Caqnu enforcement? Pull the other…
On the eve of an environmental protest, a well-choreographed action on Charles ‘Caqnu’ Polidano seems to send the message that government has no strings attached to the construction lobby. But its policies promoting all sort of construction development points to the opposite direction.
Let's give Labour the benefit of the doubt, and assume Thursday's enforcement action had nothing to do with Saturday's protest, and that the government is simply doing its duty. Contrasted to the previous government's reluctance to enforce the law, the enforcement action at Montekristo comes across as a refreshing change. It was only in September 2012 that MEPA actually embarked on a direct action on Polidano Bros, despite 55 pending enforcement orders.
Now, the sudden appearance of the normally reclusive Charles Polidano on NET TV raises questions on the Nationalist Party's stance on this issue. Will it try to exploit Polidano's blackmail, or will it back the government in confronting this rampant abuse, irrespective of the action's suspicious timing?
Still, it is difficult not to suspect that facing an environmental protest triggered by a series of controversial planning decisions and policies, the government is using Polidano - a veritable symbol of construction omnipotence and cowboy-capitalism - to prove a point that is actually contradicted by all its other actions during the past months.
For this is a government that is an expert in the art of political symbolism and theatre. By attacking a symbol of abuse and target of environmentalists who coined the 'Vote Gonzi Get Caqnu' slogan, the government seems to be seeking legitimacy for planning policies which would simply give a free ride to developers.
So even if the government is hell-bent on enforcing the law, and intends moving against the Armier squatters and all other illegal developments on this island, it would be simply doing what is expected of any government: enforce the law of the land.
What is really problematic is that this government is changing the goalposts of the law to permit more development, making what is presently illegal to do, legal.
- Take high-rise. By allowing high-rise development in localities like Sliema, Marsaskala, Gzira and St Paul's Bay, the government is effectively giving construction magnates a field day.
- The policy on outside-development zone (ODZ) development is also in clear breach of the existing Structure Plan. Not only does this policy allow new development right in the middle of areas of high landscape value and or buffer zones to Natura 2000 sites, but it is ridden with loopholes intended at accommodating all sorts of development, ranging from wineries to stables and dwellings - most of which cannot take place according to present policies.
So it is downright hypocritical to enforce the law while changing the same law to accommodate more development where it is presently not allowed to take place.
But the worst aspect of the current's government lack of environmental sensibility is the way it is blitzing the country with policies which are being carried out in a vacuum.
Instead of first updating the Structure Plan and declaring its vision, the government is twisting planning rules using different 'policies' which seem to have one thing in common: allowing more development where it was not previously allowed.
A logical sequence would have been to first update the Structure Plan, then update the local plans, and only then, issue specific policies on high-rise and ODZ.
Because in the meantime, government has issued expressions of interest for land reclamation and a yacht marina and cruise terminal in Gozo, in the absence of any policy regulating these developments. It shows that Labour is keen on kick-starting construction development by twisting planning regulations to accommodate it.
At best, the Polidano action merely sanitizes this process. Government expects developers to stop behaving like cowboys and act like law-abiding capitalists, with no reason to break a law that will serve them well. It's an evolution from outright banditry to a rationalization of pro-development policies.
It may well be the case that this reflects Joseph Muscat's frame of mind. He is willing to accommodate developers, as long as they play by the rules he bends to accommodate them.
Let's not forget that legally permitted developments have already ruined our skyline. The creation of rules which further tilt the balance in favour of developers is the main reason why I will attend tomorrow's protest in City Gate Valletta at 10:30 am.
Ultimately, what counts are the policies.