This week the Chief Executive was at the Legislative Assembly. Inevitably, housing was a topic of evidence. It is a sensitive one and, as such, alone it justified the production of one lengthy press release. It is not always easy, however, to make sense of the political premises and orientations stated thereof. The first paragraph ends in these terms: ‘The government guarantees the gradual supply of housing units to residents through an active search of soil resources and scientific planning.’
The statement seems to imply a strong long-term commitment to a steady provision of housing – anything else is less clear. Does the word ‘residents,’ as used in the sentence without further conditions, intend to suggest all residents will sooner or later qualify for public housing?
If not, elucidating eligibility criteria should be forthcoming if we are to understand the aims and scope of the policy. And what does ‘active search of soil resources’ mean, in a place where most of the land available is reclaimed and public property? (Not to mention that significant chunks have been idle for several years or diverted for unintended and, one supposes, provisional uses.)
Such ambiguity becomes even more striking as the paragraph ends with a commitment to ‘scientific planning.’ Even assuming that such a thing exists – that is, that the scientific planning of social policies is not an oxymoron – the implicit claim to rigour seems difficult to associate with the simple arithmetic of public housing.
Figures from the Housing Institute indicate that the Administration has, since the 1960s, built close to 40,000 housing units. The numbers mentioned by the CE at the Assembly suggest we are targeting around 65,000 public housing units. These figures are somewhat puzzling.
First, the latest figures for housing (2016) indicate that just over 30,000 families live in public housing. Such numbers seem to suggest that more than 20 per cent of available units are vacant. Why this might be the case, and what underpins the (seemingly urgent) need for new units deserved, therefore, requires an explanation.
Then, bear in mind that some 60 per cent of residents’ families live in (non-public) units owned by themselves or their employers and that non-residents cannot apply for public housing. The public housing targets suggested will likely equal or exceed the remaining number of families. How might that be justified in the absence of widespread destitution? In a city that boasts one of the highest incomes on Earth?
That is, to say the least, perplexing. A clarification would be welcome.
*Economist and permanent contributor to MNA
