that his parents had bought immovable property – a plot of land – from government “some six years ago”. This is incorrect.

In 1969 the Gatt family were awarded a plot of land at no cost. They were given the perpetual emphyteusis of the plot – this was redeemed for the meager price of Lm881.67 in 1998.

One of the obligations of the beneficiaries was that the plot was to be used as the ordinary residence of the beneficiaries. The beneficiaries built a villa with pool on the property acquired freely from the government and enjoyed it from as far back as 1969.

In 2004 the beneficiaries wanted to sell this land for development purposes. However, since the obligations did not permit such a development the developers needed the Housing Authority’s consent to be able to develop the property.

The Housing Authority has adopted a constant policy to accede to a request for development against a payment of 25 per cent of the value of the land – as valued by a Housing Authority architect.

The beneficiaries in this case freely accepted this obligation and sold the plot they had acquired freely for the price of Lm183,000,00. Mr Gatt’s contention that this property lost its value “both financial and aesthetic due to the high rise flats that government built all around its perimeter which are now occupied by ex-convicts on probation” is to say the least absurd and smacks of base arrogance. Of this amount the Housing Authority was given a meager Lm22,500. This amount will go to help other families in need.

The beneficiaries in this case felt that the Housing Authority could or should renounce to its rights and treat them differently and preferentially. The Housing Authority chairperson and board will not surrender to threats or intimidation of any kind and will keep striving to safeguard the Housing Authority’s interests.

Once permission is given and the amount due paid, the Housing Authority will not interfere with the development unless obligations are breached. The board of the Housing Authority has full confidence in its chairperson and in the way she has handled this matter, which is comparable to the way other similar cases have been dealt with.

The Housing Authority considers this matter as closed – it has explained the position to the Gatt family various times. However, this family feels that it has a right to be treated differently for reasons only known to them. The Housing Authority will not comply.

Ray Zammit

For The Board of the

Housing Authority