Real Estate - Property Matters by Afra Raymond
PROPERTY MATTERS - Articles written by Afra Raymond
Raymond & Pierre - click for website

Back Index Next

Throwing out the baby

Published Thursday 30th May, 2004

ROYSTONIA: Investigation or Distraction?

Over the last fortnight there have been a series of claims and counter-claims in the controversial Roystonia housing scheme.  How can we try to make some sense of the confusing new picture?  Do we want to know what really happened?

This is an opportunity to clarify and improve national housing policies; it would be a pity to miss it.  What was the rationale behind the Roystonia contract?  Is that rationale effective for delivery of low-income housing?  How heavily does it consume taxpayers’ dollars?  Are there better methods available to us?

Of course, there have been accusations that the Housing Minister’s calls for investigations into this matter have been nothing less than a series of distractions.  We can all remember episodes in which our politicians have tried to distract us from one embarrassment or another. It would be easy to assume that this is the case here.  The critical importance of housing to the national well-being, the size of the identified housing needs and the scarcity of the critical resources all mean that this is far too important a matter for these easy assumptions.  How can we evaluate these accusations?

To properly decide on that question, there are some questions we would need to have answered –

  • Tendering – I have read both NHA and Hanover statements on this matter with conflicting claims of no tendering and competitive tendering respectively.  Which is true? 

    It is possible to use resources to produce quality houses without competitive tendering.  Building contracts can be settled by negotiated tender with contractors, but these would need to be monitored by reference to prevailing costs and quality norms to ensure value for money and standards of quality.

    Of course, our norm is for public works to be tendered – the reason behind the establishment of the Central Tenders’ Board – but that has been changing over the last few years.  If there are good reasons for the changing of that system, we need to learn these publicly and have the appropriate cost and quality measures agreed by the respective bodies – NHA, UDECOTT, NIPDEC, JCC, Hardware dealers etc.  Does the present housing program use the competitive tendering system or have we diverged from these?  Again, for the sake of clarity, there is nothing wrong with trying something new once the necessary safeguards are in place.
     

  • Risk allocation – One of the more serious criticisms of the Roystonia scheme is that the contract seems to have allowed rises in construction costs to be passed onto the NHA.  Do the present wave of contracts restrict that risk to the building contractors?

    The entire rationale behind using the private sector for public provision is their greater efficiency at a number of things, including the critical area of risk.  If agreements between the public and private sectors do not allocate risk to the latter, the rôle and utility of these is questionable, to say the least.  Once again, we can support changes to this, but only if the risks retained by the public are matched by corresponding benefits.
     

  • Cost of building - We recently heard the Minister of Housing voice his serious concerns over the rising prices of building materials and the adverse impact this was likely to have on the thrust to build affordable housing.  Appropriate procurement methods and the associated allocation of risk are critical for the attainment of the government’s ambitious targets.  There ought to be significant savings in any volume building program.  We need to learn to what extent the Roystonia homes were more or less expensive than the prevailing norms for houses of that size and standard.  How does the output from the present housing program measure up?  Has our performance improved?  Are we getting value for money?  If not, why not?  What can we do to improve that performance?
     

  • Monthly payments – We read reports of NHA statements that monthly payments exceeding $4M were being made to the Roystonia contractors.  These are large sums of money and moreso when we consider that it is almost the whole of the capital expenditure on housing.  This table compares the actual capital expenditure on housing (obtained from the Ministry of Finance publication Estimates of Expenditure) with the recent Roystonia figures as reportedly stated by the NHA.

The comparison is striking since in several of the years the stated expenditure seems to exceed the reported totals.  There are several possible explanations and these are set out here, in no particular order - the $4M figure of monthly expenditure is incorrect or correct figures have been mistakenly published by the newspapers: the Estimates are incorrect: the entire project is, for some reason, not meant to be shown in the Estimates.  The questions are fertile and others occur; how could one scheme, even if it were not part of the officially reported expenditure, consume so many resources?  One could also ask how what is obviously the NHA’s biggest scheme is only now receiving attention.

