CIDCO’s Housing Scheme Faces Unmet Expectations
CIDCO’s ambitious ‘My Preferred Home’ housing scheme, intended to provide affordable housing across Navi Mumbai, has garnered a surprisingly lukewarm response, leading to concerns over its viability and effectiveness in meeting the city’s housing needs. The scheme, which was eagerly anticipated, has received only 55,000 eligible applications for 26,000 homes, indicating a significant drop in interest compared to initial projections.
Initially, there were 1,36,000 applications submitted for the scheme, which covers various prominent Navi Mumbai localities including Taloja, Kharghar, Panvel, and Kalamboli. However, the number of applicants who paid the registration fee and were eligible for the lottery stands at just 55,000, meaning there are just over two applicants per available home. This should improve the chances for many, but the low turnout raises concerns about the broader appeal and effectiveness of the project. The pricing structure has emerged as a key factor in the low response. Homes under the scheme are priced between ₹25 lakh and ₹48 lakh for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category and ₹34 lakh to ₹97 lakh for the Lower Income Group (LIG). Critics have pointed out that these prices are not significantly lower than those offered by private developers in Navi Mumbai, who often provide better amenities and more developed locations.
This disparity has made CIDCO’s offerings less attractive, particularly in areas like Taloja, where issues like pollution and water scarcity have deterred potential buyers. Another challenge faced by the scheme was the late announcement of project-specific costs, which were only disclosed a day before the registration deadline. This limited the time available for potential applicants to evaluate the full financial implications of the scheme. Additionally, registration fees and stamp duties for homes priced above ₹74 lakh further added to the overall cost, making the scheme less financially appealing to the target demographic. CIDCO’s chairperson, Sanjay Shirsat, acknowledged the low turnout and pointed to administrative inefficiencies and insufficient outreach as potential contributing factors. While CIDCO has defended the pricing, claiming that it reflects the demand for housing in prime locations, critics argue that the affordability aspect has been compromised. Despite these hurdles, CIDCO remains resolute in its commitment to providing affordable housing for the common man, with plans to refine its approach in future projects. The scheme’s challenges highlight the complexities involved in catering to the needs of the economically disadvantaged, especially when market realities and buyer preferences diverge from governmental intentions.
