As far as cities of comparable size go, Valletta ticks many boxes.
Its maritime location, its famed architecture, celebrated history and cultural roots certainly qualify it as a Maltese jewel. Valletta is recognised and celebrated internationally and is rightly a source of intense pride for all Maltese.
But all is not well in the city.
Many residents feel that it is once again under siege, this time not by a foreign army but by a home-grown ‘hospitality’ sector pursuing a particular business model without due consideration for other ‘stakeholders’.
The issue at hand is not the operations of restaurants or even the bars but, rather, the insistence that venues be allowed to play music outdoors until 1am instead of 11pm. Residents have angrily argued that they were not consulted on loosening this rule.
They are rightfully worried about the quality of their lives, specifically their need for undisturbed sleep. They are also justifiably concerned that Valletta could become another Paceville or Buġibba, with the many downsides which continue throughout the night.
The fact Tourism Minister Clayton Bartolo supports the music extension and promises that “he will not tolerate” Valletta becoming another Paceville does not in any way assuage residents’ fears, perhaps the opposite. Nor do they believe that the 1am limit or sound restriction (to a very vague and subjective “moderate” level) will be observed or that they will be policed effectively.
Why should they when similar restrictions pertaining to music from nightclubs are regularly flouted elsewhere in Malta?
The main argument offered by proponents of the extension (apart from its value to their businesses) is that other cities across Europe allow this and that tourists want it. They also argue it will energise the city in the evening. At the core of this debate are conflicting interests and agendas. The overall attractiveness and well-being of a city is self-evidently not simply a function of its economy or the needs of some tourism cohorts.
A healthy, vibrant and bustling city is one that has a well-rounded social life with residents that are generally positive and happy about their city; a city characterised by a democratic political culture; a city of inspiration and hope not one of tension or fear or hostility.
In normal circumstances, the local council or national government would independently consult with all parties and interests and seek to achieve a reasonable and fair compromise. But, given the nature of Malta’s politics, this is not possible.
The issue has become polarised along party lines, with the inevitable happening: Labour MPs rejecting a Nationalist Party motion to repeal the new regulation.
The Labour Party’s dominance in the city, the behaviour of its councillors and the government’s clear identification with the interests of business over those of citizens made this a losing battle from the very start.
Sadly and unfairly but predictably, it reflects the current political realities of Malta and does not bode well for the future of Valletta, its residents or for the danger of this precedence being used elsewhere.
It is crucial that the residents of Valletta receive widespread vocal and visible support nationally. This is not only a matter of solidarity. If sound restrictions are eased in Valletta, then they could be loosened anywhere. Valletta belongs to all the Maltese and not to the businesses marching to the same noisy and unimaginative beat.
The image of Valletta that should be preserved at all costs is in danger of being tarnished locally and internationally.