The directors of Hanover Construction have made their protests of innocence and we need to guard against creating an atmosphere which discourages private sector participation in national development.  We are already very close to that point.  We need to clear the air and be constructive if we are to develop.

We have to learn from our experience if we want to do better.  It is an essential part of growing up.  Do we want to do better?

Next week, we begin to discuss the future of our cities, beginning with our troubled capital.

Afra Raymond - Property Matters

Over the last fortnight there have been a series of claims and counter-claims in the controversial Roystonia housing scheme. How can we try to make some sense of the confusing new picture? Do we want to know what really happened?

This is an opportunity to clarify and improve national housing policies; it would be a pity to miss it. What was the rationale behind the Roystonia contract? Is that rationale effective for delivery of low-income housing? How heavily does it consume taxpayers’ dollars? Are there better methods available to us?

Back Next

Index ] The REAL deal on property ] What is real Value? ] Home Sweet Home ] How the State finances housing ] Finding a place called home ] 'Coded Racism' in housing message ] The shape of things to come ] Taxing thoughts on housing ] Land & Building taxes ] Taxation of rental income ] Closing points on Stamp Duty ] The property ‘bubble’ — Part 1 ] How long will the property bubble last? ] Caroni Lands — Part I ] Caroni Lands — Part II ] The real Roystonia story ] Policy and transparency ] [ Throwing out the baby ] Closer look at PoS ] Changing shape, flavour of PoS - Part II ] Downtown losing its appeal ] Transformation of St Clair ] Chaguanas – Trinidad’s fastest growing town ] Chaguanas – Part II - Bursting at the seams ] San Fernando - A Unique City ] The Vision for San Fernando - Part 2 ] This business of Real Estate ] Our Planning System ] Our Planning System - Part 2 ] Our Planning System - Part 3 ] Protecting Your Property ] Beauty of the Savannah ] The Management of State property ] Government must allocate monies so public servants can maintain State property ] Critique of State housing policy Part 1 ] Critique of State housing policy Part 2 Who qualifies? ] Critique of State housing policy Part 3 Targeting agriculture lands ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 1 ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 2 New office buildings ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 2 cont'd Implications of new office buildings ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 3 The Office Crunch ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 4 No public process of Planning ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 5 Reflections on Republic Day ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 6 Economic and Financial Aspects ] CAPITAL CONCERNS Part 7 Economic and Financial Planning ] The Tobago Hilton Story ] More Thoughts on Hilton Tobago ] The Udecott strategy ‘A considerable concentration of power’ ] Udecott programme ... some implications ] The Udecott programme - The What and the When ] The Udecott charges - A commission with a mission? ] THE UDECOTT OFFICE PROJECT Medium-term consequence ] THE UDECOTT OFFICE PROJECTS The sense of things ] The Udecott check list ] RBTT’s new HQ ] Reflections on Independence ] Planning and the 2009 budget ] P3 and the proposals ] Planning for the New transportation network ] What is the holistic plan? ] A Private Sector View on Housing ] Bubble Trouble ] End of Year (2008) Review ] The Uff Commission ] The HDC’s project delivery deficit ] Testing UDeCOTT’s claims ] Cleaver Heights – The tangled web ] The Uff Commission – The Final Chapter ] The Uff Commission – Foundation Failure? ] The Uff Commission – A Quality Finish? ] The Uff Commission – A Final Fix? ] Property Tax – An Overview ] Challenge for the TTRA ] The proposed 2010 review ] The Central role of Local Government reform ] The Uff Commission - The Final sitting ] End-notes on the Uff Commission ] Preparing for the worst – Some implications of a major earthquake on Trinidad & Tobago ] The FINANCIAL IMPACT of UDeCOTT’s operations ] An overview of the Uff Report ] Learning the Lessons of the UdeCOTT fiasco - Part 1 ] Learning the Lessons of the UdeCOTT fiasco - Part 2 ] Learning the Lessons of the UdeCOTT fiasco - Part 3 ] The Uff Report - Learning the Lessons - Part 4 ] Housing policy imperatives – Part 1 ] Housing policy imperatives – Part 2 ] Housing policy imperatives – Part 3 ]