There is a temptation to talk about the housing crisis as if it’s just an economic inconvenience. Rents are high, supply is tight and people are frustrated. But housing is not just about where you live; it is about how long you live, and how well you live.

A growing body of research shows that housing instability doesn’t just correlate with poor health. It drives it. When rent consumes too much of a household’s income, people are forced into impossible trade-offs. Food quality declines. Medications are skipped. Preventive care is postponed. Chronic conditions worsen quietly until they become emergencies.

Then there’s stress, not the fleeting kind, but the chronic, grinding pressure of uncertainty. Will the rent go up again? Will I have to move? Can I stay in my community? Will I be able to find a new home? That kind of stress reshapes the body. It raises blood pressure, disrupts metabolism and increases the risk of depression and cardiovascular disease. Over time, it accumulates into “allostatic load”, leaving lasting biological damage.

This is not abstract theory. It is a public health crisis hiding in plain sight. If housing is a driver of health, then housing policy is health policy. That’s not ideology or hyperbole. It’s reality. As the Shadow Minister of Housing and Municipalities put it: “The crisis is a present catastrophe: measurable, documented and worsening.”

The One Bermuda Alliance has been consistent in recognising this, putting forward a set of solutions aimed at both increasing supply and restoring stability. The approach is straightforward: build more, build smarter and remove the barriers that prevent housing from reaching the people who need it.

That means:

• Allowing greater building heights where appropriate to expand supply

• Incentivising private-sector construction so new units come online faster

• Repurposing underused government land into long-term housing

• Prioritising rent-to-own pathways that give Bermudians a stake in their future

It also means fixing what’s broken in the system itself. Outdated legislation slows development. Probate delays keep homes off the market. Regulatory bottlenecks discourage investment. These are not minor inefficiencies. They are structural failures with real human costs.

And then there’s accountability. Without transparency, time-bound targets and measurable outcomes, any housing strategy risks becoming a document instead of a solution.

Now, here’s where things get a bit absurd.

The OBA’s position on housing is not hidden. It has been repeated publicly, consistently and in detail. Which raises fair questions: why the confusion? Why the suggestion that these ideas are unclear, or worse, obstructive?

Let’s be candid, scrutiny is not obstruction. Asking whether a plan actually serves the public interest is not delay, it is responsibility. And yes, sometimes that responsibility means saying no.

Not every proposal deserves applause simply because it has been drafted. If a policy risks worsening affordability, distorting the market or prioritising narrow interests over the broader community, it should be challenged. A bad plan implemented quickly is still a bad plan.

That means “dismissing” proposals that fail that test. It means “delaying” those that are ill-conceived until they are improved. It means refusing to be “distracted” from the central issue: protecting the health and wellbeing of our community.

And when the health of Bermudians is on the line, the position should be clear, unwavering and loud: Not here. Not this way. Not now.

• David Rogers is a One Bermuda Alliance senator and opposition spokesman for housing and municipalities in the Upper House