Fiona Galea Debono
Dangerous Valletta buildings may be sealed off
Falling glass narrowly misses passer-by
Derelict properties in Valletta that constitute an eyesore and a public danger may be repaired and sealed off by the local council at the expense of their owners if its proposed Maintenance of Building Facades bye law is approved.
These buildings would then only be returned to the owners if they paid the costs footed by the council to render them safe and close them up.
The bye law has been drafted to curb a "ridiculous" situation that could not carry on, Valletta mayor Alexiei Dingli said, referring to the anomaly between the government's efforts to upgrade the city and the substantial number of abandoned properties left to crumble.
Drafted by the local council in June, it is awaiting publication in the Government Gazette. Its purpose is to overcome the problem of tracing ownership, which normally leaves any attempt to sort out a dilapidated building at a complete standstill.
Dr Dingli explained that, once a report was lodged at the local council, generally the procedure was to ask the Land Department whether the property in question belonged to it. If it did, the department was asked to take action and the building sealed off.
This was recently the case when a disused shop in Old Theatre Street, by the primary school and surrounded by restaurants, was left abandoned, shutters up, and turned into a dump, with mice running around, Dr Dingli said.
But the story is more complicated when the property is in private hands. In such cases the council's attempts to trace the owners would normally be to no avail.
While the local council cannot intervene in the case of private property, the police can force the owner to take immediate action, laying down a deadline for repair of the building.
Again, however, the problem lay in tracking down the owners, Dr Dingli said. Often there were no records or the house was divided among so many heirs that nobody bothered to do anything about it.
The bye law would allow for a notice to be affixed to unoccupied properties asking the proprietors to carry out the necessary works.
If they fail to start intervention within seven days, the council would do so itself, at the expense of the owner, locking up the place until the expenses were repaid.
"If the owner turns up, he will have no choice but to pay the council before taking back the building," Dr Dingli said.
Asked whether the council could afford the expenses, with no guarantee that the "missing" owners would reappear and that it would retrieve the money spent, the mayor questioned whether the city could afford to have properties that were falling apart.
"I prefer to clean them up and seal them off," he said.
Having padlocked, abandoned buildings would not necessarily avoid the eyesores but the mayor has a plan. Still in an embryonic stage, it could mean the capital's derelict properties would be turned into an opportunity for artistic expression.
His idea is to cover these buildings with a blank canvas on which artists and children could give vent to their creativity - an initiative that would also serve to sensitise the public to the sorry state of the buildings.
The draft bye law also sets down that façades should be painted a minimum of every three years with owners liable to a daily fine until they finish the job if they ignore a notice by the council.
Once the bye law goes through, Dr Dingli also intends to create an inventory on the substantial number of derelict buildings with the collaboration of the parish priest, whom he deems to be a good source of information.
The capital's dilapidated property not only makes for shabbiness but also presents a danger to residents. Norman Shaw, who lives opposite an abandoned house in St Paul Street, was walking round to the boot of his parked car when he heard glass shattering on the pavement, missing him by centimetres.
"When I went to report the incident, the police said they already have a file on the house but they could not do anything about it," he recounted. This was possibly due to the number of owners, who may also be in court.
They later came round to put up an iron barricade and some tape to cordon off the site but both have since been removed and there was no sign alerting the public to the danger, Mr Shaw said.
The façade looked like it was in imminent danger of collapse and could injure, or even kill someone, he maintained, pointing out a large crack in it. The roof was missing and the second ceiling seemed to have partially caved in, he said.
21 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
B Agius
Oct 27th 2009, 16:21
The solution is quite simple. Malta should introduce property tax and/or land rates. All properties should pay it - it would then become uneconomical to keep derelict buildings as rates would still have to be paid for them. Owners then will either sell them or do them up and rent them. That's what happens in many other countries and the problem of derelict buildings is far far less than what appears is the case in Malta.
Franco Farrugia
Oct 26th 2009, 21:57
I find two problems with this: a) requesting a facade to be painted every three years as a minimum is asking a lot - where did the Mayor get this?
b) and again, where is the Mayor living, if he thinks that works can be started on a project 'within seven days'?
victor pulis
Oct 26th 2009, 19:19
How many people look up and notice the delapidation and neglect in our capital city's upper storeys? This is the true Valletta not the aluminium and glass facades of the shops and restaurants. Look further up than the ground and first floors and you'll get an inkling of why the city was once describes as a city built by gentlemen for gentlemen.
a attard
Oct 26th 2009, 16:59
What a pity this building is in such a state!...... Its way much nicer than anything that Mr. Piano had proposed for the Baroque walled city. Any effort for the restoration of so many derelict buildings in the walled city is most welcome.
Jesmond Micallef
Oct 26th 2009, 16:18
Dear Maltese owners of these buildings,
Valletta is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Meaning : YOU OWN A PIECE OF THIS WORLD HERITAGE.......................... !!!
