The People’s National Party’s (PNP) attack on the National Reconstruction and Resilience Authority’s (NaRRA) headquarters invites Jamaicans to see a waterfront address and conclude that public money is being wasted.

This conclusion requires evidence. A location, a rental figure, and an emotive comparison with families awaiting assistance do not, by themselves, establish that the decision is wrong. The reported annual rental cost is approximately $115.2 million, equivalent to about $9.6 million monthly.

This is a substantial public expenditure. Government must explain it clearly, and NaRRA must demonstrate its value through delivery. But the debate must also consider what the authority requires to function effectively, particularly during a national emergency.

According to NaRRA, the Digicel Building was designed and constructed to withstand multiple environmental hazards. The authority has specifically cited seismic resilience, robust backup systems, reliable communications, and the continuity of critical functions as reasons for selecting the premises. These features matter.

An organisation charged with national reconstruction needs an operational base capable of supporting its work when infrastructure elsewhere is compromised. Its ability to coordinate projects, communicate with agencies, and maintain essential records must survive the emergencies it exists to help the country address.

The building’s reported level of resilience, therefore, deserves serious consideration when assessing the lease. Government should substantiate those capabilities and explain how they compare with the alternatives.

A cheaper office that requires extensive adaptation, lacks dependable backup systems, or cannot accommodate the authority’s operations may ultimately offer poorer value. Equally, a suitable government property could offer savings.

The comparison must examine total cost, readiness, capacity, and resilience. NaRRA says the National Land Agency assessed the proposed rental against current market values and the rates paid by other government agencies and found it consistent with prevailing standards.

That assessment is relevant, although market rent alone does not settle whether the best premises were selected.

The controversy brings back memories of the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP) and the approximately $102-million refurbishment of the National Works Agency’s offices.

The auditor general found procurement breaches associated with that refurbishment, alongside wider weaknesses in the programme’s administration. Those findings deserved corrective action.

There was also a legitimate question about the facilities and institutional capacity needed to administer a US$400-million infrastructure programme. My recollection of the 2011 election campaign is that JDIP became so politically toxic that the Jamaica Labour Party could scarcely mention its name without confronting the controversy surrounding it.

The developmental purpose of the programme was overshadowed by the political argument. That experience should sharpen our judgment today. Administrative failures must be addressed, while the value and purpose of a national undertaking receive a fair assessment.

Families still awaiting help deserve urgency. Their circumstances should drive NaRRA to deliver faster and make the Government answerable for results. Effective reconstruction requires engineers to assess damage, procurement specialists to secure contracts, project managers to supervise execution, and financial officers to protect public funds.

These people need reliable systems, communications, and suitable working facilities. Administrative capacity has a cost. Inadequate capacity has a cost too — delayed contracts, weak supervision, poorly executed works, and assistance that takes longer to reach those who need it. The PNP’s argument that headquarters expenditure necessarily takes money away from recovery overlooks that relationship.

The proper test is whether the expenditure is proportionate and helps the authority deliver its mandate. The Opposition has requested publication of the lease, valuation, procurement record, and the alternatives considered. Those are reasonable demands for accountability.

Its proposed alternatives should also withstand examination. If existing premises could accommodate NaRRA more economically, establish their availability, condition, capacity, resilience, and readiness. Calculate the adaptation costs.

Show the public a credible comparison. That would strengthen the debate considerably. In my view, the danger in the PNP’s approach is that a potentially important national initiative can be brought into disrepute before its operational requirements are fairly considered.

JDIP offers a reminder of how controversy can consume the public understanding of a programme. Well-thinking Jamaicans should insist on ambition and accountability together. Our country needs stronger infrastructure and institutions capable of planning, managing, and protecting it.

We must invest carefully in the capacity to build to higher standards and maintain essential functions during disasters. NaRRA must earn public confidence. It should publish clear targets, report expenditure, explain delays, and demonstrate results through completed projects and better- protected communities.

Government must provide a convincing justification for the headquarters decision.

Those obligations are substantial. But Jamaica cannot afford a political culture in which the cost of building institutional capacity becomes sufficient grounds to condemn the undertaking itself.

We must examine the evidence, demand value, and keep the national purpose firmly in view.