Summary of Key Points
The "Affordable Housing Program" initiated by Kenyan President Ruto aimed to address the country's housing shortage (250,000 units needed annually, but actual construction fell far short). However, the implementation method sparked controversy due to its brutality: old neighborhoods were demolished with minimal compensation for property owners, and tenants received no compensation or temporary shelter. To fund the project, a 1.5% additional income tax was imposed (with employers contributing an equal amount), which caused public dissatisfaction over the lack of transparency around how the money was used. Residents felt that they were paying twice—first with their taxes and then again to buy the houses built with those funds. Moreover, centuries-old neighborhoods were destroyed, erasing the city's cultural heritage. Although some new homes benefited a few individuals, the majority of original residents could not afford them, leading to protests and even violent incidents.
1. The Real Need Behind the "Well-intentioned" Plan: A Serious Housing Shortage
Housing shortages have been severe in Kenya since independence, with an annual demand of 250,000 units that has never been met. Ruto expanded this plan to target the construction of 200,000 units per year, claiming it would create 1 million jobs—a seemingly solution to people's basic housing needs. For example, the Mukuru slum in Nairobi, with its dense population and single-story houses occupying large areas, clearly needed more efficient multi-story buildings. The problem lay in the approach: the government demolished the neighborhoods without consulting the residents first.
2. Double Standards in Demolition: Owners Get Little Compensation, Tenants Are Abandoned
During demolitions, the government only provided registered property owners with KSh150,000 (about $1,160) in compensation, while tenants received nothing. For instance, 40-year-old Shiondu, a casual laborer, lost his home in the historic Makongani residential area and was forced to live in a makeshift shelter. Worse still, neither owners nor tenants were provided with temporary housing; those who received compensation had to find their own accommodation, and those who didn't received nothing at all were left homeless. In the Maliguni slum, 5,000 families were displaced without any transitional housing, leading to protests.
3. Tax Increases Triggering Anger: "Why Do We Have to Pay Twice?"
To fund the project, the government introduced a special tax in 2024, with individuals paying 1.5% and employers contributing an equal amount, raising a total of $563 million. Public anger stemmed from two main issues: the lack of transparency around where the money was being spent, and the perception that they were paying twice—first with their taxes and then again to buy the houses built with those funds. For example, a single apartment in Mukuru cost at least $5,000, with monthly payments of $30. Many considered this unfair: "Why should we pay for houses built on public land?" This, combined with other increases in social security contributions, led to protests in June that resulted in 60 deaths.
4. History Being Erased: The Loss of Community Memory
Many demolished neighborhoods were a living part of the city's history. For example, the Makongani residential area had a century-long history and represented memories of unions and early civil servant communities. Nairobi's "Bubble Houses" from the 1950s, built to alleviate housing shortages after the war, were also destroyed in favor of high-rise buildings. Ochen, from the Kenyan Residents Association, said, "Nairobi is losing its vibrant history and the stories of these communities." Similar situations occurred in Dakar, Senegal, and Accra, Ghana, where colonial-era markets and century-old colonial houses were demolished to make way for new developments, resulting in the loss of cultural heritage.
5. The Two Sides of New Homes: Benefits for a Few, Inaccessibility for Most
While some residents saw benefits—such as 29-year-old Miriam, who moved from a slum to an apartment in Mukuru and found it quieter, with running water and safety—the critics pointed out that developers built too many expensive units, making them unaffordable for most people. In Mukuru, although there were low-cost single apartments, the majority of new homes were more expensive, and many original residents, without compensation or savings, had no chance of purchasing them. The government claimed that the "silent majority" was buying the houses, but in reality, many displaced individuals did not even have the eligibility to apply, while outsiders purchased the new units, leading to unrest in Mukuru.
Conclusion
The intention behind this plan was good, but the implementation failed to protect the most vulnerable groups (tenants and low-income earners) and neglected historical and informational rights. As a result, the "Affordable Housing Program" became a controversial initiative that left some homeless and forced the majority to bear the costs without reaping any benefits. Kenya's experience reminds us that solving housing issues requires not only focusing on quantity but also on fairness and humanistic considerations.