Victor Scerri resigns to fight his case as a private citizen – this is his press statement
NAGHZEL LI NKOMPLI IL-KWESTJONI TAL-PERMESS TAL-BAHRIJA BHALA CITTADIN PRIVAT – DR VICTOR SCERRI
Nirreferi ghal dak kollu li ntqal f’dawn l-ahhar gimghat dwar l-applikazzjoni, il-proceduri u l-permess li nharigli fuq zvilupp propost tieghi fil-Bahrija.
Jidher car li tul dan id-dibattitu kollu, fl-ebda mument ma thalla ebda spazju ghall-oggettivita`, ghar-rispett lejn il-fatti u lejn il-proceduri legali tal-awtoritajiet tal-pajjiz, imma spiccajna f’sitwazzjoni fejn ir-ragun sar jitkejjel skont min jghajjat l-iktar.
Aghar minn hekk, il-fattur principali li gie meqjus kien il-fatt li jien nokkupa kariga fil-Partit Nazzjonalista. Dan tqies bhala skuza bizzejjed biex kull min fettillu, tefa’ tajn, hammeg u spara allegazzjonijiet u insinwazzjonijiet bl-addocc, u minghajr ebda bazi ta’ verita.
Huwa daqstant iehor car illi f’din is-sitwazzjoni, hemm elementi illi qed jinqdew bil-pozizzjoni tieghi fil-Partit biex jaghmlu hsara lill-istess Partit ghax, kif jaf kulhadd, huwa facli hafna li tallega u tinsinwa kontra figura pubblika.
Hija fin-natura ta’ kull wiehed u wahda minna illi jissuspetta li xi hadd li ghandu xi kariga ikun jista ‘jirranga’ u li qed igawdi xi haga iktar minn kull cittadin kwalunkwe iehor.
B’dan il-mod, ghal dan il-kaz biss, jien bhala individwu u l-Partit Nazzjonalista li tant inhossni marbut mieghu, qed insibu lilna infusna bhal zewg atleti fi three legged race.
Ghaldaqstant wasalna f’salib it-toroq, fejn huwa car, illi f’din il-glieda, biex is-sewwa jirbah zgur u z-zejt jitla fil-wicc, jien u l-Partit Nazzjonalista ma nistghux nibqghu marbutin flimkien. Ghalhekk, peress li nhoss illi –
• Jien ghandi nigi trattat bhal kull cittadin iehor kwalunkwe, u ma nigix zvantaggjat bil-kariga li nokkupa.
• Ghandu jieqaf kull forma ta pressjoni fuq il-familja, b’mod partikolari fuq il-mara tieghi, fejn b’mod mill-iktar baxx, gew imzeffna materji ta natura personali u familjari li ma ghandhom x’jaqsmu assolutament xejn.
• Ghandhom jieqfu l-allegazzjonijiet infondati ta “x’seta sar” u x’ “ma jistax jigi eskluz”, u nibdew nitkellmu fuq x’sar u x’nistghu neskludu.
• Ghandi nigi ggudikat fuq dak li ghamilt, u fuq dak li ghamilt biss, u fuq l-ebda allegazzjoni.
• Il-Partit Nazzjonalista li tant inhobb, u l-Gvern, li jien ma ghandi l-ebda konnessjoni mieghu, ma ghandhomx jibqghu jigu mzeffna fejn ma hemmx ghalfejn.
• Jien irrid inkun nista niehu l-passi kollha li hemm bzonn bhala individwu u bhala cittadin kwalunkwe, minghajr ma nkun imxekkel bir-restrizzjonijiet tal-kariga li nokkupa.
• Irrid naghmila cara li ma inhix qed ingawdi xi privilegg jew xi protezzjoni mill-kariga li nokkupa.
Illum infurmajt lill-Kap tal-Partit Nazzjonalista Dr Lawrence Gonzi, u lis-Segretarju Generali Dr Paul Borg Olivier, li jien qieghed nirrizenja mill-kariga ta’ President tal-Kunsill General tal-Partit Nazzjonalista b’effett immedjat. Dan jien ghamiltu ukoll permezz ta’ ittra formali.
