Pot calling the kettle black again

Lawrence Gonzi's first term in office between 2004 and 2008 was a veritable nightmare for environmentalists.

First there was the decision to relax regulations on building heights, which allowed penthouse and third-storey development in town and village cores.

Next was the announcement that the government would be seeking approval for a golf course and an artificial island. Thankfully, both proposals were ditched after studies confirmed what environmentalists had been saying all along; that these would only be sustainable if accompanied by massive residential development at the cost of EU protected garigue or underwater "posidonia meadows".

Than we had the extension of building boundaries and the new local plans which ushered in a property gold rush.

Concurrently we had the controversial Fort Cambridge development rising to 20 storeys, which altered the Tigné landscape - dwarfing even the neighbouring MIDI, project as well as a permit for a 12-storey development at Mistra.

All this development despite the fact that Malta has 65,000 vacant properties.

Surely Gonzi's second term of office was characterised by a greater sensitivity to environmental considerations and a growing realisation that Malta cannot afford to depend on the construction sector. 

Some projects like the lagoon at Portomaso were rejected while others like the Qui-Si-Sana car park were ditched. Others like Ta' Cenc and Hondoq seem destined for refusal even if no final decision was taken. Probably some contractors were alienated by this partial change of heart. 

The economic downturn also affected the property market, resulting in less construction. On the enforcement front, MEPA also timidly started enforcement procedures against Charles Polidano's planning illegalities at the Montekristo winery.

But it is a bit rich on the PN's part to play the virgin while attacking Labour for being a party of contractors. As recently as December MEPA approved a supermarket proposed by Nazzareno Vassallo in a record time in the absence of a retail impact assessment.

That said Labour has sent very contradictory messages over the past years, sometimes even voting (through its MEPA representative) for questionable developments like the demolition and redevelopment of a townhouse in Balzan by Polidano and the proposed Portomaso villas in an area previously designated as an ecological zone, both rejected by MEPA.

Moreover Muscat has been toying with some of Gonzi's past ideas. For example some months ago he was proposing an artificial island project despite studies questioning both the environmental and economic sustainability of such projects.

All in all Labour is being very sketchy in its proposals on how to reduce bureaucracy at MEPA. Neither is it clear whether the new Environmental Authority will have any say in the planning process apart from having one vote in a board of 15.

Clearly while pot is calling the kettle black, the kettle is more and more resembling the pot in its darker days.

Surely Labour has always had its contacts with big contractors and developers. What has clearly changed is the party's discourse which now openly flaunts the party's pro-business credentials.

The party's support for the Hilton development in St Julian's in the 1990s is a case in point. Even under Alfred Sant, the party promised a breath of fresh air to private businesses while pandering to anti-VAT sentiment, but the party also targeted barons to the extent of fielding billboards saying: "the environment belongs to all of us not to the barons."

By openly flaunting its credentials as a pro-business party, the PL could be misreading the psyche of the middle class vote, which might be economically liberal at times but is deeply suspicious of the influence wielded by building contractors. 

In fact the party now focuses its attacks on "cliques" instead of a definable category like speculators or "barons", thus banking on the support of anyone who feels cut off from the power networks irrespective if this was because of a legitimate reason or not To its credit Alternattiva Demokratika is the only party contesting this election which is questioning big business interests.

What also seems to have changed are the amounts of money deposited in Labour's coffers. Apart from policy shifts, this could be also interpreted as a decision by part of the business elite to jump on the winning cart. 

This explains the reasoning behind Gonzi's promise to declare the amounts of funding received and spent by his party and an open challenge on Labour to do the same. He knows that for once his party has been outspent and he wants to gain mileage of this.  While in itself the publication of these accounts is a positive development, any such exercise would only be credible if the process is certified by an independent auditor.

But this also comes as a bit rich from a party which failed to approve a party financing law and which had the temerity to propose a first draft which exempted party members from having to declare donations.