By Billy Mijungu
As we head towards the 2027 elections, my expectation was that the gross percentage contribution to the housing fund would gradually reduce every six months. My assumption is that the rate of absorption of the fund for housing is most likely lower than the rate of contribution.
When a fund accumulates more money than it spends, there is a risk of creating unnecessary pressure on contributors. It is only fair to progressively reduce the contribution rate as reserves are built and the revolving fund becomes stronger, especially now that the state has started allocating houses to contributors.
Housing is a basic need, but beyond that it is a strong social stabilizer. When families live in decent houses with proper sanitation and utilities, they become healthier and more productive. It is from this lens that allocation of houses should be guided. More units should go towards social housing than market rate or even the category that has been described as affordable housing.
The real objective must be to regulate high housing rents, eliminate slums, and create organized urban centers that address both public health and environmental concerns.
Slums across the country remain an indictment on our collective conscience. Millions of Kenyans live in overcrowded informal settlements where sanitation is poor, water is scarce, and health risks are ever present. The housing fund presents the greatest opportunity yet to change this story. It is not enough to build houses and allocate them to contributors.
The program must go further and deliberately allocate a bigger share to social housing, where families currently trapped in informal settlements are moved into dignified homes. This would have a ripple effect in reducing preventable diseases, improving education outcomes, and strengthening social cohesion.
One thing however stands out. The housing fund is already making a difference. As the market corrects, the construction sector will trend upwards, creating jobs and stimulating the wider economy. It is also commendable that citizens are increasingly borrowing to build their own homes. That in itself shows confidence in the future of housing, though it also points to the fact that the absorption of the fund into actual housing units has not yet matched the rate of contribution.
The government should also think bigger by expanding the scope to include commercial housing. Businesses across the country are struggling under the weight of high rent for commercial spaces. It is a paradox that many entrepreneurs pay more for their business premises than they pay for their family homes. If the housing fund could support the development of modestly priced commercial spaces, it would not only support entrepreneurship but also regulate business rent across towns and cities.
This in turn would attract investors and create affordable opportunities for small and medium enterprises to grow.
Infrastructure development must move hand in hand with housing. A house without sewer systems, roads, water supply, schools, and health centers is an incomplete solution. Housing must be seen as the heart of a broader ecosystem of human settlement. Counties should therefore be brought in as stronger partners, not just to provide land, but also to ensure that supporting infrastructure is developed in tandem with housing.
As the national government gradually reduces contribution levels, counties can help channel more of the fund into social housing that directly benefits the poorest residents.
One thing is certain. The housing fund will continue to dignify lives. It has the potential to go far beyond shelter, reaching into public health, education, economic development, and the overall quality of life. If managed with fairness and vision, it could become one of the most transformative programs in our history, ensuring that future generations live in dignity and security.
