Last February the Magistrate’s Court ordered the Land Commissioner to pay €2.6 million in compensation for land expropriated in 1974. The compensation covered two parcels of land measuring nearly 8,000 square metres that were expropriated in Wied Blandun in Fgura to make way for a public garden. The land belonged to a private company.
This is but one example of the many cases that have been decided by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights, and which affirm the historical injustices linked to expropriation.
A quick Google search throws up other examples of cases in which individuals had to resort to going to court to claim adequate compensation for land expropriated decades earlier. And when compensation comes four decades after the land is taken, it is no wonder that people and businesses become jittery whenever the word expropriation crops up.
The same negative sentiment swept through members of the Paceville community, both business and residential, when the master plan for the town was published, with the preferred option being a plan that contemplates extensive expropriation of private land, commercial outlets and residences.
Nobody should expect kudos from a house owner who suddenly discovers that the property she has worked for all her life has been transformed into a ‘view corridor’ – a road by another name. Neither can a businessman who has invested in his outlet be expected to welcome a master plan that robs him of his income.
Malta Developers Association president Sandro Chetcuti is right when he says the anger at the master plan is justified because residents and business owners were only faced with expropriation. The proposal to expropriate land and property needed to be accompanied by a compensation plan.
But in his interview with this newspaper last Sunday, Mr Chetcuti also made a pertinent point when he said compensation should not only consider the current market value but include a premium for the added value the expropriation would contribute to the locality. It is only right to factor in the sacrifice being asked of residents and businesses in giving up their properties in a bid to upgrade the area as a whole.
But even if this is done in this case, there is still a historical credibility gap that has to be bridged. The situation today is very different to what it was in the 1970s when nebulous reasons often accompanied the expropriation of private land.
Unfortunately, the Gaffarena and Café Premier cases have cast a long shadow on the way the government handles these matters. One can only wonder whether the government will show as much energy and willingness to move ahead at speed in compensating those impacted by the Paceville master plan as it did in the Gaffarena and Café Premier cases.
Meanwhile, people will understandably remain nervous about the prospect of losing their house, their business or their land. Within this context it is incumbent on the government to ensure that its compensatory mechanism in cases of expropriation functions with fairness, transparency, consistency and speed.
The right structures have to be in place, and if need be, constitutional guarantees introduced to ensure that anybody who loses his or her property for the greater good is justly compensated within a reasonable timeframe irrespective of who is in government.
Expropriation of private property has to have a clearly defined public purpose attached to it. The regeneration of a locality is one of those instances where expropriation may serve such a purpose.
If regeneration improves the living standard of people in the area, helps create jobs, stimulates economic growth and provides public spaces to be enjoyed by all, expropriation could be justified.
This is why the government has to move forward with diligence.