Property owners must cherish their piece of the rock

Citizens who have the opportunity to own land in Barbados must count themselves among the privileged.

People from all corners of the world are prepared to shell out millions in some cases to own a few thousand square feet, especially if the land offers one of the many spectacular views of the coastlines.

The tightly packed properties along the West Coast, which is euphemistically described as the “Gold Coast” is a glaring example of the desirability of that long strip of beach-front property.

The stories abound of little old ladies being bombarded by attorneys for wealthy clients, dangling big cheques in an effort to get them to part with their chattel houses located on prime beach front land.

Today, the west coast is literally chock-a-block with few openings for the public to access the tranquil beaches and open windows to the sea. The result has been de facto private beaches for the rich and famous who can afford the exorbitant property prices that have resulted from the 180-degree shift in ownership.

In some cities in the United States, this controversial property-owning shift is referred to as the process of gentrification.

Black Barbadians were not, in the main, a property-owning class and this is a consequence of the country’s history of slavery and colonialism.

The majority of Barbadians were operating as second-class citizens in their homeland, and hundreds of years of resistance during slavery, postemancipation advocacy, rioting in the 1930s, and deliberate governmental policy shifts during the early post-independence era, have all combined to create the circumstance where many average citizens own a piece of the rock.

As much as we celebrate these developments, the fact remains that a particular group of Barbadians, though small in number, who started with an economic and social advantage, still control a sizeable portion of this island’s landscape.

It was often projected in the media that a now deceased local business mogul was the largest private landowner in the country. We must also recognise that a significant amount of land is also owned by The Crown (aka The Republic).

With the shifting demographic in Barbados, which is expected to undergo a significant alteration, given the stated urgent demand to increase the population size, there are some considerations to which people must give thought.

Barbados is not just seeking people to make up a number in the population statistics; the country wants people who can contribute to the economic growth of the country; people who have money to invest or have the potential to add value through their education and skills.

As has been discovered from the highly successful Welcome Stamp programme, many of the “digital nomad visitors” have moved to become Barbadian citizens and an undisclosed number have started businesses and purchased properties.

Land prices, according to experts in the real estate business, have remained elevated, though stable over the last four to five years, but the increased costs have been associated with construction.

With the current cost of land and rising construction costs, it is no surprise that many young people believe they are unlikely to be in a position to afford the purchase of a home.

This is why it is more than objectionable that people who have the privilege of owning a piece of these 166 square miles, would neglect that property and allow it to become a nuisance to the public by overgrowth with bush and even derelict structures.

It is unfair to neighbours and callous to have lands unkempt and a harbour for rodents, disease carrying mosquitoes and other vermin.

To address this situation, government has introduced amendments to the 1969 Health Services Act that would impose penalties on the tax bills of offending property owners.

While we concur with the Opposition Leader that such an amendment was likely to face a legal challenge to its legitimacy, those who are forced to reside near such overgrown lots, will be grateful for the action by government.

What we are also concerned about is the possibility that “poor” landowners, who may have inherited properties, but cannot afford to maintain them could be disenfranchised. We will not look fondly on a situation where people are taxed out of land ownership on account of being burdened by property taxes and penalties for failing to control overgrowth of grass and bush on their land.