It was a grant, not a loan

THE EDITOR: Once again I have the unwanted, though necessary, task of responding to an editorial published in your newspaper. As the Minister of Housing and spokesperson for Government policy on the said subject I am duty bound to object to the misrepresentation contained in the Editorial of Sunday December 18, 2005. It was with a sense of duty that I ensured that the public was provided with accurate and timely information on matters affecting their interest, in so far as the housing programme is concerned. On Thursday December 15, at the post-Cabinet press conference where Newsday was represented I outlined the details of the existence of two grant programmes which currently operate for the benefit of the poorest homeowners of the country. One is an outright grant of up to $10,000 towards house repairs for persons who earns less than $2,500 per month and whose dwelling is dilapidated and in need of repairs. The other is a matching grant subsidy where the Government will provide a grant of up to $15,000 to persons earning up to $3,000 per month providing that the beneficiary can come up with an equivalent amount of his/her own money.

These were the programmes which were being adjusted to bring a greater benefit to a wider group of low income persons. As a result of the strict qualification requirements attached to these programmes the Government found that a significant amount of citizens who were intended to benefit from these programmes were being screened out because of the level of income qualification. Further, it was found that the amount of basic repairs required a bit more money to be really effective. On Friday December 16, I went further and issued a statement on this matter in the Parliament. Under these circumstances it came as a great shock to read your Editorial that “Housing Minister Keith Rowley’s announcement that the Government has decided to lower the income ceiling to get more people to take out loans to repair their Government-subsidised houses, while simultaneously increasing the amount being given.” This is totally false since nowhere in my statements was there any reference to any loan arrangements for citizens and further the programme to which I referred was not confined to state sector housing but is open to all homeowners providing they fall within the income limits set by the Government.

The Editorial writer jumped on this non-existent loan programme and attacked the Government for having “not learnt from the past.” He also states that this plan “will have several bad effects. It will increase the number of bad loans in the economy ...will become a factor in reducing production by wasting more capital resources.” In analysing this damaging “loan programme” which he has created, he goes on sanctimoniously to state that “with this additional facility, people with already low incomes will be encouraged to borrow money they can ill afford to pay back, to spend on items that will not generate additional income for them. In the end, it is the taxpayers who end up paying for these loans as well as the houses requiring them.” Firstly, there was never any mention of any loan in the two public statements and secondly the housing stock which is targeted by the grant programme is owned by the poorest citizens of the country without any taxpayer exposure.

The Government recognises as stated by me in the Parliament last Friday, that there are about 30,000 dilapidated houses in Trinidad and Tobago. Most of these are owned or occupied by the poorest citizens of the country who do not have the wherewithal to repair them. In a situation of a grave housing shortage, as currently exists, if these homes are repaired then this could bring relief to thousands of families who are now living in unacceptable conditions. It is in this context that the Home Improvement Grant and the Home Improvement Subsidy programmes have been devised and are being implemented as one component of a comprehensive national housing effort. Under these circumstances your Editorial writer states “Clearly a new plan must be devised with respect to helping people house themselves. Putting them into deeper debt does not seem to be the ideal way to go.” I would be very grateful if Newsday could explain to the readers how Government making grants available to the poorest persons could saddle them with debt.

In an effort to provide Newsday with a more balanced and accurate view of the national housing effort which is a major aspect of Government policy I am extending an open invitation to any number of your staff to tour the entire country, as our guest, to see for yourself the work that is going on in Pleasantville, Tarouba, Cleaver Heights, Mt Hope, Valencia, Chaguanas, Pt Fortin, Corinth, Caroni, Sangre Grande or any of our many other projects. You will get an opportunity to meet many citizens for whom the public housing programme is their only avenue for acquiring and living in decent accommodation in modern Trinidad and Tobago. We can also arrange for you to visit the many hundreds of families all over the country who had their houses repaired under the grant programme. When you take us up on this offer you will be able to judge for yourself.

DR KEITH ROWLEY
Minister of Housing