To its credit, the former PNC government did initiate a plan for housing the

nation, one of the three main planks of its ambitious programme of ‘Feed, Clothe and House’ the nation by 1976. Of course, housing schemes were established in some of the regions, but with the heaviest concentration centred in the city.
Laudable as the strategy had been, it was quite evident that such efforts had proven grossly inadequate, as a result of  the ever increasing drift of rural dwellers to the urban areas and its environs, mainly as a result of a country  in the throes of increasing political, social and economic travail. As a result of this moribund state, this earliest drive to house the nation came to a grinding halt.
This cessation of housing  coincided with a parallel deterioration of social and physical infrastructure that had been gradual for decades, so that by the 1980s to the very early 1990s, an estimated 33% of the country’s housing was over 35 years  old and not properly maintained; and at the minimum, 5,200 housing units per year were needed. An explanation is necessary.
The then government’s housing policy was designed to be executed along the self-help model, with little or no state input. This was in keeping with the proclaimed socialist policy of the day, where would-be home owners were expected to work in the spirit of cooperativism. There was perhaps a housing policy of some kind, which probably suited the circumstances of the day; but not one that was visionary, all inclusive and comprehensive as that formulated by the PPP administration  as exhibited in their grand  success of housing the nation.
For example, under the PNC government, there was no clear land distribution policy, since most holdings were state-owned and the policy that surrounded such could best be described as ‘ad hoc’ in nature. Therein lays the absolute short-sightedness of such an approach, for since such a policy did not address the pivotal issue of land, as the current PPP/C government has successfully done, it was inevitable that the consequences of squatting would have become a factor.
Thus, since land was the central plank in the quest for home ownership, and since most would-be homeowners could not have afforded to purchase private land nor garner any state assistance towards those objectives, or even pay very high rentals, it was inevitable that desperate measures would have been a resort for persons seeking shelter: shelters of all descriptions built on government reserves and on private lands in an uncontrolled manner and without official approval. This translated to well over 230 squatting settlements, all along the coastlands, where humans dwelled in very challenging conditions – flooding, non-existent drainage, no potable water, no electricity, and the ever increasing threat of disease. 
This was the threatening social condition with regard to housing that greeted the PPP/C government on assumption of office in 1992. And how well they responded, putting into operation urgent measures to stem the tide of what had become an anarchic situation.
Since most of the coastal acreage had been owned by the Guyana Sugar Corporation (GUYSUCO), a divestment policy, with land allocation as its central component, and an affordable schedule of payment was introduced as a means of helping squatters to purchase land.
From an asking fee of $12,000 for land title, a revised $8,000 was instituted, payable over a three-month period. This was the key which set in train the process of regularisation, since not only squatters were able to legitimise their status, but also other unsettled tracts became readily available for houselot distribution.
For an idea of the prompt and constancy of the PPP/C administration’s national   housing programme since 1993,  over 100,000 house lots have since  been distributed, mostly to low- income earners.
 Most importantly, this was accompanied by what can be described as a critical intervention by the government – assistance towards easier mortgage payments. This was facilitated by legislation that amended the New Building Society Act and Income Tax Act in 2000, enabling qualified mortgage finance institutions to grant housing loans at relatively lower interest rates and longer repayment periods. Interest rates have since been lowered from 9% in 2001 to a current low of 4.95%.   
A welcome and assuring aspect of the grand PPP/C government housing programme is that it caters particularly for the low-income bracket. A perfect example of this is the innovation of the core homes where each of these structures are built at a cost of $1,370,387, with the individual beneficiary contributing $100,000 towards construction.        
One can only describe the PPP/C housing programme in the grandest of superlatives; with the scope of its success  manifested in the tens of thousands of Guyanese who are proud homeowners, residing in almost 200 housing schemes that have been regularised in almost every region.
That this intervention is the most revolutionary social undertaking in the history of this nation is an understatement. It has impacted significantly on the lives of its numerous beneficiaries, improving their economic profile; elevating their personal lives, and adding to their self-esteem.
So all-encompassing is its spread, that it has been a “significant boost” to the local economy, according to the Honourable Minister of Finance. For the first quarter of 2013, 366 persons have accessed loans representing a total of $690M. This brings to a total 3,404 borrowers, of the low-income category, who would have had access to a reported $9.4B.
For the building (and private) sector, the housing programme  has been a tremendous boon as this sector has never been more fortuitous than at this time. All the components that are involved in construction, from the purchasing of wood, nails, cement, sand, stone, paint to masons and carpenters, have all been benefiting from this housing boom.
Even the furniture stores have derived their share of success from this building bonanza.
One sometimes wonder, when the current parliamentary opposition parties of APNU and the AFC, criticises the government relative to the distribution of houselots, whether they are from another dimension, or they are simply playing politics; or just plain dumb!
As this grand vision of providing affordable housing for the nation continues, one must again commend the PPP/C for its visionary insight and timely interventions. Kudos should also go to the indefatigable Housing Minister Irfaan Ali for his vision and leadership in catapulting the housing sector to where it is today, and where it is going.  These  are what have been responsible for the outstanding success that the national housing programme is.  It has to rank as one of the most successful and highly social initiatives, in any part of the world.