"In Bermuda you have got money running out the gazoo and a serious problem of poverty housing but it is not one that is unsolvable. A place like Bermuda should have no sub-standard housing."

Those were the words of Habitat for Humanity founder Millard Fuller this week, and it is hard to disagree with them.

Mr. Fuller also called for a bipartisan approach on the issue, and there is some evidence that that is now occurring, with Minister Ashfield DeVent saying this week that an announcement on the construction of 100 new homes will be made next week.

That project appears to be a joint venture between Government and the private sector and that is the ideal approach to the problem.

Similarly, last week in the House of Assembly the Opposition United Bermuda Party made it quite clear that it wanted to work with Government on the issue.

That is statesmanlike because the UBP could beat the Government like a drum on the issue.

Private sector developers, charitable groups like Habitat for Humanity and the Government need to work together to ensure that Bermuda has adequate and affordable housing.

And the problem must be approached with transparency and a willingness to cooperate.

Making home ownership a part of the goal is key. It builds responsibility for homes and social stability and helps to create wealth.

So is ensuring that any developments are mixed. Creating tracts of low cost homes runs the risks of developing slums. Mixing homes being sold at market value with low cost homes helps to build neighbourhoods that work.

Mr. Fuller also called on Government to set a reasonable date for the elimination of all sub-standard housing and this is good advice.

The target may not be met, but it gives all involved a deadline for getting things done. Setting an unreasonable date, of course, will doom the project to failure.

But setting reasonable targets for first determining the true size of the problem, secondly identifying the land and buildings that will be needed and then setting reasonable completion dates are key, and just as importantly, give the public the confidence that things are getting better.

At the risk of contradicting some of the above, Government deserves some credit for reversing itself this week on the Anchorage Road issue.

There Government originally planned to evict the sitting tenants, renovate the homes and sell them on the open market in order to raise capital for further developments.

While that might have made sense on paper, it would have been disastrous in human terms, and until any additional homes were built, it would have resulted in more homelessness and the destruction of the neighbourhood.

It would still seem to be reasonable to renovate the homes and then offer them for sale the sitting tenants at a reasonable rate.

That might be a better alternative than the one Government is apparently contemplating, which is to renovate them and then rent them back to the tenants at a higher rent than they are now paying.

By all accounts, the renovations that Government is contemplating are largely structural. These repairs are the landlord's responsibility and in the private sector would not normally see the tenant being forced to fund the repairs if what is required falls short of completely gutting the property.

Even then, if the damage was caused by Hurricane Fabian, then the Housing Corporation should be able to finance them through insurance.

Making the tenants take on the burden would be immoral.