There is currently disagreement on whether Malta has a problem with the number of vacant properties. The argument is being made that it is utterly irrelevant that there are 72,000 vacant properties according to the 2011 census, because 46 per cent of these are not actually on the market. The issue is not, however, whether the vacant properties are up for sale, being used as occasional summer residences, or dilapidated.

Is it not worrying that there is €5 billion worth of vacant property (according to a Building Industry Consultative Council estimate), money that could have perhaps been better invested elsewhere, now doing nothing to add value to the economy except for capital appreciation? Or that people relying on this property to get them through their retirement years might have problems selling it when they need the cash or rent it when in need of income?

Or that much of it will never be sold whether it was on the market or not because it is several times more than the demand will ever be, even with the Individual Investor Programme, the Global Residence Scheme, civil unions and divorced couples? Or that it represents far too many years of tearing down traditional houses to build ugly and poorly-built multiple units?

Or that their owners may, even though they are not heavily leveraged with bank loans, be one day tempted to dump them for ridiculous prices, thereby potentially destabilising the property market? Or that thousands of these ugly and poorly-built multiple units will eventually need to be pulled down and replaced by better quality ones?

Or that a hefty proportion of the so-called vacant buildings are being rented out without a permit and without any tax being paid on income? Or that hundreds of these properties are caught up in family disputes in court which have dragged on for years?

The only positive aspect of this situation is that the market did eventually self-regulate.

The Central Bank of Malta Quarterly Review reported just 1,658 Mepa permits issued in 2012, down from 3,047 in 2007.

That does not sound that dramatic until you take into account the fact that each permit is for a number of units, and in the heyday of the building boom that came with EU accession, those 3,047 permits translated into 11,343 units – around 3.7 units per permit. On the other hand the 1,658 permits issued in 2012 only translated into 3,064 units, a factor of just 1.8. So not only is the development slowing down, it is also becoming less dense, with fewer apartments.

But the damage has been done. We have quarried tons of stone and created mountains of construction waste. For years, we have been held to ransom by cranes and dust pollution. We have destroyed our urban cores and created wastelands of underutilised blocks.

Who had an interest in raising the alarm? Real estate agents wanted properties to sell and argued that the problem was only with certain segments. Banks quietly reviewed their lending policies, well aware of the impending oversupply. The Government clapped in glee at the huge turnover, arguing that most of the work was being done by imported workers so unemployment would not soar when the slowdown inevitably came.

There are so many implications – in the short, medium and long term – to the fact that a country of 150,000 households has over 70,000 vacant properties. But as long as only a quarter of them are habitable and up for sale, there is clearly nothing to worry about. Is there?