Address fears over housing fund to secure buy-in from employers

The outrage that greeted the announcement of the commencement of deductions for the Housing Fund was not unexpected.

And even as employers cautioned that the order was unlawful, the reaction of the public accentuated the grave misgivings about the Affordable Housing- which together with food security, Universal Health Care and manufacturing form President Uhuru Kenyatta’s Big 4 Agenda.

To employers, a 1.5 per cent contribution on gross salary per employee is another cost too many in a hostile business environment where they have to grapple with high operational costs and a complex tax regime to boot; to the overburdened taxpayers, this will further erode their purchasing power and also feel (rightly) that the Fund is another conduit to steal their hard-earned cash.

And no less significant is the fact that going by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, putting food on the table rather than a house or getting to work cheaply and safely is more urgent to a person earning less than Sh20,000 than a house.

No doubt, the availability and affordability of housing is an important ingredient in economic development.

Considering the importance of housing - everyone wants to have a roof on top of their heads – many expected that government would go out of the way to address the sticky points in the housing proposal, if only to get a much needed buy-in especially from private employers. After all, most Kenyans are employed in the private sector. It seems as if government has adopted a take it or leave it attitude. That is wrong.

Moreover, many- including this newspaper- have questioned the wisdom of government’s involvement in such a venture as opposed to say, transport that offers a multiplier effect on the economy and on a much bigger scale.

Should government be involved in business? Would that government created the right environment for private business to thrive. Good practice is where government doesn’t engage in business.

In truth, hard-pressed workers pay exorbitantly for water, security, health, education and transport even as they pay PAYE and VAT. Services which the State has failed to provide or regulate adequately.

Shouldn’t the success rate on these others be a consideration?

Even though there is cashback guarantee after 15 years (with interest) for those deemed ineligible, many Kenyans are weary of government’s record on money refund.

Looked at another way, most of those opposed to the housing plan do it on the basis of what will be taken away from them and not what they will get in return- a house in well-planned surroundings with lighting, water and sewerage connection, security, good road connections and perhaps even a train to hitch a cheap ride to a shopping mall.

Secondly, what formula will be used to determine the most deserving of citizens? The slum upgrading programme in Nairobi offers sobering lessons on how not to do this.

Arguing that the homes will be allocated through a rotary is ridiculous in that luck does not follow need.

There is also the matter of the National Housing Corporation which was set up in 1953 for the same purpose. We should be considering why it failed despite the huge investment and the big demand for houses.