Twice already for the year, in April and then again in August, the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CHPA) has had to issue warnings to citizens not to be taken in by fraudulent contacts on Facebook, claiming to be in a position to offer them land or houses. The alerts revealed that fake profiles had been set up in the names of President David Granger and Housing Minister Valerie Adams-Yearwood and were soliciting hundreds of thousands of dollars from citizens for land or housing units. What was not revealed was whether anyone had actually been scammed, though it would not be surprising if that was indeed the case.
It should not be, and it is a shame that it is, but the fact is that housing is huge political football, particularly low-income housing. And it has see-sawed between moderate success and abject failure over the last 30-odd years or so – unless, of course, one takes the two Pradoville Housing Schemes into account. But that is another story altogether. It is not surprising therefore that enterprising con artists would try to get in on the game, parts of it already border on the criminal.
The Sophia Housing Scheme is a classic example. It is now close to 40 years since the first squatter set up a shack and began living in the Pattensen/Turkeyen area in Georgetown now commonly and widely known as Sophia. It was illegal to do so then and despite several clashes with the authorities over a number of years, those who moved there stayed and many, many others joined them. This resulted in the original area expanding from about 400 residences to some 5,000.
To the uninitiated, it would appear that government finally succumbed to community pressure when it took the decision to regularise Sophia around 1995. But if that were indeed the case, why is it that as recent as two years ago, squatters were still finding places to put down shacks? To regularise means to move something from temporary or provisional to official, to make it regular by conformance to rules and laws. Sophia was indeed made official. Its name was changed from Sophia Squatter Settlement to Sophia Housing Scheme. It was recognised as a ward of Georgetown. Yet, Sophia lacked the infrastructure and order found in other areas of the city.
In January this year, 24 years after the regularisation of Sophia began, the government initiated an Inter-American Development Bank-funded project in that community that would see the upgrade of dams to roads, the insertion of proper drainage, work on playfields/park areas among other things. In addition, the CHPA announced that it was offering home improvement subsidies as well as building as many as 100 homes. These are not for new residents. While some were able to upgrade their homes to what might obtain in any influential city neighbourhood, hundreds remained in little more than the original shacks they started with decades ago. Over the years, successive governments announced that they were spending millions of dollars on roads, drains, culverts, water and electricity in Sophia, but despite a few bright sparks the community has remained highly irregular.
Realistically, it should not take 25-plus years to regularise a community. Yet that is exactly what has happened with Sophia. Of course, it was an urban planner’s nightmare given the way it started, but any government serious about not having its people live in squalor would have sorted it out a long time ago. It should have long had all its infrastructure in place and should have been handed over to the Mayor and City Council to maintain and upkeep in exchange for the taxes its residents paid. But even now that happy occurrence seems to be a long way away.
Unfortunately, Sophia is not the only example of government housing development at its worst. Pick any area that includes the words ‘low income’ and one can be sure to find a similar web of mismanagement. Housing schemes started from scratch lack basic necessities like public spaces, water and sanitation, roads and of course transportation. Grand plans to build and develop housing areas like Parfait Harmonie for example, did not include any thoughts about commercial growth and access to educational facilities, not to mention transportation. Therefore, not only do the residents there suffer for want of proper infrastructure, but the majority of them must make nightmarish daily treks to the city, along a weakening harbour bridge and congested East Bank road to work and be educated.
Yet there are buffoons who want to be congratulated for what amounts to nothing more than tunnel vision. In case no one has noticed, Guyana’s population peaked at around 780,000 in 1980. In the years following, it dropped to as low as 743,000 in 1990 before climbing again very slowly. As at last year, it was around 779,000. So, the demand for housing is not as a result of a growing population, but rural to urban migration.
Given Georgetown’s known structural and institutional fragmentation, there should have been some amount of forward thinking and planning. It might not have been enough to halt the migration, though it might have perhaps curbed it or slowed it down while infrastructure was dealt with. But politics and lawlessness, particularly during the years when there were no local government elections, have led to the mishmash the country currently faces. The way out of it is bound to be arduous and conflict-ridden, but it has to be done. Only when this cat is belled will housing become a success. Citizens are waiting.
