Ramla alternatives (letters) - http://www.timesofmalta.com/
John Schembri, St Julians.
Much is being said about Ramla l-Hamra and other areas that are sensitive or in need of protection for various reasons.
Mepa might be wise to look at logging practices on the West Coast of Canada, maybe elsewhere as well. When a logging permit is granted there is always a clause in the contract that the area must be restored to its original state.
Logging entails building a small community. Roads are built, a variety of mobile buildings, including homes, schools, bunk houses and basic medical facilities are brought in. At the end of the contract anything that is man-made has to be removed, trees replanted and the area left as close as possible to its pre-human habitation state.
Just because someone in the past didn't maybe have the knowledge and appreciation of the environment we have today doesn't mean we can replace an eyesore. That the new structure is lower, more attractive and less intrusive does not make it acceptable.
Mario Mizzi, Swieqi.
The government and Mepa may well insist that the Ramla l-Hamra development permit is legitimate, but the point is that if the re-development of this site is allowed to take place, it is almost certain that more "development" will follow, be it in 10 years or 20.
I think the government should requisition the whole land and buildings, and restore the site to what it was like before the present "development" started. However, it must pay a fair commercial price to the landowner - assuming the land was not developed illegally in the first place.
This does come at a price, but would we rather see also Ramla l-Hamra being slowly and inexorably spoilt forever?
:: back to news