How Much Did Barbados Subsidize Land Purchase For Minister of Public Works “Special Lady Friend” ?

Prime Minister Owen Arthur tells the Barbados Advocate…

…On the question of land, Arthur said the Government could not afford to subsidise land prices more than it has already done.

The Prime Minister said that each beneficiary of Government’s land subsidisation programme is entitled to a subsidy of up to $7.50 a square foot of land paid by Government and up to 5 000 square feet of land.

…read the entire Barbados Advocate article (link here).

A Perfectly Reasonable Question In A Democratic Society…

How much public money was used to subsidize the purchase of the land and home where Minister of Public Works Gline Clarke lives with his “Special Lady Friend” ?

A Second Perfectly Reasonable Question In A Democratic Society…

Why should a part-time citizen blog like the Barbados Free Press be the only Barbados media to ask such questions?

Previous BFP Stories On The Gline Clarke Scandal

* Conflict Of Interest Scandal: Barbados Minister of Public Works Lives With “Special Lady Friend” On Government-Expropriated Land…

Barbados Government Minister Gline Clarke – House and Mercedes On Expropriated Land

Barbados Government BLP Blog – Week Of Silence As Land Expropriation Scandal Heats Up

Gline Clarke Scandal Story Shatters More Barbados Free Press Records!


Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Politics & Corruption

12 responses to “How Much Did Barbados Subsidize Land Purchase For Minister of Public Works “Special Lady Friend” ?

  1. ross

    And more importantly how much did the taxpayers subsidize the land on which the PM lives?

    I would like to put this matter to rest so please let me know the facts ASAP.

    Can Dr. Duguid, anyone in the government or opposition help me with the answers to my questions?

    Is the land on which the PM’s home is built part of a governent acquisition of private land from 1964?

    I note that land in that area Wanstead and Husbands was originally acquired by the government of Barbados at approximately $1,200 per acre in 1964 (or 3 cents a square foot).

    Is the area on which the PM’s house stands part of and area of 398 acres formerly known as Wanstead and Husbands which was acquired by the Crown from Kingsland Estates by deed of conveyance on June 1, 1964?

  2. ross

    And another question – what does the below statement in the above article from the Nation mean in layman’s terms?

    “Also new on the Order Paper is the Final Appropriation Bill for the fiscal year ending March 2005 for $152.3 million, which is not usually debated.”

  3. John

    It has been alleged to me that there is a whole area in St. George where NHC land (and I guess subsidies) has gone to women!!!

    Anybody heard of this rumour / gossip / scandal / libel / slander before and can confirm with facts?

    I was appalled and reacted in disbelief when I was told this a couple of days ago given the innuendo that accompanied the allegation.

    I am out of order raising this without proof but the sources seem pretty reliable to me and convinced of the accuracy.

    Maybe MESA should investigaste and see if there was any sexual discrimination or favour in the allocation of NHC land (and hence subsidies).

    Or maybe NHC could give out the statistics on the allocation of land and subsidies to less fortunate citizens in Barbados in the name of all of the citizens of Barbados.

    Apologies in advance if this allegation turns out to be scurrilous. I will know if to trust the sources or not. I am out of order but rumours like these should be put to bed quickly.

    This article in the Nation and now on BFP really brought home to me how it is possible to completely misuse the resources of a country in the name of a seemingly noble cause …. and my head is hot and not thinking as clearly as it should.

  4. Jane

    Ross, thank you very much for that information. A response is eagerly awaited.

    Barbadians and other interested people also want to know how much the government of Barbados pays for the land it acquires from private individuals, how this figure is arrived at and how long the owners of the land have to wait to be paid.

    Some evidence is available but there appears to be a far more serious problem than the press is will tell us.

    By the way, there was an article in the Nation about security at schools the facts were obtained by some excellent investigative journalism. It still exists.

    Congrats to the Nation’s Associate Editor Maria Bradshaw and photographer Charles Pitt-Grant .

