Astrid Vella: ragunament bazwi bhal tal-Labour
The owl and the pussycat went to sea in their beautiful pea-green boat: Joseph and Jason at Wied Iz-Zurrieq
Here she is, on timesofmalta.com: Our eventual stand on the Valletta Regeneration Project FAA took into account the economic crisis that overtook our country in the interim.
Weighing up the cost of the building of a new parliament,as opposed to the cost of accommodating it in an existing auberge,FAA concluded that at this time the latter would be a wiser option,allowing the savings to be sunk into an employment-generating project.
I can’t be bothered to explain why this is such typical Labour thinking, the sort that drove the country straight into a concrete wall starting in 1971 and ending in 1987.
And they’re still at it. Il-kultura ta’ make do and mend.
Some of you might enjoy knowing that the official caption to this photograph from Joseph Muscat’s Facebook collection is: Il-Mexxej Laburista Joseph Muscat waqt zjara f’Wied iz-Zurrieq fejn iltaqa fost ohrajn ma’ diversi sidien ta’ negozji u operaturi tad-dghajjes.
39 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
They sailed away, for a year and a day,
To the land where the Bong-tree grows
And there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood
With a ring at the end of his nose,
His nose,
His nose,
With a ring at the end of his nose.
Imbaghad marru c-Cina u kielu n-noodles mal-AST.
‘Jieklu n-noodles’?
Forsi trid tghig, ‘jieklu il-poodles’?
Astrid Vella should know that parliament cannot be “accommodated” in an auberge as this would require massive internal alterations which would never be allowed in such buildings.
Allow me to suggest you challenge Astrid Vella to publish her studies showing that accommodating parliament in an existing auberge is actually more cost-effective than building a new parliament house.
It can never be cost effective because as Antoine Vella notes, the Chamber itself would require gutting a building which is against all conservation precepts. This is the major flaw in the argument. You may, conceivably and with great attention place offices in a former palace or auberge (and even here great caution has to be exercised). To gut a building of the calibre of an Auberge would be sacrilege. And Astrid did not even want to remove a dilapidated so-called baroque house in Sliema. Now she proposes gutting an auberge to form parliament house? Tajba din.
Silverbug, ahhh – another one of the blue-skinned trolls rummaging out of, say, MEPA to try and ridicule and discredit anyone or anything which attempts to raise an argument relating to the mess your masters have caused.
Quoting Antoine Vella already sheds light on the tone and level of your views on the matter but I digress.
I suggest you have a good read – possibly with the aid of a thesaurus – of the Structure Plan approved by the directorates of MEPA, the MEPA Board, the Minsiter responsible for MEPA, the Cabinet and finally Parliament and then come back here telling us where there is anything justifying the building of a new parliament in Freedom Square. In fact, the plan is quite clear in that a rehousing of parliament should be in existing structures.
The Structure Plan is a law: By approving a permit which goes out of the Structure Plan, MEPA (and government) has created a very bad precedent. Frankly, I really don’t know why our dear PM (or rather, Dr. Gatt – no difference there).
And stupid me thought that we’re living under the rule of law… Playing about with our institutions is a very dangerous game but, of course, practically no one on this blog shall admit for a second that things could be carried out with a little bit of added caution.
What comes next?
Whoa there! says “In fact, the plan is quite clear in that a rehousing of parliament should be in existing structures.
The Structure Plan is a law: By approving a permit which goes out of the Structure Plan, MEPA (and government) has created a very bad precedent.”
This statement is incorrect.
Like the British planning system, the Maltese planning system allows for the deciding body to use its discretion. This is reflected in Article 33 (1) of the Act which requires the Authority to apply development plans and planning policies and have regard to any other material consideration. (British legislation also makes specific reference to “other material considerations”) Had the legislator in 1992 wanted to remove all discretionary powers of the Authority, “regard to material considerations” would have been omitted, in which case our planning system would have become closer to some planning systems on mainland Europe.
I would argue that the extent of floorspace required for the new parliament (so much so that it would not fit on the opera house site) is a material consideration. Even if a historic building large enough to house all the floorspace required would be found, there would be serious conservation issues as substantial changes to the building would be required. This too, in my view, is a material consideration.
