Stop Me If You've Heard This Before

I hear the Government is conducting a poll asking for our opinions on Bermuda's housing problem. I'm sure they'd like as much feedback as possible, so here are my answers to some of the questions they're supposedly asking:

How serious is the housing problem in Bermuda overall?

Well, there can be little doubt that it's one of the Island's most pressing challenges.

What are the most critical housing issues?

Hmm. I'd say the provision of adequate and affordable housing and rental units for Bermudians.

What group of people is in most need of housing?

Those without houses, probably.

What does Government need to do to address the housing problem?

How about constructing two, three and four bedroom manufactured emergency homes; increasing the housing stock and the number of rooming houses by renovating identified derelict and vacant premises; executing a phased rehabilitation and renovation of existing housing within the responsibility of the Government Quangos; developing a Housing Information Management System; providing duty relief on imported building materials to be used in approved housing schemes; eliminating the death tax on the primary family homestead; and establishing community based housing for newly released prisoners?

If only you'd asked me earlier you could have put all this in your Social Agenda.

Oh wait, you did.

Comments

[Homunculus on 03.05.05 at 20:50]

I actually took the survey last week, and did not take it in such a cynical manner. The questions it asks do appear relevant and valuable to me, mainly because they actually ask demographic data at the same time. There is the perception that housing is real bad right now, but the type of questions asked should be able to take the Government beyond the anecdotal evidence. How which and how many people feel it is how bad is what it seeks to do. They should be able to see responses based upon level of income, nationality, size of family and so on. Without the data the Government could end up building too little or too much.

I think asking these questions is fundamental to moving forward, and demonstrates depth beyond the superficial government we always chastise them for.

[big bad wolf on 03.05.05 at 21:21]

My name is big bad ^..^ I do not have a housing need ...Although could you plant more trees....after the questions are answered Lets have another meeting.

[CB on 04.05.05 at 10:36]

Much as I think that this Government could have done more to ease the housing crunch, the problem did not start in Nov 98.

There were several attempts at low cost housing before this. Non with any great success.

[Somers on 04.05.05 at 10:47]

Unfortunately the price of housing in Bermuda will always be high due to the high cost of land in which to build and high costs of getting designers to design you a house. All materials need to be imported, and the Planning Dept's bureaucracy is expensive too, and there is way too much bureaucracy in that system...

[Steve Moffat on 04.05.05 at 10:59]

Build more houses, watch the demand for accomodation drop, can't get the big rents anymore.........can't pay the mortgage anymore.........

Solution....just talk about building more houses

[CB on 04.05.05 at 11:26]

The population hasn't increased too much in the last 2 decades yet the demand for housing has increased dramatically. Price outstripping inflation every year. What gives and what is the answer?

I remember my parents in the early 70's deciding not to buy a house in case the real estate bubble burst. That $50K house would now be about 2 million easy.

[Bill Zuill on 04.05.05 at 11:37]

With reference to CB's question, part of the answer is in the 2000 Census. The number of homes between 1991 and 2000 increased by six percent while the number of households rose by 12 percent. You can also see The Royal Gazette's editorial today (http://www.theroyalgazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050504/OPINION/105040076) for thoughts on the survey questions.

[big bad wolf on 04.05.05 at 11:52]

Thanks Bill....I read the RG ---every day.In depth survey is needed to define exact housing requirements. The most important thing is the public and private sectors response to those survey results....Also there has been a huge growth in the white collar job sector pushing all prices up. ^..^

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 04.05.05 at 13:55]

Just a question here, "What in Bermuda is classified as low-cost housing?" From talking to a very good friend of mine who is a contractor he advised that the average charge to build a home is around $275 to $300 per square foot.

This means that the cost to build an 1,800 sqaure foot house is between $495,000 and $540,000. This does not include the purchase price for the property nor does it include architectural fees. Including these costs surely puts the house at around $800,000. Is this low cost? If so, low cost for who?