Nixtieq niddikjara li din hija decizjoni illi qed niehu jien minn jeddi, u minghajr ma gejt imgieghel jew inkoraggut li naghmel dan minn hadd. Anzi nista nghid illi iktar kien il-kontra, ghax kemm il-Kap tal-Partit, is-Segretarju Generali, u hafna membri ohrajn tal-Partit esprimew il-fiducja assoluta fl-integrita tieghi, f’li jien ma ghamilt xejn li mhux suppost ghamilt.
Pjuttost hafna talbuni nahsiba u nirrikonsidra din id-decizjoni, anki meta ghidtilhom li kont deciz.
Huwa b’dispjacir illi kelli niehu din id-decizjoni tant difficli u li tweggani hafna, izda ntenni li s-sewwa jirbah zgur, u ghalhekk minn ghada, bhala cittadin privat, ser nibda naghmel dak kollu li hemm bzonn isir biex titnehha kull marka li setgha halla t-tajn li twaddab lejja u lejn familti.
Pero’ nghid illi jien naf il-verita kollha, u naf li ma ghamilt xejn hazin u ghalhekk dawn il-marki ser imorru malajr. Mill-banda l-ohra, ser ikun difficli ghal min spiss qieghed idahhal idejh fit-tajn u jwaddbu lejn dak u l-iehor minghajr ebda skrupli, (basta jidher f’xi storja jew ohra), li jnehhi dawn il-marki minn fuq idejh (jew idejha) u iktar aghar, minn fuq il-kuxjenza.
Nixtieq illi naghlaq din l-istqarrija billi pubblikament nirringrazzja lill-Kap tal-Partit u lis-Segretarju Generali tal-Partit, ta kemm esprimew fiducja fija f’dawn l-ahhar granet. Nirringrazzja lill-Ufficjali kollha tal-Partit li hdimt maghhom tul dawn is-snin kollha, u b’mod partikolari lill-kunsilliera tal-Partit li darba wara ohra tawni l-fiducja taghhom bhala President tal-Kunsill Generali.
Au revoir.
Victor
46 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Prosit Victor, li kieku kullhadd jaghmel bhalek u jkun ragel bizzejjed li jirrizenja, nibza li l-anqas parlament ma jibqa. Nispera li jkun hawn aktar irgiel u anke nisa li jkollhom id-dicenza li jaghmlu bhalek……this goes to you ASTRID.
Doesn’t explain why the planning application was made in his wife’s maiden name.
[Daphne – Typical Maltese backwoods thinking about married women (and then homosexual men think they are the ones with problems). Women no longer have ‘maiden names’. We have surnames. On marrying, we can choose to take our husband’s name, he can choose to take ours, or everyone involved can choose to retain their birth family’s name or merge the two together. Hence, the woman in question, who is married to Victor Scerri, does not have a maiden name. She has a surname, which she uses. Applicants for permits cannot use false names, only the name which appears on their identity card. I find it interesting, too, the way everyone is assuming that it is ‘Victor Scerri’s land’. It occurs to no one here, apparently, that this might very well be her land, and she is having to take the flak for being married to Victor Scerri, which comes with the territory. Not all marriages are an economic union governed by ‘il-komunita ta’ akkwisti’. Equally irritating, from the point of view of a married woman like myself, is the general assumption that anything official must be done under the husband’s name. I find it odd that I have to remind you that changes to the marriage act in the early 1990s – shab indaqs fiz-zwieg – mean that the husband is no longer the head of the union and its sole representative. Maltese men, honestly – so many of you are really the pits.]
“Victor Scerri confirms he bought his land ……etc.” (from some rather shady people).
MaltaToday June 21.
My wife bought a car in the early 1990s (pre marriage act changes) out of her own money. I was extremely put out at having to be dragged down from Gozo in the August heat to countersign the blessed papers at Mizzi’s in Malta.