The discretionary aspect of our planning system was explained by Prof. Refalo during the MEPA meeting. He explained that planning policy is not like any other law in that it allows for the discretion in its use. The wording of many polices, particularly those of a more strategic nature, is such that they allow for interpretation in their use.
During the same meeting, a MEPA representative explained that the Structure Plan is a planning document which gives strategic direction rather then setting out the detail of how development is to take place. The strategic direction of the policy referred to by FAA is for government departments to relocated to a new administration centre to be built at Floriana (something which subsequently did not materialise).
To use the Structure Plan and other planning policy documents, it is not a thesaurus that you need but a proper understanding of how the planning system operates.
Ultimately, the object of the planning system is to provide for good quality development and not to create artificial and unreasonable constraints.
Whoa, there!
You are quite tedious you know but I’ll try to give you an explanation anyway. As jae rightly said, the Structure Plan provides only a general strategy and is implemented in practice through Local Plans.
“1.2 The purpose of the (Structure) Plan, following approval by Parliament, is to provide:
1. A strategic direction and context to guide both Government and the private sector in matters concerning Malta’s development over the next twenty years.”
(from Part 1: The Structure Plan Strategy)
In the words of the Plan itself it is “a strategic context for the preparation of site specific Local Plans, Subject Plans, Action Plans, ….”
Another quotation from the Structure Plan itself is in order here:
“1.10 ……. In general however, further planning policies and planning procedures will result from Local Plans, Subject Plans, Action Plans, Briefs, and also statutory instruments drawn up after the approval of the Development Planning Act.”
When processing development applications MEPA bases its policies, not on the Structure Plan but on the Local Plans and POLICY COM1, part of which you are quoting (actually parroting Astrid Vella and Miriam Cremona), is superseded by the Grand Harbour Local Plan of 2002. This originally stated that Freedom and Palace Sqr. should become underground carparks (Policy GV12).
In 2009 Policy GV12 was amended because canals and passages had been found under Palace Sqr and government had expressed its intention to regenerate the City Gate area.
Moreover, Policy GV29 of 2009 states, inter alia:
MEPA will support the redesign of both City Gate and Freedom Square provided:
(i) The proposals for Freedom Square normally include institutional (legislative) /cultural / entertainment / leisure orientated uses. Retail shall not exceed 20% of the
total commercial floorspace.
Policy GV28 speaks of the Opera House site and allows “a wider interpretation of the type of physical interventions which can be considered on the site rather than strictly a “building”.”
This comment is longer than I usually like to make and might be too technical for you Whoa there, but if you read it carefully, and perhaps carry out your own research, you’ll understand that the permit issued by MEPA was perfectly legitimate and legal.
Incidentally, I can’t be bothered to check now but it would be interesting to find out how Roderick Galdes voted when MEPA discussed and approved the Local Plan amendments of 2009 and 2010.
Int Sandro minn Had-Dingli?
IS SHE SPEAKING THROUGH HER BACK SIDE …. ?
1. This is not a temporary project which will change in the near future … but it is there to stay.
2. The expense for this project will in itself be an injection into the Maltese economic and employment spheres
Ghalfejn Joseph Muscat u shabu mhumiex lebsin il-lifejacket li suppost jilbsu bilfors… maybe they know they will float like $%I& ……?
The minute the FAA walk outside the boundary of the environment and start to talk about economics and where the money is to be spent is the instant their environmental conscience mask gives way to political commentary.
Isolating the Piano project money from the context of everything else the government is doing shows just how politically opportunistic they are. They have become a mouthpiece for the PL and sound just like Super One.
Ara.. another armchair expert. Where did you get your notion? From the Simplified English version of Wikipedia?
When you talk of the environment, you are not just talking of the trees and bees or of the sea and the fish but the term encompasses pretty much a whole load of stuff.
As just a small example, just have a look at what constitutes an EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) which our dear MEPA considered as unnecessary for the Piano project and then requests it for a residential development! Imbasta dhalna fl-Unjoni Ewropea – basta nerdgu tilja ‘familiariasation visits’ fuq dahar min ihallas it-taxxi!
Anyway, before commenting on FAA – and I suggest you wash your mouth with Harpic before you continue spewing inanities – I suggest you have a look at the terms of reference for the organisation as lodged and registered per law with the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations.
Kullhadd bravu biex ifajjar!
