Marsaskala: government cannot ride roughshod over people

The proposal by Transport Malta for a 700-berth yacht marina at Marsaskala – on a scale that will radically alter the dynamics and characteristics of this seaside community – came quite literally like a bolt from the blue.

For while the possible development of a yacht marina in Marsaskala was indeed mentioned during the Budget Speech for 2017 - as part of an ongoing strategy to improve Malta’s profile as a yachting centre, while reinvigorating marine locations – the locality was in no way prepared for the plans that were unveiled last Friday.

According to that original brief, the extent of the development was to be limited to the “developed part of the existing coast around the bay”, while “the rocky coastline [would] be protected and [would] remain in the public domain.” 

Yet the plans released last Friday - as part of a pre-qualification questionnaire for the award of a concession to design, build and operate a yacht marina in Marsaskala - indicate that all the coastline, from the inner side to the outmost points on either side of the creek, will be taken up by pontoons.

The resulting marina would leave no place at all for swimming inside the creek, make it impossible for fireworks to be let off from the sea, and even raises environmental concerns over the impact on the saline marshland at Il-Magħluq. 

All this has clearly come as a shock to the residents of that locality: who had not been consulted in any way before the plans surfaced last Friday; and who are understandably concerned that – should the development proceed, as it is porposed in this preliminary design – it would deprive them of their ability to enjoy what is, at the end of the day, their own community home.

And this is probably why the most vociferous objections have not only come from residents and environmentalist activists; but also from various exponents of the Labour Party itself.

Marasacala’s Labour deputy mayor Janice Falzon even described the proposed project as “massive” and “bombastic”; arguing that it will not benefit the thousands of residents and visitors who today enjoy the creek.

Labour MP Jean Claude Micallef went a step further: publicly dissociating himself from the initiative, and complaining that “this is not the way to treat residents.”

This is significant, because it also illustrates a growing chasm that has now visibly opened up between the ‘Labour Party in government’ – which concerns itself with the macro-view; and therefore may sometimes lose sight of the realities on the ground – and the grassroots Labour movement from which it was born.

It is the party’s local councillors, and individual candidates at district level, who are clearly more in synch with the popular mood in their localities; and by the same token, it is the Labour government that now seems so hopelessly out of touch with those concerns, that even the Environment Ministry was dismissive of all such objections.

Instead of lashing out at individual critics of its environmental policies, government would be wise to start paying heed to the growing murmurs of environmental discontent: especially now, that they are coming from its own supporters, and its own traditional political strongholds. 

Recent history strongly suggests that there is a price to be paid, for ignoring such warnings. Indeed, this same utter contempt of objections, and of all environmental concerns, has already been seen in other instances, such as the notorious DB project, approved by the PA last June.

On that occasion, we had an application opposed by three local councils representing 30,000 residents, and which in its various stages attracted an unprecedented 17,000 objections; and yet, when it came to the final decision… all those objections were just casually brushed aside. 

As Pembroke resident and writer Adrian Grima had said, at the time: a bully has been allowed to enter resident’s homes; and in this case the PA made a clear choice, in favour of bullies and against residents.

And now, just two months later, the authorities seem to be once again re-opening the door to the same ‘bully’: in other words, allowing infrastructural projects to be dictated by private interests – with no concern for the residents who will be impacted by such decisions; and with no regard to any other consideration whatsoever.

All of which raises the question: when will government finally realise that it cannot continue to ride roughshod over people’s concerns and over objections raised by local authorities, NGOs, residents and others? 

If history is to repeat itself: it will be when the net result of all this arrogance starts affecting its own popularity at the polls; by which time – as happened to other governments before it – it may be too late.