When the PPP/C came to government in October 1992, 2,025 government apartments were dotted around the country but largely in urban areas. They were in ‘deplorable condition largely because of the political difficulty the PNC government confronted in adequately increasing rent in areas it considered its stronghold.’ (Housing Policy (1994) Central Housing and Planning Authority, Georgetown). Added to this, favouritism in allocating the apartments was rife, as a result of which many tenants failed to meet the obligation of $18 per month but expected the government to do maintenance. The economic decline of the period put paid to the housing largesse.
The economy tanked in the 1980s. Real GDP declined and the level of output in 1988 was only 68% of its 1976 level. At the same time, inflation was raging, with consumer prices increasing by 89% in 1989 and 65% in 1990. Largely because of the high interest rates, the New Building Society, by far the largest mortgage provider, granted about 900 mortgages in 1978 but only 125 in 1991.
Once the Desmond Hoyte government decided to implement the Economic Recovery Programme in 1988, it passed the Condominium Act of 1989 with the clear intention of selling these apartments to their tenants, and this was later done by the PPP/C.
Thus, the ‘new model for housing’ proposed by the chairperson of the CHPA, Mr. Hamilton Green, which involves ‘the construction of … apartments/duplexes with infrastructural work for low income households’, particularly when coupled to the statement by the junior minister of housing, Ms. Valerie Patterson, that ‘The government is prioritising low earners and state employees in schemes … with rent-to-own options,’ is closer to the realm of nostalgic reminiscences upon a failed policy than anything new!
Secondly, contrary to Mr. Green’s claim, it was not the case that the PPP/C administration sought to provide ‘a serviced house lot to anyone desirous of acquiring one’ and upon which they could place turnkey housing units. The major priority criteria for allocation were family size, low current income, relatively high current rent, capacity to build and non-ownership of land. Furthermore, if multi-solutions could still not fit the really poor ‘Where the government must act it will subsidise such individuals consciously and directly from budgetary sources by subsidizing market rental where necessary’ (Housing Policy, 1994).
By 1991 the economy had begun to grow, recording an increase of 6% in 1991, 7.7% in 1992 and 8.3% in 1993. Inflation also began to decline, going from 60% in 1991 to 14.2% in 1992 and 7% in 1993. The minimum wage, which was US$25 in 1992, is now about US$250 and thus other solutions have now become more possible, and for all manner of reasons, some emphases have changed and others been ignored. It is largely in relation to this context that I stated last week that I believe the previous regime badly neglected the shelter needs of the poorest.
Thirdly, although one of multiple solutions to the housing situation, turnkey housing was impractical for most working people in 1992 and for some time thereafter as the housing situation inherited from the PNC was dire.
In 1986, after nearly two decades of PNC rule, during which there was a 1972-1976 development plan intended to properly feed, clothe and house the Guyanese people, the PNC estimated that there was a housing deficit of 98,000 housing units. (A comprehensive framework for housing administration. (1986) Ministry of Manpower and Housing, Georgetown). In 1991 there were some 7,000 squatters in Georgetown and an estimated 25,000 countrywide, some having been squatting since the 1940s. (Squatting & Squatter Areas in Georgetown. (1992) Central Housing and Planning Authority, Georgetown). In about the same year, mass squatting began in Georgetown (particularly in Sophia) and the rural areas and this continued throughout the first term of the PPP/C.
On international advice, the Hoyte government decided to reduce the number of government ministries to about 13, and in 1991 the ministry of housing was abolished, with responsibility for housing being left with the Central Housing and Planning Authority. The CHPA had been established in 1948 with the mandate ‘to make provision with respect to the housing of persons of the working classes and for purposes connected therewith’ – a near impossible task in 1991!
The minimum wage in the public service in 1992 was about $3,127 a month and the cost of a partly serviced house lot aside, a 500 square feet, 2-bedroom low income unit cost approximately $500,000. The interest rate was over 15% and would have required repayment of about $6,600 per month – far out of the reach of a low income family with two persons working.
Proclaiming the need for ‘new models’ in various areas of our social life appears now in vogue: about a week ago the president claimed that there is a need for one in labour relations. It is perhaps for this reason that the politically wily chairperson, while providing nothing substantially new, crafted his presentation in the manner he did. But ironically, the development of a ‘green economy’ demands that at the individual, community and national levels we all seek to properly rationalise and minimise our carbon footprint, and the delivery of shelter is precisely one of the areas in which innovations in physical design, ownership, financial, administrative and other strategies make a ‘new model’ most relevant!
It might be taking power out of his hands, but for a start, the chairperson could begin by advocating for the democratisation of housing provision by moving delivery to the newly elected urban and rural local authorities and allowing them to experiment with various forms of land use, design, ownership and other arrangements best suited to individual and community needs. Appropriately organised this would not only take some of the politics out of the sector but also have the potential to more meaningfully contribute to the inclusiveness and social cohesion he and his government advocate.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
.
