horrendous. There was no one on the panel with some knowledge of development to rebutt what was being said.
[Daphne – Why would Super One include anyone on their panel to rebutt Astrid’s misinformation?]
Nigel,
“And Alex Vella, The Times page 8. Best of the lot.”
Really. The best. Alex Vella is scandalised because “What seems to matter to Dr Gonzi is the law, only the law.”
What’s the worst like then?
Antoine Vella and MC, I take it that you are both in favour of a free-for-all situation were it involves development in ODZ regions or protected areas. Good for you, but I do not agree with you for one.
With reference to the “discontinuance order” and the “conservation order” debacle please refer to the Transfiguration Avenue, Lija, case, in which your friend has also been involved.
Antoine, we have been saying the same thing on the definition but in different words.
Nigel, please don’t put words in my mouth. Where did I say that I was in favour of a free-for-all situation regarding ODZ development? I did not feel the need to state explicitly that I disagreed with the DCC’s various decisions regarding this particular case because, at this stage of the debate, we’re not discussing environmental concerns but rule of law.
You will remember that some years ago, a man stood trial by jury for the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana. To everybody’s amazement, the jury acquitted him. Even the PM said he was surprised (or words to that effect) by the outcome. Do you think the he should have intervened and sent the accused to prison in spite of his acquittal? Of course not. Only a dictator even worse than MIntoff would have done something like that.
The principle is the same here: those who are clamouring for the PM’s intervention are conveniently forgetting that MEPA was set up expressly so that ministers and prime ministers could not intervene in development matters.
One may strongly disagree with a legal decision but has to accept it anyway because, to use an old cliche, the law may be an ass but it is the only ass we have.
Evidently Nigel is one of “the people” (also referred to as FAA). Like “the people”, he twists words around. I did not express any view for or against ODZ developments. The issue here is about intervention by the authorities on permits which have already been issued. The way the Lija case was dealt with raises many questions for which no reply can be found in the main Act.
If a permit can be withdrawn by MEPA but against compensation, does Nigel expect MEPA to use taxpayer money to pay compensation every time FAA does not like permit? Or worse than that, should MEPA pay up every time FAA does not like the applicant? The idea that government or MEPA can withdraw permits is very dangerous.
This is especially so in a situation where a section of the environment lobby picks and chooses which projects to shoot down (ex Ramla l-Hamra) and which projects not to object to (ex. extension of Mellieha hotel).
Now here’s a developer complaining that the Catholic Church is even more equal than others:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090626/local/hotelier-claims-two-weights-two-measures
“You cannot move from the fact that Robert Musumeci is the architect in project X and project Y to the conclusion that corruption and wrong-doing were somehow involved.”
Well, well, Hyzler might be on puppet string. On whose string is Robert Musumeci dangling?
V. Vella, I don’t know why you’re being so coy with all your nudge-nudge-wink-wink. Robert Musumeci LIVES WITH Magistrate Consuelo Scerri Herrera, sister to Labour MP Jose Herrera and his lawyer in this case. Lives with. In a house they set up together after she left her husband and he left his wife. It’s not as though they’re doing anything behind anyone’s back or having a clandestine affair. So why don’t you just come right out and say it?
I know that you’re trying to suggest that just because Robert Musumeci was the architect for the Lija flats project owned by Magistrate Scerri Herrera’s husband when she was still married to him, then there was some ‘wrong-doing’. But it doesn’t follow. It might be stuff that people enjoy gossiping about, but it doesn’t translate into corruption.
Can anyone who has a few tumoli of land declare that he would never ‘dream’ of having a nice cosy place where he or she can go to relax and rest? If I were Dr Scerri I wouldn’t have done anything less than he did.
[Daphne – I wouldn’t either, but not if I were president of a political party. Then no, because of all the flak my party would get. It’s too idealistic to say: “But I’m within the law so there shouldn’t be flak. There’s always going to be flak, and most of it is driven by ulterior motives, not concern for ‘our children’s rural heritage.’]
It was up to MEPA to accept or refuse permission for development. The development is within the law. It is replacing a building which probably was ugly. Extending the building by around 25% is normal practice. Excavating a reservoir underneath the building is OK and may I add should be mandatory.
Being legally OK does not necessarily mean that no harm was done in the area. Why don’t these so-called environment groups go and protest near ‘Is-Salib ta’ l-Gholja’ which is full of developments? But then they will not be seen on One TV.
John, always remember that a development right in middle of a valley or rural area such as the location of the development in question at Bahrija would require the supply of electricity, water and drainage systems, which would mean the installation of a number of pylons or poles to direct electic cables to the property, the digging of ditches from the nearest road through which water mains and drainage piping would have to be passed causing the uprooting of trees and plants and disturbing miles of virgin land.