Even if a contract charges $180 to $200 per square foot (Are there any contractors that will build, or can afford to build for less?) the minimum cost for the house alone is $324,000 and including land and architectural fees that number goes to about $600,000.

I would be interested to see what the Bermuda definition of low-cost housing is and can those who need housing even afford these costs?

Rather then my cousin Wayne Furbert standing up and complaining, why has he and the rest of the UBP not put forward a proposal to solve the housing crisis in Bermuda? Could it be that it is politically easier to criticise than it is to come up with a real solution?

As CB said, this is not an issue that occurred after 1998 and it is made even worse by the astronomical rise in prices of real estate since about 2000.

One solution would be to use 200 acres and create 800 1/4 acre lots on the former baseland in St. Davids and sell them as a package (property and home) at significantly below market to those persons who otherwise would not qualify for a mortgage.

The first complaint would be that this will create a glut of houses and woulld have a negative impact on the value of the other houses in the area.

Secondly, Realtors would complain because the project would remove potential clients from the market.

The third complaint would be that creating a low-cost housing project such as this would create a ghetto.

The reality is that land is available and there is a housing crisis so why not use what's available?

[Edwardo on 04.05.05 at 14:01]

Low cost housing is about as realistic as a Unicorn. So, if we want to throw in some goofey ideas in the hope of maybe hitting paydirt from some inventive mind -how about this;
we buy a mothballed aircraft carrier from the US surplus supplies. We anchor it off dockyard somewhere. We temporarily move in some of Casemates residents as paid live-on help to convert cabins to more spacious accomodations.The spacious deck becomes a sports area. The gigantic power plant could be converted to help supply the West End with electricity.
Edwardo.

[CB on 04.05.05 at 14:16]

I recall that the Convict Bay development was supposed to be low cost and the first 2 buildings were pre-fab. They were low cost until they arrived on the dock. Then you had duty, delivery, erection etc etc. Guess what? They were no longer low cost. The remaining blocks were therefore built in the traditional Bermuda fashion.

In the US you have low cost housing in the form of mobile homes and such. There is nothing like that here and therefore low income families can't afford anything. Now I'm not suggesting trailer parks - but does anyone have a better idea?

[Somers on 04.05.05 at 14:22]

Guilden - the UBP did have a housing plan at the time of the last election... pity the electorate didn't ask them to put their money where their mouth was.
Instead we have had years of planless nothing and a useless govn't still trying to find out what the problem is.

[Martin on 04.05.05 at 14:56]

Not sure that I accept what I was told the other day by a friend in the business, but the expectation is that by 2007 rents will start to fall.

Apparently, despite the increase in ex-pat jobs, the growth will fall short to the expected available rental stock at the time.

Sounds fishy to me...go figure. Just thought I would pass it on.

[Steve Moffat on 04.05.05 at 14:57]

Re Zone one of the golf clubs....:)

[CB on 04.05.05 at 15:01]

The only 2 things that could cause rents to fall are:

A huge increase in supply, or a huge decrease in demand.

The first just ain't gonna happen - there's no more land. If the second happens it means thousands have left these shores because something devastating has happened which affected the very fabric of our society.

[Steve Moffat on 04.05.05 at 15:20]

More than anything else housing and the lack thereof annoys me most about Bermuda.

Excuses for why they can't build, are just that, excuses.

If the government, whether UBP,PLP or G Outerbridge, wanted to build houses then why haven't they, what is W&E for? weeding the roads?

Why can't government build on the scale of Sir John Swan??

Lack of Land? Come off it, Hamilton on it's own has multiple empty sites crying out for compulsory purchase.

What about the derelict houses at Dockyard, what about the annexe, not all of it is contaminated, big empty house at Rockaway too.

The "housing crisis" could be solved within a year, by the government, for the people of Bermuda.

Over 100 Million Dollars for a school, how many houses could that have built?

Yes the price of building a house is high, but if a builder had 10 or 20 houses to build wouldn't the price come down.

