A new ‘Strategy for Valletta’ has just been issued for consultation. This is relevant to the city’s residents but also for the Valletta business community and the many employees who work there, as well as visiting tourists. As a World Heritage site, Valletta also has special conservation needs.
Looking solely at the residential aspect, Valletta’s recent history has not been easy. In 1901, just over 100 years ago, 12.5 per cent of Malta’s population still lived there with 22,768 residents. This had declined to nine per cent by 1931, and fell dramatically to 1.5 per cent by 2011 with only 5,785 residents.
This depopulation was due to several factors. During World War II, people fled the bombings, but they continued to move away afterwards. More cars and improved transport made it easier to commute, and by the 1950s and 1960s new industrial areas and economic centres were established elsewhere.
In the 1970s and 1980s, social schemes involving government land increased property ownership all over the island, and made Valletta less attractive to residents. Vacant or abandoned buildings proliferated. Valletta properties were also subdivided over the years, and the size of dwellings tends to be smaller than the national average.
The increase in dilapidated buildings was also linked to ownership problems. Many tenants still hold old leases at very low rents, and are often low-income families unable to afford maintenance. Owners stuck with low rents have absolutely no incentive to undertake any expensive repair works themselves.
The socio-economic profile of Valletta residents has changed over the past 50 years, with a high dependency on social and unemployment benefits. At the same time, selling prices for residential properties are inflated and unaffordable for many.
Valletta is no longer an attractive residential town for middle-income earners and young families
In short, Valletta is no longer an attractive residential town for middle-income earners and young families. Today it has an ageing population, who also find it difficult to move around due to the awkward topography of the city with its steep hills and steps, transport restrictions and tight pavements. Overall, not an encouraging picture.
Among its many initiatives, the new Valletta Strategy wants to attract people back to live in the city due to its historic environment, as well as “the vibrancy and ongoing cultural activities”. Apparently, the target audience are “young upwardly mobile professionals, artists, students and families with teenagers and foreigners”. Not your usual residential mix, and quite a bold leap from the dismal picture we have today.
• The application for development at Ta’ Ċenċ in Gozo has haunted the planning authority’s corridors for 20 years. It lurks in dark corners, occasionally startling nervous planning officers by appearing on a desk, or opening an old file or cupboard like a resident poltergeist. It has courted controversy and been opposed by the public at every stage.
The latest odd twist in the saga was the referendum for Sannat residents organised last Saturday, intended to guide the Sannat local council on what position to take when the project will finally be decided, which is presumably quite soon.
This was hardly Brexit, but still, one would expect any referendum to be preceded by an information campaign for several weeks in advance. There must be open and full discussion about a referendum question, and on the implications of the vote going one way or another. The facts should be presented by both sides of the debate, with opportunities for questions and answers.
Instead, the press only found out that a referendum was being held a few days in advance. Residents received a notification in the post. The question was unclear and not even factual, referring to the ‘first heritage park’ in Malta.
On the day, the majority of Sannat residents who cast their vote were against the Ta’ Ċenċ project. There was a low turnout, with only 22 per cent of eligible voters taking part. The developer immediately tried to argue that all those who did not show up could be in favour of developing Ta’ Ċenċ. What a farce!
As the majority of voters on the day were against the project, the local council should now obviously endorse this position when they take their seat on the planning board during the hearing.
Besides the result, however, the entire process raises many questions, particularly the involvement of the Electoral Commission in such a poorly organised and unpublicised vote.
Ta’ Ċenċ is not only of interest to Sannat residents, it is of national interest. It is also a Natura 2000 site and of international importance.
Aren’t there any basic requirements for information and debate when a referendum is held, to ensure that the result is as fair and representative as possible? And what about a minimum period of time between announcing the question to the public and holding the vote?
The result cannot just be shrugged off as irrelevant, as in that case why would a public entity organise a vote, and spend public funds on it, in the first place?
The Ta’ Ċenċ referendum is now sealed, but this dubious initiative has flagged the possibility of other badly prepared referenda being overseen by the Electoral Commission. It deserves a post-mortem by the relevant authorities or parliamentary committee, to uncover what went wrong and to ensure that such initiatives are handled better in future.
petracdingli@gmail.com