I refer to recent media reports to the effect that the owners of a Marsalforn hotel are taking action against the Land Department. I do not think the incredible saga that has evolved has been sufficiently explained.
In the first place, there was nothing mysterious or arcane about the manner in which the present road, Triq is-Sajjied, was included in the road scheme. This road was designated as a public road because it was required to serve the interests of the public. Naturally, one understands that any private interest affected by the road would have to be compensated. But are we expected to do without roads because some hotelier may have plans to develop a property in his own private interests?
Not only was the road in question in Marsalforn duly included in the scheme, it was also open to the public and accessed by the public. It was only following illegal work carried out by the hotel owners that the general public was denied the use of this road.
Enforcement action was taken against the developers for blocking the road and this ended up in an order from the Planning Board to remove the obstacles that had been placed there.
Inexplicably, and for reasons unknown to the undersigned, this decision has remained a total dead end and no positive action has been taken to re-open the road to the public. This led to complaints not only by the undersigned but by several people in the area who have an interest in seeing that the road is kept open at all times as its closure creates traffic problems.
Again, the media report was incorrect in stating that this land was being transferred to third parties. That is not what is happening: the Lands Department had commenced legal proceedings to acquire the property in the interests of the public to be opened as publicly-owned road.
The undersigned had undertaken to effect payment for the taking over of the land abutting his property as has happened in all cases up till now and as is regulated by law.
Also inexplicable is the manner in which the developer has managed to delay the opening of the road by claiming a violation of his fundamental rights, which has been pending for the last two years and is blocking progress in the matter.
I believe, as do a number of other local residents who have had reason to complain, that the opening of this road is manifestly in the public interest. The proceedings in relation to the taking over and opening of this road were explicit and open and the landlord was invited to give his point of view before decisions were taken at the level of the Lands Department and a contract was signed with the undersigned.
George Sacco
Marsalforn, Gozo