Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1483500
maltatoday | SUNDAY •6 NOVEMBER 2022 9 INTERVIEW development; but for how long? intact. Now: this has carried on ever since, all the way up to the pres- ent. You can see, even at a glance, that it is the projects that enjoy the backing of politicians, that al- ways end up going through. And when you look at the history of planning changes, in Malta, both before and after the2006 Local Plans… what emerges is an en- tire track record, of changes that were clearly made to favour cer- tain projects, pushed by certain architects who are known to be very well-connected, politically… None of this, unfortunate- ly, has changed over the years. There have even been develop- ers – known to be very political- ly-connected – who have public- ly declared their support for both political parties… ultimately, to ensure the success of their future projects. There is no other explanation, for the approval of certain pro- jects like the Quad Towers, for instance: which was approved by the Planning Board, despite the fact that – during the final hear- ing – it transpired that the pho- to-montages presented by the developers, had been tampered with. But even though the material they based their decision upon, was not only 'unreliable', but FALSIFIED… the Board simply went ahead, and approved the project anyway. Only afterwards did we discover that the devel- oper had visited the Minister in charge of the PA, in order to have his site approved: even though it lay outside of the designated FAR footprint. That, on its own, is proof enough of who really takes all the decisions, when it comes to plan- ning and development in this country… Nonetheless, it makes a wel- come change that both govern- ment and opposition seem to agree on the need to 'protect the environment'. How do you yourself interpret this political volte-face, on Hondoq? Do you see it as an indication that the two main political parties may be (belatedly) attaching a value to environmental causes… even if, quite possibly, they may have their own political reasons for doing so? Once again: I have no illusions whatsoever, that the government abandoned its support for this project, to 'uphold environmen- tal principles'. Nonetheless, I think that there IS a recognition, that the electorate is now sick and tired of a situation which is consistently undermining their quality of life. Because at this point, the inten- sity of development has reached such staggering proportions, that literally no one is left untouched. It cannot be a coincidence that every single survey, every single public opinion poll, is now clear- ly indicating that it's not just the residents who are fed up… but it's also having a significant im- pact on our tourism sector, and the economy in general. For some reason, the MTA does not publish the results of its tourist-departure question- naires; but one of the main rea- sons given by tourists, for not wanting to return to Malta, is that the country is 'overdevel- oped, dirty, and noisy'. But it goes beyond even that, too: because it's now beginning to affect the country's compet- itivity, in attracting foreign in- vestment. For like everyone else: foreign investors will be looking to move to a place where their employees will be happy enough, to actually remain in the country long-term. They don't want to be left in a situation where their employees regularly pack up and leave, after around two years, be- cause they feel stifled by the 'lack of greenery'; and the generally poor quality of life that is brought about by overdevelopment… If I may interrupt: that is, in fact, exactly what the 'Foreign Investment Attractiveness' sur- vey, published by EY Malta last month, concluded… Well: we've been saying the same thing for years now… with- out the benefit of any fancy and expensive studies. Meanwhile, however, there's another factor to be considered. What's also eroding our quality of life, as a re- sult of over-development, is the price of property. Despite this glut of properties coming onto the market, prices are not coming down. Why? Be- cause the emphasis is only ever on building 'high-end' proper- ties… and not on affordable ones, that ordinary people can actually buy. This is another reason why politicians are so worried, to- day. There are all sorts of studies which prove that young couples simply cannot afford to buy their first home; that even a modest apartment, is now beyond the reach of the combined salaries of two people. The result is increasing dissat- isfaction amongst the electorate; and it is beginning to show up very clearly, in all polls and sur- veys. Yet another consideration is the exposure of local banks. This 'de- velopment-on-steroids' phenom- enon can ultimately undermine our economy, due to the banks' exposure. This was highlighted both by the IMF, and by the EU, many years ago: that Maltese banks were too dependent on loans to the local construction industry, exposing them to seri- ous risk. Now: if there is a market-crash, due to the oversupply of property (as more and more development projects are approved, and then built up)… what would happen to all those loans? Banks can always take posses- sion of the properties, in case of defaulting loans; but given the growing property glut, the real market value of such properties could be significantly lower than the bank's actual book value. This is why the IMF and the EU have for years been warning that Maltese banks' disproportionate dependence on loans to the de- velopment sector, exposes banks to risk, and could undermine the Maltese economy as a whole... Speaking of the economy: Fi- nance Minister Clyde Caruana has told us (twice in the past year) that 'Malta's economic model needs to change'; citing 'overdevelopment' and 'traffic' as two examples of issues which are diminishing our quality of life. Yet the Budget he present- ed last month does not seem to indicate any significant chang- es, to the current status quo. Do you see any other signs – possi- bly, including the Hondoq deci- sion itself – that the government does actually intend to change its economic model? What I do see a lot of, is 'lip-ser- vice'…. but rather than the Budget, I will quote from the National Strategy for the Envi- ronment 2050: where there are a lot of excellent proposals; but no specifications of how these objectives are to be reached… no targets, no benchmarks, no dead- lines… which makes that docu- ment lose most of its value. For example: the claim that there will be 'a programme of green open spaces, in towns and villages', rings totally hollow… when you consider that, to the present day, the government is not only endorsing the develop- ment of every single open space left, in Malta's towns and villages; but it is even reclaiming existing green spaces, in urban areas, for further development! Take 'The Capitanerie' in Ta' Xbiex, for instance: a restau- rant, café, office and shopping complex – in that order – which Transport Malta had originally applied to build on the children's playing area, in Gzira's only pub- lic garden… and which now has been relocated to another open space, a few metres away on the same Ta' Xbiex seafront: and which will still encroach onto the same public garden. Now: if it's a government agen- cy, no less, that is taking green areas away from the public, to develop them for commercial gain… sorry, but what credibility can the government itself possi- bly have, on any policy that in- volves 'greening Malta'? Unfortunately, I can't really see the situation changing, under those circumstances. As things stand, the only option we see, is a total dismantling of the Planning Authority… to be replaced by a new body, composed of qualified planners of proven integrity; and in which NGOs, and the general public, can also find their right- ful place, in the decision-making structures.