In the last few days, the media has related an ongoing debate about the quality of water that reaches our homes. In some ways, it is an instructive debate. It seems nobody can take for granted the quality of the water in our taps. The government and the holder of the concession assure us that the quality of the water in the public pipes follows international standards and is safe. Once the precious drops get into the buildings water systems, we are told, however, all bets are off, and the quality of the stuff is anybodys guess. The suspicion is that pipes are not properly maintained; they are rusty and possibly infected with bacteria. The responsibility for the maintenance of buildings and therefore their pipes lies with the owners. There are no regulations on these matters and thus, we are told, the government can do nothing. If the government provided incentives to owners, all would become possible, and the quality might be assured. Even without knowing the real extent of the problem this is an interesting argument that deserves a few comments. First, simple considerations on health and safety hazards would suggest this is a matter of public health and safety and therefore of public interest. Shouldnt we consider knowledge about the state of our water systems an issue of foremost importance, deserving of serious considerations and resources? Not to mention that the quality of the maintenance of the infrastructure should be a factor in determining the value of the properties. Second, is the government powerless? For sure, there is no law or principle that either prevents the government from creating mechanisms to monitor and control the water at the users end; or from regulating the obligations of owners concerning the maintenance of their buildings. Owners are, reasonably, entitled to collect rent on their property. Would it be too much to require them to guarantee proper maintenance of their water systems? We can impose, say, annual inspections on vehicles, invoking the safety of our roads. Can we not impose inspections on the quality of a buildings system in the name of public health? Or should car owners also be entitled to have incentives to maintain their vehicles? Few would say so! Third, the conclusion is that all would be easier if the government gave some money to the owners. Indeed! That makes things clearer than, apparently, the water that runs through (some) of our taps.
Top Stories
RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR
【法律解碼】評估澳門《信託法》的進展:是否不負眾望?
第15/2022號法律(澳門《信託法》)於2022年12月1日正式生效。澳門自此成為葡語系首個設立在岸信託法的司法轄區,亦是繼《中華人民共和國信託法》、“台灣地區信託法”及《受託人條例(香港法例第29 章)》後,大中華地區第四部信託法。儘管澳門《信託法》至今已生效逾一年,但據了解,該法尚未得到有效實施,。因此有必要就當前的挑戰和未來的出路展開探討。
OPINION – Investing in Diversification!
As the lights of the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, where the “Two...