|
opinion
Half
measures and full consequences
So the developer wins again; as if anybody ever thought otherwise.
It is unbelievable but true, the Lm200,000 Mr Polidano was asked
to pay will be used to embellish and landscape the area around
the Hotel Solemar (Riviera).
Now, remember that Polidano’s company broke the PA’s
law, appropriated a huge chunk of land and was fined Lm200,000
payable over a number of years which will be used to attract more
clients to the hotel. Also keep in mind that the appropriated
area of land has been valued at a much higher price than this.
|
Quote
of the week
|
|
"What
is baffling is the way in which the PA unwound the red carpet
for prospective purchasers of such a development by stating
that, in spite of the fact that the [Gnejn] area lies outside
the realms of development, the location of the oil-tanks
and facility in the area could act as a precedent for future
development. Such statements by an authority supposedly
acting to harness rampant development only add another nail
in the coffin for the phrase "green area" which
has been abused over and over again over the years."
Alan Deidun, PRO, Nature Trust
The Malta Independent on Sunday, 2 Dec. 2001, pge 7
|
Dare I suggest that the "punishment" meted out by the
PA seems to have been engineered to provide the greatest benefit
for the Solemar (Riviera) development?
The whole story
This saga dates back to July 1995, when the developers acquired
a permit to construct a 62-room four-star hotel. Suddenly, the
developer decided that he wanted more and began to excavate a
bigger hole.
Seven months later, the PA ordered the developer to stop by issuing
an enforcement notice and Charles Polidano decided to apply for
a 150-room hotel. This application was refused by the PA in June
1998.
The PA Appeals Board allowed an outline development permit for
a 150-room hotel after the developer appealed. Instead of performing
the required studies and re-applying for the new plans, he upped
the odds and decided to construct a bigger 200-room hotel.
Now, when an outline permit is granted, the developer supposedly
cannot start boring, breaking and developing the area, which is
exactly what Mr Polidano did. The problem is that the development
was only stopped last January when the 200-room hotel was practically
ready.
It’s quite worrying that Dr Tonio Borg’s tone in the
following quote seemed to be defending the blatant disregard of
the PA’s regulations by Mr Polidano.
Dr Borg argued that: "the government property involved in
the building of the hotel had been taken over before 1998. The
PA recently regularised the situation with regard to the illegal
development after having imposed tough conditions, including,
for the first time ever, the imposition of a contribution of Lm200,000.
The same tough position would be taken with regard to the title
of the land in question. The price would be established according
to commercial rates, especially now that it enjoyed a building
permit."
(Dept. of Information Press Commentary 21 July 2001)
According to the Labour weekly ‘Il-KullHadd’ Charles
Polidano was the only person who filed for the Land’s department
tender quoting a price of Lm230,000 for 7,278 square metres of
land.
The commercial price for such an area seems to be about Lm2 million
without adding the cost of the favourable geographical position
of the land. (KullHadd, 9 September 2001, pge 9)
The developer eventually paid over Lm800,000 for the land. This,
plus the Lm200,000 fine, constitute only half the actual price
of the land, so Mr Polidano saved a cool million.
The Lm200,000 fine can be viewed really as a face-saving device
by the PA, even though the developer played around with the PA’s
regulations, started building when he shouldn’t have, broke
the PA’s conditions and still managed to acquire a piece
of prime estate at a very good price.
Would the PA have done the same if the development had been a
smaller and less important one?
|
Websites
|
|
I have to admit that the Authority most environmentalists
love to hate has a nifty web
site! It’s organised, up-to-date and has a number
of interesting features. No wonder it won the
"Best Overall Website" and "Best Public Sector
Website" in the recent "Datastream Web Awards".
Three-quarters
of the webpage are dedicated to news such as "PA Allocated
Lm500,000 for 17 Environmental Projects" and "Residential
Parking Scheme: A Pilot Project". Fairly interesting
reading.
On
the left-hand side there’s a menu with a number of
clickable buttons including: The Organisation, Development
Services, Forward Planning, Corporate Services and others
such as Appeals and Map Server.
Although
not a site for the vivacious surfer, it does provide a lot
of information and is a good step towards ensuring the accountability
of the PA.
|
Polluter pays panacea
The Solemar fine may signal the beginning of a new trend in "environmental
protection". It’s a trend which could become standard
practice in view of the government’s serious lack of funds
for environmental conservation.
The idea would be to start using "fines" to protect
and conserve the environment instead of government funds.
Such an idea harks back to the age-old ‘polluter (or developer)
pays principle’ on which environment protection in the EU
is based. It’s not a bad idea, but it has one serious flaw
- it doesn’t nip the problem in the bud. It’s not a
"prevention’s better than cure" type of solution
- the damage is done and then fines are inflicted upon the culprit.
Let me quote two examples of how inadequate the polluter pay
principle can be in an undisciplined country like ours. Everybody
knows it is quite easy to pollute the sea or destroy a valley,
but try putting things right.
In the case of marine pollution, cleaning is almost always costlier
than the imposed fines and building a new valley is impossible.
That’s why in all things environmental, prevention is always
better than cure.
A suspicious scenario
The Solemar (Riviera) scenario is suspicious because it seems
that the whole financial package has been tailored to benefit
the agency which broke the law in the first place.
By fining the developer, the PA looked as if it was upholding
the law by making the polluter pay. But one can view the fine
as an attempt to cover up the great deal the hotel got out of
appropriating the land and forking out a measly Lm200,000 to embellish
the surroundings.
From all this, it is very easy to answer the question of who’s
going to undertake the work to embellish the area. Mr Polidano’s
company has all the equipment, labourers and the incentive to
embellish the area around the hotel. So, the Lm200,000 fine will
actually go back into the company’s coffers.
It looks like the developer just can’t lose from the PA’s
deal.
The way I see it, a number of hotels have landscaped the immediate
area as part of the terms of reference for building the hotel
in the first place. A short trip to Paceville will reveal a number
of hotels that are oases of embellishment in a desert of disarray.
So why was the Solemar hotel’s case so unique?
|