[Daphne – The situation hasn’t changed there, John. In fact, she now has to sign the papers when you buy a car. This is because it isn’t her own money and it isn’t your own money at law, unless you have dissolved your economic community or never had it to start with. So while no questions are asked about things bought outright, bills of exchange for cars and so on,and loans, require the signature/consent of both spouses. This is a good thing, because both spouses are liable for the debt. The situation pre the 1990s change to the law went against the interests of women not because our husbands had to give consent for loans/bills of exchange (after all, they were liable, so it is obvious that their consent would be required), but because husbands could take on loans/bills of exchange without their wife’s consent, even though the wife was liable too. The husband was head and sole representative of the marital economic community and the wife had the legal status of a child. The change to the law made it obligatory for the signature of BOTH spouses to be obtained for loans and bills of exchange. The only way for spouses to operate independently of each other financially is to rescind the economic community by notarial deed. Then you are, to all intents and purposes, a single person, except that you are still married.]
Doesn’t property and money inherited by a spouse before marriage remain the sole property of that spouse even after marriage?
[Daphne – Yes. But any debts/loans/bills of exchange entered into after marriage are the responsibility of both partners, regardless of how the payments will be made or what with.]
That only holds water if you can show that Scerri’s wife habitually uses the surname she had before she was married (since “maiden surname” seems to bug you). Can you?
[Daphne – I don’t have to. When applying for a permit, you have to give the details shown on your identity card, and you can’t use a different name. If she used a different name, then that goes against the rules in itself, and indicates that the administrative system is not double-checking these things. It’s not a matter of the name you ‘habitually use’, but of the name by which the state knows and acknowledges your existence: the name on your ID card and passport. And yes, I find the term maiden name to be archaic and offensive.]
@Daphne “When applying for a permit, you have to give the details shown on your identity card, and you can’t use a different name.”
The MEPA application was in the name of Marthese Said. The electoral register (and presumably the ID card) lists her as Marthese Scerri Said. So it looks like that in this case the “Scerri” was lost somewhere along the way.
[Daphne – That is definitely a detail which should be taken up. These things have to be double-checked at submission stage and can’t be taken on trust.]
Twanny, just because the application was not made in Victor Scerri’s own name doesn’t mean that there was something wrong or that he had something to hide. You don’t use your name here – does it mean you’re doing anything wrong?
[Daphne – People who complain about official applications made ‘f’isem il-mara’, implying that they were trying to hide something because official stuff is always ‘f’isem ir-ragel’, are only revealing their backwoods-bunny attitude.]
Perhaps Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando will feel the need to follow suit.
Having myself applied for a similar ODZ permit I can’t understand what all the fuss is about. A farmhouse existed on the property; this was old an uninhabitable. An application was made to reconstruct the farmhouse, using greener technology, on a slightly larger footprint. I applied for a very similar permit, didn’t put an ounce of pressure, and it was granted. I could have been accused of being the brother of the cousin of the prime minister, even if these accusations would have been completely wrong.
[Daphne – The fuss was politically motivated. Nobody at Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar really cares about the environment or understands what they’re talking about. In their view, a collapsed ruin is better than allowing the president of the political party which they do not support to build something on the footprint.]
‘Slightly larger footprint’, now that is the trick statement isn’t it. I wonder what the definition of ‘slightly larger’ is.
[Daphne – Why don’t you find out and let us know?]
I thought you might do that.
Actually The Malta Independent of a couple of days ago will give you the answer for this case. The permit was for 150sqm as opposed to the 90sqm of the original building. I do not know about you but to me 60sqm is hardly ‘slightly bigger’.
Most of that extra 60sqm were imposed by MEPA to build a cistern
“Nobody at Flimkien Ghal Ambjent Ahjar really cares about the environment or understands what they’re talking about.”
Whilst noting that you have used your powers of moderation when I posted examples of previous situations concerning certain public persons, I would like to ask whether the above statement cannot be construed to be libellous or not?
[Daphne – No, it isn’t. The environment is not about buildings and whether they are ugly or nice. That is aesthetics and not environmentalism. A debate about whether we should have a national theatre, and whether that theatre should have a roof, and whether parliament house should be near city gate is not even remotely connected with the environment. On the other hand, Piano’s plans for a ‘green’ parliament house certainly are, and we have heard not a word about that from FAA. On the contrary, they want to ditch the green parliament and instead convert a couple of mythical palazzos into a very ungreen alternative.]
Daphne, I cannot understand why three contributions on three topics including this one had been totally deleted and never published. None of these posts were libelous. So why the deletion. We are either democratic or we are not. You yourself has been deriding Astrid Vella something dreadfully for a long time, so why are you so protective of certain people. Fairness please.
