Canning sardines or housing people?

THE EDITOR: Kindly allow me a space in your paper to sensitise others and to challenge the powers that be to make good their promise to provide (and I quote) “proper, adequate and better quality housing for the citizens of this country.”

I sat and I listened carefully to the Hon Prime Minister, Mr Keith Rowley, Mr Martin Joseph and others as they reiterated on channel six (20/07/03) after 7.30 pm their housing plan. But more than that, I went and looked and I saw and somehow what I saw and what I heard were not in synch. Many things were said, those close to memory are: 1) they will ‘satisfy the needs of the citizens’
2) ‘proper’ provision of housing will be provided
3) houses will be ‘built to standard’ 4)  ‘contractors must comply to the highest standard’ that is, substandard work will not be accepted 5) ‘houses worthy’ of first world status 6) people will be ‘adequately housed’ 7) people would be provided with ‘better’ quality housing 8) housing policy is a policy that ‘takes every body into account’ (Does that include singles?) 9) rental will facilitate people with small and larger earnings.

I took it upon myself to visit the NHA housing site under construction in the Pleasantville area. Work is in progress and some units are almost completed minus their roofs, plumbing and electrical. That’s the good part. What was not at all satisfactory is the size of the rooms. I wondered, “Is it sardines they are canning or is it people they are housing?” Don’t take my word but go and see for one self. The bedrooms cannot hold a queen size bed, if this does fit, nothing can hold. The space allocated for living, dining and kitchen can by discarding half of your household effects accommodate the living room. I can go on, but won’t. The reason I’m so appalled is that we are talking first world or developed country status by 2020 but we are building dwelling structures that reflect third world thinking. It is true that some home-owners are from the low income bracket but does that mean that they have no possessions and they will be moving into their new homes with only their clothes on their backs. If that is the case, then they still need room to store their clothes. What I see happening is over-crowding and over-populating. Too many persons placed in too small an area with too little space for comfortable habitation, virtually no room for expansion. This closeness in proximity with one’s neighbour encourages one’s neighbour to be “up in one’s business all the time.” This is a recipe for chaos and potential criminal activity.

The powers that be need to go back to the drawing board and truthfully assess whether these houses are of better quality than those built previously, whether they can adequately house families today in a manner that can be termed “proper,” whether they are built to first world standard, whether their housing policy takes everybody into account (inclusive singles). Bearing in mind one significant point, people have worked hard and saved their hard earned money to invest in a home for their loved ones. After having done this, there is usually no money left. They therefore hope that they will be comfortable at least for some years to come. They have placed their trust and future in the hands of the government to help them. Are they getting a raw ‘deal,’ is this trust misplaced? They expect you (the Government) to deliver because you said you cared.

ERICA P GEORGE
San Fernando