The Nationalist government’s own creation has become an albatross around its neck.

It is, in no small way, thanks to the indefatigable efforts of Lawrence Gonzi that the 2003-2008 PN administration was not in the end submerged under an avalanche of sleaze allegations and worse

Even so, the country still needs to be told what kind of deal was reached in so many late night meetings with aggrieved would-be abstainers.

Even so, the allegations regarding Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando’s land at Mistra have in part been proved true and would have impacted on the electorate had they come in good enough time, and had the then Labour leader not chickened out of a direct confrontation with the brash MP.

Things have now come to such a state that no one remembers the chaos, the sheer corruption that was the norm in the bad old PAPB times and even more before in the times of ministerial diktats. No one has paid for what took place then: people still enjoy their ill-gotten gains and, for all the pre-1987 rhetoric, the post-1987 practice seems to have been to let bygones be bygones in the so-called name of national reconciliation.

Today, it may be quite plausible to argue that Mepa (or Planning Authority as it was at the beginning) was never given the tools to work, as it should have. Its enforcement was (and to some extent still is) a joke. When the Auditor’s Office was set up, it was starved of trained resources.

It could also be argued that somewhere along the line Mepa lost sight of its real mission. As Carmel Cacopardo quite rightly wrote yesterday: “Mepa’s mission is that of acting on behalf of the whole Maltese community (both present and future generations) in ensuring that development, in its drive to create wealth, conforms to the eco-system of which we form part as well as the social structures in existence from time to time. This is what sustainable development is all about. In carrying out its endeavours, Mepa has no right to discount the future.”

Brave words, but considering Dr Cacopardo’s strictures against the supermarket in Safi, what about his own application as an architect for development of the field next to this site? A posting on a weblog yesterday had similar strictures to pass regarding the Mepa Auditor himself and a restaurant in Mistra, next to the field owned by Jeffrey Pullicino-Orlando and destined for a disco, and to the MUSEUM Alcatraz-like building at Marfa.

In his interview with this paper in today’s issue, Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, even though he has not yet concluded his review of Mepa, argues it may well be that some of the negative perceptions of Mepa common among people derive from wrong information. Just as many governments feel free to blame everything on the EU and hang the consequences, so too it appears that many professionals seem prone to blame Mepa when they would know a permit was not at all possible.

In this and in similar cases, the more information that can be given on any application is all for the better. There is already a great amount of disclosure on applications, far more than in other countries, and recent changes have widened accessibility. It should be possible for applicants to keep track of their applications at each and every stage.

Another important issue regards knowledge of applications by those who will be affected by such applications. This is surely one area that needs looking into. Thankfully, there are now many NGOs who are on the lookout and can find out what is being planned, but one should be able to look out for himself and defend himself in time.

Another issue regards the collective impact of a number of applications in the same area. At one point this was regarded as something untouchable, since it all involved private property and everybody was presumed to have the right to develop to the max. But then, look at the over-development so rife in some areas and ask: is there not also the right of the community as a whole not to have over-development imposed on it and in such concentration?

The Gonzi government is also to blame for its controversial Development Zones reorganisation or widening. It has laid itself open to more pressures next time round to correct the correction, and so on ad infinitum. On the other hand, this paper tends to disagree with the NGOs and the Church Commission for being so negative on the many ODZ applications there have been. If strict enforcement is implemented, would it not be agreeable to have derelict farmhouses renovated and inhabited, as long as they are not turned into swanky villas with pools et al?

Development in Malta is always and will always be a two-pronged sword: on the one hand, those who want conservation and preservation argue against any and all development while on the other hand those in the development, construction and related industries want more and more applications and permissions. Unless the rules are clear and known by one and all, unless the audit trail of each application is traceable and public, unless there are no discernible discrepancies between one application and another, there will always be suspicions of backhanders and corruption.

All in all, the situation is far better than in PAPB times, but the ethical demands are stricter now, the money one can make from property development bears no comparison to what was common in those years and meanwhile the land available for development has decreased drastically. Time for stricter and tougher enforcement on the big and the small, and not just on the small only.