Residents’ wishes – How much do we know?

Residents’ wishes – How much do we know?

Martina Barker-Ciganikova

 

When researching a colonial housing scheme,¹ one of the main challenges I encountered was to locate in archival records the voices of the house owners, the actual dwellers and inhabitants. The colonial officers at all administrative echelons, from metropolitan to local level, left behind a plethora of views in the form of minutes, letters, progress reports or memoranda. But what do we know about the residents? What conditions did they live in and what type of demands did they formulate, if any?  By digging through the Kenya National Archives in Nairobi, I was able to retrieve a few of the forgotten voices, to whom I dedicate this month’s blog.   

As for the background of the occupants of Vasey Thika Scheme, we know that most of them were single men, the overwhelming majority being traders. Their occupations were diverse and I could find a gun bearer and skinner, instructor, telephonist, telegraphist, butcher, hotelkeeper, mason, carpenter, or clerk among them.² The information provided by African dwellers, in several surveys conducted by County Health Inspectors and other officials, revealed that on an average of between four to six persons lived in one room. This number of course did not necessarily correspond to the situation on the ground, and likely many more shared lodging. The rent varied depending on the provision of a latrine and piped water in the house and was considered too high in relation to wages. Still, it compared favourably to rents per room charged by the Nairobi City Council for a similar type of non-subsidized scheme in Nairobi.³ Those Africans who had larger financial resources at their disposal, built substantial buildings extending across two plots.⁴ From the accounts left behind by the Housing Officers and District Commissioners, we know that regular barazas - open public meetings - were held with Thika’s residents by the above-mentioned authorities. These served as a means of informing the owners and tenants on different aspects of the scheme, most commonly with respect to financial details and provision of services.    

Rare and precious sources of information were letters of inquiry or complaints written directly by the owners/tenants to authorities. From one such letter written on behalf of Thika residents, we learn that they demanded bigger plots than allocated and that the conditions of the loan and grant of the plots were unclear to them. Central to their interests was obtaining a permit to use part of the dwelling for trading activities and to rent, partly or wholly, their houses. The former request was refused as the Thika Vasey location was zoned solely for residential purposes. We know from surveys and control checks of the scheme that though prohibited, Thika’s residents clandestinely carried out business activities. For instance, a report by the County Health Inspector provided information on “three illegal laundries, operating in backyards.”⁵ As for the second request, renting out was allowed, even promoted, as the scheme relied heavily on renting out to lodgers as the only available source of income enabling loan repayment. This was not to everybody’s liking and the practice was criticized in the local media stating that “many builders, foreseeing the financial obligations, have built tenements, and have become boarding-house-keepers rather than heads of households - the houses they rented should be strictly family-houses and not thinly-disguised hotelis.”⁶    

I located an interesting document dated close to independence. In 1962, Thika landlords composed a memorandum addressed to Kenya’s Governor and Minister for Local Government.⁷ The petition was presented by a delegation led by the Nairobi City Councillor at Government House.⁸ The main point raised was the demand for title deeds, instead of leases. The private ownership of the entire property including land, not only the house that stood on the plot, thus seemed to be decisive with respect to the feeling of ownership responsibility as envisaged by Vasey. The Thika landlords felt further aggravated by a “series of injustices” imposed on them with respect to loans, grants or building permits; they claimed these were allocated “arbitrarily, subjectively or following special favours”. They also strongly objected to demolition orders issued by authorities on some buildings for lack of compliance with building by-laws. They demanded that the notices served on them by authorities should be withdrawn, as they were not in possession of sufficient financial means to sponsor the improvements required by the Thika Urban District Council.⁹ As a possible solution, the landlords formulated political demands and called for “genuine” African representation elected by the local people on the Thika Urban District Council to “have more say” and to “order their own affairs”.¹⁰

In response to the petition, two meetings with representatives of the Ministry of Local Government and Ministry of Health and Housing took place. In defence of its position, the government highlighted the substantial state investments in both initiating and improving the scheme. Most of the demands of the owners were dismissed by government claims that the former were in default on loan repayments and thus legally did not comply with the conditions they accepted and entered into.¹¹ In the government’s eyes, compliance with the contract and payment of loans and arrears was directly linked to exercise of civic and political rights. Through any delay or failure to do so, the landlords disposed of their rights to have a say in construction matters, decision-making processes or in representation in political affairs.

Although the files remain scarce, and often offer only a very narrow insight into dwellers’ wishes - occasionally years might pass without leaving us the slightest trace in the form of an archival document - it is obvious that the issue of improved housing conditions, more favourable terms of loan and repayment, title deeds and creation of income-generation activities in their homes, all stood at the centre of dwellers’ interests. Closer to independence, their demands, increasingly linked to direct political representation, were more and more difficult to ignore by both local and national authorities and had to be dealt with more seriously, even at the ministerial level in Nairobi. 

 

 

April, 2019