WILLEMSTAD – Fundashon E Hende (FEH) is asking the Curaçao Parliament to launch a parliamentary inquiry into housing organizations FKP and FFP, citing questions about millions of guilders in government funding, the ownership and sale of public housing, taxes, mortgages and the financial obligations imposed on residents.
FEH has sent three separate letters to institutions including Parliament, the government, Governor, Ombudsman and General Audit Chamber. Its formal request for a parliamentary inquiry specifically concerns FKP and FFP.
The foundation argues that substantial financial interests of citizens are at stake and that the issues could have consequences for public housing. It also questions whether there has been sufficient institutional oversight.
Some of FEH's concerns can be linked to official government documents. However, several of its more serious allegations are not accompanied by the underlying evidence, while at least one of its interpretations of Curaçao's public housing legislation appears to go further than the law itself provides.
Cg 12 million annually
One of the clearest financial issues concerns the government's annual contribution to FKP.
FEH questions what Curaçao receives in return for Cg 12 million provided annually for the management of government-owned homes and rental subsidies.
The amount itself is confirmed in official government financial reporting. According to the June 2022 Financial Management Report, Parliament approved a management agreement between the Country of Curaçao and FKP, which was subsequently signed.
Under that agreement, FKP receives Cg 12 million annually: Cg 5 million for managing homes owned by the government and Cg 7 million for rental subsidies.
That means FEH's suggestion that the money is provided without any reciprocal obligation is too broad, since a formal management agreement exists.
The unanswered questions concern exactly what FKP is required to deliver under that agreement, how maintenance and performance are monitored and whether those obligations have been met.
FEH additionally alleges that residents have faced rent increases and other charges despite the government's annual payments. However, the documents provided by the foundation do not establish that the same Cg 12 million was effectively collected a second time from tenants. Determining that would require examining the management agreement, FKP's financial administration and individual tenant accounts.
Government itself investigated ownership
Questions surrounding public housing ownership are not limited to FEH.
Government financial reports show that SOAB was commissioned to establish the economic and legal ownership of homes managed by FKP.
SOAB delivered a memorandum to the VVRP ministry on May 11, 2023. However, according to the September 2024 Financial Management Report, that document was not forwarded through the VVRP minister to the Ministry of Finance until July 2024. At that stage, the matter was still awaiting verification and no concrete conclusions were reported.
That issue could become important if Parliament decides to investigate, because it suggests that questions about the legal and economic ownership of FKP-managed homes have also existed within government itself.
Tax allegations need verification
FEH makes further allegations concerning turnover tax. It claims FKP retroactively charged customers turnover tax dating back to 2000 and says a 2023 Court of Appeal ruling rejected the charge and ordered repayment with statutory interest.
However, FEH did not provide a case number or ECLI reference for the judgment. As a result, the available documents do not establish whether the ruling has the broad consequences for all FKP customers claimed by the foundation.
A similar evidentiary issue concerns what FEH describes as a “usage tax.” The foundation claims the Receiver confirmed the charge was unlawful and that the money collected did not enter the public treasury, but the written statement from the Receiver cited by FEH was not included in the documents.
These are potentially significant allegations, but establishing them would require obtaining the original court judgment, correspondence with the Receiver and financial records showing how the amounts were collected and processed.
No automatic right to buy after two years
FEH also claims public housing should have been sold to prospective buyers after they had rented for two years and argues that some residents who have paid rent for approximately 20 years have effectively already paid for their homes.
The relevant legislation does not establish an automatic right to purchase after two years.
The National Ordinance on Acquisition of Ownership of Public Housing provides that a public home may be sold at the tenant's request. A tenant must, among other requirements, have rented the property continuously for at least two years and have no rent arrears before such a request can be approved.
The two-year period is therefore an eligibility requirement rather than a legal obligation requiring the government to sell every home after two years.
Whether Parliament will grant FEH's request remains to be seen. A parliamentary inquiry is not automatically triggered by the foundation's letter. Parliament itself would have to decide to establish an inquiry and determine its scope.