President William Ruto’s ambitious affordable housing programme has once again taken center stage in Kenya’s 2025/2026 budget, receiving a staggering Ksh.120.2 billion. This includes Ksh.64.5 billion specifically for the construction of affordable units and Ksh.10.5 billion for social housing projects. The Head of State has repeatedly affirmed his administration’s commitment to providing safe, habitable, secure, and affordable housing for all Kenyans, with a grand plan to construct one million houses across the country by 2027. Recent launches, like the one in Homa Bay County, underscore the government's visible push.
But as an editor, and a Kenyan citizen observing these developments, a fundamental question nags at the core of this ambitious vision: Is this project truly what it says it is, "affordable," or is it a dream built on a foundation of hidden costs and financial ambiguity for the very citizens it aims to serve?
My immediate query, one shared by countless employed Kenyans, revolves around the notorious housing levy. We see our payslips arrive, already diminished by the deduction for this levy, ostensibly to be channeled into the Affordable Housing program. If this project is indeed being consistently funded by taxpayers, monthly and annually, why the massive budget allocation of Ksh.120.2 billion? It strikes a dissonant chord when citizens are compelled to contribute directly, only to see billions more allocated from the national coffers – essentially, from the same taxpayers – for the same initiative.
The purported "affordability" of these units becomes even more perplexing when we break down the financial obligations for a taxpayer who might actually become a beneficiary. Imagine: your payslip is already being "chopped" monthly for the housing levy. Then, if you're lucky enough to secure one of these "affordable" units, you face a multitude of additional payments:
- Monthly Payments for the Unit: These are structured as rent-to-own arrangements, ranging from Ksh.3,000 to Ksh.7,000 per month, spread over a period of up to 25 years.
- Utilities: Residents are, of course, responsible for electricity, water, and waste disposal.
- The Affordable Housing Levy: Yes, beneficiaries continue to pay the 1.5% deduction from their gross income, even while residing in the very units the levy is supposed to fund.
- Potential Property Taxes or Other Levies: Some projects may add further ongoing maintenance costs or property taxes.
When one begins to calculate the total bill payable monthly, compounded over a 25-year (or even 30-year) payment plan, the definition of "affordable" becomes severely stretched. Is this not, in fact, significantly more expensive than what a prudent taxpayer might achieve by constructing their own modest two-bedroom house in an area of their choosing, rather than settling for the 'affordable' bedsitters championed by the President? The numbers simply don't add up for many.
Beyond the direct financial burden, there's the profound issue of ownership and land rights. The government states these houses are built on public land. How, then, do we as a nation stand before the occupants and promise them that after 25 or 30 years of diligently paying the allocated fees, they will "stand a chance to own the house"? Who ever truly owns a house built on taxpayer-funded public land, particularly without a clear title deed? The lack of guaranteed ownership, despite decades of payments, fundamentally undermines the very concept of homeownership and long-term financial security for these citizens.
Furthermore, as a nation, do we even pause to ask ourselves why someone living in a remote village, far from any urban affordable housing project, is compelled to pay this housing levy? The direct benefit for them seems nonexistent, creating a deep sense of inequity and frustration. We are, in many ways, a nation grappling with a disconnect between policy and practical impact.
This affordable housing project, while noble in its stated intent, is steeped in concerns that extend far beyond mere financial figures. It delves into issues of transparency, equitable contribution, and the very definition of ownership in a public-private framework. The money being channeled is colossal, and if not meticulously followed to the last coin, history warns us, it will inevitably be embezzled. We, as a nation, need help and, more critically, good governance – where every Shilling collected and allocated serves its stated purpose, and where "affordability" is not just a slogan, but a lived reality for every Kenyan taxpayer.
