Balancing compassion, law at Bellevue Gap

The government’s decision to regulate and upgrade the squatter settlement at Bellevue Gap, Station Hill, has sparked some very strong feelings. For some, it is an important act of compassion that finally gives more than 200 people, many of them poor, vulnerable, and immigrants, a chance at stability. For others, it is an example of the State rewarding wrong and setting a troubling precedent for landowners and communities who follow the rules.
At the centre of this debate is a simple but serious question: How do we balance human need with fairness, law, and environmental protection?

 

Over the past few years, the Bellevue Gap settlement has mushroomed. People built houses, some wooden, some concrete, even two-storey structures, on the privately owned land of the Mansour family.

 

Despite attempts by the Planning and Development Department to stop construction, the village continued to expand. Now, the government is negotiating to buy and subdivide part of the land, install water mains, build roads, install street lights, and create proper sewage systems for the area.

 

From a humanitarian point of view, it is easy to see why such action feels right. People need a place to live. Many of the squatters likely had nowhere else to go, especially during the economic challenges of recent years.
Providing potable water and proper sewage connections protects not only them but also the surrounding communities. And as Senior Minister William Duguid pointed out, modern infrastructure will help reduce contamination risks by linking sewage to the Bridgetown Treatment Plant.

 

But this situation also highlights the social and environmental pressures that the island continues to face. For decades, housing shortages, rising land prices, and limited rental options have pushed people into desperate situations.

 

Many people simply cannot afford to buy land or qualify for a mortgage. Non-nationals, who often earn lower wages and live in more precarious conditions, are also part of this reality. Squatter settlements, while illegal, have become an example of deeper social problems.

 

The concerns raised by landowners like Robert Mansour should not be ignored. His family has owned the land since 1986. He says that when squatters first began building, he relied on the authorities to protect his property rights, but the problem grew and grew.

 

He also pointed to something many Barbadians worry about: if a private landowner tries to remove squatters, they risk being accused of harming people or damaging property. The government, however, can act swiftly on its own land. This challenge leaves private citizens feeling unprotected.

 

And then there is the issue of precedent. If the State purchases land every time squatters build illegally, what message does that send to others who play by the rules, pay their mortgages, and follow planning laws?

 

Will more people decide that the easiest way to get land is simply to occupy it and hope the government steps in later?

 

This fear is not unreasonable. The Mansours’ experience shows how quickly an illegal settlement can become permanent simply because removing it becomes expensive, or politically sensitive.

 

Another major issue is water-quality protection. Bellevue Gap was once classified as a Zone 1 water “prohibited” area — right on top of the nation’s main underground water supply — meaning that no building should have taken place at all. That zoning was changed in 2020 to “protected” but the concerns do not disappear. Installing proper sewage systems is a step in the right direction, but long-term monitoring is essential.

 

The situation is not hopeless, and it should not be treated as a simple case of wrong versus right. The challenge for government now is to create a clear, firm policy that balances compassion with law and fairness.

 

We suggest that the government establish a squatter regularisation policy that sets strict guidelines about who qualifies, under what circumstances, and what happens in environmentally sensitive areas. Regularisation must depend on safety, water protection, and whether landowners are willing partners. This would prevent confusion and help ensure that Bellevue does not become a model for new illegal settlements.

 

Bellevue is an indication of how difficult the housing situation is for low-income earners. There has to be more rent-to-own programmes and possibly micro-lots for low-income Barbadians.

 

Ignoring the housing problem will not make it disappear. The lesson from Bellevue is clear: that compassion must guide us, but rules must protect us. Both must work together for the nation to move forward.