You’ll have to explain to them what ‘ethics’ means.

Jozef, I have always suspected that, for each controversial proposed development, FAA operates for a hidden hand – for someone behind the scenes. For some applications, they kick up a fuss – for other similar ones, they say nothing. This may or may not be true, but either way this sort of behaviour gives rise to unnecessary suspicion.

In the case of the Villa Frieres development, the real issue was that some flats were going to have their windows blocked by the new development. Yet FAA presented the issue as if there was some fundamental environmental issue at stake – one which would impact all of St. Julians.

They even organised a street protest to ‘Save St. Julians’. (Incidentally, I am always amused how the numbers get inflated by reporters. A mere 50 persons become 200 or even 300 in the Times or Maltatoday)

I will not go into the merits of who is right or wrong on the Villa Frieres development but …..

FAA uses the environmental argument under false pretence – i.e. to further the (non-environmental) objectives of a small group of individuals. The long term effect of this strategy on the environmental agenda will be devastating.

The public at large is getting used to these kind of tactics so that, when there is a real environmental issue at stake, the public at large will turn the other way.

Environmentalists – the genuine ones that is – should take note.

If I were you, I wouldn’t worry. By now he would be fully provided for.

I think Herr Flick should be told that he can also post his David Gilmour images and videos on Flickr, the other social networking site.
Judging from its name, it seems that it was invented with him in mind.

Oh but they do, the joke amongst developers, is to check whether the FAA has been employed to disrupt the process, before proceeding with an application.

Legend has it that an officer requested feedback from the FAA some time ago, given the intial protest in writing. The response, it seems, was that the FAA had no further issues since the third parties they represented had decided not to proceed.

Developers have resorted to agreements with neighbours, even against sums of money, to preempt any mishaps. They realised it’s better to eliminate the middleman.

They should better look up any basic code of ethics to see what it says about respect for the truth.

The MEPA reply is not only about the FAA. It addresses both the FAA and the Ramblers Association. They regularly work in tandem and take every opportunity to criticise the Authority. Maybe they have not realised that the MEPA is no longer under the PM?

Ooops, they must be reaching for the Aarhus Convention now, looking up the paragraphs about “harassment” of environmental groups.

He does qualify as a dinosaur of the genus microraptor.