[Daphne – I am better placed than you are to know what is libellous and what is not. Exactly what sort of a man are you to post a libellous or deeply insulting comment using a false name, expecting me to carry the can? I am not going to publish libel, and if you wish to make a certain type of allegation, kindly do what I do and use your real name. When I ‘deride Astrid Vella’, as you put it, she knows exactly who I am.]
This is not good news for pseudo NGOs who usually take comfort from the belief that a political figure will think twice before taking legal action to protect his or her name. Now that Victor Scerri is no longer officially associated with the PN, and if as he says he has done nothing wrong, some charlatans may be living anxious hours.
@ Twanny: Nahseb qed tipprova tilghaba tal-qaddis. Had I that piece of land, I would have done exactly the same: seek permission to remove the ruin and build a new home instead. Min ma kienx jaghmel hekk?
[Daphne – Dawk li m’ghandhomx l-art, ovvja, u li jitkellmu mit-teorija biss.]
Prosit Victor Scerri. You are the victim of a spate of mud-slinging concocted by those whose aim in life is to tarnish the names of persons connected in some way or other with the Nationalist Party. Your resignation is to be considered as a courageous decision which in no way should be interpreted as related to any foul intentions. I am fully aware that you are a person of integrity and of high moral values, and in no way are you capable of tarnishing the party you love so much. I am sure that the truth will finally triumph
Dr Scerri did the most honourable thing in the circumstances, not because he is to be presumed guilty of anything, but because the unfair mud-slinging had become totally out of hand.
Some people believe that just because you are well connected, you can get away with any application before MEPA. This is definitely not the case as even some of the most influential of my clients have been tortured by MEPA’s endless demands, and then still had the proposal refused.
Others, not so well connected, have fought and obtained their permit, but in both instances, the procedures and policy decision taken were parallel. The fact that the architect uses a loophole in the planning policies to obtain his client’s wishes is certainly not illicit, and it’s run of the mill for all architects.
To Dr.Scerri – I have no doubt that you will return vindicated to the party to which you have given so much input and energy. What I doubt, on the other hand, is that all the mud-throwers, including a large section of the media, will then swallow humble pie and ask to be forgiven for their squalid behaviour.
“The fact that the architect uses a loophole in the planning policies to obtain his client’s wishes is certainly not illicit, and it’s run of the mill for all architects”.
It’s like saying that tax avoidance is considered OK… Just ask the IRD!
[Daphne – I’m happy to let you know that tax avoidance is perfectly legal and that the entire tax consultancy industry is based on showing people how to do it. It is tax evasion which is illegal.]
The truth is that one often forgets that architects do not have only a responsibility and accountability towards their clients but have also a public role which dictates that they have work within the parameters and spirit of the law and any regulations regardless of any ‘loopholes’.
As reported in the media, it seems that the auditor has highlighted a number of misgivings by the DCC and also within the submissions of the applicant and, it seems, that even the MEPA board has acted – implicitly adopting the auditor’s recommendations – at least in part.
And there I was, thinking that “Disgusted” was one particular CPAA!
Faa has complete faith in the auditor– he is our saviour-thanks astrid and joseph falzon for exposing the shadows
[Daphne – Do I detect the beginnings of a Jonestown cult here? Incidentally, if Astrid and FAA have ‘complete faith in the auditor’ then that is reason enough for me not to do the same. Astrid and FAA appear to have complete faith only in those who share their highly suspect agenda.]
With all due respect, Daphne, nothing can be said to justify the irresponsible acts of a board (DCC) that is meant to safeguard our environment. It’s very convenient for Dr. Scerri to say that he did not interfere in the process and that he did not use any sort of undue influence. But common sense and logic tells you that when you have a DCC Board “ignoring all policies and advice from the properly constituted bodies of Mepa without giving any plausible justification for such actions”, then someone somewhere is indeed doing something shady.
[Daphne – The fact remains that you can build a house on the footprint of a ruin even in an ODZ in the middle of an otherwise uninhabited valley so far off from mains supplies that you have to pay to have your own water pipes and electricity poles put down. Magistrate Jacqueline Grima did it in ultra ODZ Bidnija and I know her – as do so many others – to be unquestionably above and beyond suspicion and a paragon of correctness.]
