Share this story
by Algernon Watts
Nearly eight years after the government announced plans to redevelop Booby Alley and relocate residents with promises of improved housing, former homeowners could now find themselves taking on mortgage debt to secure accommodation in the Chinese-funded Pelican Court development.
The possibility has emerged as the government finalises arrangements for allocating the 150 condominium units, raising fresh questions about compensation, property ownership and the financial obligations that could confront families who surrendered their homes to make way for the redevelopment.
Under proposals discussed by Cabinet this week, former homeowners whose properties were assessed at values below the price of the new condominiums could be required to finance the difference through mortgages.
Indicative selling prices ranging from EC$150,000 to EC$175,000 per unit have been discussed, although no final prices have been approved.
The development is being financed through an approximately EC$50 million grant from the People’s Republic of China.
While the government has maintained that the project will provide improved living conditions for former Booby Alley residents, the proposed arrangements leave uncertainty over what returning homeowners will ultimately have to pay.
For someone whose former property was valued at EC$75,000, for example, acquiring a replacement condominium priced at EC$150,000 could mean financing an additional EC$75,000.
That is an illustrative calculation rather than an actual assessment of any former resident’s property. The government has not released the individual valuations or detailed how the proposed mortgage obligations would be determined.
Director General of Communications in the Prime Minister’s Office Maurice Merchant confirmed the financing proposal during Thursday’s post-Cabinet media briefing.
“Where the assessed value of a former property is less than that of a new condominium unit, the difference could be financed through an appropriate mortgage arrangement,” he said.
When questioned about homeowners who may be unable to qualify for mortgages, Merchant pointed to the National Housing Scheme, which he said offers financing at rates below those generally available from commercial banks.
However, no specific protection was outlined for former homeowners who cannot qualify for financing or afford the resulting repayments.
There was also no confirmation of whether the government would absorb any outstanding difference in property values, provide direct subsidies or offer alternative arrangements to ensure that former owner-occupiers are not excluded.
The questions are particularly significant given the project’s long and contentious history.
First announced in 2018, the Booby Alley redevelopment was intended to replace overcrowded and deteriorating housing in the Point community with modern accommodation while allowing residents to return to the area.
The initiative formed part of a wider Chinese-funded housing programme and was presented as an opportunity to improve conditions in one of St. John’s longstanding residential communities.
But the relocation process was marked by resistance from some homeowners who expressed concerns about their property rights, compensation and the security of their future accommodation.
In November 2019, the Daily Observer reported that residents were demanding written guarantees before surrendering their properties.
At the time, project coordinator Gail Lewis outlined three possible arrangements for property owners.
One would allow the assessed value of a resident’s land and structure to be credited towards a new home in the redeveloped community. Another would provide cash compensation to homeowners who preferred to relocate elsewhere, while a third involved assistance with acquiring alternative land.
Although those arrangements contemplated property valuations, residents complained that formal offers had not been provided in writing.
The latest proposals appear to follow the broad principle of using former property values towards replacement housing. However, they also bring renewed attention to whether the conditions now being considered are consistent with the commitments and agreements made when residents were originally relocated.
The redevelopment encountered repeated delays as authorities sought to clear the site.
In 2021, some families were moved into temporary accommodation in Villa, while others remained in the community as negotiations continued.
The situation became increasingly contentious in subsequent years, with the government warning that compulsory acquisition and legal action could be used where residents refused to cooperate.
In September 2023, Parliament approved a resolution to compulsorily acquire one of the remaining properties after negotiations stalled.
That action was subsequently overtaken by an agreement between the government and property owners Dawn and Desiree Browne, removing one of the final obstacles to clearing the site.
The episode highlighted the disagreements that had accompanied the redevelopment, particularly over how property rights and compensation would be handled.
By October 2023, the remaining structures had been removed, paving the way for construction.
Work eventually began in October 2024, several years after the project was first announced.
Cabinet has tasked the National Housing Development and Urban Renewal Company with conducting further assessments to establish appropriate selling prices.
The government is also considering arrangements for former tenants, who could occupy government-owned units under structured rental agreements.
The distinction between owner-occupiers, absentee property owners and former tenants will therefore be central to determining who receives accommodation, who pays rent and who may be required to take on mortgage debt.
Any mortgage repayments could also be accompanied by additional expenses associated with condominium living.
Cabinet has discussed arrangements for property management, security, maintenance, parking, waste disposal and the use of common areas.
The project’s completion timetable has also changed.
In April, Browne indicated that the development was on track for handover by October 30, but the government is now targeting January 2027 for occupancy, citing the need to finalise legal, infrastructure, landscaping and property management arrangements.
The 150-unit development is intended to accommodate more than 300 former residents, although the government has not disclosed how many original households have been allocated units or how many will ultimately return.
That information will be important in assessing whether the redevelopment achieves its original objective of improving living conditions for the people who previously occupied the community.
The government has described Pelican Court as a social housing project.
The Chinese grant means construction is not being financed through a conventional loan that the government must repay.
Browne has indicated that he intends to meet with former homeowners before the arrangements are finalised.
For those who surrendered properties during the redevelopment, the outcome of those discussions will determine whether returning to the community means receiving replacement accommodation based on their previous ownership interests or assuming new financial obligations.
Eight years after the redevelopment was announced, the outstanding issue is no longer simply when residents will receive the keys to Pelican Court.
It is also how much they will be required to pay, what legal ownership they will receive and whether every eligible former homeowner will be able to return regardless of their ability to secure a mortgage.