  5. Green!

    Barbados is a known-matriarchal society.
    What problem is there with land being given ‘to women’?
    Females make up about 51-52% of any human society: they are the majority!
    I personally was born of woman’s body, I don’t know about you..
    I have no problem with that.
    Women rule the world, directly or indirectly,
    only the ‘dense’ Men are usually led to believe(by their girls)
    that ‘Men Are In Charge’: suits the girls just fine!
    which is why we guys die 15 yrs. before them,
    and they get a second chance to marry another guy,
    and get more(old age) fun.
    You GO, girl!

    Yes, it’s strange that this land was given TO WOMEN, a bit suspicious in fact,
    but what’s the problem?
    Should these lands have been given exclusively TO MEN instead?
    Aren’t females allowed to own land and accumulate some equity in this life, too?

  6. Andrew

    Well I suppose it is if it was a ‘wuk fuh wuk’ arrangement or not

  7. John


    What about family ownership where the two members of a union, common law or otherwise own the land.

    Wouldn’t you expect ownership to be vested in two people, male and female?

    I have seen many conveyances in my time and often remarked to others that the conveyance is usually to a couple.

    Makes sense because the home is about a family and it takes two to start a family.

    So no, I would not expect land to be given to males exclusively, nor would I expect it to be given to females exclusively. Is it really given??

    I would expect if I pulled a conveyance at random in a housing development, NHC or otherwise, to find two names on it, male and female.

    If I were to find in a housing development a preponderence of male or female names on conveyances, I think I would have to investigate further to find out why. That would be strange.

    Of course there will be exceptions but think of all the mortgage ads you see on TV, you never see a woman or a man exclusively, you see a smiling happy couple ………….. married or not it is not stated.

    The result of the mortgage is we assume ownership of land by two people with the unstated liability of the mortgage, which is also borne by two people.

    Even at the subsidised price, I am quite sure a couple, or a person, buying NHC land would need to take out a mortgage which would be in line with their earnings. I didn’t get the impression that NHC just gives away land and houses.

    I was worried when I wrote my first post that it would come across how you have interpreted it so I hope my second post clarifies what I am trying to say. Thanks for prompting me to clarify my earlier post.

    Hope I am making myself clearer. I really should have pulled conveyances in some of the NHC developments and verified the rumour / gossip/ etc. before I ventured to make my first post.

    ….. but the sources seemed to reliable …. !! I am at fault for not following my hunches first and proving or disproving them to myself before mouthing off.


  8. John


    In the conversation with my sources, “wuk fuh wuk” came up as an expression and I admit I had never heard of it before and was at a loss.

    I asked around afterwards and was told the correct expression was “wuk fuh wha”

    Guess I don’t get around enough so I am pretty naive where these expressions and new usages of language are concerned.

    What exactly does “wuk fuh wuk” or “wuk fuh wha” mean and which is the correct one?


    In all this, I see a need for a proper allocation and a thorough accounting and audit system to be set up.
    The buzz word is “transparency” but too many transactions involving government agencies and ministries seem to be opaque.
    This BLP group have the know-how when it comes to hiding graft.
    Whatever happened to th FBI enquiry that Owen said would operate “… within the four corners of the law”?
    Then Mia said she was not aware of it.
    The prison enquiry will follow suit. Just like UDC and the old lady’s $30,000.00 paid for her house that is STILL imcomplete 2 years later-or the STILL unused office block at Warrens.
    Do we realize that this previously $36 million building will finally end up costing close to or even over $300 million?
    GRAFT in capital letters!
    Remember Mighty Gabby sang;”Send An Answer Fuh We”.

  10. Hants

    Totally unrelated. Read todays Nation story titled.

  11. John

    Saw it and was appalled.

    Tracking down the offender should not be difficult.

    There is a car involved, and possibly a witness to talk to, the other boy who ran.

  12. John

    Something isn’t adding up.

    The Nation today says two are being sought.

    Yet it also reports that the boy was handed over to police in the condition shown.

    Who handed him over?

    Who complained of trespass against the boy?

    Who has a dog with puppies?

    What sort of car was involved?

    What does the witness who ran have to say?

    I don’t understand how two people could still be sought with all this info available.

    It makes no sense.