I do confess to being baffled at Marisa Micallef’s contribution (TMID, 6 March) on the Qui-si-Sana issue because she completely misses out the more important points. She fails to mention, for example, that Sliema residents, including the middle-class PN voters to which she refers to repeatedly, face very serious difficulties to find parking. A staggering 40 per cent of Sliema residents mentioned parking problems as their main concern when responding to a recent independent survey.

She fails to mention that it is the Sliema local council’s and the government’s intention to introduce a Resident Parking Zone (RPZ) eventually for all of Sliema, whereby residents would park free of charge. She is very wrong when she claims that there is “no great public purpose” for the proposed project.

Parking in Sliema has been a problem for many years now and with increasing activities taking place in Sliema and in Tignè, the parking problem is likely to become more difficult. The RPZ will alleviate the problem for residents. Implementation of the RPZ, however, could be problematic and could possibly be jeopardised if additional off-street parking is not provided. People not living in Sliema and the commercial community will want to ensure that access to Sliema is maintained and possibly improved. The provision of off-street parking, combined with improved public transport, should ensure that accessibility to Sliema is not compromised.

Qui-si-Sana development is a local issue in the sense that very few people are actually against the project, and most of these live on the seafront opposite the garden. Their opinion is important and needs to be heard, but in doing so we cannot ignore the needs of the vast majority of the Slimizi, and hundreds of others who visit Sliema regularly, namely to resolve the problems they have to find parking. Most people living in the side streets of Tigne and in other parts of Sliema are not against the project, because they now understand that the implementation of the RPZ and the provision of off-street parking are intricately linked.

Ms Micallef’s main argument is that the garden offers a quiet enclave which residents should be allowed to retain. With the government’s proposal the garden area will increase by 2,350m2. It is all very well for this group of people to retain the status quo but at what price? Why should the government accept to retain this area as is for the presumed benefit of a limited number of people and at the same time make life more difficult for thousands of others?

It is unfair to claim that the government is motivated by the interests of developers in this project, or any other project for that matter. This is the opposition’s innuendo, yet no one has ever produced one single piece of evidence to substantiate this claim.

The developer was selected following a tendering process carried out according to standard government procedures. The tenderer was selected because he submitted the highest offer, presumably after making his calculations and establishing a fair profit in return for his investment and risk. Moreover, the selected bidder is bound by the Development Brief in the execution of the proposal.

The government decided to involve the private sector because it does not have the resources to develop and subsequently run a car park. The private sector is better equipped to pursue such projects. With publicly-owned property, public private partnership is the norm here in Malta and everywhere else in Europe. Any standard text-book on planning and urban regeneration will argue in favour of the involvement of the private sector in development projects. The government is right in defending a project which it believes to be in the public interest, even at the risk of some accusing it of favouring developers.

I am sure that Ms Micallef is well aware that this same group of people have also campaigned against the diversion of traffic from Bisazza Street and Tower Road to Tigne peripheral road. They are against the pedestrianisation of the commercial centre with the result that thousands of residents, shoppers and employees are subject to high levels of car exhaust pollution in the confined spaces of the commercial centre.

To justify their opposition, they use the same argument which Ms Micallef has used to argue against the car park. What stands out in this debate is the extreme to which this small group of residents is prepared to go to refuse to even consider the interests of the wider community.

The government, on the other hand, seeks the common good which necessitates an approach that looks after the well being of all, not just the selected few.

George Pullicino is

Rural Affairs and Environment Minister