THE EDITOR: Are we really serious about affordable houses in TT?
The proposed seven per cent increase in cement prices is a significant blow to an economy already struggling to diversify beyond its reliance on oil and gas. The irony of this is we are now importing fuel from Jamaica. This move exacerbates the challenges faced by various sectors, particularly real estate development, which is a critical driver of economic growth and job creation.
For an economy seeking to reduce its dependence on hydrocarbons, the construction industry should be a cornerstone of diversification efforts. However, this price hike threatens to undermine that potential, further stifling progress and adding to the financial burdens of both developers and consumers.
The ripple effects of this increase are far-reaching. Real estate developers, who already grapple with rising material costs, labour expenses, machinery maintenance, financing charges, and overheads, will find it even more difficult to deliver affordable housing.
The dream of home ownership for the average young person, already out of reach for many, will become even more elusive. In a market where banks demand a minimum monthly income of $25,000 to qualify for a mortgage, the affordability crisis deepens.
>
With food prices soaring and the cost of living escalating, the financial strain on young people and middle-income families is becoming unbearable. This cement price hike only adds to the mounting pressures, making it nearly impossible for many to achieve financial stability or invest in property.
The government’s commitment to economic diversification is called into question with this development. If the goal is to create a more resilient and diversified economy, policies should encourage competition, innovation, and affordability in key sectors like construction.
Instead, the dominance of a single cement manufacturer, which has driven competitors like Rock Hard and Harricrete out of the market, raises concerns about monopolistic practices. This lack of competition allows for unchecked price increases, which are ultimately passed on to consumers.
The absence of a competitive market in the construction industry not only harms consumers, but also stifles innovation and efficiency, which are essential for long-term economic growth.
The consequences of this price increase extend beyond the construction sector. Higher cement costs will inevitably lead to increased construction expenses, which will be reflected in the prices of homes, commercial buildings, and infrastructure projects. This, in turn, will deter investment, slow down development, and hinder job creation.
For an economy in need of diversification, this is a step in the wrong direction. The government must take decisive action to address these challenges by fostering a more competitive environment, encouraging the entry of new players, and implementing policies that prioritise affordability and accessibility.
In conclusion, the proposed seven per cent increase in cement prices is a regressive move that undermines efforts to diversify the economy and exacerbates the affordability crisis in housing.
It highlights the urgent need for greater competition in the construction industry and more proactive measures from the government to support economic diversification. Without these changes, the dream of a diversified, resilient economy will remain out of reach, and the burden on citizens will continue to grow.
ELIJAH MOTIERAM
>
via e-mail
Trinidad and Tobago Newsday
