Editorial | Land and right of ownership

It must have been well known that in this matter, Jamaica's churches enjoyed no insulation. But the revelation that several denominations have lost hundreds, if not thousands, of acres of land to squatters has brought the spotlight back to a social, political and legal problem that is in need of urgent attention.

Jamaicans, of course, understand in broad sketches. We know, for instance, that somewhere between 700,000 and 900,000 people, or between a quarter and one-third of the island's population, live in squatter or informal communities, and that many people who don't squat have no title to the land they occupy. That's part of the legacy of the island's history of slavery and, perhaps, of rapid urbanisation over the last six decades or so.

The problem tells, too, in the absence of physical and social infrastructure in many communities, of the decay within which swathes of people survive, and in the inability of people, in the absence of titles to their property, to unlock wealth. The economy, in the circumstance, suffers.

We don't often have the other side of the story - the effect on those who lose land to squatters, who are sometimes ordinary people who worked hard to earn the money to acquire land, or institutions engaged in spiritual spheres.

In last week's report, for instance, the Moravian Church reported that squatters, going back to the 1970s, had captured 435 of a 500-acre property it owned in Lititz, St Elizabeth. That's 87 per cent of the estate.

"Over the years, persons have taken over sections of the property, and after a certain time, if they have been paying land taxes, they can secure titles," said Anthony Tomlinson, the head of the Church's property division.

While they have not yet quantified how much, the Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, Roman Catholics and even the newer evangelical denominations have also lost property to squatters. "... Too often, what is coming across is a kind of disregard for just any framework of respect for laws and land ownership," lamented Karl Johnson, the general secretary of the Jamaica Baptist Union.

The clear implication here is the need to balance property rights and social need.

With regard to the latter, Peter Phillips, the opposition leader, has promised that a future People's National Party (PNP) administration would use up to J$10 billion in unclaimed refunds at the National Housing Trust to fund the upgrading of informal settlements, as well as urban renewal. Prime Minister Andrew Holness, too, has pledged to accelerate the long-standing land-title project, as well as the Government's urban-renewal programme. A census of squatter and informal communities is also planned.

We agree with these initiatives - ongoing and proposed.

But out of empathy with the poor, notwithstanding, we appreciate the Baptist Union's Karl Johnson's concern that squatters are sometimes driven by "callousness and a sense of entitlement", often facilitated by politicians.

EQUITY NEEDED

Owners of land can be vigilant in protecting their property against claims to their property by adverse possession after its occupation for a dozen years. But in the event it happens, we agree with those who propose, as have at least two Jamaican judges, that there be equity.

Last year, when the Court of Appeal ruled against a land owner who had lost a portion of his property to squatters, Justice Patrick Brook agreed that the result was "not the happiest" outcome for complainant, who had paid "a not insignificant sum" for the premises. "It is perhaps time for the legislature to consider this matter."

In an earlier case, in which the land owner won, Justice Ingrid Mangatal, quoting the Privy Council's Lord Binghamton on the unfairness of someone, by way of adverse possession, "obtaining title to this considerable area of valuable land without any obligation to compensate the former owner in any way at all", suggested that it "may well be high time for our legislators to re-examine the law of adverse possession, certainly in relation to registered land, and to effect legislative changes similar to those which have occurred in England".

We agree.