Once upon a time, not so long ago, a group of pensioners, tired of living in their now too big, expensive to maintain, cold -in- winter hot- in- summer houses, decided they were tired of the empty nest syndrome and set about forming a little housing association, applying for government grants and building themselves a little housing project that was to consist of a small complex of four one-bed and two two-bed flats in one of Malta’s loveliest villages, Attard.
One of them still had a disabled child living with them, and one had a live-in carer, so the two beds were needed too. There was no government provision of such housing in their area, though they knew of a successful and similar example of what the government called “sheltered housing” for older people in Floriana, so they decided to have a go at it themselves.
They understandably did not want to go into an old people’s home prematurely. In fact they were Austin Gatt oldies, IT literate, smart (!) and a few attended University of the Third Age courses!
They just wanted convenient
small flats, neighbours who were pensioners and quiet like themselves, and a sense of security and peace. It seemed totally straightforward, but they were soon to find that in times of politically correct policies and too much bureaucracy, well-meaning policies became entrenched in stone while human beings and common sense were left behind.
They found a perfect site in Attard – not too expensive and not too far from the centre, in a flattish area that was ideal for them as, being elderly (but not prospective wheelchair candidates by any means), they wanted a location that was convenient to walk around, and easy for accessing other places. There was a bus stop nearby, which was great, since most of them did not drive anymore, or never had. There were more ladies than gentlemen and their priorities were, not surprisingly, a flat that needed little housework, access to shops, to be near a good bus route, and to feel safe and secure at night – one of the emotional killers of old people as they get older and usually have to spend some time alone.
The site they had found was not too expensive and was owned by the Joint Office, and bought it. One of the reasons it was cheaper was that the configuration of the site meant you could not have all the garages under the site, so there could be no lift down from the flats to the garages without it becoming a two-car garage instead of a five-car one. Still, most of them did not have a car anyway, so this was not an issue for them. They did not know, these oldies who had survived war, interdetti and tal-barannis and other tough times, that still tougher times lay ahead, even when they just wanted to build this simple project.
There were, quickly, some financial issues though. If you do not supply a garage for a flat, for whatever reason (such as this being a sheltered housing project for older people) you have to pay Mepa Lm500 liri per missing garage. Never mind what every excavated garage costs this country in building waste, dust and transportation costs, but the polluter pays principle was still in its embryonic infancy!
Still, they had faith and ploughed on. Both their local Labour and Nationalist candidates assured them that the project would get a permit. The Greens told them to go and rent! They found an imaginative, intelligent and hard-working architect and all was going well until the project had to be submitted for approval to the Kummissjoni Nazzjonali Persuni B’Disabilita (KPND) which, though led by well-meaning people, would not approve the project because there was no lift to all the garage spaces. They pleaded with the KNPD that most of them did not have a car, so interconnection with the garage was unnecessary. No, said KNPD, accessibility is our God and we will brook no other, not even common sense. There was a remedy. KNPD have what is known as a test of reasonableness, but this project also failed the test of reasonableness – for the same unreasonable reasons.
Exasperated by the demands of a Disability Commission that appeared to put policies before pensioners, these pensioners thought: fine, we won’t call it a sheltered housing project then. We will just submit an application for a small development of one and two-beds. Then it was Mepa’s turn.
Despite the enormous shortage of one-bed flats, despite the fact that we are only just starting to build one-bed flats, despite the number of one and two-person households and pensioners growing at an enormous rate, Mepa would also say no because Mepa policies say only 20 per cent of flats can be one-bed, unless it is an old people’s home, when different rules apply.
The truth is that Mepa had no clear policies for sheltered housing for older people, so this project just got caught in a blanket policy that may make sense for all housing, but has no flexibility to cater for more imaginative projects that reflect today’s needs, the choice of pensioner citizens and what should be the mantras of any policy, common sense and flexibility, because no policy can, on its own, cater for every eventuality!
Sadly this is not a tale from my imagination. This is all true, except that this is a government project, and not a private application coming unstuck. Because of these rigid policies, a much needed project of older people’s housing may not happen. The only losers: the old people who need such housing. The winner? Officious officialdom. Why am I still an optimist?
[email protected]