Money cannot be the only consideration in land policy

To say that Barbados’ land assets are limited would be an understatement. The state is the largest landowner, while significant tracts of land are in the hands of some of this country’s wealthiest and several foreigners.

The island’s history of plantocracy allowed for a situation to develop in which white, English residents and their descendants took control of some of the most desirable and productive parts of the country.

It has not been a completely one-sided picture, however. Strategic policy decisions arose from events such as the riots of the 1930s by a population demanding social and economic change, and the emergence of an organised labour movement.

The most critical of these shifts in the policy architecture of Barbados was the provision of free education and the establishment of the Cave Hill Campus of The University of the West Indies.

Together, they allowed for the economic elevation of the masses of poor, disenfranchised descendants of the enslaved from their circumstances. They also led to upward mobility at a level and pace that would not have ordinarily occurred.

With higher educational achievements came higher paying jobs, stability and access to mortgage loans by middle-income earners. These shifts expanded the island’s middle-class and was the impetus for scores of housing developments in urban districts across the island.

Of course, there are thousands of small landowners who prefer the ruggedness of rural life with its absence of the many covenant restrictions that imposed strictures on residents of posh housing estates.

The overarching question, however, that is emerging is that of the land use policy. The number of concerns, conflicts and competing economic and social interests do not make for a healthy situation.

On the one hand, government appears to be projecting an unwritten position that land must be used for its highest economic value – a missive of late Prime Minister Owen Seymore Arthur – and one that looks as though it is being concretised by the current administration.

Such a policy, though, suggests that priority will be given to those with the financial wherewithal to purchase property and do with it as they wish. In those circumstances, environmental, aesthetical, cultural and historical considerations stand little chance of displacing the money of foreign direct investors.

People who live along the revered west coast are happy that the world’s richest find their district so appealing that they want to live there, or that tourism-based enterprises and services have also gravitated to the west coast. They bring with them jobs and economic activity.

There is, however, another side that is unpleasant. Residents on the inland side of the coast are not pleased that they are forced to use uncomfortably narrow access paths to beaches that are less than 100 yards from their residences. They have come to accept, grudgingly, that 95 per cent of their ocean views will be forever obscured by the tall walls of the aristocrats who reside behind them.

The long-held policy of successive governments has been an open-door posture to land ownership and thus far it has not caused significant backlash from Barbadians. However, as more of the best natural views, productive lands, choice neighbourhoods and hitherto historically public spaces are being snapped up, the tensions are becoming more apparent.

There is no end of discussion about the administration’s plans to dispose of  St Ann’s Fort which forms a critical component of the United Nations World Heritage designation of Historic Bridgetown and its Garrison.  Other locations that are on the chopping block are the government complex at Oistins, housing the police station and magistrates’ court, and the historic Holetown complex where the police station, post office and other facilities are located.

The recurring characteristic in all three sites is their close proximity to the beach. All these are also heavily used public spaces and all three are expected to be occupied by tourism-based entities, reportedly owned by foreign investors.

The concern that many people have with the way how development is occurring in some areas, is the focus on short-term financial gains, with less consideration for the social impacts, not necessarily today, but the fallout that could occur 20 or 30 years from today.