REAL ESTATE
Is The State Housing
Agenda In Kenya Dead?
By Prof. Alfred Omenya
What Problem Is
Government Trying To
Solve?
In 2018, the government of Kenya came
up with its housing programme, as part
of its “Big 4 Agenda” - a presidential
legacy programme - to address a housing
deficit that was estimated at 4.8 million
people. At the centre of the programme
was an ambitious home ownership plan,
aiming to deliver some 500,000 units in
four years, funded through public private
partnership.
More than two years into the programme,
there is little to show in terms of results,
with real fears that the programme will
deliver nothing, especially in the context
of poor economic performance and a
global pandemic of Covid-19.
At the centre of the scheme was the
Housing Fund pursuant to 1967 Housing
Act. Government proposed that a Housing
Fund be established funded through a
pervasive and compulsory 3% levy on
all working Kenyans. The Government
intended to collect some Kshs 57 billion
annually from about 3 million Kenyans,
against a promise of 500,000 houses.
It was noted that even if all the houses were
delivered, 75% of eligible contributors
would not get any house. In any event
the government wasn’t going to be able to
deliver the housing units within the three
or so years’ timeframe of the programme.
The question still remains: what problem
was government trying to solve? The
courts set aside the Housing Fund and the
government abandoned it at some point
opting for voluntary contributions instead.
Majority of the Kenyans who are
inadequately housed are not formally
World over, governments focus on hous-
ing policies rather than actual delivery
of homes. The desire by Government to
control delivery of houses doesn’t make
sense, especially for a government that
had the mandate, money, technology and
need to deliver only 10,000 police hous-
ing units but only managed 1,000 units
in 5 years before throwing in the towel.
60 MAL35/20 ISSUE
employed; their incomes are not regular.
The financing instruments proposed -
home ownership through regular mortgage
contributions - is therefore incongruent
with this group’s income structure.
To add insult to injury, the government
proposed that if one could not pay for
the mortgage in one’s lifetime then it
would be transferred to one’s children
and grandchildren, i.e. multi-generational
mortgage. The question is: why would
one want to commit one’s children and
grandchildren to multi-generational debt?
Over 90% of urban dwellers in Kenya are
renters - less than 10% are home owners;
why do we have a government approach to
housing that ignores that fact and focuses
solely on home ownership?
A house is both a basic need and a
commodity. As a basic need most of the
people the government is targeting (the
formal sector working class) are already
in one form of housing or another. As
a commodity what makes government
think that this is the most preferable
investment for all working class Kenyans?
Further, based on how government has
mismanaged the economy, most people
don’t trust the government to make wise
investment decisions on their behalf.
World over, governments focus on
housing policies rather than actual
delivery of homes. The desire by the
Kenyan Government to control delivery
of houses does not make sense, especially
for a government that had the mandate,
the money, the technology and the need