I congratulate Times of Malta for the leader ‘The archaic rent laws that need changing’ (January 3) which practically inaugurated the New Year. Over the last 45 years or so, I have written at least 17 researched articles as well as numerous letters on the same subject.
As a former lecturer on urban studies (town planning, housing and urban renewal), I am more interested in the urban impact aspect than in the human rights aspect, though this is, of course, of considerable importance.
In Malta, as happened in many other countries, the heavy bombing during the war caused a severe housing shortage and the post-war reconstruction left a sizeable housing shortfall. To try and redress the supply and demand balance, rents were frozen (through the Rent Restriction Ordinance) and requisition orders became the order of the day.
About 15 years later, in a bid to slightly liberalise leases, the Housing Decontrol Ordinance was then enacted. This move led to a two-tier rental market and, in order to get round certain restrictions, the 17-year emphyteutical leases were resorted to.
In the meantime, by the mid-1960s, the position had eased in most of Europe and the supply and demand balance was practically back to normal.
In neighbouring Italy, which had ended up on the wrong side of the victory table, practically all the lease and rent restrictions were removed by 1972 except in a few cases. The commercially-based Equo Canone law was promulgated in 1978.
In Britain, on the wings of the Homes for Heroes euphoria, there was the spate of post-war council housing but, by 1966, D. V. Donnison, of the London School of Economics, was advising that regulating rents does not mean freezing them and that where supply and demand are in balance rents must be freely determined. He also warns that “State investment in housing is among the least productive forms of investment”.
Successive governments ignored the option of the private rental market alternative
In Malta, successive governments were doing the exact opposite and, in the most partisan fashion, were investing heavily in home ownership schemes and serviced plots leading to urban sprawl against the most basic town planning principles, ignoring the option of the private rental market alternative.
Instead of doing something positive, the government enacted the 1979 Housing (Decontrol) Amendment Act. Under this law, most of the 17-year emphyteutical grants practically became perpetual and could be redeemed after a certain period. This law was declared unconstitutional by our courts and recently by the European Court of Human Rights.
In response to the provisions of the Structure Plan for the Maltese Islands (1992), the Housing Laws Amendment Act (1955) came in force. While this freed any new leases entered into on or after June 1, 1995 from the restrictions of the various housing laws, it did nothing about the 25,000-odd de facto current leases.
On June 22, 2003, The Sunday Times of Malta sponsored a survey and opinion poll which showed that in many cases the protected tenants were better off than the exploited owners and that the vast majority of respondents were in favour of having the rent reflect the commercial value of the property as if it were vacant.
Columnist Claire Bonello reported the relevant ECHR case of Hutten-Czapska vs Poland. Eventually, Act X of 2009 was brought into force, on June 19 of that year, which, under certain conditions, brought to an end the inheritance of leases that had been going of for some 70 years. It also raised the rents of dwelling houses to the princely sum of €185 annually, one-size-fits all, no matter the size or the locality. This is rather less than half the cost of the daily newspaper.
In the case of clubs, the government is still thinking it over but we must not expect too much because the political parties are often the tenants.