Settlers homes bulldozed

[Dr.Dudd]

Settlers homes bulldozed
Friday, 17 April 2009
25 persons have been left homeless after workers allegedly from the Housing Ministry bulldozed their houses in Whitehouse, Westmoreland Friday afternoon.

The houses were reportedly bulldozed because the owners were delinquent with their payments.

It was a group of distraught residents who met our news team on arrival in Culloden, Whitehouse Friday afternoon.

Household items, documents, school uniforms among other things could be seen among the rubble.

One resident claimed her most recent payment was sometime last year and hard times have forced her to become delinquent.
Another resident said he had run out of options and had no where left to go.

In the meantime the action taken by the Ministry has drawn the ire of Eastern Westmoreland Member of Parliament Luther Buchanan.

Mr. Buchanan believes that given the tough economic climate the Ministry could have used some discretion.

"I want to make it clear that the law of the land, is the law of the land and an obligation is an obligation. But it is really heart rending that at a time like this when the government is calling on everyone to hold strain, that the government of the day could not have entered upon on the method of mediation, exercised some discretion in carrying out the Demolition Act.” said Mr. Buchanan.

In the meantime, dislocated residents are busy trying to find a place to lay their heads temporarily.

[ Back ]

[Amberal37]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

I was going to post on the NHT topic, but the ONE thing that I cannot understand about renting in Ja. is why they make it law that you shouldn't build permanent structure on rented land.

In fact, I think that the law should be the opposite - they should make it a law that if you are renting land that will be used as a home (e.g. not a farm), the owners MUST ensure that there is at least one proper safe and PERMANENT abode for the tenant to live in. This is even more so in the garrison areas.
What I was going to say about the NHT here, is they could offer homebuilding loans seen as these landlords will expect rent from the land/home.

To me it explains A LOT as to why people living on 'borrowed' land, especially in the garrison areas wouldn't care about whether they have shacks or not. The shacks and zincs presents a bad /substandard view of Jamaica as a whole.

[KD_09]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

By putting up a permanent fixture and depending on how long you stay among other things it may give you rights over the land which amounts to likkle more than stealing the land. The landlord has a right to say that he wants his property to stay a certain way, and to prevent you from capturing his property. It is HIS land, and all you are doing is paying rent. We have to look at it from both sides and not just the poor mans side. A landlord renting out a portmore quad for 15k a month is no rich man. He cant afford to have any and any ting happen to it. So don't assume because someone is a landlord they can afford it and we must put the other person first.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was going to post on the NHT topic, but the ONE thing that I cannot understand about renting in Ja. is why they make it law that you shouldn't build permanent structure on rented land.

In fact, I think that the law should be the opposite - they should make it a law that if you are renting land that will be used as a home (e.g. not a farm), the owners MUST ensure that there is at least one proper safe and PERMANENT abode for the tenant to live in. This is even more so in the garrison areas.
What I was going to say about the NHT here, is they could offer homebuilding loans seen as these landlords will expect rent from the land/home.

To me it explains A LOT as to why people living on 'borrowed' land, especially in the garrison areas wouldn't care about whether they have shacks or not. The shacks and zincs presents a bad /substandard view of Jamaica as a whole.
</div></div>

There is no laws against building of permanent structurs on rented property.

What you are seeing is the reaction to the law that states that any permanent structure on any land becomes the property of the land owner.

The renter can be prosecuted for malicious destruction of propeerty,if they dertroy it prior to moving.

So renters will not make permanent dstructures unles they intend to seek ownership of the property.

Otherwise they spend the minimum on structure, while trying too save enough to aquire land t build oermanent structure.

Most never achieve the latter, but they all aspire to that goal.

[Amberal37]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

There is no laws against building of permanent structurs on rented property.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you are seeing is the reaction to the law that states that any permanent structure on any land becomes the property of the land owner.

The renter can be prosecuted for malicious destruction of propeerty,if they dertroy it prior to moving.

So renters will not make permanent dstructures unles they intend to seek ownership of the property.</div></div>

Thanks for some feedback, but you may have to clarify something for me here, as I have aunt owning land and father who have said something along the lines have &quot;the can't build concrete house on my land&quot;. From concrete they were talking about anything made through bricks, or other type that they couldn't dismantle when tenant leaves.
I also have got to know people in the garrison areas in the hills over Montego bay, who as you say aspire to have &quot;concrete&quot; houses, but have to consider that the land owner might ask them to remove it, and if they move they will have to build again.
So that is why I say the landowner should be made to put one there in the first place - no matter how modest, as long as - say - decent sanitation, clean running water, sturdy foundations are provided.
Again thank you, and please continue to correct me though as I might have it wrong here.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: amberal37</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no laws against building of permanent structurs on rented property.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What you are seeing is the reaction to the law that states that any permanent structure on any land becomes the property of the land owner.

