A single family unit should not be allowed to acquire more than one house lot

Dear Editor,
Kudos must be given to the Minister of Housing for his innovative ways of facilitating the expansion of the housing sector. Every day, you read about some One stop shop, which is not a bad thing. In such projects I assume there will be always be conflicts between the needy and the greedy.

Recently, I read about his firm stand relating to persons who might attempt to ‘con’ the system and the subsequent penalties. Again, his position was commendable. However, this leads me cite a new trend relating to how one deals with these corrupt practices.

While I understand that these house lots are for persons who are in dire need of same, some were fortunate to get theirs while others still have to wait because of the greed of some people.

Some  who already received house lots in their name now use their spouse’s name to apply for another one. This is ubiquitous where the couple are not legally married and  use different names to apply.

This is the same as trying to apply twice for a house lot, knowing that you already have one. This is the same as someone trying to rob the state. If this continued it would result in persons who actually need a house lot being at a disadvantage. The ministry needs to take a strong position on this and make the culpable an example to all.

I am not suggesting that no one should own more than one house lot in their life, but can it be right for two or three of the limited house lots you are issuing to be given to the same family (comprising of a husband and wife with dependents all under the age of 18) in the same scheme?

It is understandable if the dependents are over age 18; these over 18s can apply separately because one would assume that they would branch out at some time, and under the new scheme young people are now eligible. But it is unimaginable how persons who already received government house lots with only minors in their care, could use their other lots to build houses to rent out. This is unacceptable.

Yours faithfully,
J Singh