The Tribune

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

MILLIONS more earmarked for Urban Renewal (UR) 2.0 is merely another Christie administration “slush fund”, according to FNM Deputy Leader Loretta Butler-Turner yesterday.

While the government, in the last fiscal year,  allocated $15 million for the initiative, Prime Minister Perry Christie announced in the 2013/2014 budget communication that Urban renewal will receive $10 million.

“I am interested in the slush fund that I see is being used for the Urban Renewal 2.0 programme,” said Mrs Butler-Turner.

“I do not believe, that to this date, we have gotten an accurate account on the previous millions of dollars that was used for UR. Whether it was for the clearance of land or for the repairs of various homes, I think that this is certainly a fund that there has been no accountability.

“As far as we have seen it seems to be the largest amounts of money that is earmarked for any one project. So in that regard I am extremely concerned with the money the government is using.”

According to Mr Christie, the funds will be added to the Capital Budget of the Ministry of Works and Urban Development for urban renewal and small home repairs.

“This programme,” said Mr Christie, “will benefit small contractors and provide jobs targeting our young males. It will support much needed improvement in the sub standard housing conditions which many poor among us endure.”

Questions of Urban Renewal (UR) funding and its availability have been raised in recent months by a member of one of its advisory boards who demanded to be given an account of where thousands of dollars in donations had gone.

In February, the Bain and Grants Town Advisory Board East claimed its members had not received any allocated funding since the initiative was first started and also suggested that attempts are being made to make their Board redundant.

Board member Basil Tynes said that the Board’s chairman was invited to a meeting with Bain and Grants Town’s western Advisory Board and told that both sections would be amalgamated because of “competition” and a “special election” would be held. However, that election did not take place.

“The board members were not informed, we were not told, we were not invited by letter or by phone to be a part of this whole process,” he claimed.

There is no “real structure” or “set format” for the entire Urban Renewal programme, Mr Tynes claimed at the time, and there “seems to be no accountability” for Board members.