It wasn’t ever about the permit, though, was it? The campaign supposedly targeted the MEPA’s allegedly wrongful practices, but much fuss was made about the political party to which the property owner and the architect are affiliated. Were this campaign about the MEPA’s wrongful practices (or wrong headed decisions), one has to ask: what took FAA so long? The permit was issued years ago.
Cherchez la femme?
Daphne, elsewhere you mentioned that you too live in an ODZ – Bidnija. Please tell these people that it is perfectly legal and acceptable to build a new house on the footprint of a rundown rural building in an ODZ, and that there is nothing unusual or shocking about it. Magistrate Jacqueline Padovani Grima, who like you lives in Bidnija, bought very many tumoli of land there some years ago, with an old ruin on it, very much like Victor Scerri’s. She applied for and obtained a permit to demolish the ruin and build a family home on the footprint, which is where she lives now with her husband and daughter. The farmhouse in question was as isolated as Victor Scerri’s, and also on an ODZ valley – so much so that it had no access to water or electricity and the magistrate had to pay for Enemalta and Water Services to extend supplies to her new house. Magistrate Padovani Grima is an extremely correct person and in her position cannot afford to do anything ‘bent’. I bring up her case so as to show all these people here that they really do not know what they are talking about when they express astonishment that an old ruin can be demolished and something built instead on its footprint in an ODZ. Of course it can. If it was all right for a correct magistrate, then it’s all right for Victor Scerri.
Karmenu writes:
Ara issa, jekk Dr. Scerri jfittex ghad-danni li sarulu, ma jigux ta’ l-FAA u c-carlatani l-ohra u joqoghdu jnewhu li dan hu xi attakk fuq id-demokrazija. Jekk veru dak li allegaw fil-meetings tal-marmalja m’ghandhomx mniex jibzghu. Jekk izeffnu fin-nofs il-liberta tal-kelma allura jkunu juru x’inhuma tassew: nies ipokriti u motivati politikament u allura l-PN din id-darba jrid jirritalja u jqieghed lil kulhadd f’postu.
Any comments on the Auditor’s report, please?
[Daphne – I’ve just come in and have yet to read it.]
These are my views about the environmental damage and natural heritage of the Bahrija saga. I’m sure others can write about legalities.
The ruins of an old farmhouse with a fig tree growing in it (one part almost 2 floors high) cause far less damage than a new structure with a larger footprint, closer to the valley and two floors high.
Images of the two:
http://media1.timesofmalta.com/tomcdn/20090721–223304-20090721084309loc_01.jpg
http://www.timesofmalta.com/media/serve/20090714–092504-loc_06.jpg
Images taken from these articles:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090714/local/mepa-chairman-seeking-advice-on-auditors-report
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090721/local/victor-scerri-resigns-from-pn-president
[Daphne – You are not talking about environmental damage, but about aesthetics – and that is a matter of opinion. You might prefer the old ruin with a fig tree growing out of it. I might prefer an attractive new building (and I do). Also, the rules are what they are and they can’t suddenly be twisted or bent to go AGAINST somebody just because somebody else has decided to suspect that those rules are being bent in his favour. The rule that it is permissible to build on the footprint of an existing building/ruin is so old and well-established that when my uncle and aunt built their house in the mid-1960s in what was then open countryside – so open that they lived for years without electricity and for many years after that with their own generator – they were restricted to the footprint of an existing rural dwelling. It is not up to you, Astrid and FAA to come along now and decide for the rest of us that this long-established rule applies in some cases but cannot be applied where the applicant is somebody they don’t like for reasons best known to themselves. I mentioned Magistrate Padovani Grima. Does anyone doubt her correctness and her care with adhering to the rules? I certainly don’t and I have never met anyone who does. Yet that is precisely what she did: build her family home on the footprint of an old ruin on a valley far more magnificent than Bahrija, in an ODZ. People who have been misled by Astrid and FAA into thinking that what Victor Scerri is doing is illicit, illegal, the result of clientelism or exceptional have probably lived in Sliema and its environs all their lives and have no direct or indirect experience of the stuff we are talking about here.]