If the BHT could do it for all those years why can't government do it now?

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 04.05.05 at 15:46]

Somers,

Can you tell me what the UBP housing plan was?

[CB on 04.05.05 at 16:31]

Good point Guilden.

1. Acknowledge the problem by saying, "Oh dear."

2. Immediately do nothing.

3. Wait to see if things improve.

4, Repeat if necessary.

[hester fan on 04.05.05 at 16:39]

Guilden - they outlined it in the 2003 election, the 2004 Reply to the Throne Speech, and I'm sure they mentioned it at least in the Reply to the Budget speech.

The tag line was 100 homes for affordable rental within two years, along with, for example (directly from the reply to the throne speech):

* encourage private construction of affordable housing in special development zones through tax and other incentives

* liberalise building height restrictions for special housing initiatives

* set aside 25 acres of former baselands at tudor hill for affordable residential development

* examine all government property from St. Geo to Somerset to ID further land resources available for affordable housing

* work with financial institutions and developers to create a financing package that supports low interest rate mortgages and rent to buy schemes

* pursue the use of modular construction technology to lower costs of new housing

* significantly reduce the death tax on the primary residence (Government did away with that one themselves)

* make affordable housing a priority in the forthcoming Bermuda Development Plan

* continue with the programme to renovate derelict housing

Government is now doing several of these. Of course the UBP as a party can't do much now anyway but talk, but I don't know how much individual party members are doing on their own initiative to take steps towards easing the housing crisis ... but anyway that's the bare bones of their plan. Hope it helps!

[Somers on 04.05.05 at 16:48]

Thanks Hestor, nuff said.

[sleepy on 04.05.05 at 16:49]

listen to yourself Guilden. You're never short on opinions but more often than not woefully ignorant of what's going on.

[Bill Cook on 04.05.05 at 17:03]

With regard to the cost of housing today as opposed to yesteryear the general concensus is that it is more expensive to build now plus land is more expensive also.

Is that a reality based on more than guesswork?

Surley it should not be impossible to look at the cost of your average 2 bedroom 2 bath 2500 sq ft house on a 1/4 acre lot back in 1965 and the same to day.

We would need to compare the salary then and see if divided into the total cost how many yrs it would take to pay for it.

Leave out the interest as it may vary.

We would obviously need to compare similar jobs etc.

Its not perfect but is a reasonable guideline.

I personally did the exercise and found that we are actually better off now, and that Bermuda realty was up to 5 yrs ago a bargain.

I am no mathmatician so others may be and if so it would be interesting to hear from them.

Supply and demand will dictate availability and cost and it looks like that due to the volume of units being built we may indeed find a temporary glut that may indeed see a fall in
rental costs. This in 1 or 2 yrs from now.

At present of ALL Bermudians app 50% own the houses they live in ie whites and non whites.

This is fairly reflective of comparisons in the UK and US I understand, as we have a similar broad middle class here as seen by looking at the 2000 census figures.

[Homunculus on 04.05.05 at 21:47]

Mr. Zuill,

Congratulations on your editorial today. Based on my rudimentary understanding of surveys, the questions you point out can be answered by the questions in the survey. Sometimes the UBP's political zeal to get back into power can cloud their thinking. I believe that this was the case with Mr. Furbert on Monday.

I'd also like to hear more details about the UBP's housing plan. Without any real data to support their initiatives, they stand to run into many of the same problems as the PLP. What they've called a housing plan really is a simple list of general ideas that anyone could put together, sort of like top things to do if you see fire: Call 911, yell for help, get out of the burning house, use water and so on. If the survey results are publicised, it would help them come up with a better strategy too.

[big bad wolf on 04.05.05 at 22:33]

Didnt realize I was supposed to have a housing plan for the country....However ^..^ is actively helping Habitat for Humanity. In depth survey to define housing needs for the country makes sense. Many families need other social help beyond just a good house. Each case needs to be shaped to the needs and financial ability on an individual bases.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 05.05.05 at 08:52]

Sleepy,

"listen to yourself Guilden. You're never short on opinions but more often than not woefully ignorant of what's going on."

