Dear Editor,
I listened with rapt attention to a re-broadcast of “The Gyaff” programmeme as the Hon. Minister Susan Rodrigues talked-up the government’s Dream Realised housing programmeme. It is a laudable initiative to afford persons the opportunity of achieving the dignity of owning the roof over their heads. In her usual articulate style, she urged the citizenry to ‘do the right thing’, explaining that the value of a house lot is worth much more than the ‘few hundred thousand dollars’ that applicants are required to pay. The Minister further urged successful applicants to ‘leverage their equity’ by using the market value of the house lot – in the millions – as the basis for creating ‘generational wealth’.
To use her own words, the Hon. Minister said that applicants ‘have to have some skin in the game’, referring to the fee for the house lot (or a down payment) which as mentioned, runs into the range of ‘a few hundred thousand dollars’. Here, I have to part ways with the distinguished Minister and ask why is it that in this oil rich country of 83,000 square miles and a low population density, a Guyanese living in the land of their birth for a period of say, ten years prior to the application for a basic house lot, needs to put any ‘skin in the game’ at all?
Why can’t those Guyanese who may be desirous of building a home leverage instead, the fact of their nationality and their continuous residence in their homeland for a specified period of time, to acquire a basic house lot? The fee for a house lot remains a challenge for many young people, some of whom have to save for many years and yet still depend on their relative(s) in “farrin” to give them a “brace” to make up the sum.
Guyana has for decades had vast available spaces for housing; most of the land coming into use now is old sugar estate land that the EU had told us since my days in Brussels decades ago, needed to be divested and diversified out of. Cane sugar from the ACP countries was a commodity which would no longer benefit from the EU preferential market and which was in competition with beet sugar. In other words, with a proper land use strategy, the vast unproductive sugar cane lands could be reclaimed and put to use for residential schemes, commercial centres and industrial parks. Thus, the offer of a free basic house lot is itself a dream (to be) realised….
Guyana is not in the challenging position of the OECS island nations for example, where land is finite and locals have to compete in a high-priced market with big foreign investors in the tourism sector, or foreign celebrities who want to construct a sprawling tropical getaway villa. We have more than enough land here both near the coast and inland to support a massive housing drive, as part of our overall development thrust, which would be even more attractive if land was made easier and cheaper to acquire.
This facility I am proposing would pertain only to those who are applying for a basic house lot, now referred to I believe by the misnomer of “low income”, as even that fee is beyond the means of the many low income workers. For those who aspire to bigger things (middle, high income?) a special arrangement, again on easier terms, could be designed.
Neither would it apply to Guyanese citizens by descent – unless they have been resident here for a required period – nor to those who fled to “farrin” and now would suddenly get a “brainwave” and remember they are Guyanese, “when cash grant sharing” or, in this case, “when house lot giving ‘way”! However to dispel any charges of discrimination, another separate arrangement with different terms could be designed for our countrymen and women abroad to access online, provided there is sufficient demand.
There are several creative ways by which the State could alleviate the burden on a prospective homeowner, below the age of say, forty-five – the actuaries would have to advise on the exact age – as he or she navigates the first phase of acquisition of a basic house lot. For example, an outright deed of gift would pass title in the land to the successful applicant. Secondly, payment for the basic house lot could be deferred for a period of twenty-five years, or until the homeowner’s mortgage is paid off, whichever is the earlier of the two. Alternatively, the land could be acquired through a 99-year long lease, at a peppercorn rent of say $25,000 a year ($2000 a month), which could mature into full ownership for the payment of the remaining sum, whenever the burden of the homeowner’s mortgage would become bearable.
The government would of course continue to absorb the cost of infrastructural works to prepare the land and make it accessible to prospective builders. In addition, the land acquired would not be to “flip”, or for other investment purposes; thus, if no meaningful steps are taken to begin construction for a dwelling house within a reasonable time, say five years, the land would revert back to the State.
While mathematics was never my strong point, I believe that foregoing the fee of a ‘few hundred thousand dollars’ would be an affordable proposition for the Government to absorb. When looked at alongside the initial cash grant proposal of $200,000 per household, and later $100,000 per adult, the sum that government would forego from the cohort of applicants for a basic house lot ought to be comparable and therefore affordable to the Treasury. Besides, that sum would remain in the hands of prospective home owners which, along with the value of the basic house lot, could be ‘leveraged’ to create even more generational wealth, over and above what is currently being suggested by leveraging the cash grant alone.
I would also venture to say, somewhat tentatively, that an added advantage of removing the requirement of a fee to acquire a basic house lot may well be that the motive and opportunity for corrupt practices tainting the system would be minimized, if not eliminated altogether. I am proceeding here on the premise that oftentimes when a payment for a public service is involved, there is the perception that “passing a lil something” would expedite the process and guarantee a successful outcome.
For those who might say “Guyanese love a freeness”, let me assuage you that the intention would not be to inculcate a culture of dependency, but rather, simply to make life easier for our young people – university graduates, single parents, couples now starting out, tradesmen/women and small business owners who have acquired a skill and putting their business plans in place for the future. Neither would there be any requirement of a “needs test”; this would simply be a programmeme for those eligible Guyanese who submit an application for a basic house lot, and who are desirous of becoming home owners, as part of their patrimony.
In tandem with the Government’s recent announcement to abolish fees at UG, which I believe has been monetized in the budget at $13 billion, abolishing the fee on basic house lots would be another arrow in the quiver of development priorities with long-term impact. So Madam Minister, I say press on with your housing drive with all convenient haste. But, in order to ease the burden of those Guyanese citizens who would wish to realise their dream of home ownership, why not take a more pragmatic, humane and nationalistic approach, and allow them to have a little less (or no) skin in the game, as we move forward in the quest to let all Guyanese benefit in dignity and decency from our oil wealth?
Sincerely,
Neville Bissember