Daphne, I suggest you do read the Auditor’s report and also note the action already adopted by the MEPA board. Personally, however, I attribute the situation not to Dr. Scerri – whom I believe to have been misled – but whoever gave his professional opinion. I think that this is also clear from the report.
Daphne, I really like the way you write, but sometimes you do get personal.
‘Maltese men, honestly – so many of you are really the pits.’
At least you didn’t say all of us…
One only has to look at the photo in this link. http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090722/local/all-policies-ignored-in-case-of-bahrija-farmhouse-auditor
How can anyone think of building a villa and getting away with it?
[Daphne – It’s not a matter of building a villa and getting away with it. It’s a matter of being allowed to build on the footprint of an existing building. What he couldn’t hope to ‘get away from’ wasn’t a villa but flak and hdura. What I see in that photograph is an existing building. Therefore if others are allowed to build in a similar ODZ on the footprint of an existing building, Victor Scerri should be allowed to do so too. I’m not one for using two weights and two measures depending on whether a person takes my fancy or not. I live in an area identical to that. This sort of scene is impressive and exceptional only to people who live in Sliema….or Manhattan.]
It certainly doesn’t help if you’re the president of a political party and the vast majority (no apologies L. Galea) of the inhabitants in the area support the rival party.
[Daphne – Now we’re talking as to the root cause of the problem.]
Fact is that for all the honesty in the world, Victor Scerri set himself up as a sitting duck. Having said this, what happens next? Shouldn’t MEPA refund Victor Scerri all the costs he has incurred to date on the basis of the permit that was issued to him? And even if the DCC board responsible for the erroneous decision has been replaced and no action can be taken against its members, shouldn’t their names be made public in the interest of accountability? (I haven’t seen any names in the newspaper reports but apologies in this case if they are disclosed in the auditor’s report).
[Daphne – I believe Victor Scerri is going to challenge the view that this was a mistake. I certainly would. I know of tens of houses built in similar situations and perfectly within the law, by decent, law-abiding, respectable people who would never bribe anyone or bend the rules. One of them is Magistrate Padovani Grima, who lives in the same ODZ that I live in. I could mention others, but people will say ‘Oh, but he’s so-and-so. He pulled strings.’ Or ‘he’s a contractor – what do you expect.’ So I mention the magistrate because she is completely above suspicion and no one can accuse her of anything, she’s so clean.]
Daphne, I work in Manhattan but I live in front of the ocean. I know that part of Malta like the back of my hand and love it because of the way it is.
[Daphne – That’s where you and I part company, Leonard. I have problems with the idea of forcing people to keep THEIR private property in the manner in which I – who have no legal rights over the place – wish them to keep it, so that when I choose occasionally to pass by I can continue to love it as it is. Yes, there have to be rules and there have to be permits and there has to be some form of control, but purely to avoid a mass exercise in the classic ‘tragedy of the commons’ and for no other reason. The idea that the presumed rights of an observer take precedence over the real rights of the owner is one that is completely alien to my way of thinking. The interesting thing is that it is the people who think of themselves as liberals who wish to compromise property rights. Real, true liberals think as I do.]
Too one-dimensional in this case. Would make Gozo one of the most liberal places on earth.
[Daphne – It is.]
I was talking about environmental damage not aesthetics nor age-old rules.
A new building with people using the building causes more damage than old ruins because people are using the new building. The new building will cause noise and light pollution at night if it is used at night. Furthermore, the new building was going to be larger, both in footprint and in volume than the ruins and closer to the valley (and the watercourse). I will not go into the legalities or rules or aesthetics.
[Daphne – I am really, really tired of being hectored about this subject by townies who live in flats among traffic and whose only experience of greenery is an Amazonian houseplant in the living-room. I’m not saying that this is you, but I rather suspect I’m not far off the mark. It is not light pollution from a living-room window or a garden light that damages the countryside. Nor is it people going about their daily business in their homes. It is those who work the fields, and who use copious amounts of insecticides (poisons) and fertilisers (nitrates). The insecticides cause an environmental holocaust, killing every insect for miles around, and leaving no food source for larger animals like hedgehogs. The nitrates seep into the water-table and upset the balance of the soil. And as for the water-table itself, it has long since been completely destabilised by the vast numbers of illegal boreholes driven down and copiously used by farmers to irrigate their fields. Unfortunately, FAA townies and false environmentalists reveal themselves to be what they are – clueless urban people – when they look at a building in the fields and think ‘environmental hazard’ just because it is ugly (to them) while failing to see the real environmental damage being caused by the uncontrolled use of poisons, fertilisers and boreholes – and worse still, not saying anything about these tremendous problems. Only a townie would think that as long as it looks green, there’s soil and no buildings, then it’s fine.]
