Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/176463
26 Letters maltatoday, SUNDAY, 22 SEPTEMBER 2013 Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. Gozo vs textbook economics The on-and-off debate about vacant properties has proven to be interesting. However, in an era when we are advised to think outside the box, I'm afraid this particular industry is lagging behind on that front. I think we could do less than find a Ph.d student reading anthropology or some related subject to see whether a phenomenon such as Malta and Gozo – which has supported such a community over millennia – is replicated anywhere else. Given that our islands do not have any natural resources to speak of, we do not have any mines, we do not have a large arable land area, no forests for lumber, for rubber, for cork or whatever. I think that one can view property as a substitute 'natural resource' and a sound store of value. A much more useful store of value than vault stored gold bars, ever depreciating currencies or risky or riskier investments. Naturally, for a balanced portfolio one should not just hold property assets, but I'm sure that those intelligent enough to have invested in property and not in a property fund, are much better off. As regards proposed tax on vacant property, I'm amazed how conveniently some academics and others do not seem keen on drawing parallels. Traders do not pay VAT on goods in storage prior to securing a sale, so why should property kept to be sold not merit a similar treatment? I agree that we should husband our land resources diligently, but again, what's holding us back from land reclamation seeing that we can expand our meagre land mass without encroaching on our neighbouring countries? Property development is one of our economy's motors. Why stall it, as we have already stalled another economic asset – transport – through the narrower, newly re-commissioned roads and the incentives or coercive practices against vehicle owners? C. Debono Ghajnsielem European brotherhood or cash cow? Whither goest bendy buses? You know, sometimes I ask myself: did the Maltese understand the principles behind the great European experiment when they voted 'Yes' in the 2003 referendum? Or did they just think about all that lovely lolly they would be getting? I've just come back from the Evans Building to help my Scottish husband get his e-residence card. I immediately felt uneasy about the subtext behind us being shepherded into two queues (EU nationals and non-EU nationals). The lady in front of us had two kids under the age of three. We waited for over an hour. There was one lady dealing with the EU nationals and another with the non-EU nationals. And actually, come to think of it, the Maltese citizens breezed in and out of a separate section. The contrast between today and Friday, when I accompanied my daughter to get her (Maltese) identity card was huge, and the reason why today made such an impression on me. There was no reception that I could see so, as well as dealing with the people in the queues, these two ladies were also receptionists. I would say that the people going up to the 'reception' to see which queue they needed to be in or various other questions, took as much of the ladies' time as we did in the queues. When the poor mother with her fractious, wriggly children got her turn, she was, rightly so, indignant at the people with their queries. And, to be fair, all of them bar one understood and went to the back of the queue. However, a "lovely" Maltese woman barged in with her query (she wanted the "receptionists" to tell her where the nonexistent Maltese queue was) and pushed the mother. The quietly spoken, patient mother pushed her back, because at this point she had totally lost it. So the Maltese woman shouted at her: "Go back to your country!" I am a Maltese citizen and returned to Malta with my family three years ago after living in the UK for 21 years. Because of this, I see both sides of the Maltese vs non-Maltese divide. I so wish I didn't, because I can see that this one example (of many) of institutionalised discrimination (I'm talking about the set up described above and not the ignorant woman's behaviour in the paragraph above) is destroying Malta's image with the nonMaltese. I constantly compare my British family's experience of contact with Maltese officialdom with my contact with British officialdom. And it just does not compare. So to answer my own question at the top of this letter: no, I don't think that most Maltese understood the ideals behind the great European experiment. I think most Maltese just wanted the money. For those who are interested, below is a useful link which explains the ideals behind the European Union: http://europa.eu/ abc/12lessons/lesson_1/ Johanna MacRae Kappara The (in)famous bendy buses have been providing if not sterling, a fairly reliable service, especially for commuters located in areas with no primary bus service which leaves their respective area. With the old bus system, commuters were very often left stranded as the passing buses would turn out to be full. As such, bendy buses can cope well if the chosen routes are wide enough and no double or triple parking is present on a road, which impedes their progress. However, they are not suitable for the narrow, convoluted village core streets built to allow a horse or mule and cart at best. A drawback I experienced with bendy buses was that their air-conditioning system did not function. And riding in the back section can result in vertigo. But commuters who were poorly serviced in the past might not mind such minor inconveniences. They also offer access to people with problems of mobility. The recommendation of double-decker buses in lieu of bendy buses sounds good, so long as all the bridges or