My opinion was not based on what the UBP did or did not do it was based on what I thought may have been a viable solution. With regard to matters like this I do not base my opinions off what someone else has or has not said or done, I base it off what I believe can be done. I do not need to know what the UBP has said or done in order for me to express my opinion on this issue.

[ace on 05.05.05 at 09:05]

Just a quick comment. One of the girls in our office asked me if I had seen the new survey being discussed here. I told her that I had.

She is/was a die-hard PLP supporter. She turned to me and said "When I read it the very last scrap of respect I had for the PLP disappeared."

Don't attack me for this...I'm just the messenger.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 05.05.05 at 09:25]

Homunculus,

"What they've called a housing plan really is a simple list of general ideas that anyone could put together, sort of like top things to do if you see fire:"

I agree with you. Anyone can make a list of promises but it is the details of how those promises will be fulfilled and the viability of them that give them any credibility.

I do recall the plan regarding low interest mortgages and I also seem to recall some backlash because it appeared that the banks, in offering this, were backing a particular political party. I believe the banks eventually came out with a statement distancing themselves from this proposal.

"encourage private construction of affordable housing in special development zones through tax and other incentives"

What are the incentives? There is only so much margin in the construction industry to work with.

"set aside 25 acres of former baselands at tudor hill for affordable residential development"

What is the definition of affordable housing from a dollar perspective?

[J Galt on 05.05.05 at 09:33]

"One solution would be to use 200 acres and create 800 1/4 acre lots on the former baseland in St. Davids and sell them as a package (property and home) at significantly below market to those persons who otherwise would not qualify for a mortgage."

Why would you want to reward someone for their inability to succeed? Don't make it profitable to be a slacker, let those who are able and willing reap the rewards of thier labour. Those that can't make a living here should leave.

Citizenship should be based on merit.

[Peanut on 05.05.05 at 09:56]

"Just a quick comment. One of the girls in our office asked me if I had seen the new survey being discussed here. I told her that I had.

She is/was a die-hard PLP supporter. She turned to me and said "When I read it the very last scrap of respect I had for the PLP disappeared."

It's a telephone survey, so if she "read it" she must have been talking about the Oppositions tirade in the newspaper.

[Bill Cook on 05.05.05 at 10:24]

That rarest of commodities "common sense" should by now have taught us that our land mass is unlikely to expand and we are rapidly losing our green areas.

It would make sense to go up rather than out and whether we address that now or later it is eventually inevitable.

If we had a 10 storey hexagon with 5 units per floor on a 10 acre lot as opposed to 50 1/4 acre separate houses on 12.5 acres it would make more sense ecologically leaving so much more green space as park land gardens etc.

These blocks could have central air conditioning water supply and proper treated sewag,and other common benefits.

Accommodation for temporary foreign labour shoud have been looked at long ago, and old hotels made to house single people, and large construction companies doing long term work had prefab temp. facilities for their workers.

What it seems is a total lack of forward planning, as though we are always surprised at our rapid growth rather than prepared for it.

[shipstones on 05.05.05 at 10:40]

In 1969, I was earning 1,500 Pounds in UK.
At 1 shilling a pint, I could afford 30,000 beers!
If I earned $150,000 now at 5$ per beer, I could afford 30,000 beers!

Doesn't seem we've come very far!

[J Galt on 05.05.05 at 10:58]

Bill,

Going up is not the answer. The answer is removing the people that breed like roaches, and can't afford to house their spawn, let alone educate them, so they will be able to provide for themselves as well as being productive members of socitey. We have limited resoures and land if is far more logical that it goes to those who earn in and in turn produce. Why try to house the poor? So they will have a nice place to put the items they steal from your home will you are out making a living for youself??

Educate or terminate.

[shipstones on 05.05.05 at 11:05]

Galt you make me puke!

