John Consiglio (November 27) seems to have a personal interest in taxing a non-income. I am curious what his particular interest is in this topic. I no longer have any property as it was better for me to dispose of it than carry the unfair burden placed on the owners of any old property. On what basis, what valuation, will such a taxation be based?

Having said this, before any taxation, justified or not, is imposed, the authorities must know the true picture. I have my doubts if this type of taxation would withstand the local constitutional court, and even more the European courts. Above all, there is no need for such action as the government would gain more income if all the current anomalies were removed.

Let us start by enumerating the so-called ‘vacant’ properties which must include not only constructed buildings but also building plots within an approved area. A detailed list will enable the authorities to classify according to real reason.

The next step would be to study what action could be taken to encourage the landlord to make proper use of the property. Once there is a clear picture, then, by all means, let us legislate, if such legislation is necessary.

The only dubious action by landlords would be to let a property deteriorate so that Mepa could approve its demolition. The so-called village core has lost all sense of proportion. Can, and would, Mepa examine its decisions which seem to change atany whim?

There is an alternative. If a property is left to crumble, the government could issue a conservation order obliging the landlord to take all necessary action in lieu of which the property would be sold on the open market.

But even such an action would be rife for corruption as a shrewd developer might know how to obtain the necessary permits.

There is no short cut but for the politicians to stand up and be counted. Only a legal and humane action will solve this complex problem. I have my doubts if any such action will ever be taken.