All for fairness

In our editorial last Sunday, we took to task the Ministry of Housing for its plan to give out loans to low-income earners. It turns out, however, that our premise was mistaken. According to a release sent by Housing Minister Keith Rowley, and published in Tuesday’s Newsday, the Government is not giving out loans to low-income earners which have to be paid back. It is giving out grants and subsidies to applicants who meet the required criteria, which includes matching half the stipulated sum. Dr Rowley explained that there is now a Home Improvement Grant of $15,000 available to all households with an income of $36,000 and under. There is also a Home Improvement Subsidy of $20,000 available to households whose income is $54,000 and below. The money given by the Government on this basis does not have to be paid back.

In our editorial, our main concern was that a government guarantee of loans would put pressure on the economy by increasing the number of bad loans. While that premise was mistaken, the concern is still valid if the premise is grants — indeed, perhaps more so. After all, these grants are being paid for by taxpayers. And, while it is true that there must be measures taken to provide the poorer sector of the society with adequate shelter, we are not satisfied that the Housing Ministry is taking the most efficient approach to this issue. Housing, like food and clothing, are basic needs. But deciding the best way to provide these needs for all citizens in a modern society is no easy task.

Indeed, wise governments never expect to provide all citizens with all basic goods — that socialist approach has proven to be unworkable in practice, leading to economic stagnation and political oppression. In respect to housing, the Government’s position is that there is a critical shortage which has to be met by State intervention.  However, economic principles show that when the Government takes up this task, it removes entrepreneurial opportunities for private investors. Moreover, such investors may be able to do the job more efficiently and more cheaply than the government. It is only where this doesn’t happen that the State needs to step in — but even then only to build housing at no profit and, just as importantly, at no loss.

Yet, on September 12 of this year, Dr Rowley proudly announced at a sod-turning ceremony that the new TT Housing Development Corporation (HDC) would revolutionise housing development so that all persons “regardless of their socio-economic status” would be able to afford the type of units being offered through the national housing programme. He also said that the HDC would become involved in building houses for middle and upper-middle income earners. When we raised this issue in our editorial of September 15, Dr Rowley did not respond with similar alacrity. Indeed, he remained completely silent, as he did to our other point about the widespread perception that persons who get State housing are chosen on a politically partisan basis and the need to do an audit to deal with this perception. 

It is therefore instructive that, in his recent response, Dr Rowley invited this newspaper’s staff to tour the country as the ministry’s guests so as to get a “more balanced and accurate view of the national housing effort.” This newspaper is all for fairness and accuracy. However, we believe we would quicker attain this through an examination of the Housing Ministry’s records. Such a survey would be useful for discovering the demographic patterns of housing projects, the default rates on rents and mortgages, and other pertinent issues. Would Dr Rowley be willing to help us inform the public on such matters?