May 05 - Government Defends Housing Allocation Process
The Government has described the Opposition’s criticism of the allocation process for the new affordable housing schemes as a “naked attempt” by Mr Feetham's party to “ride on the back of unsubstantiated rumours on social media” about alleged allocations, all of which, it stresses, “are untrue.”
The Government says it can do little more than to re-emphasise that the allocation is being carried out strictly in accordance with the Waiting List on 9 December 2011 – with “absolutely no exemptions.”
The Government explains that people with a high position on that List have already been interviewed and those with a lower position will still be waiting for their interview.
No-one, it says, has jumped the queue and “not a single exception” has been made. Thus far, 90 applicants have been interviewed and 85 of them have accepted the offer of a new home.
The Government categorically states that none of them were ‘upgraders', who will not be considered for allocations until the end of the process.
Rather than allocate in terms of Housing List criteria, the Government says the Opposition is arguing in favour of a public draw, thereby basing allocations on luck, resulting in a situation in which someone with the greatest need and the longest time on the list might not be given the chance to buy but a newcomer with low priority might win the lottery and qualify for a new home.
In the Waterport Terraces allocations by the GSD, says the Government, first those who could pay for 100% of the price were given the choice of properties, then those who could pay for 75% of the price were given the next choice. Those who could afford to only pay 50% had to take what was left. How, asks the Government, can that scheme possibly be fair when it is based on economic power and not on need or waiting time?
The Government pledges that, at the end of the process, it will publish a full list of all the allocated properties and the full Housing List of 9 December 2011. Everyone will then be able to judge for themselves, it says, the objective fairness of this process.
