At first hearing the announcement carried a Christmassy sound; like jingle bells signaling the imminent arrival of Santa bearing gifts for everyone: nutty and nice. Surrounded by labeled microphones and digital cameras, the smiling spokesman said: “This government, in an effort at further exhibiting its election mantra of putting people first, announces yet another act of utmost goodwill. An act that will put approximately $4.2 million in the pockets of Saint Lucians, relieving them of outstanding debt.”
Just what he meant would soon be clear but at first utterance it seemed Santa’s mischievous elves may have mixed up the packages labeled “nice” with those marked “toys for the boys.”
He went on to say the multi-million-dollar relief package was in addition to “the multiplicity of deeds by this government including, but not limited to, the 5,000 households soon to receive cable-TV and Wifi, the $500 bursary to first-formers, the reintroduction of the laptop program and the payment of facility fees for all secondary school students.”
As if he sensed confusion in the room, he elaborated: “The government, through the National Housing Corporation, has considered and agreed to nullify, yes, nullify, all outstanding debts of all tenants currently in occupation of the CDC units, whether residential or commercial, up to the end of September 2021.”
Santa’s sleigh seemed to bump into a tautological pothole, momentarily throwing the driver slightly off course. “As a caring government,” he said, “we recognize that the COVID pandemic did not impact on some but impacted on all. And in that regard this reprieve is granted irrespective of one’s political affiliation.” Did he mean to imply that without COVID-19 in the air, citizens connected to a particular political party would’ve been denied the Yuletide reprieve?
Returning to CDC “tenants of commercial areas” whose business activities had been hit by the pandemic, he said: “They could’ve hardly fended for themselves, far less pay their rent. And in that regard the government felt the compunction to come to their rescue.”
It turns out that even in Santaville there’s no such thing as a free lunch. “There are only two conditions attached to this gratuitous deed,” he warned. “All tenants must pay their rent for the months of October and November. Once that is done, all tenants will get relief for December.”
Again he elaborated: “So long as you pay your rent for October and November, no tenant is expected to pay rent in December. Christmas has come early at the hands of this caring government.” He neglected to say what would be the fate of chronic freeloaders who continued to default not only in October and November but also in December. Will they be kicked out of their units, dragged before a court, denied the generous reprieve?
As for the second qualifier: “Tenants will have to sign a new lease agreement come January, when the government will start afresh. All tenants will have to sign new leases. Delinquency will no longer be tolerated; neither subletting.”
Whether commercial or residential, he said in a voice less reminiscent of Santa than of the grinch that stole Christmas, their new leases will be “in the name of the occupants. We have to put a stop, once and for all to subletting. Sometimes the person that appears to be the tenant, his or her name is nowhere on the lease. We will tighten up the lease agreements and ensure that whoever are the lessors are also the occupants of the units.”
He promised soon to focus his attention on the Castries market and on the nearby Vendors Arcade.
A final reminder: “As a caring government, we have helped the tenants by relieving them of a total of approximately $4.2 million. The obligation is now for the tenants to help themselves by being responsible.”
The press conference featured live on at least one talk show. Judging by its chat-room buzz, the early Christmas gesture on the part of the “caring” and “gratuitous government” was well appreciated. Comments included: “Bless your heart!” “God bless you, good man!” “This is what good government looks like!”
One spoilsport senator dared later to disagree. In consequence Santa abandoned his reputed penchant for making spirits rise, however cold, to rain fire and brimstone on his critic’s head, all the while feigning difficulty with her name: “Fairy? Phara? Whatever?”
Still questions remain. How did tenants of the CDC buildings escape paying rent for countless years, even as they demanded renovations, fresh coats of paint and so on? Whose responsibility was it to collect the rent or to evict persistent defaulters? Were they in cahoots with our trusted managers, in an unspeakable votes in exchange for rent scheme, perhaps? And what about our audit departments? Were they all asleep at the wheel?
Of course it has long been common knowledge—de kolcha, some might say—that many CDC tenants occupy their premises rent-free, while leasing out their own manses in gated high-rent communities. Or, as was noted at the press conference, subletting their CDC units and pocketing the rent.
Considering the possible political fallout, by making last week’s announcement the government demonstrated uncommon courage. It would’ve been instructive, nevertheless, to hear how the government’s accountants arrived at that magic $4.2 million figure. After all, this rent-free racket had been operating nonstop from the earliest days of the late Central Castries MP, Sir George Mallet. Succeeding administrations had all perpetuated the fraud.
As difficult as it may be, let us try to imagine We the People as the de facto owners of the CDC units, with successive governments as our well-paid managers. Would We the People, without question, fork out over some sixty years dollars by the millions, for renovations, new units, regular maintenance and so on? And when, on the verge of bankruptcy, We the People are forced to take desperate action, what would we do should our unit managers publicly announce early Christmas millions for the very defaulters that had rendered We the People near destitute? Yes, what would we do if indeed we had options?
Why do the recently announced arrangements apply only to the current occupiers of the CDC units? Why not also the countless other defaulters going back close to the early sixties? Shouldn’t the unauthorized subletters, then and now, also be required by the state to show slate?
