The State should recognise that when it decides to take over property for public use, or when it declares properties as protected, it should put its money where its mouth is. How unfair it is for anyone to build an aesthetically pleasing dwelling or other properties, and have one’s neighbouring community (the State) stopping one from changing its use just because they like admiring it and telling their offspring what an architectural piece of art Joe Bloggs built.
Figure this – Mr Bloggs may be also the heir to such property, or he might also have it as the only asset, and he is struggling to make ends meet. Consequently, he would be a prisoner in his wonder abode, as he would find it very difficult to sell! Additionally, that same wonder would be falling to dereliction, as Bloggs would not afford to maintain it. Then what does the State do? Does it force him to repair it? Or does it foot the bill? Who sustains Bloggs?
On the other hand, Bloggs might be a wealthy person. But whilst his next door neighbours are enriching themselves demolishing their hideous structures and developing high risers (which should also be the case with cash-strapped Joe) his wonderful asset is scheduled, thus precluding him from enjoying his otherwise potentially profit-making opportunity, which could be his lifetime savings!
I absolutely agree that we should protect such buildings, however not at the expense of the owner. The State should pay for it at the market prices if the owner opts to shed it, and freeze it for as long as the State likes. Obviously, this would not be the case where residents live in residential rows where the whole area is scheduled – that is in itself considered upmarket, and properties in such areas anyway attract hefty offers for their affluence and prestige.
Unfortunately, what is happening, in the name of preservation, is tantamount to legalised theft by the ‘people’. Human rights seem to be trampled upon in such cases. What is also absurd is that existing legislation favours abuse, especially in the case of shady politicians and it also deters anyone from building with sense.  Poor Joe Bloggs is always the victim as the State plays Peter Pan.

Jo Said
Selmun

Contrary to what correspondent Charmaine Calleja asserts (‘A contrast between two politicians’, 31 October) during the Xarabank programme screened on Friday 19 October, parliamentary secretary Tonio Fenech provided a clear, detailed, distinct and technical analysis of the 2007/2008 Budget, listing, amongst other items mentioned, a deficit reduction of Lm20 million, a Lm12 million income tax relief, an increase in health and social funding by Lm26 million, an increase in education funding by Lm9 million, children’s allowance for all children, a housing subsidy for first-time buyers and an Lm85 million allowance for 20 different Gozo initiatives.
Mr Fenech managed to do this in spite of the fact, now revealed, that Malta Labour Party secretary general Jason Micallef ordered Labour Youth Forum Chairman Aaron Farrugia to gather 30 rowdy Labour Youths for this particular television programme with clear instructions to boo and rudely interrupt every time Tonio Fenech was making a point or passing a comment. Ms Calleja would have been fairer had she condemned this and had she asked whether the audience present indulged in this disgusting behaviour because the MLP was afraid that Tonio Fenech’s political intervention/message would have been understood by viewers in the comfort of their homes. In spite of this orchestrated and premeditated socialist attempt at disrupting parts of the programme, to my mind parliamentary secretary Tonio Fenech was, as usual, impeccable in his performance.
In conclusion, since Charmaine Calleja stated that Charles Mangion, (of Pender Place fame, which she has evidently forgotten), “accepted the fact that this budget included good social measures”, I would ask her whether this should be taken to mean that the Malta Labour Party is in favour of this budget.

Edward Torpiano
Floriana

Recently I went to the Maltapost branch at Dar l-Annona in Castille Square, Valletta. Although there are four counters there, only one of them was manned and there were about a dozen people waiting to be served.
To add insult to injury, the sole lethargic clerk in attendance seemed as if he took it as an affront to himself that we should be there at all. It took me ages to await my turn.
To think that, once upon a time, Maltapost was an efficient government department which truly delivered a real service of excellence even though it was not yet 2015 AD!

V. Piccinino
Valletta

In your issue of 14 November, I saw the following advert regarding the TV programme Str8-2-d-Point on One TV: “Malta 2007. Nazzjonalist jista’ jikteb dak li jhoss bi dritt… jekk jikteb Laburist qisu ghamel xi dnub.”
The above advert is so very true! I can vouch for this personally through my own experience when sending letters to particular newspapers especially during the last year preceding a general election.
Letters which I send are left pending publication for weeks on end if not months, the vast majority of which remain unpublished. While letters which criticise Labour and Dr Alfred Sant in particular are published in double quick time, sometimes within 48 hours from being sent by the correspondent. I have also seen two letters by the same correspondent published in the same newspaper on the same day.
I have also been noting that while letters criticising the PN government start disappearing from the Letters pages of these newspapers as a general election draws near, letters praising the PN government and attacking the Opposition start mushrooming!
When Labour-leaning correspondents start seeing their letters being ignored or published after a good number of weeks, thus rendering them stale, it is only natural that they lose all interest and stop trying to express their views in those newspapers. This is probably what the editors want. This is why I too, have decided to stop buying and reading the said newspapers (as many seem to be doing) after 50 years of being a regular reader and correspondent of these newspapers. And why I intend to express my views solely in those English-language newspapers which can truly boast of being “independent” newspapers.

Eddy Privitera
Mosta