Il-Gwardjan għall-Ġenerazzjonijiet Futuri ippronunzja ruħu b’mod negattiv dwar proġett kbir li qed jiġi propost f’Pembroke. Il-kumpanija li tagħha hu direttur ħarġet tiddiżassoċja ruħha minn dak li qal, għalkemm ma kienx daqstant ċar jekk riditx tgħid li ma taqbilx mal-verdett tiegħu, jew jekk li f’dan il-verdett hi ma kellha x’taqsam xejn.
Jekk tal-aħħar, ma nafx kif xi ħadd seta’ jistħajjel li dil-kumpanija kienet involuta fil-fehma tal-Gwardjan. Jekk tal-ewwel, l-episodju jixhed il-problemi ta’ soċjetà ċkejkna bħal tagħna biex toħloq istituzzjonijiet moderni li jassiguraw trasparenza u akkontabilità fit-tmexxija publika.
M’għandix dubji mill-integrità personali tal-Gwardjan. Ninsab żgur li jipprattika d-distinzjoni li teżisti bejn ir-rwol publiku tiegħu u l-ħidma li jmexxi fi ħdan il-kumpanija. Imma jidher li din ikkonkludiet li l-fehma li fisser fir-rwol publiku tiegħu tista’ taffettwa ħażin il-qagħda kummerċjali tagħha.
Lil hinn minn hekk, l-episodju qajjem dubji dwar x’siwi jista’ jkollu r-rwol tal-Gwardjan. Ifisser fehmtu u l-ħajja tibqa’ miexja, qisu ma ġara xejn.
ŻBALL MILL-KBAR
Id-deċiżjoni dwar il-binja “turistika” f’Pembroka hi żball mill-kbar, u mhux biss għax il-valur tal-art tkejjel biċ-ċenteżmi. Jidher li l-ebda gvern Malti ma hu lest jitgħallem mill-esperjenza. Il-proġett jaqa’ fl-istess linja tad-diżastri għall-interess publiku li seħħew sa issa fosthom f’Chambrai, f’Tigne Point u fi Smart City, barra minn oħrajn.
Huma proġetti mkewsa hekk: il-gvern jagħti art bl-irħis ħafna jekk mhux b’xejn kontra l-wegħda li fuqha se jittella xi kapolavur turistiku li jkattar impjiegi u attività ekonomika mill-aqwa. It-test kruċjali ta’ dawn il-wegħdi dejjem kien u jibqa’: il-proġett se jitħaddem waħdu? Malajr issib li le. Igħodd fih il-proposta li se jinbnew għall-bejgħ lis-sinjuri, appartamenti “lussużi” fuq l-art miksuba biċ-ċekċik.
Sadattant, il-konsegwenzi fuq l-ambjent, l-infrastruttura, il-wirt storiku u aspetti oħra kwalitattivi ta’ kif għandha tingħex il-ħajja, jingħataw il-ġenb. Uħud jispiċċaw jagħmlu profitti kbar minn dal-maniġġ.
PROĠETTI TURISTIĊI
Kif naraha jien, ilu li wasal iż-żmien li mmorru lura għall-politika ta’ inċentivi għat-turiżmu li kienet timexxa fis-snin sittin u sebgħin tas-seklu l-ieħor.
Jekk art publika se tingħata bir-ribass u b’kondizzjonijiet favorevoli għal proġett turistiku, dan għandu jikkonsisti esklussivament fi proposta turistika u mhux jiġi assoċjat ma’ binjiet residenzjali jew kummerċjali. Għall-art ta’ dawn, irid jitħallas il-prezz tas-suq.
Min jinqeda bl-argument li b’inċentiv ta’ dat-tip, la jkollna faċilitajiet turistiċi ġodda u lanqas jiġġeddu dawk li diġà għandna, qed jgħid li t-turiżmu fostna hu vijabbli biss jekk jiġi sussidjat doppjament. Xejn mhi inkoraġġanti konklużjoni bħal din dwar settur li jiġi t-tieni l-aqwa fil-pajjiż.
English Version – Guardian
In a public statement, the Guardian for Future Generations assessed negatively the big project that is being proposed for Pembroke. The company on which he serves as director then disassociated itself from his statement, although it was not really clear whether this really meant that it disagreed with his verdict, or that it had no share in it.
If the latter, I cannot see how anybody could have imagined that the company was involved in the Guardian’s assessment. If the former, then the episode demonstrates the problems that prevail in a small society like ours when it tries to establish modern institutions to ensure transparency and accountability in public management.
One can have no doubts at all about the personal integrity of the Guardian. It is certain that he respects the distinction that should exist between his public role and the activities he carries out in his company. However it seems like the latter has concluded that the opinion he expressed in his public role could adversely affect its trading position.
Beyond this point, the incident raises doubts about the relevance of the Guardian’s role. He publishes his assessments and life goes on, as if nothing had happened.
***
Huge mistake
The decision taken about the “tourism” development at Pembroke is a huge mistake, and not just because land allocated to it has been valued in cents. It seems that no Maltese government is prepared to learn from experience. The project will form part of a series of disasters in terms of the public interest, that have included among others Chambrai, Tigne Point and Smart City.
Such projects are cooked up according to the following model: the government hands over land very cheaply, indeed at a pittance, against a commitment to create a touristic masterpiece that will generate jobs and tremendous economic activity. The crucial test of such commitments has been and remains: will the project stand on its own? One quickly discovers that it will not. It also covers a proposal to build “luxury” apartments for rich clients on land that has been transferred to the developer for peanuts.
Meanwhile, the consequences on the environment, the infrastructure, the historical heritage and other qualitative aspects of contemporary life are totally ignored. Some people though end up making huge profits from the whole arrangement.
***
Tourism projects
As I see it, the time has come to go back to an incentives policy for tourism similar to the one that was in force during the 1960’s and the 1970’s.
If public land is going to be delivered on the cheap and under favourable conditions for a tourism project, this has to consist exclusively of a tourism proposal and should not be attached to the additional establishment of residential or commercial development. Land for the latter should be paid for at full market rates.
Whoever insists that with such an incentive, we will neither get new tourism facilities nor see those which already exist get refurbished, is really claiming that tourism in Malta is only viable if it is doubly subsidized. That is hardly an encouraging conclusion for an economic sector which happens to be the second largest in the country.
Post a comment