flyovers permit this. On the negative side is the problem of people with reduced mobility. The idea of climbing a flight of stairs to find a seat is hardly appealing for people with osteoarthritis, not only wheelchair users. Getting on board a SBS will be problematic for those who find stairs a challenge. The concerned transport minister needs to audit the transport system before implementing changes. Anonymous commuters, incognito even to Arriva, can be randomly allocated to bus routes to vet out the chosen routes for efficiency and effectiveness. Surveys of commuters and the bus drivers, since a good audit gets the views of more than one stakeholder, will also help the process. I would suggest that commuters mainly fall into three categories: the elderly and infirm, adolescents who have not yet managed to get a driving license and immigrants, all with varying levels of literacy, digital or not. So sending a text message or email to actual users of the service might facilitate this process. Bus drivers can be asked using a similar method or face-to-face. An audit or research on the reasons for traffic congestion that affects public transport would also prove helpful. Although the triad of the increase in personal vehicles, bus routes and road works is evident, we need to find solutions to solve this nightmare. I have some ideas on how to minimise these, but they will not probably meet with enthusiasm from my fellow countrymen. So perhaps it would be better to first research drivers' perspectives to see if views tally. A 'simple solution', for example, would be that certain areas are 'obliged' to have routine car-free days to reduce traffic congestion. Car-free days should not be a yearly option if we want faster public transport service as well as cleaner air. Pauline Aquilina Marsascala Working together to achieve common 'tourism' objectives EDITORIAL – 21 SEPTEMBER 2003 The news that Malta's tourism prospects are down will be welcomed by no one. Tourism provides much needed jobs, foreign currency and income to many Maltese. The news was, on the other hand, not unexpected, and in a strange way to be welcomed by all those that would like to see improvements in Malta and a more sustainable tourism 'industry'. If the news had been of increased profitability for hotels and more tourists expected, we would all have not bat an eyelid and the sector would have continued revelling in its unexpected good luck. There is much that is seriously wrong with the tourism sector and not all the blame should be borne by the government. The years of Michael Refalo's virtual 'do as you please' to the planning authorities for hotel development are hopefully over, but the problems are still with us. The unfinished Excelsior Hotel protrudes like a sore thumb from Valletta's bastions, the Verdala Hotel is still not operational, several other hotels still have to be built or extended and already the MHRA has said the sector is oversupplied. Critics of tourism planners have been warning the authorities about over-development since the early 80s. Over the past 10 years, MEPA has issued permits for 296 tourism developments. Ask any tourist what they think about Malta, and one of the first complaints will be: "too many buildings" and "not enough countryside and coastal areas". If MEPA does not come to terms with the physical limits of this country and starts to plan sustainably, there is no hope for the tourism sector. The number of ever-increasing vacant dwellings is an unhappy testimony to years of bad planning. It is easy and more than cynical for hotel owners to sit at their desk and criticise the authorities for allowing too many hotels to be built. While everybody benefits from tourism to a certain extent, tourism also has deleterious impacts on our islands and there is no doubt that tourism operators also owe something to this country. Some tourism operators' service leaves much to be desired, and the first place to start any improvements should be within the confines of the hotels themselves. Some hotels and restaurants provide service which could only be described as embarrassing, and if the industry wants the authorities to provide investment, it should start by putting its own money where its mouth is. The Malta Tourism Authority on its part should be looking to take action against all service providers that are not up to scratch, closing down those which do not show signs of improvement. It is true and in everyone's interest that Malta needs improved roads and pavements, cleaner streets and buildings, better rubbish collection systems, adequate and more beautiful street furniture, enough water and electricity supply, clean beaches with appropriate facilities, less noise, stricter controls over construction sites and better transport systems just to name a few. Now that we know we have a problem – and we have known for many years – we should be looking ahead to start to upgrade product Malta. There is only one reasonable way forward and that involves bringing all the stakeholders together to work towards common objectives. We need to adopt a holistic approach. We need to have MEPA representatives, tourism operators and developers, the MTA, other government representatives, constituted bodies, parastatal companies and civil society all on the same table with a common agenda. There is bound to be some disagreement, but the areas where the minds will meet are likely to be much greater than one at first would think. What is most important, however, is that we do not create more 'talking shops'. All the stakeholders should work to set timeframes and targets to achieve mutually agreed goals. It is important that areas of responsibility are clearly defined and that for each task agreed upon, enough resources are made available to ensure success.