Perhaps due to a misconceived wish to preserve all old buildings, many seem to be oblivious to the serious situation within the inner harbour cities. I am not advocating wanton destruction but proper and practical planning.
Peripheries of Valletta and certain zones in Floriana, together with many inner harur areas, are turning into ghost towns.
The youths left ages ago, leaving many elder inhabitants living in squalor and substandard ghettos.
First, we must study how Valletta and eventually Floriana developed.
Grand palaces, luxurious houses and residences for the rich were surrounded by hovels to house the servants and others providing menial services. Following the World War II destruction, many of the hovels seem to have survived, while the large houses suffered the brunt. The townhouses were taken over by businessmen, leaving only the substandard dwellings.
To make matters worse, over the centuries, the properties devolved onto many heirs, which in certain instances multiplied to unmanageable numbers. I speak from experience.
Ownership laws, though good and necessary, have missed this complex situation.
Why is the subbasta law not extended and used more often?
Why is the subbasta (court auction) law not extended afresh and used more frequently? It should be extended as in the past to include adjacent buildings. The laws must be adapted to each situation.
Are the authorities aware that on the same plot, there would be a maze of small, independent dwellings all intertwined?
The authorities seem to have pre-conceived notions, but each plot presents its own complex problems. I suggest that a proper inventory be drawn up of certain zones. Perhaps Floriana would be an ideal exercise. It is not too big, and the local council is aware of what I am referring to.
The number of interwoven, substandard, unoccupied, dilapidated and abandoned units multiply each year. Do we want to have ghost towns? The development of the Mandraggio is a case in point.
The right to property ownership can and should be maintained, but owners have to stop their family feuds and piques with unreasonable expectations.
As things stand, the government can take over any building to develop social housing, but on its own, social housing has a tendency to bring new slums.
Social housing must be managed properly and the rent (even if subsidised) must include regular maintenance, especially of the common parts and the lift.
Some residents object to contributing towards the common parts, and therefore this cost must become an integral part of the rent.
At the same time, present owners should come to their senses and develop their joint properties.
The government should be proactive. It can take over certain blocks and offer the current owners shares in the development. Perhaps the biggest hurdle are those who have no idea about the problem itself but still want to dictate.
With the election over and the dust settled, this Herculean problem must be tackled without further delay. By offering shares to owners, which they can sell if they are not interested, redevelopment will be financed by private enterprise, while the government will only act as supervisor.
Clear planning, development and practical parameters have to be drawn up.
Such an exercise has been carried out in many European cities. Why is it so impossible to upgrade our inner harbour zones?