The other side of the property coin

We can all agree on one thing at least. Property prices have risen hard and fast in the last three years particularly. Although this is very good for many, it is hard for some. It is undoubtedly harder for those trying to get their first step on the property ladder than it was five years ago. Wages have not risen in line with the recent rises and are unlikely to do so.

The Church recently called for more government intervention. That is very easy to ask for but in practise what is meant by this? Can the state control property prices? No. Can the state build properties so that some are available at more affordable prices? Yes and it is doing so. Can the state do more? Yes it always can but who is prepared to foot this bill?

Is the taxpayer and the government willing to do so? Currently the state builds about 150-200 units a year at prices that are subsidised quite heavily. On average we knock off 30-50 per cent off the commercial price for our clients. There is no doubt that if we could build more we would have a ready market for them and that our last issue for sale was, once again, heavily subscribed by engaged couples particularly.

As most of them are dual income and without the expenses of children they are among our most affluent clients. I would like to stress though that I am far more worried by the families with children (and so should the Church be) who are living in overcrowded conditions because they have even less financial choice than your average young engaged couple. They seem to have less of a voice too. The truth, though no one seems to want to say it, is that young engaged couples do have a choice. They can with both incomes easily afford to rent but don't want to do so because they see it as a waste. But they are not homeless. They are not badly housed or potentially badly housed.

They have high expectations and, sadly, the Church is fanning this rather than preaching about going for what you can afford. Being housed decently is a right. Being a property owner is not an inalienable right though and the Church needs to moderate its talk in this area because it always talks as if it is the inalienable right of everyone to own one's home. Who is going to pay for this? Is this the long-term answer though? Why is the Church saying what it is saying exactly? And why doesn't it comment on the fortunes engaged couples are spending on nice finishes which perhaps they can ill-afford? What's the point of an engaged couple buying a unit from us where the price has been reduced by Lm15,000 to then spend that same amount on nice bathrooms and expensive finishes? Part of the problem is within us too isn't it? Mind you, attitudes are changing and for the better.

When I started chairing the Housing Authority board and made decisions to build smaller units (one and two beds) it was heavily criticised not least because I was told we wouldn't be able to shift them. Today the opposite is true and the truth is we just don't have enough smaller units for the enormous demand out there. There seems to be this culture going round, fanned by pro AD economists too, that somehow everything is the government's fault. Certainly the government is a major player but the same phenomena that has made the parents of these engaged couples very property rich today (most of the over 40s have no loan and are sitting on massive amounts of equity) is the same phenomenon which is making it harder for their kids to get onto the property ladder.

We can't have it both ways although we appear to want to. On the one hand those of us who are all property owners are all pleased by how much our properties have risen in value.

And on the other we're all aghast at how impossible it is for our kids to get onto the same ladder. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the free market alone cannot address the whole housing need and that more government intervention is needed. I am sad though to hear the Church only talk about the plight of engaged couples (and repeatedly) when those who are suffering the worst housing conditions are definitely not engaged couples.

They are old ladies and men living in substandard housing. They are single parent or single income families living on the breadline. These can't afford the repairs, can't afford to heat their homes and we always worry about the engaged couple who are applying finishes to their bathroom you just have to see to believe. We have to be more honest about the housing need.

The government, whether red, blue or green, cannot possibly give out what was given in the past. We all have to remember that many of those who are well housed today are actually well housed at someone else's expense. Land was taken from landowners at a pittance. Houses were requisitioned or are still stuck in a private let at a ridiculous rent. I don't hear from anywhere or anyone anything sensible about increasing the supply of affordable housing without more huge subsidies from the government.

Some snazzy terms get bandied about like public private partnerships but essentially we are talking about more spending by the government in housing. There is really no way around it. We do need more investment in this area but many of those whom the Church is worrying about now will not benefit before the more needy are helped.

That investment can and must go to those who are genuinely without any other options and are prepared hard to help themselves. Fanning a dependency culture, whether by the Church or the opposition parties, is only going to make the problems far harder to solve.

The property market has at least two sides. When trying to find solutions let us at least keep our eyes on both sides before coming up with more bland generalities. The victim culture is very easy to write about.

Effective solutions are hard and all have to compromise to reach them. Do we really want to move ahead or do we just want to remain nostalgic about the past? A past, incidentally, which was won at the expense of so many we conveniently forget.

Ms Micallef is chairman of the Housing Authority.