David Pisani, public relations officer, Żminijietna - Voice of the Left, Valletta
Spreading justice in rent reform
Żminijietna - Voice of the Left believes that the government's rent reform proposals do justice to the owners of properties rented before the 1995 liberalisation, yet not at the expense of people living in them.
We welcome the fact that the children of those living in such properties, with incomes of less than €25,000, will be able to carry on living in the homes they have been living in with their caregiver/s. This will safeguard the security of the members of that household.
We appeal for the five-year period, whereby children need to be living in the rented home for a minimum of five years before they can be considered as heirs to the property, to be excluded from the reform so children with family-related problems and those with social problems will not be at a disadvantage.
In addition, Żminijietna believes that political and social organisations, NGOs and voluntary organisations should benefit from the reform and not be subjected to the open market rent criteria. These organisations are not-for-profit and are giving a social contribution to society.
We also recommend that all types of families should benefit from the proposals, including cohabiting and single-parent households and same-sex couples.
Żminijietna also believes that the rent reform should be accompanied by a reform in social housing policies in order for the government to help those truly in need, including first-time buyers and people reaching pension age.
2 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Louis Amato-Gauci
Jan 22nd 2009, 15:47
Is Zminijietna, or the government , or the voting public, at all concerned about the manner in which these proposed rent reforms will entrench into law several negative incentives? E.g:
(i) The child of a pre-1995 tenant has no incentive to strive to improve his/her position. The message is: stick with a low-paying job and you get a grand old house for literally pennies a day, at landlord's expense! Incidentally, shouldn't the "means test" be applied annually for as long as the tenant's child lives in that house??
(ii) A near or distant relative, or no relative at all, is encouraged to move in with an elderly or sickly tenant in their final months, weeks, days of life, because they will thereby acquire the right to continue the tenancy for up to five years following the tenant's death at a "just" rate of rent, whatever that means. Well, if they can afford a "just" rate of rent, why must it be at this particular premises? Why must the landlord be deprived of the right to select, pre-screen and approve the person who will occupy the rented premises for the next five years following the death of the original tenant?
Shame!
Louis Amato-Gauci
Jan 22nd 2009, 15:39
Can someone please explain to me why a tenant or his/her child, with a tenancy that pre-dates the 1995 liberalisation, should continue to enjoy a higher level of protection than a tenant or a child of a tenant, with a tenancy that was created after the 1995 liberalisation? We know that this government does not believe that all landlords are equal, but aren't all tenants equal either? For that matter, if these pre-1995 tenants and their offspring do need a higher level of protection, why, exactly must this added benefit be provided to them at the expense of the pre-1995 landlords?
The proposed reforms are a sham!