Dear Editor,
Both political parties' annual conferences are behind us, and are but distant memories. However, National Housing Trust (NHT) purchasing an indebted company is still fresh in our minds.
NHT's mandate is to provide housing for contributors, but so far it has engaged in a multitude of things that have nothing to do with housing. In all fairness to NHT, it has provided houses for several people, but we have to look at the whole picture.
During Portia Simpson Miller's first term as prime minister, funds were used from NHT to construct inner-city houses costing some $15.5 billion. The estimate for this project was $5 billion, but this is Jamaica and everything comes with a 200 per cent cost overrun.
PJ Patterson, during his tenure, used the NHT funds to build Emancipation Park, and pay into the national education fund.
I am at a loss as to what Michael Manley and Edward Seaga might have used the NHT funds for during their time in government.
Bruce Golding attempted to extract $5 billion from NHT for an irrigation project for farmers, and was told he could not use the NHT for that. He sought legal advice, then backed down.
The questions I want to ask are: Does the NHT change mandate from one government to the next? Or does one political party have a right to do just about anything it pleases?
What is painful about NHT buying an indebted company is that many contributors are told they are not qualified to get a loan. If persons won't be qualified, why is money being drawn from their earnings, along with the employers' three per cent?
The time has come for the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica and the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce to address the handling of NHT. Until these two powerful groups join with the downtrodden, governments will continue to use NHT as a cash cow and petty cash imprest. After all both groups have staff for whom NHT deductions are being paid who still haven't got a house. The private sector needs to step up to the plate to defend the rights of those who are unable to do so for themselves. They should stop paying into NHT and give the staff the money to take home. Stop paying taxes and invest the money, so you can employ more people.
Of course, this would shut down the government. But I bet they would start doing what is right and not what is politically expedient.
A reported $180 million has been paid for Outameni, $111 million earmarked for development, and there is a $144-million debt. Did NHT also buy the debt? If yes, then this would end up costing contributors $435 million? If that's the case what will be the 'real' benefit to contributors?
Should this turn out to be the "best buy", will contributors see a decrease in interest rate and will NHT construct houses that are not matchboxes? An analytical study needs to be done to assess all that NHT has done outside of providing housing to ascertain the benefit that contributors have derived and if they have all been profitable.
Wayne White
wayne2white@gmail.com
Is it 'do as you please' at NHT?
-->
Both political parties' annual conferences are behind us, and are but distant memories. However, National Housing Trust (NHT) purchasing an indebted company is still fresh in our minds.
NHT's mandate is to provide housing for contributors, but so far it has engaged in a multitude of things that have nothing to do with housing. In all fairness to NHT, it has provided houses for several people, but we have to look at the whole picture.
During Portia Simpson Miller's first term as prime minister, funds were used from NHT to construct inner-city houses costing some $15.5 billion. The estimate for this project was $5 billion, but this is Jamaica and everything comes with a 200 per cent cost overrun.
PJ Patterson, during his tenure, used the NHT funds to build Emancipation Park, and pay into the national education fund.
I am at a loss as to what Michael Manley and Edward Seaga might have used the NHT funds for during their time in government.
Bruce Golding attempted to extract $5 billion from NHT for an irrigation project for farmers, and was told he could not use the NHT for that. He sought legal advice, then backed down.
The questions I want to ask are: Does the NHT change mandate from one government to the next? Or does one political party have a right to do just about anything it pleases?
What is painful about NHT buying an indebted company is that many contributors are told they are not qualified to get a loan. If persons won't be qualified, why is money being drawn from their earnings, along with the employers' three per cent?
The time has come for the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica and the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce to address the handling of NHT. Until these two powerful groups join with the downtrodden, governments will continue to use NHT as a cash cow and petty cash imprest. After all both groups have staff for whom NHT deductions are being paid who still haven't got a house. The private sector needs to step up to the plate to defend the rights of those who are unable to do so for themselves. They should stop paying into NHT and give the staff the money to take home. Stop paying taxes and invest the money, so you can employ more people.
Of course, this would shut down the government. But I bet they would start doing what is right and not what is politically expedient.
A reported $180 million has been paid for Outameni, $111 million earmarked for development, and there is a $144-million debt. Did NHT also buy the debt? If yes, then this would end up costing contributors $435 million? If that's the case what will be the 'real' benefit to contributors?
Should this turn out to be the "best buy", will contributors see a decrease in interest rate and will NHT construct houses that are not matchboxes? An analytical study needs to be done to assess all that NHT has done outside of providing housing to ascertain the benefit that contributors have derived and if they have all been profitable.
Wayne White
wayne2white@gmail.com
Is it 'do as you please' at NHT?
-->