The government should tax neglected and abandoned property to force owners to take responsibility for eyesores in villages, according to the Malta Developers Association.
In a list of pre-Budget proposals presented to the government, the association suggested that the government should give a two- to three-year transition period to allow people to restore dilapidated properties before imposing a deterrent on those who fail to do so.
“There should be a very intense effort from the authorities and Mepa so that developers and investors can start regenerating neglected areas, especially in village cores or in urban conservation areas,” president Sandro Chetcuti told this newspaper.
“Certain areas in Birkirkara look like ghost towns. Buġibba and Qawra are crying out for regeneration. We cannot afford to have such unsightly places, which are falling to pieces and, ultimately, posing structural dangers.”
Heirs at loggerheads over their inheritance should be responsible for their property because dilapidated structures could cause serious injury if they collapsed on people.
Such properties were distinct from vacant buildings, Mr Chetcuti stressed, and the proposal did not echo that put forth by Alternattiva Demokratika. But aren’t vacant properties contributing to the problem?
“No, because it’s up to the individual. Maybe one prefers having an apartment rather than money in the bank. Property is an investment. Maybe a person has young grandchildren and decides to gift them with an apartment each when they grow up. Why should one be prevented from this right? The important thing is to address dilapidated and neglected properties, especially where there are neglected structures and bare apertures.”
In the meantime, Mr Chetcuti continued, there should be aggressive incentives, such as a substantial reduction in the capital gains tax and in stamp duties on such properties, particularly those located in urban conservation areas. Nowadays, developers preferred to purchase virgin land and develop it at their pace rather than purchase four houses and retrofit them.
“In this way, you would encourage people to sell and invest in these areas. It’s expensive to work in village cores – even in terms of labour costs and of bringing in equipment on certain roads.
“We all want a better environment. And by environment, I’m not only referring to the countryside but to the immediate environment outside one’s front door.”
The MDA also referred to the fact that people purchasing shell properties were given a VAT refund on the fixed improvements or ‘finishing’ they would then carry out.
This scheme should also be extended topeople buying finished properties since the trend has moved from shells.
“This would sincerely, without gimmicks, help first-time buyers.”
The association also suggested that properties rented out for commercial use should also benefit from a 15 per cent final withholding tax, just like residential properties.
Ever since residential properties benefited from this incentive, business boomed and the number of vacant properties declined, Mr Chetcuti pointed out.
The government should also create a scheme targeting properties on temporary emphy-theusis since this was acting as a disincentive for people to maintain and redo their properties, knowing that they would have to give them up in a number of years.
The government could, for instance, extend the emphytheusis against a premium.
“There are many ways to incentivise owners. All you need is common sense.”