Do you know what a priviledge that is ???
I have been trying to find rental accomodation in a typical original Altbau (Old construction) style accomodation in the German city of Nürnberg. They are very hard to come by because such buildings are so much sought after !!! Would you like me to tell you why ??
Il belt Valletta hija gojell, imma meta se nitghalmu !!!!
Paul Borg
Oct 26th 2009, 15:34
Isnt this photo the grand house at the back of St John's Cathedral, on the corner with Triq Santa Lucia? Why don't the Cathedral buy it up to expand their museum if they needed space so badly? Im sure it wont be very expensive since it is falling to pieces.
This just goes to show what a pitiful state our Capital is in. How can they think of digging museums underground when there is so much crying to be doen above the ground! How can our politicians have the cheek to spend 50 million euros of our money on a new Parliament when the city is full of buildings falling down that can be arranged and used for a parliament and make the city look better at the same time, not like a slum that most if it looks now.
Have they no shame!
Astrid Vella
Oct 26th 2009, 15:23
Well done Valletta Local Council for taking this courageous stand.It must be added that such legislation already exists in the Development Planning Act:
"In respect of any scheduled property,the Authority shall also have power to require the owner,by notice in writing,to undertake such works as may be necessary to ensure that no further deterioration occurs.In default,the Authority may give a further notice to the owner to carry out and complete the works within a specified time,and if the owner is still in default it may itself carry out the necessary works and recover the cost thereof from the owner of the scheduled property."
Unfortunately, possibly due to the fact that the MEPA heritage protection section has been practically dismantled,MEPA does not use this powerful piece of legislation, as several scheduled properties are in a very bad state of repair or have disappeared altogether,aided and abetted by owners wishing to develop said properties.
On the other hand, it should be recognised that owners of heritage properties bear a heavy burden and ought to receive financial assistance for maintaining such treasures for the State.The last Budget had announced such grants but no more was ever heard of them.
J Martinelli
Oct 26th 2009, 13:22
The measure is a good start in that the façades of these buildings will not remain in their abysmal state, but it does not go far enough.
The question of private ownership is a lame excuse for not doing away with such buildings creating eyesores all over various towns and villages all over the island.
Once doubt is raised over ownership, notices in the loacal papers and government gazette should appear giving the 'owners' a specific time to come forward. If they do not respond, then a petition by the Local Council/Government should be presented to Court seeking the authority to auction off the properties after initial repairs are complete. The properties could be disposed of at fair market value, adjusting for their condition, and if in excess of the cost of repairs, then the balance should be held 'in trust' for ten years pending any claims from 'previous owners' or other interests. After ten years, the balance should go to the Local Council as general revenue.
MAL MASON
Oct 26th 2009, 13:12
why not go further and after being unable to locate the owners compulsory purchase the property (funds being kept for a owner if one ever appears) then use as social housing or sell on the open market for new owners to maintain there are to many unused properties in Malta while we still build ugly flats
R Muscat
Oct 26th 2009, 12:49
It is an absolute shame that whilst many young people are paying through their noses for overpriced properties simply due to speculation, there are thousands of abandoned and dilapidated houses all over Malta, it is even more incredible when this is in a UNESCO world heritage site and a Baroque city, Valletta.
Can you imagine this happening in places like Prague, Zurich, Munich, Florence etc the only places where I saw this kind of urban decay are in third world cities like Damascus, Cairo and Delhi.
It is unheard of that in European city centres one sees such a large number of dilapidated houses.
Housing is not simply a commodity to speculate over, it is a necessity and if the current owners are not interested in maintaining or selling these abandoned properties then the state should move in, expropriate them and place them on the property market.
It is pointless for the state to spend millions on the rehabilitation of Valletta only to have these abandoned eye sores all over the place.
Charles Micallef
Oct 26th 2009, 12:11
Excellent by law that should be adopted by Mepa and Local Councils to cover all property that is build to a shell form and left standing for years. This will remove the eyesores that still litter Malta!
Joe Azzopardi
Oct 26th 2009, 11:38
A great initiative by the Valletta Local Council.
Adrian Cachia
Oct 26th 2009, 11:32
This law should be backed up by the government and applied to all towns in Malta!
Ray Mangion
Oct 26th 2009, 11:21
Just looking that the photograph alone makes one very sad. Take a look at the balcony and the facade; now if that was somewhere in Italy or anywhere else in Europe, it would look very different and pleasing to look at. Valletta has been allowed to be run down. Dr Dingli is right to take action, but he should be supported fully by the government with initiatives for the property owners and Valletta`s community. Some areas are so dipressing, it is only natural for residents to give up and accept to live in slum-like buildings and areas; This also creates invitations for crime and drug abuse. Dr Dingli should also look forward to join forces with the new post being filled soon, as the Area Manager will be able to use his/her clout to make things happen for the good of Valletta. There are so many opportunities and ideas that can be tapped into to make Valletta a pleasant Heritage City from top to bottom. This can be done without rubbing the property owners the wrong way. Look at Birgu. Everyone knows how it looked a few years ago; go now and you will see the difference.
