Confusion erupts over Gov’t-built homes for poor
Published:Monday | February 17, 2025 | 9:31 AMTanesha Mundle/Staff Reporter
The Government yesterday moved to allay the fears of beneficiaries of houses under the New Social Housing Programme (NSHP) that their dwellings would be reclaimed when they die, with an assurance that houses are fully owned by the beneficiaries.
“All houses are constructed on land provided by the beneficiaries, a core requirement for receiving a social house under the NSHP. This includes land ownership, long-term lease, or granted permission, supported by legitimate claims such as a deed of gift. This approach ensures stability, accountability, and responsible resource stewardship,” the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation said.
It said that the NSHP does not operate on a rent/lease or rent-to-own model and that the ministry does not have lands to facilitate such a model.
Beneficiaries of houses under the Indigent Housing Programme also had similar worries, according to Opposition Spokesperson for Local Government, Natalie Neita Garvey, who yesterday sought clarification from Local Government Minister Desmond McKenzie.
When contacted by The Gleaner yesterday, McKenzie said that a statement would be provided by the ministry. It was not received up to press time last night.
The Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation was, however, responding to a video in which a person questioned the ownership of the homes based on statements made by McKenzie at a post-Cabinet media briefing on Wednesday about his ministry’s Indigent Housing Programme, which was recently scrutinised by the Auditor General’s Department.
He noted that the beneficiaries under the programme were persons registered under the Poor Relief Act and said, “The houses remain the property of the municipal corporation. So, if someone dies, the municipality retains the right of the house and it is passed on to someone who is in need.”
Neita Garvey said the minister’s remarks had caused national concern.
According to her, persons who had received houses on their lands or lands gifted to them were worried that their relatives could lose the properties when they die.
“It is of great concern as many would be considering to will the houses and land to their children and children’s children, so it can stay with them for generations to come. So we are against the taking back of the houses, especially those houses that were not built on lands belonging to the Government,” she said.
“The Opposition is firmly against houses being taken away from the elderly, registered poor, indigent individuals, or anyone on the paupers’ roll as this would put surviving family members at risk of homelessness or destitution,” she added.
She said she was advised that the ownership of indigent housing provided to registered poor or paupers on the roll only reverts to the municipal corporation if constructed on vested pauper lands.
However, she said McKenzie’s statement implied this was the case for all housing grants.
“The legal status of these homeowners must be clarified, as persons now receiving houses are confused by contradictory statements made by the minister and their original understanding,” she said, calling for similar clarification on the ownership of the houses under the NSHP.