Editorial | The revelations of Clifton

Last week’s demolition of several partially built homes in the community of Clifton, St Catherine, was the latest example of why the Government needs a simple, clear, inclusive and transparent land divestment policy, and of what happens when the State dithers in its responsibilities.

It is also a reminder of another government policy folly: its relentless push for greenfield suburban developments, such as its planned city on the country’s “most fertile … A-1 soil” at Bernard Lodge, rather than focusing on urban renewal.

Additionally, it is inexplicable why Prime Minister Andrew Holness was involved in this matter at this stage, being the one to make the case for the intended demolition of 30 houses in Parliament the day before it was to happen. He then, with 10 houses smashed, caused the exercise to be suspended on complaints that the Government might have acted on incomplete information, or may have behaved unfairly.

With Mr Holness being the initial interlocutor, it meant that there is no higher authority to appeal to, unless the matter reaches the courts. The strategy paints Mr Holness as author of the project, thus leaving him politically exposed from the start. That is neither good optics nor politics.

Clifton is part of the old Bernard Lodge Sugar Estate in St Catherine. Some years ago, several people settled illegally on, or, as it is called in Jamaica, captured part of the land. They have been building homes.

Supposedly, that informal settlement is in an area not suitable for growing crops. Across administrations, there have been efforts to regularise the community. The Government has put in infrastructure such as roads, water systems and electricity. And the owner of the land, the Sugar Company of Jamaica Holdings (SCJH), has been working to formally transfer lots to the earlier informal settlers with whom it has agreements.

CAUSE OF CONTENTION

The illegal occupation that is now the cause of contention is of more recent vintage. The encroachment, apparently, is on a section of the estate earmarked for agriculture. Except, the occupiers do not see themselves as squatters. They paid good money, even if below market rates, for the land, to people who represented themselves as having the authority to sell. There are harrowing stories of people using all their savings and going into debt to build the houses that were uprooted or are threatened.

“Everything gone,” said Shaniel Francis, 23, of the $1.2 million and great sacrifice she put into the uncompleted home that was demolished.

However, Prime Minister Holness argued that the new Clifton settlement was sponsored by a criminal gang and could “not be allowed to stand”. Said Mr Holness: “It is not the first time that the Government of Jamaica has moved to rectify illegal settlements, but it is the first time that … an illegal settlement sponsored by a criminal gang will be treated with.”

The Clifton issue highlights several failures, one of which is the too-often willingness of Jamaicans to suspend disbelief and good sense and make themselves gullible to fraudsters. Although, in this case, it may be partly explained by the deep yearning by Jamaicans for land and home ownership, driven by the country’s economic and social history.

Moreover, the process of land acquisition, and titling, is a far too complicated and expensive process, daunting for even the most sophisticated private buyer and seller. How the Government goes about its own divestment, too, is generally too opaque for ordinary folk to be at the front of the queue. It is not surprising that they fall victim to schemes like Clifton. A new land policy is urgently needed.

PROTECTION OF THE STATE

But, even when people are stupid, they deserve the protection of the State – sometimes from themselves. There is a dispute over if, and when, the SCJH issued cease-and-desist and no-trespass orders to the squatters. But, assuming it did, the company cannot have been very aggressive. Many of the buildings that were taken down, or are slated for demolition, were substantial block-and-steel structures that would have taken weeks and months to build. It was not overnight.

The SCJH and the Government dithered in their intervention. After the first, second and third buildings, it would have been open season for others. It can only be an abject failure of intelligence and of law enforcement if the SCJH, the Government and the police only now found out that the Clifton land was being sold and the development was sponsored by “a criminal gang”.

At least the frontmen in this scam of selling state property should be recognisable and easily arrestable. There is no indication that this is as yet the case.

In addressing the Clifton issue, Mr Holness reminded of his new city project for Bernard Lodge, a development which, although scaled back, will mean the construction of 15,000 homes on over 1,500 acres on prime agricultural land. Another 269 acres of this “most fertile … A-1 soil” will be put under commercial real estate.

This is an error and an assault on Jamaica’s potential for food security. There are other marginal lands for such projects. In any event, Jamaica should first address urban renewal and making its towns more efficient, in its efforts to deal with its shelter problem.