| Housing policy imperatives – Part 1
Published Thursday June 24th, 2010
Proper housing is an essential part of decent human
rights and the development of a just society. For those of us who have
proper housing, we can be virtually blind to the plight of those who do
not.
Dr. the Honourable Roodal Moonilal, Minister of Housing and
Environment |
We now have a new
government – the People’s partnership (PP) – and given the swirling
claims and counterclaims around State housing, it is important to
re-open this discussion.
The first aspect of
housing policy to be considered would have to be the basic model –
‘What is it?’
The main housing policy of the first UNC
government was to provide serviced lots – i.e. land was acquired and
developed with infrastructure (roads, drainage, electricity and water
supplies etc.) before being distributed. That approach is based on the
notion that it allowed the State to have a positive impact on the
housing shortage with the use of limited resources. Between 1995 and
2001, that policy yielded a modest result, since only about 2,200
serviced lots were sold, with 376 new homes built.
The current national housing policy was initiated in September 2002 with
the stated goal being 100,000 new homes to be built in a decade. The
annual target was soon reduced to 8,000, with those new homes to be sold
to applicants. The aim was to increase the quantity and quality of
housing available to those who were unable to afford housing in the open
market. That program never achieved its targets and there was a
consistent pattern of over-stating its achievements. The last claims we
heard were that the total output had been adjusted (downward, of course)
from 26,000 to only 15,394 new homes in the 7-year period from 2003 to
2009.
In terms of gross
output, the PNM policy easily outstripped the UNC’s, even if, in terms
of its own targets, it was a signal failure. From the aspect of output
versus target numbers, the results are so mixed that it is difficult to
settle the question of which policy was the more successful one.
For me, a key test of
a housing policy’s success would have to be the number of people who
have benefitted from an improvement in the quality of their housing. In
that case, the existing policy is seriously wanting, since, despite the
output of 15,394 new homes, most of those remain in the hands of the
Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Just like with the actual numbers
built, there has been a pattern of cover-up, shifting figures and plain
dishonesty. Despite my efforts, I am unable to locate a published record
of how many of these new homes have been given out.
Dr. Moonilal, we need
a clear statement of just how many new, empty homes the HDC has on its
hands.
“Rent
control is a thorny housing policy issue, but it deserves a second
thought, since so many of our needy citizens occupy rented housing”
I went to the 2007
conference of the Caribbean Association of Housing Finance Institutions
(CASHFI) and the PS of the Ministry of Housing said that a major issue
was the fact that about 90% of the people on their waiting-list could
not qualify for a mortgage. If the objective of the existing model is to
promote home ownership in preference to rental units and 90% of the
applicants cannot afford to buy, there is a clash between those policies
and the reality of the needy.
New forms of housing
finance were devised to overcome that hurdle and those included
mortgages -
·
at 2%;
·
with zero-percent deposits;
·
even 100+% models which allowed the new home owner to
spread the cost of appliances and furnishings over the period of the
mortgage.
We need to
re-consider our housing policy in fundamental terms -
·
What is the extent
of housing need in our country? In last week’s ‘BG View’,
there was a call for the national pensions proposals to be based on the
results of the 2010 census – see
link
. The review of national housing policy must be based on realistic
housing need data and that should also emerge from the census later this
year. In “A critique of State
Housing Policy‘, published here on 2nd August
2007 – see
link
– I proposed that our country has a 5-part housing market. In my view
the task would be to determine the numbers occupying each parts and
which of them we intend to provide for.
·
Is large-scale
construction the only way to assist those in housing need?
Another aspect which needs review is the matter of rent-control, since
that is a cheap way of assisting those in housing need without spending
vast sums of taxpayers’ dollars. The reality is that although
rent-control legislation remains on our law-books, the rent control
boards which regulate that area of civic affairs have been allowed to
wither and die. Rent control is a thorny housing policy issue, but it
deserves a second thought, since so many of our needy citizens occupy
rented housing.
·
Are we at realistic
limits in terms of tenure? To make a simple contrast, in
1992, when US President Bill Clinton launched his expansionary proposals
to ramp-up home-ownership, about 62% of the homes in the US were
owner-occupied. At the end of 2008, after a massive and disastrous
experiment intended to increase home-ownership, about 68% of US homes
were owner-occupied. Our current home-ownership percentage is about 76%.
Given the poverty of those on the waiting-list, does it really makes
sense to keep on building new homes for sale to poor people. Are we at
the ‘Limits to growth’ where home-ownership is concerned?
·
What types of homes
should we build? Large swathes of agricultural land have
been ‘paved-over’ to build these new homes, which is to the permanent
detriment of our food security, to name just one obvious concern. The
fact is that we do not have enough land in this country to continue that
pattern of large-scale development.
Next week, the focus
shifts to issues of build quality, allocations policy, land grabbing and
value-for-money aspects.
Afra Raymond is
Managing Director of Raymond & Pierre Limited and President of the
Institute of Surveyors of Trinidad & Tobago. Comments can be sent to
afra@raymondandpierre.com. |
| For me, a key test of a housing policy’s success would
have to be the number of people who have benefitted from an
improvement in the quality of their housing. In that case, the
existing policy is seriously wanting, since, despite the output
of 15,394 new homes, most of those remain in the hands of the
Housing Development Corporation (HDC). Just like with the actual
numbers built, there has been a pattern of cover-up, shifting
figures and plain dishonesty. Despite my efforts, I am unable to
locate a published record of how many of these new homes have
been given out. |
|
