Wrong on rent, again!

Some weeks ago in a contribution to this paper, I stated that Marisa Micallef, chairman of the Housing Authority, "has a fine mind but poor reading skills". After forcing myself to read her piece entitled Wrong Rent Laws, Wrong Referendum (June 27) I have concluded that my first assertion may have, in fact, been very wrong. In what was in effect half a page of verbal trapeze she simultaneously posed as a champion of the landlords, an undercover spy for the tax compliance unit, the saviour of those who cannot afford market rents, the defender of those who cannot afford housing, an apologist to property speculators and an admirer of dilapidated real estate.

At first I was tempted to ignore her. Sadly though, I could not, because Ms Micallef is no ordinary citizen. If she were such, her contribution could have been ignored as a pathetically defensive diatribe against Alternattiva Demokratika's initiative to force this government to reform our rent laws - in effect, the third arrow fired by the government's first line of defence, after the ones unleashed by Malcolm Mifsud and Daphne Caruana Galizia prophetically and deservedly fell into no man's land. As chairman of the Housing Authority, though, it is (to say it mildly) rather out of order for her to choose to misinterpret what AD has been saying and writing.

In her capacity as chairman of the Housing Authority she should boldly recognise the injustice and work tirelessly for a solution, full stop. A properly focused Housing Authority should be on the frontline of this issue, producing the data and statistics necessary for a sustainable and just reform. The chairman should be the champion of the reform not its saboteur.

What is Ms Micallef's real stand on this issue? Will she sign up? If the country's rent laws (as she so rightly claims) are so wrong, what are her solutions? Why has the White Paper originally promised in November (to which formulation she is surely contributing) been moved to June, then again to July and now again to August?

Indeed, could a reform have been legitimately negotiated without any consultation whatsoever with stakeholders? Is this going to be another take-as-is-or-have-Labour-elected reform? Doesn't she have better things to do than nag us? Why not pester Minister Dolores Cristina, for starters? Shouldn't she be working 24-7 with her boss, if this phantom proposal has any hope of hitting the Cabinet by August? Is her boss consulting her, at all? Won't she let us in on some of the good tidings yet to come or are there none because perhaps, just perhaps, no reform has ever been drafted let alone prepared?

We will continue collecting signatures until the government makes the right move. We are in no hurry, though the landlords are. Ours is a campaign not a crusade. We will have no problem withdrawing should a reform, acceptable to property owners, be implemented. It will not be our victory, it will the victory of those who have been suffering just too long. We would be foolish thinking the government would award us any merit. No problem - we are used to being sidelined. In a few months, from outside Parliament, we would have brought about more change to our country than most backbenchers (and most ministers for that matter) bring about in a lifetime, from within. We would feel privileged to have been the catalyst.

Rather than trying to unravel the chairman's arguments, which really merit no attention, I will delineate, for those not yet familiar, what we have been saying about the whole issue.

The Green Party has declared that the primary issue surrounding the rent laws is the blatant injustice suffered for decades by landlords. This injustice is sufficient alone to force the government to reform the laws; remember after 18 years of failed promises. No economic arguments are required to galvanise the rationale for a reform - we, and many thousands with us, feel that the injustice is sufficient. The shape of the reform to come is the responsibility of the government and the government alone. Our task is to force the government to do what it knows should be done.

What we have pledged, and will continue offering, is our support in shaping the reform. Our proposals for the reform are ready. These will only be published after the 30,000 signatures are collected. We will not be sidetracked into explaining a reform we have no control over; remember the Green Party sits outside Parliament. The government will only sit around the table of negotiation when the balance of power moves from a Cabinet petrified by vote losses to what in effect will become a property owners' group. That power shift can only be achieved when property-owners are in a position to call the referendum. Until the 30,000 signatures are in the bag, landlords are at best a bunch of hopefuls, at worst a host of beggars! The mere threat of a referendum will turn the table in their favour.

The rent reform is just one major aspect of what could become a complete change for the better in this country's property market specifically and in our outlook on the way we utilise land generally. For several years we have argued that the number of vacant properties (25 per cent of total housing stock by Ms Micallef's own count) is a "luxury" this country cannot afford. The reasons for which they lie vacant are various; the cultural block of 60 years of experience with controlled properties is just one. The fear of requisition is another. Is this reason enough to further delay the reform in our rent laws?

A large majority of these vacant properties lie abandoned and dilapidated. They are a national resource gone to waste, a perpetual eyesore to the Maltese, slum area to visiting tourists. Apart from this, they have given every reason to some of our voracious contractors to eat away at our countryside at alarming speed rather than use our existing built footprint. This, to the Greens, has been an irreparable blow to our country's beauty and uniqueness. To Ms Micallef it is the status quo, the one she has become accustomed to living with.

Like it or not these 30,000-odd properties have been left out of our island's economic equation. Their exclusion from the market is one reason (we never said the only reason) why real estate has become more and more unaffordable to many. Apart from the reform to our rent laws to give justice back to property-owners, there exists a unique opportunity to reactivate these properties in order to tame the madness of 85-square-metre-maisonettes-at-Lm100,000-for-those-on-salaries-of-Lm7,000.

A system of fiscal incentives and disincentives to be applied to property left vacant for purely speculative purposes could do the job. At best this policy measure will reactivate many of these properties - the gradual increase in housing supply bringing about a consequential effect on the price of both purchase and rent; at worst it will provide the funds to part-finance needy tenants living in controlled properties.

Both reforms are necessary and should be carried out simultaneously if we are to have a far-reaching and self-financing reform. It can be done. We never said that the reforms would bring about a drop in property prices. What we expect is that prices will not continue increasing at such an alarming rate.

There is a sea of difference between the two assertions, which Ms Micallef conveniently ignores. We never claimed that this suggestion is the be-all-and-end-all of property market economics. We welcome others so that the best suggestions are implemented. Unlike Ms Micallef's party we never aspire to perfection or infallibility; we do however refuse to subscribe to inaction at the face of some adversity. This is our own contribution, tiny and illogical as it may seem to the lady. Many have understood our line of reasoning; others are starting to come round to the idea. Those in Ms Micallef's situation will, unfortunately, may I add, never be in a position to respond.

The suggestions on vacant property are extraneous to long-suffering property-owners. Frankly, they don't care - they seek only justice. Granting them justice though does not have to be done at the expense of vulnerable or needy tenants. Nobody has to divide to rule here. I am sure Ms Cristina will look after everyone; her track record is the guarantee of deserving tenants. Like I have said before, with a proper reform the only losers will be wealthy tenants living off their landlords. So what?

Further, if some of our proposals to deal with vacant property ever see the light of day, then there is hope that many of our children will continue affording the luxury that many of us have enjoyed; owning one's own home. To those who can't, renting at reasonable cost may be the only option. As an ancillary benefit, the potential increase in housing supply may enable the Housing Authority to cease acting like the building contractor it has become. More than enough properties will be available on the market for it to source. To Ms Micallef, who claims that "the only real way to have a more affordable supply is for the government to invest more in housing", that may come as a disappointment but, then, who cares?

Mr Fenech is spokesman on finance, the economy and tourism of Alternattiva Demokratika - The Green Party.