Editorial | Clear the air on Clarendon land issue

Problems around land ownership have been shaped by various aspects of our history, and some land disputes have had deadly consequences.

As the landless move from informal occupation to acquisition and ultimately to titled ownership, disputes have arisen in the process, pitting sellers against buyers, including family members and neighbours. These disputes continue till today.

Recently, we have seen land disputes flare up in St Thomas, St Catherine and Clarendon. One of these disputes which has been simmering over the years, now appears to be nearing boiling point. We refer to the dispute in Glenmuir Heights, which has seemingly thrust the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) on a collision course with the Clarendon Municipal Corporation (CMC).

About three years ago, land purchasers in Glenmuir Heights learned that their plots fell within a ‘no-build zone’. This, despite the fact that many of them bought their land with mortgages provided by the National Housing Trust (NHT).

The first question that arises is whether proper due diligence was done on behalf of the prospective investors. Surely risks, including environmental ones, would have been identified and quantified as part of the due diligence process required for approving a mortgage. There is also a question for the CMC, how did the original landowner secure approval to sell these lots which were deemed not appropriate for housing?

We understand the importance of land ownership to ordinary folk, and the prospect of receiving a title in their hand can far outstrip other practical considerations, which is why the CMC, NHT and related agencies are mandated to protect potential investors and temper their enthusiasm with doses of reality. The fact that a piece of property has found a willing purchaser does not mean that the deal will automatically go through.

SOUND REASONS

Far from protecting the buyers, however, what is evident is that the authorities were responsible for thrusting them into a dilemma and possibly shattering their dreams of homeownership.

The CMC would have had sound, technical reasons for forbidding construction in the area. We would expect them to have availed themselves of the best engineering advice in coming to that decision. In any event, Clarendon has had its share of woes with flooding associated with extreme weather events, and so we can understand the insistence that ‘no-build zone’ means just that.

The latest twist in this saga, however, is that one buyer has reportedly appealed directly to the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). The news is now emerging that this particular buyer has apparently received the go-ahead to build.

Understandably, this high-handed approach has upset some members of the CMC as well as other land buyers. Should this be seen as OPM putting the local authority in its place by overriding its decision? And what about the other homebuyers?

It is just that relief should come to the buyers. It is just that, after three years, practical efforts should be made to resolve the problem. It may be that ‘dumping’ up the land could correct the default, but this has to be carefully worked out. And in that vein, the original seller could be asked to contribute to the solution. Relief should come to everyone since they are basically all in the same boat. There should be clear actionable steps arrived at in a transparent manner.

All the parties involved should agree on a path towards resolution. There are mechanisms for mediation and these should be employed.