[Actung Darwin on 05.05.05 at 11:55]

Seems like we have a self-appointed member of the master elite who spent a little too much time reading Mein Kampf.

[ace on 05.05.05 at 12:21]

It's a telephone survey, so if she "read it" she must have been talking about the Oppositions tirade in the newspaper.

She must have asked if I had "heard" about it..I only knew about it from reading this blog. Paper delivery has been "spotty" recently so I don't know what the opposition has said, or not said about the issue.

[Steve Moffat on 05.05.05 at 12:23]

What about land reclamation?

The Americans did it for the airport.

We could take all of the worlds Crap and charge them to dump it here.....:)

[Peanut on 05.05.05 at 13:31]

"She must have asked if I had "heard" about it..I only knew about it from reading this blog. Paper delivery has been "spotty" recently so I don't know what the opposition has said, or not said about the issue."

It's unlikely that someone who merely took the survey would see it as the final nail in the PLP's coffin. Most likely she read Wayne Furbert's attempt to rip the Govt a new one on the RG front page this Monday. To me he came across sounding remarkably histrionic. To add more insult to injury, even the newspaper editor questioned the merits of Furbert's response in the following day's editorial. It's just another day in politics.

[CB on 05.05.05 at 14:12]

In the 60's there was a plan to fill in parts of Hamilton harbour so that some of the islands would become a new neighbourhood. There are various other areas which could be looked at too. Its either this or build upwards.

[ace on 05.05.05 at 14:16]

Well, I just clarified it with her...she said (and I quote) "They were talking about it on the radio."

Sorry, you can't pin this one on an anti-PLP tirade in the RG.

[J Galt on 05.05.05 at 14:50]

"We could take all of the worlds Crap and charge them to dump it here...."

We've got to much of that as it is, we need to get rid of the crap.

Shipstones,

puke away, after your done try and prove me wrong.

[CB on 05.05.05 at 15:07]

I think Ships was joking. : - )

Anyway I guess we need to create a Ghetto. Just not near me OK.

BTW - I'm in Paget.

[Peanut on 05.05.05 at 21:31]

"Well, I just clarified it with her...she said (and I quote) "They were talking about it on the radio."

Sorry, you can't pin this one on an anti-PLP tirade in the RG."

1+1=2. The Opposition wouldn't have only launched their tirade in the newspapers. As usual, they would have used radio and television interviews too. "They" would likely have been Wayne Furbert castigating the PLP on the radio. Obviously she did not draw her conclusion from the content of the survey, but from the Opposition's politicking.

[ace on 06.05.05 at 08:02]

I'm having trouble understanding your need to "pin" this on politicking. (Of course spending public funds on surveys that ask the most blatantly obvious questions and then using this as evidence of consulting with the public is not politicking).

I guess you are assuming this person does not have a mind of her own and has been "duped" by the opposition.

How sad.

[Peanut on 07.05.05 at 09:19]

Initially you wrote, "One of the girls in our office asked me if I had seen the new survey being discussed here. I TOLD HER THAT I HAD." And in a subsequent post you wrote, "She must have asked if I had "heard" about it. I ONLY KNEW ABOUT IT FROM READING THIS BLOG. Paper delivery has been "spotty" recently so I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OPPOSITION HAS SAID, or not said about the issue."

First you claim to have seen the survey when you hadn't, and you haven't even read what the Opposition has had to say about it. Your entire position is based on what you've read in the blog and the responses to it. And you say that I'm the one trying to pin it on politicking? Your "trouble" is that your opinion is not based on the content of the survey nor the Opposition's response to it. That makes you even less informed than the girl.

So spare me the psychobabble and accept the simple facts. Most people do not develop vitriolic responses to telephone surveys, but they are however easily whipped into a frenzy by party politicking. Yet you expect us to believe that a die-hard party follower took the survey and lost the last scrap of respect they had for a party. That just doesn't add up.

