Goings-on at the local

The mid-week court judgment on parking zones for residents was not in respect of one of the most important civil issues ever put to our judiciary to consider. It was nevertheless significant and timely, given the approach of the next round of local elections.

The decision delivered by Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco was also eminently sensible. He ruled that it was not within the competence of local councils to reserve particular zones for residential parking.

The court said that the creation of reserved parking zones could be justified as a security measure, or on humanitarian grounds. It could not, however, give an advantage to residents served by a local council over the interests of other citizens of the country.

The court case in question related to the situation in Pietà. The citizens who live in the area of St Luke's Hospital do have to put up with parking pressure brought about by the thousands of people who visit the hospital daily. The court recognised that and also cited similar pressure in places like Valletta and Gozo.

The existence of a problem does not always justify the measures taken to counteract it. There is a clear misapprehension by some serving or former local councillors on pretensions to inherent right. The Pietà council, for instance, evidently feels it has an inherent right to a share of the parking fees paid by visitors to St Luke's, if they stay for more than a few minutes, whether as outpatients, to collect medicines, or to visit relatives or friends.

There is no such inherent right. In this particular context, that can only flow out of taxation. Local councils have no right to impose local taxes. Their residents pay direct and indirect taxes that are established and collected at the national level.

Resources are allocated to the local councils out of the common pool of government financial resources derived from taxation, fees of office and other sources.

The allocation from the centre to its local components is determined by a formula based on area size and population. Local financing does not come into it. A local council does have a strong case for additional resources from the centre if it can argue that its locality is subject to extraordinary wear and tear. That argument cannot be shifted upon the citizenry.

There are many local councils, but one citizenry.

As things stand, individual citizens cannot even claim treatment in relation to fees paid directly by them in relation to a specific objective. The most obvious example is the road contribution that house owners pay to develop their plot, or which is in the cost if they buy a built-up unit.

Irrespective of the amount of the contribution, a house owner does not have any automatic preferential right to park in front of his house. Assuming parking is permitted there, the space can be used at will by neighbours or visitors. It is occupied on a first-come, first-served basis.

That is not about to change. Nor should it, as it would mean extended private property rights into the street. Allowing local councils to carve out what is tantamount to preferential treatment for the locals is equivalent to such an extension.

The issue of the heavy density of vehicles in use and the lack of parking space is a national issue. It needs to be tackled at the national level. Local councils which focus on their limited powers relative to the rising expectations of the residents within their boundaries tend to do a good job. Especially in areas where they do not waste time indulging in political stancing and bickering.

Efficient local councils can argue that they do not have enough resources at their disposal. If the central government, whichever party is manning it, devolves additional responsibilities to local councils, it has to increase the allocation of financial resources to enable the local councils to meet the increase.

There is a case for more devolution, subject to satisfactory performance. More can be done, for example, to bring into use for the good of the local communities the school precincts dotting the Maltese Islands, in particular the new ones and those that have been or will be refurbished.

There is too much government property that is underutilised, and could be managed better. Local councils and the local citizenry can be mobilised to bring that about. The higher the efficient use of the resources devolved in that direction, the bigger the advantage to the local community.

It is probably time to review the legislation and structure of local councils. It would be of no use to regurgitate the political discussion on whether local councils should be within the partisan political sphere, or completely outside it.

It would have been far better had they not been placed there by the Nationalist government, as the MLP cogently argued from the Opposition benches. Now, the local structure is embedded within the national political structure.

We have to go through the process of a local election every year, with the big parties mobilising as if for a general election. Constant electioneering has become a way of life.

No criticism, or appeal by the Church authorities, or stand by one or other political party will change that situation. A review of the local councils has to take place with the political structure as a given, but preferably without the political parties tediously chanting how well 'their' councillors have done, and what a load of rubbish was churned up by the 'others'.

The review should be from the standpoint of how the system can be made to work better because of the proximity of the local citizenry to local objectives and the means utilised to try to achieve them.

For a real restructuring to be possible the politicians who operate at the national level will have to accept that their sphere of influence would be reduced thereby. Otherwise, there will not be true devolution, simply further duplication. Self-respecting local councillors, whichever party they belong to, should see themselves as truly putting the citizen first.

For that to happen, the party has to come second. Nevertheless, putting the citizen first and getting results will, without any need for loud boasting and much ado, project the party of the good local performer. Within the revision, the notion of the source of financial resources would have to remain clear.

Local councillors need to disabuse themselves of the idea that their locality is automatically entitled to more financial resources and their use, than others. A locality is entitled by need. It can only satisfy need through funds devolved to it from the centre. That is why a local council is not entitled to advantage its locals to the detriment of other citizens, who also contribute to the centre.

The case against preferential treatment is clear. It has been made clearer still by the court, even if it did not enter explicitly into the basic taxation argument. That still leaves the dilemma of intense pressure on various localities, particularly in respect of parking.

Local councillors would do worse than get together to press the political parties to come up with a five- to ten-year programme how to ease that particular problem. The warden system serves little purpose in that regard.

The system has become a means of raising revenue, at times in the most ridiculous of manners, to help it finance itself. Wardens would be much better deployed on trying to promote better driving standards, reduce egoism and irresponsibility on the road, prevent accidents by focusing on their causes, such as over speeding and ignoring basic regulations, and to increase safety.

The authorities seem intent on remaining oblivious to all that. Local pressure to act to provide more car parks at sensible parking rates should make the actual and aspiring central authorities less oblivious to the problem of vehicle density relative to Malta's size and roads.

This is one area that cries out for public-private initiatives. Under- ground car parks are built abroad without interrupting civil and economic life, providing some relief to drivers and pedestrians alike.

It can be done in Malta, alongside an educational programme against the growing tendency to use a car as if legs have atrophied. More than imagination, it requires focus. That can come from local councillors who recognise that the best way to serve their localities is not to try to extend preferential treatment to them, no matter if they feel that it is actually corrective treatment.

The local elections due on March 10 will not be conducted with that in mind. The control freaks in the two major political parties will have already devised the political basis for the occasion. They will be looking at the coming voting round as a preliminary to the general election.

They will experiment to see how they would manage if they have simultaneously to fight a local and a general election, should the Prime Minister opt for that tactic in 14 months' time. They will preen their feathers, parade their candidates and prime them with political jargon, combining self-praise and bad-mouthing of opponents.

It will be the usual unfunny carnival. But - the citizenry might well ask - is that what local elections should really be all about?