Valletta needs the carrot

mayor, Alexei Dingli, was quoted as stating that "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". (October 26). The end is commendable but the method is not.

Primarily, this course of action may well be unjustly carried out at the taxpayers' expense because the owners might never turn up! Of course such a proposal must have perforce been approved by the Valletta local council. Can the secretary inform us who voted in favour and who against? We are after all living in a transparent world.

The proposed scheme causes a multitude of problems to the government. In the first place, the suggestion smacks of expropriation or enforcement of payment, which is not authorised and which has in other similar developments,embroiled the government in enormous legal and financial problems.

In the second place, many of the buildings in question are government-owned. Thirdly, the fact that payment for this project would be at the expense of the taxpayers may not be appreciated by the public even if ultimately these costs (or some of them) may be recovered. And what about inflated costs? And the interest? And so on?

Finally, the owners who will be thereby affected will certainly form a disgruntled lot. Clearly not a wise move by the council at present run by a PN majority. Is it possible that all the PN councillors voted in favour of this project? Hopefully not.

Clearly the move is well intended; any danger has to be removed and the town's derelict buildings need sprucing up. The council wants Valletta to look brighter and nicer. A clean-up is more than overdue. But Dr Dingli's approach is not the best under any circumstance and more so in today's world. It is the carrot that makes things move, not the stick. What incentives are being given by the council? In other countries funds are provided seeing that such works improve the city at large. What funds, subsidies or interestfree loans have been made available to clean up such buildings? To my knowledge, none whatsoever.

Cleaning up the premises of course entails substantial costs. Amazingly enough, to these must be added the council's costs: I here refer to the levy on scaffolding imposed by the council, payments to wardens, etc.: clearly not an incentive but a further deterrent. Dr Dingli must appreciate that a company or private individual - at his expense, not the taxpayer's - is indirectly embellishing our capital city when carrying out works to such property, especially to the façade.

What help is given by the council vis-à-vis Mepa's long delay in accepting or refusing applications to transform derelict or empty (and therefore dead) buildings to offices or to obtain a simple change of use? Once again, none whatsoever.

Valletta's popularity is on the decline. There is a lack of demand to purchase/lease property in Valletta, which in turn does not make it worthwhile or indeed possible for owners to repair their properties, let alone pay the council's expenses. In turn this decreases work for many - a whole line from architects to manual workers; from suppliers of wares to estate agents etc - who all earn a living from the real estate sector.

I repeat: the incentive approach has been found to be more successful than the punitive one. One has to be realistic, practical and helpful. May I therefore suggest to the mayor (and I am in favour of the declared objective) that he changes his approach. This will bring about the desired change in Valletta; giving it a facelift and once again making our capital city a vibrant one. Otherwise the change may well be in the next election for the Valletta local council.