As in all other things, however, there have been several occasions when local councils committed mistakes. It is only natural that in the 11 years of their existence, while it must be said that the amount of work carried out by local councils is commendable, not all was well and not all councils had a smooth ride throughout.

The latest such issue concerned the St Julian’s local council and its parking scheme for Paceville and other central areas, a scheme which was aborted a few days after it was introduced because the Public Transport Authority overruled the council’s decision.

The launching of the scheme was already a taste of what was to come.

First of all, it was introduced a few days before the holding of the local council election in this locality.

This led many to think that it was just a move by the council to please the residents of the roads concerned – and the others too – on the eve of the polls.

But the press conference itself ended up with Nationalist mayor Peter Bonello and Labour vice-mayor Norman Vella bickering in front of journalists about the scheme itself. It showed that the council was not really united on this decision. It showed that the move had been hasty.

The bigger trouble was on the way.

The signs showing that only residents could park for more than 90 minutes in a list of roads in the heart of the locality came into force one day before the 12 March election.

But the enforcement of this parking scheme was

shortlived, largely following protests by the commercial community.

Entrepreneurs who own establishments in the area were immediately up-in-arms since they felt that the scheme could hinder their business.

They argued that their clients – most of whom obviously are not St Julian’s residents – were being turned away from this entertainment zone. Nobody can dine in less than 90 minutes, they said.

The comment made by the Eden Century film complex owners summed up the issue. Their clients would have to leave the cinema at the interval to move their car because no film lasts less than an hour and a half.

The Malta Transport Authority intervened and, within days of their being installed, the parking signs were covered and the scheme put on hold.

Unless there was an agreement with the commercial community, the scheme could not be introduced.

This agreement was eventually not reached and the scheme was aborted.

It was back to square one and the interpretation that the scheme was launched in haste as an election gimmick grew stronger at this stage.

The residents, although at the wrong end of the decision, realised that the plan was doomed to fail right from the start and no known protests were made. It was understood that the scheme, as introduced by the local council, could not possibly survive.

There are lessons to be learnt. Local councils should not go beyond what is in their power and, as happened in this case, take their residents for a ride, more so on the eve of an election.

On the other hand, residents should learn to distinguish between well thought out and feasible initiatives taken by their council and other decisions that are taken without adequate planning – moves that have to be withdrawn because they were not correct in the first place.