Am I correct in saying that the auditor’s report actually contains a number of allegations and suppositions? Correct me if I’m wrong.
[Daphne – I haven’t yet had a chance to read it. I’ve been answering telephone calls and uploading these comments since I walked through the door. However, I must say at the outset that my confidence in the auditor waned dramatically as soon as FAA’s footsoldiers began making it known that the organisation trusts him implicitly and has full faith in him. FAA have stuck their neck out so far only for those who do their bidding and produce ‘evidence’ they can wave around. The auditor might be perfectly correct for all I know, but it serves him ill to have an agenda-driven and manipulative organisation declare its full confidence in him.]
I have only seen the online report by The Times, but it appears the auditor’s report contains a number of gratuitous allegations.
It seems that the MEPA auditor appears only to keen to sympathise with those whose political beliefs and agenda he shares. Before the general election, he appeared to be taking advice (instruction?) from Carmel Cacopardo, his ex-collegue at MEPA. Now that AD are waning away, he is coming across as dancing to the tune of FAA. No wonder Astrid has full trust in him.
@Disgusted. Architects do not make the planning policies; they just try to design developments which conform to them, and expect the permit to be issued.
The problem lies with the policies themselves, some of which are so vague or in contradiction with some other policy, that the MEPA officials themselves are often in a quandary on what to accept or not. This is especially so with ODZ proposals; for example one of the most important MEPA ‘tick-boxes’ for re-development of derelict buildings in the country-side is whether the building was ever used as human habitation; so if one manages to prove that someone actually lived there once, then he has a good chance of getting the permit.
Then they establish the original size of the derelict building (and here there is normally much potential for convincing them of a larger foot-print), and on this area you are allowed a percentage increase.
These are examples of ‘loop-holes’ that I referred to previously. Hopefully, the MEPA reform which was just announced will address this problem and insist on clear, unequivocal policies which no wise-guy can interpret to obtain more than he would otherwise be entitled to.
I will not go into the merits of whether a permit should or should not have been issued. There are some quotes from the Auditor’s report (as reported on the timesofmalta.com) which attracted my attention.
“The application should never have been accepted in the first place…” This statement is obviously wrong. All applications submitted to MEPA have to be processed and decided upon, no matter how prima face unacceptable they seem. The auditor knows it so it is strange that he makes this statement.
[Daphne – I made exactly the same observation.]
Another strange statement is the following: “The development permit, he concluded, was invalid as the DCC had no authority to issue it.” The law indicates clearly the instances where a permit can be withdrawn by MEPA. None of these instances include “no authority to issue permit”. (It could be that there is an explanation in the actual report as to why the permit is “invalid” and The Times reporter simply left it out).
The auditor’s claim that the application “was a puerile attempt at misleading Mepa” is contradicted by the comments of the MEPA chairman when he states “when considered together with the documents submitted with the application, gave enough information as to the extent of the development.”
The only statement of substance in the report is “DCC chose to ignore the fact that the development was located in an area of ecological and scientific importance” – but even here does the relevant environmental regulations specifically prohibit all development (or at least residential development) in these areas? I ask the question because I genuinely do not know and the auditor does not provide guidance.
The auditor claims that “The DCC completely ignored all policies”. He could have listed at least the more important ones and explain for each how the permit is, as he claims, so blatantly in breach.
I find the use of certain language (ex “puerile”, “extreme arrogance” and others) very peculiar in a report coming from an office similar to the Ombudsman. It seems to be the language of someone who is angry. It could be that the auditor is genuinely angry that such a permit was issued but, angry or not, he should be more detached in the language he uses. Alternatively, the auditor for some unknown reason wants to maximise the impact and be sensational.