We are not just talking about the building of a few rooms or a converted farm here, we are talking about a villa which I’m sure will be supplied with all the above utilities, amenities and facilities. This apart from the road which most probably would have to be opened at taxpayers’ expense for the Victor Scerris of this world to be accommodated.
There is more than meets the eye in such developments.
[Daphne – Don’t let your envy show, Nigel. When people live off the beaten track, they have to pay for services to be brought to their door, and I can assure you that the fees paid are exorbitant. In addition, this is only for water and electricity, not telephony or drainage. They also have to build their own road. People who live in that sort of situation have a cesspit and are not connected to the drains.]
Nigel, he use PV cells to supply his farmhouse for the same capital output. He can install a vertical axis wind generator with no noise (just seen one working near Buskett Forest Restaurant) . As Daphne pointed out, a cesspit solves the sewage problem.
Water? He will harvest rainwater or bring a few bowsers to fill the reservoir.
@ Daphne: I wrote something about Dr Scerri being legalistic. On that one I changed my view or rather cannot be sure whether Dr Scerri is ethically right. If I apply for a room in an ODZ and get a permit why shouldn’t Dr Scerri get one? One has to keep in mind the atrocities in the countryside by opposition MPs. Wistin Schembri is pointing to them his comment below.
[Daphne – People in his position have to lead by example, even if no one follows. Also, he is a key person in an organisation, and if by his actions he causes harm to that organisation (bad publicity and so on) then he should refrain from whatever it is he’s doing. That’s why I wrote that Victor Scerri should have applied for a permit if he wanted to, but the president of the Nationalist Party should not. As for the rest, just because ‘the others’ are doing it you shouldn’t do the same yourself ghax iss hej mhux fier.]
Are we expecting people in government to act like pure virgins while the opposition speculators and others do whatever they like without asking for a permit and then Mepa issues a permit? The buck stops at MEPA . Dr Scerri wasn’t asking for something which others did not get.
Daph, we are talking about a new development in an ODZ area which in the same way and manner as the shanty towns at Armier, St. Thomas Bay and other locations, should never be supplied with any amenities in the first place. Why? Very simple, because they should not, and should never have been there in the first place.
[Daphne – You’re confusing issues. Unlike the shanty people at Armier and elsewhere, Victor Scerri owns the land on which he is building, and has a permit to do so. Hence, given that he owns the land and has a permit, he has a right to the provision of utilities, as long as he pays for them.]
I don’t agree with Dr Scerri’s initiative to apply for a building permit in Bahrija.
However, I do challenge those who preach in The Times and who are expecting the Prime Minister to behave as a dictator (his views become law and replace the laws enacted by Parliament) and withdraw the permit to declare whether THEIR OWN permits in eg Santa Marija Estate should be withdrawn (let alone Charles Mangion’s building in Siggiewi countryside; Anton Refalo’s in Qala, Helena Dalli’s in Marsascala, etc).
Come on chickens!
It is already nearly too late to save our scenic and natural environment. Why should permits be given outside development zones? Daphne, I am an admirer of yours but I get the feeling that you want all Malta built up and do not appreciate the wild and the beauty of nature. Please though respect those who do.Thank you.
[Daphne – You’re quite wrong there, and my choice of living location should more than amply illustrate that. I would rather be bound, gagged and forced to listen to Astrid whining into a megaphone for days on end than live in a Sliema flat, as she does. To each his own – she’s an urban girl and I’m not, unless it’s a thrilling metropolis and I’m on holiday. However, I have neither left-wing nor right-wing political inclinations and as somebody who espouses liberal views I respect individual rights, personal property and the rule of law. I have very, very strong reservations about the interference of the majority in the rights of the individual, public interference in personal property, and the over-riding of laws to satiate the bloodlust of people with megaphones. If the permit was issued legally, then it was issued legally. If there is any one of those protesters and demonstrators who can say with conviction that they would not like to live in the sort of house that Victor Scerri is building, but would instead turn that precious land, if they were lucky enough to own it, into a nature reserve, then I would respect them for it. But for some odd reason, I get the feeling that many of them would sell their grandmother to have what he has, and if they’d turn it down, it’s only because they’re the kind of people whose horizon is bounded by the urban stretch between Sliema and St Julian’s, and who would never live anywhere ‘so far away’ (which are the words they use when asking me why I live where I do). A hundred years ago, those demonstrators would have been met by Victor Scerri brandishing a gun and yelling ‘Get off my land!’, which is roughly how I feel about it.]