Next stop China. But instead of the pussy I’ll take a diplomat who speaks English.
http://d200fahol9mbkt.cloudfront.net/item/276342/The_Owl_and_the_Pussy_Cat_005.jpg
After likening Austin Gatt to Ceausescu and some obscure Kazakh dictator (she must have looked him up on Wikipedia), Astrid Vella now expects him to engage in dialogue and addresses him as “dear” Dr Gatt.
FAA have a habit of attacking personally or ignoring whoever disagrees with them. A case in point is their repeated assertions about the Structure Plan: MEPA have already answered this objection, in writing, months ago. FAA ignore this reply and then, when Prof Ian Refalo explains how the law should be interpreted, they accuse him of being “linguistically-challenged” and not well-informed.
…… and claim that Miriam Cremona is more competent than Prof. Refalo on planning law.
Here’s where Mrs Vella compared Austin Gatt to Ceaucescu.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100324/local/former-opera-house-partial-roof-proposal-final-minister
@ AntoineVella:I stand corrected,you are right, the comparison should not have been to Vilhena but to more recent figures like NikolaiCeaucescu or Saparmurat Atayevich Niyazov of Turkmenistan-I’ll save you looking that one up.He was the dictator of Turkmenistan best known for filling squares with huge palaces as a testament of his glorious rule.
———-
The last time we heard talk like that was Vilhena’s remodelling of Mdina. Welcome back to the Age of Autocracy. The only thing lacking is the powdered wigs.
Antoine Vella, you forget to mention that Kenneth Zammit Tabona, who is very cuddly-cuddly with FAA, describes the situation in Malta as being totalitarian and compares the actions of Maltese authorities with past actions of fascists and communists in Germany, Italy, Spain and ex-USSR.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100310/letters/if-the-walls-retract-why-not-the-roof-2
Tghid allura lil Sandro Chetcuti (dak tan-negozji zghar) kien diga’ tefghu “overboard” meta gibdulu dan ir-ritratt?
Astrid Vella says that she is in favour of the project and then proposes things which are very different from what is being proposed. Her suggestions would require a complete re-think and all the work done so far would be lost. This would throw us back years, The project would have to be re-started.
If she really wanted to be honest, she should say she is against the project.
Incidentally, the position taken by LP on the project is ambivalent but they seem to wish for it to be delayed. They realise that an incomplete project during election time could be a vote-loser for PN.
“Il-Mexxej Laburista Joseph Muscat waqt zjara f’Wied iz-Zurrieq fejn iltaqa fost ohrajn ma’ diversi sidien ta’ negozji u operaturi tad-dghajjes.”
U, sintendi, Joseph u ohrajn tal-PL u tal-ONE iddobbaw gita ghal-gewwa il-Blue Grotto minghajr ma hallsu sold.
“Our eventual stand on the Valletta Regeneration Project FAA took into account the economic crisis that overtook our country in the interim.”
Din l-ewwel darba li qed nisimghuwa, ASTrid. Issa x’sejra tghidilna, li il-flus allokati ghal bini tal-parlament ahjar jintuzaw biex itaffu il-kontijiet tad-dawl u tal-ilma?
Thawwadx izjed, ASTrid. Wara li ma inti skartajt milli tattendi u tressaq il-kas tal-FAA fil-laqa tal-MEPA dwar il-progett ta’ Piano, ma baqalekx kredibilita.
L-FAA tassew saret bhal-Institut tal-Gurnalasti Malti – xejn hlief bicca ghoddha f’idejn il-PL biex tintuza ghal-iskopijiet partiggiani u bazwija ta’ dak il-partit.
Does Astrid realise that building the new parlament is “an employment-generating project?”
Even more. putting money into the economy is one of the best way of getting out of a recession and it might be one of the reasons that in Malta, the present recession was not felt to the same extent as on other countries?
Snoopy: It all depends how much of the money shall actually end up in Maltese workers’ pockets…. And this is something which needs to be seen.
Till now, I wouldn’t put it beyond 20% to 30% of project going into Maltese workers’ pockets.
@Whoa, there!
Why not tell us how you worked those percentages out, so that you prove that you are not falling into your own accusation to everyone that “Kullhadd bravu biex ifajjar!”