[Daphne – Again, I made exactly the same observation.]
I repeat that these comments are based on the timesofmalta.com report, which might present an incomplete picture.
If the auditor were to investigate similar permits issued in the area would he be so categorical in his conclusions, even for the applications submitted by Carmel Cacopardo and Charles Buhagiar, as architects?
I believe that Victor Scerri is the victim here not only of the megaphone mob but also of a planning system which is manipulated and abused by people who should know better.
Yes daphne we have full confidence in mr falzon – when he chaired dcc he never issued permits in odzs. In fact he was never subject to previous auditors.
[Daphne – Not issuing permits in ODZs is no reason for you to have full confidence in a man. There are legal parameters for issuing permits in ODZs, and if he failed to abide by those parameters, and rejected applications for permissible structures, he was breaking the law to suit his agenda and not upholding the law as he was obliged to do. People can only claim to have full confidence in individuals of whom they know much. I get the impression – and I hope to heaven that I am wrong – that there is some form of ‘conversational’ relationship between the auditor and FAA and that it may even be a mutually satisfying one. Call it a woman’s antennae or the instinct of an experienced observer, but somehow, that’s what I’m picking up. The next time you have a chat with Joe Falzon, do please remind him that the auditor is ethically and legally bound to maintain distance from stakeholders and lobbyists in the field which he audits.]
Mark Attard thinks like the typical FAA nut. Where did he get the information that Joe Falzon never issued permits ODZ when he was DCC chairman? I am sure that if anyone took the trouble to check, he will find permits ODZ issued by Joe Falzon. Any volunteers? As for his second assertion, Joe Falzon was not subject to checks by an auditor because there was no auditor when he was DCC chairman.
FAA people first decide on the conclusion and then invent the “facts” to justify it. This is one of the reasons why in most issues they got involved, they mess up.
Embor: if you check the website you will find that musumeci has a pending application on the cacopardo approved site. So for any one applicatio of cacopardo there are hundreds of musumeci’s. Is it a coincidence?
[Daphne – Maybe Musumeci has a busier practice. Mhux fier. Bring out the socialists to apportion business by ration card.]
mark attard: So what? What is the point you are trying to make? Are you suggesting that FAA picks and chooses which architect to attack on the basis of the number of applications he has? Are you suggesting that Cacopardo is more trustworthy because he has less clients?
In truth, my opinion of Musumeci took a nose dive when I read his initial reactions to this Bahrija saga but that has nothing to do with the number of applications.
My opinion of Cacopardo also took a nose dive when he published an internal report of the auditor prior to the March 2008 elections. In an effort to get himself elected he threw ethics out of the window.
For your readers’ information, Mr. Falzon as Chairman of DCC issued hundreds of ODZ permits, including the Santa Rosa restaurant, next to JPO’s property. As an architect, he also submitted ODZ applications, including the MUSEUM building in Cirkewwa, which was recommended for refusal by the case officer.
[Daphne – No, it isn’t. The environment is not about buildings and whether they are ugly or nice. That is aesthetics and not environmentalism. A debate about whether we should have a national theatre, and whether that theatre should have a roof, and whether parliament house should be near city gate is not even remotely connected with the environment. On the other hand, Piano’s plans for a ‘green’ parliament house certainly are, and we have heard not a word about that from FAA. On the contrary, they want to ditch the green parliament and instead convert a couple of mythical palazzos into a very ungreen alternative.]
It has everything to do with the environment. So much so, that the University of Malta boasts a Faculty for the Built Environment, because an environment can be natural or otherwise.
[Daphne – Exactly: the ‘built environment’, as distinct from the environment (greenhouse gases, global warming, groundwater, poisoned seas, overfishing, near-extinction of animals….). Astrid Vella and FAA are primarily concerned with issues of aesthetics, but in their ignorance they think of aesthetic issues as environmental issues. You can tell they grew out of Sliema, where ‘environmental’ concerns are really just concerns about aesthetics and the inconvenience caused to residents by developers. I haven’t yet heard a single environmental argument from FAA. So far, their biggest battles have been about whether we should have a museum beneath St John’s Square in Valletta and whether the new theatre should be open or closed. I can’t see anything environmental there, struggle as I might.]