Inherit a rent boy
The government has finally published its white paper on rent reform. A white paper is not a fait accompli, but a document that is up for discussion before the eventual bill goes through parliament (when and if it goes through parliament). It is published precisely so that electors may give their views and suggestions, which are considered (or should be). White papers don’t usually get much response from the public. The white paper on freedom of information, published last year, drew hardly any comments. It just sank into a vacuum. This is despite the fact that there are occasionally challenges to the government, in the newspapers, about the failure to legislate on freedom of information. This is supposed to be a participatory democracy, so go ahead and participate. As soon as I get hold of the link to the electronic version, I’ll post it here, together with the email and postal addresses for feedback.
From a cursory reading of the newspaper report, this is what struck me most (apart from the reporter’s references to ‘inheriting a rent’ rather than ‘inheriting the title to a lease’, but anyway…):
The recommendations proposed in this report apply not only to private landlords and tenants but also the government but excludes social clubs, including political party clubs.
I imagine that the exclusion of social clubs in general was done because the stark exclusion of political party clubs only would have been too in-your-face. This clause lets down the entire white paper, which at first reading seems quite acceptable. No social club needs protection, and a political party club needs even less protection. It is outrageous that the very political parties that pay lip-service to respecting the rights of owners should now work to protect their right to take a permanent free ride on the property-owners’ back, depriving those property owners of what is actually theirs.
If Joseph Muscat wishes to score brownie-points with the sceptics, and lend some credibility to what have been little more than fine words so far, then he should ask to have the Labour Party written out of this clause. That won’t go down well with his party, and it won’t go down well with the Nationalist Party, which will then be put in a bad light. But it will go down very well indeed with the rest.
15 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
din tghodd anki ghal tal-MUSEUM ?
According to the White Paper (01:3) the Rent Reform Working Group ‘excluded from the study the review of agriculture leases / rents and tenancies of dwellings used for social purposes (band clubs, sports clubs, political clubs, et al).’
What/who defines ‘use for social purposes’?
And what else goes into that ‘et al’?
What a pathetic mess of a white paper. I expected better from the PN. All this paper does is prolong the agony of the many who have been robbed of their property. It does not even go into the merits of valuation of rented property as per actual rent being recieved when the property is inherited. I say again. This is a mish-mash of half baked ideas which tries to slalom around the real issues and fails in ALL respects.The clincher is the club / social purpose part. What does this mean? Are we to leave a privelaged class of tenant again? I wonder if whoever was in the reform working group is actually living in Malta. This Rent Reform issue is the ONLY point where I agee with the AD totally. The Governmnet should hang its head in shame on this one. It let down the suffering badly and continued to propogate the injustices committed in the last 70 years.
You are confounding the elves by criticising the Government….they don’t know how to react!
Why show malice? You are better placed to influence the P.N. government. Are there no P.N. parliamentarians that have the guts to follow your advice and remind Gonzi of the one seat majority? Your advice should have been/ should be addressed to the back benchers of the government that have the power to do or undo the government. You did not think of it? Why?
So calling on the MLP is not only sheer hypocrisy but a demonstration of cowardice.
Slowly, slowly the character becomes clearer.
This is the second time. The first was the signing of an admission. The character grows with us.
Yes, Xaghra, I noticed that.
Socrates once said that treating equals as unequals is injustice but the biggest injustice is treating unequals as equals.
[Moderator – That’s the kind of thinking that justified the subjugation of your own people by every colonial government from the Knights Hospitaller to the British Empire. Thankfully, we’ve moved on since then.]
Mario – this is a white paper – it is your opportunity to send in comments and make suggestions. To say they the truth I have no technical knowledge on the subject but if you have and can convince a number of people, then you can even lobby to increase the number of comments received by government.
Fred – I think that Abel Abela’s comment has answered your question. My guess is that yes, MUSEUM would probably be exempted, as would scouts HQs and the like.
So much for reform!
And wht’s this about raising minimum annual rent to 185 euros (Lm79.40)? Most of the people who pay such measly rent are probably the ones at the lower end of the income scale – usually the same ones who smoke away more than that much in a couple of months, and who also fritter away way beyond that amount on lotto and Super 5!
Yes – so much for reform!
@chris. I would have expected the white paper to give a fighting chance to anyone who has been suffering the burden of properties rented out for a pittance for many years, especially those under requisition. My family were especially targeted during the mintoff years. ALL, but i mean ALL, our properties were requisitioned and rented out in the space of two years for a pittance. During the war, my grandfather took pity on some families he found squatting in one particular house he had and let them stay because their houses had been bombed. In 1946 these familes, some of whom by the way are today very well off, were recognized because of requisition. They didnt move out. some of them are still there, in spite of having built palatial residences and summer houses . They prefer to live in a crumbling old Qormi ex- pasta factory in 4 rooms instead of their modern properties. Why? I know why. I have ingherited the property, and paid at least Lm 20,000 in succession taxes alone on it. They keep pestering me to tear it down and build flats, so that they can claim one as “payment” for moving out temporarily. They come there during the day, but sleep elsewhere. Their whole purpose in life is to extract money from the landlord. Recently they have taken me to court because i dont want to carry out repairs to the balcony and roof . I wont. A thousand courts will not make me do it. Their rent ? I now command a total of Lm 14 a year from each. Thats Lm 84. The roof costs Lm 22,000 to do up.Its a very old property. I will never get this property back, not with what this white mishmash is proposing . Its a beautiful old palazzo that merits restoration but I wont bother. Hell will freeze over before i lift a finger about conserving it . So no, its not comments we need. we needed to start of by redressing the injustices first, then discussing a way forward. The time frames on this white paper are just ludicrous. As for clubs, they should NOT be exempt. Why? IS the MUSEUM or the Banda Or the PN/MLP club special? Why should they be exclusive? And anything can be a social club you know? even a ladies knitting cicle. I wonder how many people will be inventive in describing their property as a social club. Come on, MLP, if you are the new beginning you claim to be, give us a list of properties you currently rent out for a pittance. Its surely longer than the PN one. And most MLP kazini are reqisitioned properties. Bless MIntoff and his little cotton socks for that one.
@xaghra. We have brains and a heart, enough to lambast our own Govt publicly when it makes a blooper. Thats not allowed in the Pointy Ears Kazin. You see, they love this white paper because it protects their political “home”.
It’s interesting that the exemption of some properties is being justified on the grounds of social justice. What measure of social justice is applied to property owners who are in debt because their property will not be released or the rent raised to an acceptable level? Or whose children need to join the ranks of the alleged ‘msalbin’ because someone else’s children will retain the right to rent their property at a pittance?
Here elfie elfie elfie, come here boy, come here…..thats it my sweety……now let’s play a game……
Read the above article, form a personal opinion …. and…..express it…..
What? You don’t have an opinion? Ohhhhhhhhh you have to be told what your opinion is and I guess being the weekend everyone is at the beach relaxing and enjoying themsELFS….
So tell me….what would you like to become when you grow up? Aha aha – ohhhhh right a Board member under a Gvern Laburista!
OK! Guess you don’t need personal opinions for that job?
Xaghra: What medication are you on and is it legitimate?
Lease is a contract, and contracts are not susceptible to being “inherited” in the same way as you might inherit a plot of land or an antique bookcase.
The terms “inherit a lease” and “inherit the title to a lease” are both legal impossibilities. It’s probably more accurate to talk of “extending” the rights and obligations of a contract of lease to new tenants.
(Sorry to be a pedant!)