Falling through HDC cracks

But while the situation could have been handled better by the State over the long term, the Housing Development Corporation (HDC) had no choice but to take the action it took on Monday.

No State enterprise should allow citizens to put themselves at risk by occupying buildings that have been condemned. While being homeless is not a tenable situation for any family, being housed in premises that endanger life and limb or premises that simply do not conform to the required safety standards is equally unacceptable.

That said, why was this situation allowed to develop in the first place? According to reports, the illegal occupation of the decrepit buildings started a few years ago when people, learning that the structures were condemned, repaired the vandalised apartments and quietly moved in. This raises two questions. Firstly, why were these buildings not better policed? Once condemned, they should have been secured until such time as repairs or demolition action became possible.

This means the same State that had to devote resources to bringing about Monday’s situation is the same State that is to blame for it developing in the first place.

Secondly, why have these buildings been condemned? Does this relate to the initial quality of the structures put down by contractors? Or was it a question of maintenance? Or both? For decades, there have been frequent complaints about the quality of the housing stock administered by the HDC. Several issues have been flagged including: poor design, poor materials, shoddy construction work by contractors, decay due to disuse, inefficient management of empty stock, as well as myriad problems with the installation – or lack thereof – of utilities. That these buildings were condemned adds to this general malaise.

However, we must also look beyond the State on these matters.

Deeper examination of the social issues raised is required.

How can parents bring themselves to taking illegal action to occupy homes that place themselves and their children at risk? Are things so bad in our country that they literally had no other place to turn to? It is a question of social values and parental responsibility.

How have our communities allowed these types of situations? Some of the people who were evicted have now said they are willing to pay some kind of mortgage.

At the end of the day, no matter how we look at it and whom we blame, it is clear the State’s social safety net is not as robust as it should be. These families have fallen through the cracks.

The deeper question is a socio- economic one relating to the State’s ability to raise the housing stock. In the first place, why has the State not been able to keep up with the huge demand for housing.

And secondly, why have people been priced out of the ability to buy homes? The limited prospects for housing tells a disturbing tale about the shrinking middle class. It is clear that market actors have pressured homeowners into two extreme camps: those that can afford million- dollar homes and those that cannot. A free-market economy is supposed to encourage a balancing of demand and supply using the mechanism of price. If people cannot afford a home, then in theory they will work harder to try to.

In practice, however, life happens.

And salaries and wages have been suppressed for a long time (as the perennial saga of wage negotiations reminds us). The private sector has not devised a solution that would be cost-effective and profitable. And the State has failed to adequately address the gap, perhaps because it would like people to become more productive. The problem with that, however, is demonstrated by Monday’s events.

It is time we learned that applying a plaster only forces the administering of bitter, inhumane medicine down the road.