The Malta
The proposed extension of development boundaries is a high stakes
issue. It is a process whereby real estate is turned instantly from bronze into
gold. With the stroke of a pen land values could increase a hundred fold or even
more.
The higher the stakes, the higher the need for the process to be controlled, transparent and subjected to checks and balances. This is necessary in order to render the final decision beyond suspicion of serving private rather than collective interests.
There must therefore be a better way of going about the process of changing the development boundaries. The one being adopted at present has thrown up all sorts of accusations, whether real or imaginary I don’t know, that this or that is being favoured; that this or that bought land, now included in the extension process, for peanuts just a few months before and suddenly striking gold by seeing it turned into priceless development land.
How can we adopt strict controls on matters of much lesser importance and then allow a process involving large millions to be run without sufficient checks and balances? Take a personal example. Being an economic commentator who frequently expresses opinions about the on-goings in local financial markets and the companies whose shares and bonds are traded thereon, I refuse to hold, as a matter of principle, local quoted investments lest I give the impression that my comments and opinions are motivated by personal gains prospects.
The law imposes severe penalties on any person, journalists included, who try to influence public opinion for personal gain from trading on the Exchange. Directors and senior executives of companies whose shares are quoted on the Exchange are strictly controlled and have to report all their trading activities in such shares. Indeed they are blocked from conducting any trading in certain periods when they can have inside information that is not yet available in the public domain.
If we take such correct and extreme measures on issues that could involve at most, hundreds of thousands of liri, how can we allow a process involving large millions to be dominated entirely by the political class with scant visibility and poor accountability?
Let me fantasise what in my dictionary would amount to something resembling a fair process for such a project. I do not wish to enter into the merits of whether it is or is not necessary to extend the development boundaries. I take it as a given that government feels that it is in the national interest to make some extensions to the development boundaries and I am only concerning myself with proposing a better way for managing such a process to reduce or eliminate claims of favouritism and clientelism.
It should all start with the adoption of a policy that will guide the criteria to be used for extending the development boundaries. At such policy formulation stage, which should be conducted with official public consultation through white papers and so on, no particular areas are to be identified as being considered for boundary revision.
Once the policy formation process is exhausted and a firm policy is decided upon, the public is to be invited to submit requests for boundary revision within the terms of such policy. The process has to be widely advertised with several months given for submissions that have to be accompanied by an architect’s report and certificate explaining why the requested inclusion within the revised boundaries falls in line with the published policy.
For this purpose, architects are to undergo a period of explanation and familiarisation with the word and spirit of the policy and they should be made aware that a dim view would be taken of the professionalism of architects who endorse applications that are evidently outside the terms of the policy.
The applications are to be examined by a wide panel that includes representatives from MEPA, environmental bodies, local councils, and is to be chaired by a retired judge or by a President Emeritus. The work of such panel is to be supervised by the Office of the Auditor General who is to report on the integrity of the process to Parliament.
The recommendations of such panel are then to be submitted for parliamentary approval so the final say would vest in our parliamentary representatives. However, Parliament would not be permitted to change the proposals of the panel but only to either approve it or send it back with comments for reconsideration.
Having built a solid structure for the process to render it more collegial and less subject to domination by any special interest group, there must still be at least two conditions attached to any property which gets through the process to be included in the revised boundaries.
These conditions would include the following, apart of course from the need to go through the normal process for securing a specific development permit:
The land can only be developed by an owner who has had title to the property for at least five years. This is to avoid get rich quick schemes by people who seem to have more inside knowledge than the rest of us about where it is likely to strike success in extending development boundaries. It reduces if not eliminates speculation and tempers the common temptation of politicians to use such development boundary revision to pump up the economy for electoral success purposes. We cannot allow development planning to become a shoddy tool of convenience for political popularity purposes.
A tax is to be imposed on beneficiaries of development boundary revision as a measure of collective sharing of the value added created by the process.