The Opposition has been on a weekly rampage for the last six months, and they use the entire media. This is a basic fact. But this time they got it wrong - Even the RG editor called the Opposition on it. It hardly matters though when people are gullible. That's what the Opposition intended to do, and in the case of you and your co-worker, they succeeded. Try harder next time.

[ace on 07.05.05 at 10:02]

lol...nice rant.

I read about it here. She heard about it on the radio. Why do you have a problem with that? I never said she did the survey. I thought she had said "seen it" when she meant "heard about it". That is the depth of any deception you seem to be trying to point out.

I'm not going to defend what she said...as I mentioned before I am just the messenger.

[Peanut on 07.05.05 at 10:32]

"I read about it here. She heard about it on the radio. Why do you have a problem with that? I never said she did the survey."

It's not depth of deception - it's shallowness of opinion. One who has "seen" the survey would be far more qualified to comment on its merits or lack of substance than someone who has merely "heard about it" from the Opposition or a blog. People need to stop being led around by politicians and party hacks, as was the case of you and your colleague.

Do yourself a favour and read the Opposition's reaction for yourself - the link is in this very thread. Then read the RG Editorial, and if possible, find out what the questions were. Failing to do so makes you a hollow messenger, and we have far too many of those already.

[ace on 07.05.05 at 11:46]

The co-worker I am referring to is a single mother with three children who is desparately trying to find somewhere to live...RIGHT NOW.

I suspect she is totally fed up with seeing scheme after scheme fall apart and promises of new housing broken time after time.

Her's is not a shallow opinion peanut..the housing crisis is REALITY for this person. I doubt she has time to read editorials. She works full time with us and part time at a grocery store 20 hours a week trying to make ends meet.

Now...I'm done here. You can play all the word games you like, blame the opposition and the media for "politicking" all you want to also. It doesn't change the fact that surveys do not build houses. They simply cost money and waste time.

[Peanut on 07.05.05 at 17:23]

"Now...I'm done here. You can play all the word games you like, blame the opposition and the media for "politicking" all you want to also. It doesn't change the fact that surveys do not build houses. They simply cost money and waste time."

I don't blame the media for what happened here. They called the Opposition on the criticism of the survey, but this means nothing to you. This was unadulterated politicking at its finest. It's blatantly obvious. Why don't you just do us all a favour and read the information available and come up with an opinion based on facts? All you're doing is holding steadfast to a position without having reviewed any of the sources. I'd respect your opinion if it wasn't unsubstantiated, but that is exactly what it is.

So surveys are a waste of time? Listen genius - If the Government was to tomorrow start building 100 single dwelling units in each voting constituency, costing $500k, to be sold at $350k each, exactly how well is this going to address the housing needs without screwing over the economy? Too little, too much, too low, too high? Being that we are all experts and have no need for surveys and other tools that can help us understand the problem, why don't you tell us exactly what Government needs to do to fix the situation?

I'm listening.

[ace on 07.05.05 at 18:03]

My my..temper temper.

Answer me this genius:

If this survey was going to provide all of the valuable and vital information needed to do SOMETHING about the housing crisis why wait SEVEN YEARS to do it?

Also, why have projects such as "Homes for People" and others started (only to fall apart), with the blessing of the government, without this vital information?

I'm listening.

[Peanut on 07.05.05 at 19:20]

Temper, temper... subterfuge, still hasn't read the available information for himself, won't stick to the facts. Talk about a lost cause.

I'm not here to defend the PLP's innumerable mistakes - I couldn't. I wouldn't attempt such a task for the UBP either. What I am supporting is Government action that's based on an acute understanding of the challenges, while also advocating that the electorate not believe everything they hear that pops out of politicians' mouths, no matter who the politician is. If the PLP were to drop off the face of the earth, I'd expect any future party to treat an issue this serious in a measured fashion.

If researching the housing problem is unnecessary as you say, please tell us what the answer to the housing problem is. Obviously you have all the answers, so please spill it for us.