In Part 1 we sought to locate responsibility for the lawlessness taking place in relation to residential construction, especially in the Corporate Area. We dealt with the chief regulatory agency, the Kingston and St Andrew Municipal Corporation (KSAMC), its responsibilities and the powers given to it by law to discharge those responsibilities.

But there are the developers — the prime culprits. They know what they got approval to build but some of them proceed to build something completely different. And, it is not that they decided to change the plans in mid-stream. They jolly well knew what they intended to build from the start but they prepared two sets of plans — one that met the legal requirements and for which they knew they could get approval; and a separate one, usually with many more units that they knew could not get approval, but that is what they were determined to build because that is what would give them the biggest profit.

It gives them an unfair advantage over other developers who abide by the law since they are able to beat them in the selling price of the units. Those who play by the rules, it was famously said, get shafted. Inefficiency, incompetence or corruption?

What about the Real Estate Board? Section 35 of the Real Estate (Dealers and Developers) Act requires that developers be licensed. The KSAMC, commendably, posts on its website on a quarterly basis the projects for which it has granted approval. Is the Real Estate Board monitoring these projects to see whether the developers are licensed? What does it do about those who are not licensed? Does it bother to determine whether any of its licensed developers is acting illegally, that is, in contravention of the approved building plans? If not, what is the purpose of licensing them? And if it is found that the developer is acting illegally, what does it do about his licence? Inefficiency, incompetence or corruption?

There is plenty of blame still left. What about the architect who supervises the construction? He has to be licensed under the Architects Registration Act. He knows what was approved but may be quite happy to supervise something that he knows is different from what was approved. Should his licence not be reviewed? Inefficiency, incompetence or corruption?

What about the contractor? He cannot build without a detailed set of plans that must be readily available if and when the building inspector arrives. The approved plans carry the stamp of the KSAMC. Should he get off scot-free when he is using a set of plans that he knows was not approved? And should he continue to be an approved contractor under the National Contracts Commission?

What about the quantity surveyor? He has to issue a certificate showing how much work has been completed before the contractor can be paid. He, too, has a set of plans that he is in a position to know is different from what was approved. Should he be let off the hook?

I’m not done yet. What about the banks and insurance companies? They are the ones who provide the financing for most of these projects. They know what was approved because they require that information before they approve the financing. The only thing they don’t require may be your Sunday School attendance record. They know when what is being built is different from what was approved because it is the number and size of units that are to be sold that they use to calculate how they will get back their money and the interest. But they seem to be quite happy to go along with the scheme, illegal though it is. Inefficiency, incompetence or corruption?

Covenant restrictions are an issue that must be addressed. The stipulation that only one dwelling unit can be built on a two-acre lot is of colonial vintage, baronial and anachronistic. Populations grow; land space doesn’t. If Singapore, which is smaller than the parish of St Thomas but has twice the population of Jamaica, had our type of restrictive covenants it would not be the First World country it is. This is an issue that must be addressed by legislation that will have to contend with the property rights provision in our constitution. But until that is done, covenants have to be respected. That is the law.

I am happy to see that the courts are becoming more assertive in dealing with cases that are brought before them. One Supreme Court judge actually left her bench to visit a project on Roseberry Drive, where residents in the neighbourhood filed action, to see for herself what was going on. I commend her strongly. That is the kind of judge activism that we need to see more of. But if the systems that are in place were being faithfully observed the residents would not have had to incur the trouble and expense of going to court.

It is only when we get serious, when the violators and their facilitators start to feel it in their pockets, that they will “straighten up and fly right”. When developers find that they will have to tear down the concrete and steel that they borrowed so much money to erect, they will start behaving themselves. When the architects and quantity surveyors find that they may lose their licences, and building contractors find that they may be deregistered if they go along with this illegality, they will start telling developers ‘No, we cant do that!’

When the banks and insurance companies find that some of the money they advanced for these projects may not be recoverable and they will now have to settle for what they can squeeze out of the developer (if they can find him), they will then start to insist that the projects they finance must conform with all the requirements of the law.

It is time to straighten up and fly right.

Bruce Golding served as Jamaica’s eighth prime minister from September 11, 2007 to October 23, 2011.