The renter can be prosecuted for malicious destruction of propeerty,if they dertroy it prior to moving.

So renters will not make permanent dstructures unles they intend to seek ownership of the property.</div></div>

Thanks for some feedback, but you may have to clarify something for me here, as I have aunt owning land and father who have said something along the lines have &quot;the can't build concrete house on my land&quot;. From concrete they were talking about anything made through bricks, or other type that they couldn't dismantle when tenant leaves.
I also have got to know people in the garrison areas in the hills over Montego bay, who as you say aspire to have &quot;concrete&quot; houses, but have to consider that the land owner might ask them to remove it, and if they move they will have to build again.
So that is why I say the landowner should be made to put one there in the first place - no matter how modest, as long as - say - decent sanitation, clean running water, sturdy foundations are provided.
Again thank you, and please continue to correct me though as I might have it wrong here.
</div></div> How about my me personally owning land and a number of pieces of of real eatate including properties that are leased, rented etc. My family has been in real estate law practice from my great grand father, down.
still have lots of coussins that practice down ther today..

The problem with Jamaica is that most people who are not practicing lawyers in a discipline does not know the laws that governs it.

, but thaye all have an opinion, based on speculation and hearsay.
ask you relatives what is their sourtce of that information.
i am not talkinha bout something some one told me. I am telling you that i know this .
But you can believe what you wsh. at least you know them and and don't know me.

[Nylah]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed



and why you need to handle the girl like so Doc?

She wasnt disrespectful in her inquiries. She just look clafirifcation from what she was told from family - and you come with, she can believe you if she wish.....Like she knows the first thing about you and what you know.

Be a little more graceful man. Done know you are better than that.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

and why you need to handle the girl like so Doc?

She wasnt disrespectful in her inquiries. She just look clafirifcation from what she was told from family - and you come with, she can believe you if she wish.....Like she knows the first thing about you and what you know.

Be a little more graceful man. Done know you are better than that. </div></div>How do you clarify hearsay?/
I posted the facts complete with the reason why many people think what she wrote. Then she told me about hearsay. You somply can't clarify hearsay. Many pd the property owners that complain about permanent structures themselves are ignorant of the laws,some know the laws, bit decide to head it ff.

[Nylah]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed


point still stands.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
point still stands. </div></div>
OK your honour..

[Amberal37]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed


My point remains...and I don't think that it is &quot;hearsay&quot; when you have seen something for yourself.
In the case of my aunt, she does have a lawyer that advises her (last time back in 2007 where she had to go to court to get someone evicted), and my dad is retired policeman.

In the case of the people I know up in the mountains in Mo'bay, it might be that they do not know the law and their rights, but if the law states that the permanent structure belongs to the landlord, and it turns out in many cases that the landowner will demolish, then I can understand that perception that the renter will see little incentive.

Hence, my point DOES remain that the landowners should be made to put up hygienic, safe and 'decent' housing before they let land for residential purposes.

I can direct you to this general link...
Jamaica: The challenge of social service provision
see Page 12
Although this also mentions difficulties in regulating the unknown...from what I see, it is obvious to any seeing person that many people are living in unhygienic/unsafe structures.

[neutral]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

The bottom line is...the people dem didnt pay their rent and dem get bulldozed.

As harsh as it may sound the ministry was right to bulldoze the houses,in a few more years time it would have been almost impossible to get those people off the land,they would have claimed their right to be there because of time spent on the land,&quot;mi pickney dem bawn yah&quot; and horse dead an cow fat.

Now that they`re no longer able to live rent free maybe it will drive home the fact to them that they`ve been taking the p!ss for far too long.

[britisha]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

is chroo, and the sad thing now, is plenty of those ppl are farinas, ppl who not born there...dem even a capture ppl's land now and is hell to get dem off. bulldoze dem Yessss!!!!

[Stormmey]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Nylah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
point still stands. </div></div>

Nylah!! you so graceful and ladylike

[Wahalla]

Re: Settlers homes bulldozed

as I said one thing needed in Jamaica is the need to come up with a standard contract for the rent and leasing of land based on use.. setting clearly the ights and responsibility of each party.. so in the event of dispute these can be solved with