What’s more important for the FAA is a short-term solution to the unemployment problem – bugger all, let’s send Renzo Piano packing for a second time and bring him in for the same project when unemployment drops to zero.
Unemployment in Malta, despite the recession that has crippled other far richer countries, has remained more or less stable over the past decade in the 7% to 7.5% region.
The Labour Party purposely ignores all that the government does but incessantly nit-picks on increased energy bills, so-called corruption and an imaginary introduction on medicines about when they are in government.
Let’s see what will happen when they are elected – time will tell.
IT’S OFFICIAL. TYOM comments are censored.
I tried to post 5 comments, one of which I must admit was harsher than the rest, having told the buggers what I thought of them, and none was published.
And they have the gall to say they do not censor comments.
Halluna !
It has been impossible, thus far, to fathom what exactly it is that FAA wants done on the opera house site. All is now clear.
The Sunday Times, 4th April, letter from John Grima:
“I would like to make a proposal: . . . . . . . . for the rebuilding of the original opera house.”
Comment from Astrid Vella : “Excellent idea!”
So much for FAA being “in favour of the project.”
“FAA concluded that at this time the latter would be a wiser option” –
Who in hell are the FAA to decide what, or what not, to do? I don’t remember voting for them to talk on my behalf. What arrogant, condescending know-it-alls.
Well, NGT… You voice your opinion quite liberally here and there and yet no one has argued on your doing so (as far as I know).
You fail to note, however, that an NGO has a right to voice publicly its views which are those of the members forming part of the NGO itself.
Whoa, there! You say that “an NGO has a right to voice publicly its views.” Astrid Vella disagrees with you.
According to her, other NGOs do not have the right to express an opinion because they have “vested interests”. She said in a comment on timesofmalta.com:
“The Valletta Alive Foundation (?) represents vested interests and not the residents of Valletta. It represents the owners of shops in upper Republic Street and is about as impartial as GRTU.”
So all you NGOs out there, before expressing an opinion about any subject, please check with Astrid Vella whether you have “vested interests” and if she says that you do have vested interests (and therefore are not impartial), then I am afraid you have to shut up.
How’s that for democracy!
Hear, hear. And quite a microphone she has too.
NGT,
FAA have this weird notion that if they think it, then it must be true. That is why they use the language “FAA concluded …” and “FAA decided …” rather than “It is the opinion of FAA….” or “FAA thinks …”. The concept that hey might actually be wrong does not cross their mind.
FAA’s logical conclusion is that, now that we’re out of the (deepest worldwide, but shallow in Malta) recession, option 1 is better.
Does FAA really not know that an 80-million-euro public building project is exactly what you need in an open economy like ours where any other economic stimulus just leaks out in imports?
Edward Scicluna could be able to say something about that, if he hadn’t abandoned his profession to become a politikant.
I must have missed something obvious as I can’t figure out how ‘accommodating it in an existing auberge’ generates employment but building a new one doesn’t.
Will the Piano designed parliament building perhaps be bought ready made from China and dropped in place by helicopter?
In that case, we could house parliament in the Red China Dock.
“FAA concluded that at this time the latter would be a wiser option, allowing the savings to be sunk into an employment-generating project.”
Taking into account FAA’s extensive knowledge of economic matters, might I suggest that Astrid Vella, FAA’s leading light, is appointed as consultant to the Minister for Finance.
And while we are at it, may I also humbly propose that she is appointed also as consultant to the Minister for Culture in view of her detailed knowledge of cultural matters.
And, by the way, given that she can also design buildings (even if so far she has only reached the point of describing her designs in words on timesonline.com), the Prime Minster should really consider appointing her as adviser on special projects and give her an office in Castille as close as possible to his.
Only with Astrid Vella as adviser to Government can this nation move forward towards a brighter future!
In all their pompous proclamations, the message of FAA seems to be that government messes things up without the benefit of the wisdom of Astrid Vella.
The boat looks more professional than the people travelling on it.
Now, besides being an expert on matters she really hasn’t got a clue about, Astrid Vella now is also an economist and knows how to manage a country, investments, etc.
This person needs to find something to occupy herself with that doesn’t make her come across as such a chump.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Astrid Vella say she does not believe in Environmental Impact Assessments during the St John Cathedral Museum saga?
………..They took some honey
& plenty of money
wrapped up in a 5 pound note.