Following an exposé by The Sunday Gleaner, there has been spirited discussion in the media about the amount of money that the Port Authority of Jamaica spent to buy and refurbish the upscale house in which the transport minister, Mike Henry, lives. Visitors to Go-Jamaica are having their say on the matter, too, and on the revelation by the authority that the minister was yet to start paying his monthly rental of $20,000 for the residence located at 5 Millsborough Crescent. Below are some of the responses to the story posted on Go-Jamaica.

Guest No.1

Civil servants earn a meagre salary and they have to pay exorbitant rents, so why do politicians get away with so much? Who are they? Aren't they human beings like us? They should darn well pay their own expenses out of their salaries just like us. They get car, driver, gas, subsidised housing, and you name it. I am a travelling officer who has to travel to the hills and valleys of Jamaica, and I can't even get concession because my contract is two years. We need Castro to give them some advice; all of us would be equal.

Guest No. 2

The purchase and refurbishing of this property is a good investment. My grouse is the nominal monthly rental of only $20,000. I have my whole family in Jamaica searching to find me a decent room and bathroom for the past year, but I have not been successful since I can't afford to pay more than $20,000 monthly. Minister Henry, you are very lucky. I am going to beat my head against the wall for not becoming a politician. Too late is my cry. ONE LOVE.

Guest No. 3

A few missing tiles, eh? A water-stained roof, a broken-down cupboard ... so what? How many Jamaicans can afford a bathroom, much less a cupboard? Some people, from the sky turn grey, they have to set the buckets on their beds. Yet he is talking about not being used to living in squalor.

Shame on you Minister!

Guest No. 4

I am interested in finding out how many more expensive properties are owned by the Government. This expenditure cannot be justified by the fact that the valuation is higher than the cost. What it proves is that the Government could fill gaps in the Budget by offloading some of its highly valued assets that are completely unnecessary. Is it wrong to assume that Mike Henry earns a salary? He should save and buy his own home like other Jamaicans.

Guest No. 5

Wow! When I lived in Jamaica, I had to pay US$1,000 a month for a two-bedroom one-and-a-half bathroom townhouse, and the rent for a house on Millsborough is $20,000 a month?! What is the problem? This confirms the reason why I do not vote in Jamaica.

Guest No. 6

Shame, shame, shame you all (the government)! Look how poor people suffering and civil servants asked to hold strain. Politicians will do whatever they think is right for them without any consideration for the suffering taxpayers.

Guest No. 7

Not used to living in squalor? From a minister in a country where so many people are living in zinc houses? Most ridiculous and shameful ... . Worse yet, he has not been paying his rent.

Guest No. 8

How is he so lucky to have such a cheap rent? He's talking about not being accustomed to living in squalor. What about the thousands of Jamaicans who do? What about the many employed persons who cannot even afford housing in Jamaica? Seriously, Port Authority, was this purchase even necessary? How do you justify this? Can we who have no decent housing solution ALL move in?

Guest No. 9

I can't see the problem with this deal.

1) The house was bought below market value.

2) The minister rents the house from the Port Authority.

3) After refurbishing, the cost of the house is still below its valuation.

This to me is a very good investment by the Port Authority and will appreciate in time.

The only problem is that the rent has not been paid yet!

Guest No. 10

As an accountant, I am always fascinated by the magic figures. If $35 million was used to purchase the house, this cannot be classified as part of the refurbishing expense. This is the purchase price of the house! If this is the usual house for the Ministry of Transport, then there should not be much debate about the minister living there. What I have a concern about is the actual cost of the refurbishing.

1. If the former Minister did cause the house to go into disrepair, then he should be held accountable to such extent.

2. Is due process observed in ensuring that costs are necessary and reasonable?