CSaliba
Oct 26th 2009, 11:19
A very welcome initiative by the Valletta local council which hopefully gets off the ground. A feeling of neglect meets the locals and tourist alike immediately on entering Republic Streetet. A derelict which needs immediate attention is the old facade of wood and broken green glass of the small abandoned jeweller's next to St Barbara's Church. The owner's name is still displayed. It's been like that for years. Just across the road next to Collis and Williams the establishment which closed down has been left in a deplorable state.
The local council should not find it difficult to stop the use of a the large yellow placard advertizing underwear at €1 prominently being displayed in the middle of the road at the top of Republic Street which is not only an eyesore but a monument to bad taste, shabbiness and makes Valletta a laughing stock. It was even allowed to be there during 'notte bianca' - tourists and locals could not take a decent photo of the decorations without it blocking the view.
Joseph E Briffa
Oct 26th 2009, 11:12
While I believe in the inviolable rights of private ownership I feel something must be done when the owners of property leave such properties in a shabby state; especially in cases where the buildings are in a dangerous state and are liable to crumble at any moment causing injuries and even fatalities to passersby. This is where the common good takes precedence over the rights of property owners. Just because I own a decrepit car I cannot just leave it parked in the middle of a road causing a nuisance to road users. The same thing goes for derelict properties; one can't just abondon them and leave them without maintenance. The authorities must be empowered to take action. A notice is affixed to the facade of such properties with a warning that unless maintenance works are taken in hand by the owners within a stipulated time - say two weeks - the authorities would be empowered to carry out the works themselves at the expense of the owners. If no owners show up within a stipulated time or, if they do, they do not pay up, then the buildings would automatically become public property.
Marc Casar
Oct 26th 2009, 10:33
All well & fine, but until the rent laws come in line with the rest of the world - forget waiting for owners to pay for the unauthorized repairs.
Can the GENIUS explain how an owner of a property that has been vacated by a tenant, who is still registered at that address (therefore still legally entitled not to be evicted), and pays the "handsome" sum of €180 a year - allow an owner to pay thousands of Euro paid for by the council?
If the Local council is ready to collect the rent and release the building - then fine - that is to say that they will have to wait 50 to 60 years to get paid.
On another note - how will the contractor's rates be qualified?
Eagerly await the GENIUS to answer!
Joe Borg
Oct 26th 2009, 10:32
this may seem controversial to a lot of heritage lovers and conservatives, but i believe that if valletta's dilapidated buildings (those that do not merit conservation on historical or architectural grounds), are allowed to be torn down and new buildings (with strict standards on architectural worthiness), are allowed to be built instead, we would be going some way towards giving the city a little of its former life back.
it saddens me to see our captal city on week-ends almost lifeless bar a few pockets of people who make up the alternative entertaiment scene.
Anthony Mercieca
Oct 26th 2009, 09:43
A very good initiative by the Valletta Council.
However, I think the issue should be tackle also by the central government as would be any similar case in Valletta and in any area in Malta. While full rights of ownership should be respected, in similar situations, authorities should legalize setting a board to value the property, issue the necessary legal notices of its intention to repair, and in case of failure for action, this should lead, that either the authorities, place a sum of money to the value of the property in court and than repair and develop and even sell as would be needed. Any interested private sector might be invited to participate in such.
R.Gauci
Oct 26th 2009, 09:38
These are the things we want to hear happening in our country and the soon this Law passes the better!! Its a shame that such nice facades and houses are kept in this status especially in Valletta!! If passed this Law should also include other areas of Malta in which to date you can see a huge number of houses in a dangerous state such as Sliema,Msida etc. with pieces of wood,glass and stones hanging out and waiting to fall on passerbyes and cars causing a tragidy!!
In other sectors of life if you can't afford to keep it (which is not the case in most cases) you loose it for example if you are not capable or afford to rise up a child you soon see someone else taking care of him or her! Why should a house be kept in such state especially in a gem of a City such as Valletta?? This is one of the areas where MEPA failed hope it will be the first step to its reform!! Well done to Dr.Dingli you are a true Mayor!!
Steve Rogers
Oct 26th 2009, 09:35
While I believe this bye-law was drawn up in good faith I also think it is unconstitutional and illegal. The State has no right to invade one's privacy without a warrent, imagine local councils. I know people who are away for years. If the Counil wants to do this it has to go thru the Courts of Malta. Can you imagine all the little old ladies in Sliema and other localities getting workers to paint their houses every three years while living on a miserable pension?
And one last thing. Some people allow old homes to collapse because they think MEPA will not impose on them to keep the facade when they rebuild these houses into flats!