There must be a better way of doing things. I am sure others can improve and refine my above suggestions with the scope of rendering development planning above suspicion, respectful of environmental standards and serving collective needs and priorities.
The higher the stakes, the higher the need for the process to be controlled, transparent and subjected to checks and balances. This is necessary in order to render the final decision beyond suspicion of serving private rather than collective interests.
There must therefore be a better way of going about the process of changing the development boundaries. The one being adopted at present has thrown up all sorts of accusations, whether real or imaginary I don’t know, that this or that is being favoured; that this or that bought land, now included in the extension process, for peanuts just a few months before and suddenly striking gold by seeing it turned into priceless development land.
How can we adopt strict controls on matters of much lesser importance and then allow a process involving large millions to be run without sufficient checks and balances? Take a personal example. Being an economic commentator who frequently expresses opinions about the on-goings in local financial markets and the companies whose shares and bonds are traded thereon, I refuse to hold, as a matter of principle, local quoted investments lest I give the impression that my comments and opinions are motivated by personal gains prospects.
The law imposes severe penalties on any person, journalists included, who try to influence public opinion for personal gain from trading on the Exchange. Directors and senior executives of companies whose shares are quoted on the Exchange are strictly controlled and have to report all their trading activities in such shares. Indeed they are blocked from conducting any trading in certain periods when they can have inside information that is not yet available in the public domain.
If we take such correct and extreme measures on issues that could involve at most, hundreds of thousands of liri, how can we allow a process involving large millions to be dominated entirely by the political class with scant visibility and poor accountability?
Let me fantasise what in my dictionary would amount to something resembling a fair process for such a project. I do not wish to enter into the merits of whether it is or is not necessary to extend the development boundaries. I take it as a given that government feels that it is in the national interest to make some extensions to the development boundaries and I am only concerning myself with proposing a better way for managing such a process to reduce or eliminate claims of favouritism and clientelism.
It should all start with the adoption of a policy that will guide the criteria to be used for extending the development boundaries. At such policy formulation stage, which should be conducted with official public consultation through white papers and so on, no particular areas are to be identified as being considered for boundary revision.
Once the policy formation process is exhausted and a firm policy is decided upon, the public is to be invited to submit requests for boundary revision within the terms of such policy. The process has to be widely advertised with several months given for submissions that have to be accompanied by an architect’s report and certificate explaining why the requested inclusion within the revised boundaries falls in line with the published policy.
For this purpose, architects are to undergo a period of explanation and familiarisation with the word and spirit of the policy and they should be made aware that a dim view would be taken of the professionalism of architects who endorse applications that are evidently outside the terms of the policy.
The applications are to be examined by a wide panel that includes representatives from MEPA, environmental bodies, local councils, and is to be chaired by a retired judge or by a President Emeritus. The work of such panel is to be supervised by the Office of the Auditor General who is to report on the integrity of the process to Parliament.
The recommendations of such panel are then to be submitted for parliamentary approval so the final say would vest in our parliamentary representatives. However, Parliament would not be permitted to change the proposals of the panel but only to either approve it or send it back with comments for reconsideration.
Having built a solid structure for the process to render it more collegial and less subject to domination by any special interest group, there must still be at least two conditions attached to any property which gets through the process to be included in the revised boundaries.
These conditions would include the following, apart of course from the need to go through the normal process for securing a specific development permit:
The land can only be developed by an owner who has had title to the property for at least five years. This is to avoid get rich quick schemes by people who seem to have more inside knowledge than the rest of us about where it is likely to strike success in extending development boundaries. It reduces if not eliminates speculation and tempers the common temptation of politicians to use such development boundary revision to pump up the economy for electoral success purposes. We cannot allow development planning to become a shoddy tool of convenience for political popularity purposes.
A tax is to be imposed on beneficiaries of development boundary revision as a measure of collective sharing of the value added created by the process.
There must be a better way of doing things. I am sure others can improve and refine my above suggestions with the scope of rendering development planning above suspicion, respectful of environmental standards and serving collective needs and priorities.
No comments:
Post a Comment