Thanks to the Ministry of Public Works... So when will we thank the Ministry of Housing?

Yesterday, we wrote about a viral video showing a pothole on one of the outer roads, raising questions about it. Within hours, the Ministry of Public Works responded via its official account—a swift reaction we appreciate and for which we thank the ministry.

However, the ministry stated in its response that the video was old. Yet, on the “X” platform, users claim the clip is recent and was filmed on August 21. We urge the ministry to review and correct this information. Official government responses should not only be prompt but also accurate, as the public treats them as a reliable source of information.

Nevertheless, the speed of the Public Works’ response has brought to the fore a larger, more urgent question: If a pothole on a road warrants a government response within hours, who will answer for the 509 families and approximately 5,000 citizens in eastern Tayma, who have been waiting for weeks to learn the fate of their homes by September 1?

[Subscribe to News Platforms] [Acquire Telescopes and Astronomy Equipment]

These families have received notices terminating their rental contracts and ordering eviction, with only a few days remaining until the deadline.

We do not expect the government to resolve a complex legal and housing file within hours, but at the very least, the people deserve an answer.

Is the eviction proceeding as scheduled? Is the file under review? Is there a postponement? Are alternatives being considered?

Say something to them.

Sometimes, the harshest thing a person endures is not the decision itself, but the wait for the unknown. There are fathers, mothers, and elderly people who do not know whether to search for rental homes today, start packing their furniture, or remain in their residences and wait.

We return to the question we have repeated without finding an answer: If the state is taking these homes from their current residents, to whom will it give them?

If they are to remain rental or utility properties, the current residents have the first claim to them; they have lived there for years, paid their rent, spent money on repairs and furnishings, and established their families, children, and grandchildren there.

If the state wishes to recover their value, we have proposed a clear initiative: Open the door to ownership for the current beneficiaries, according to a fair value and mechanism that preserves the rights of the state and public funds.

If ownership requires legislation or study, let the rental or utility arrangement continue until the study is completed.

If all of that is impossible, postpone the eviction for a sufficient and fair period, and address the issue of compensating those who spent tens of thousands on furnishing homes they received incomplete.

Solutions exist; what is required is to choose the most just and least costly option for both the state and the citizen.

We have a recent experience whose painful social repercussions we should not repeat: what happened in Jleeb Al-Shuyoukh.

We support the application of the law and the removal of illegal or dilapidated buildings once their danger is established. However, it is important to distinguish between the property owner and the tenant who lived there, paid his rent, and was not responsible for any violations.

When large numbers of residents are asked to evacuate in a short timeframe, during the height of summer and extreme heat, without adequate alternative housing available, it is natural that another crisis will emerge:

Families searching for apartments simultaneously, a sudden surge in demand, rising rents, dwindling alternatives, and people who do not know where to go.

The suffering of some eviction victims has reached the point of requiring temporary shelter solutions. If it is confirmed that the state had to provide schools to house those evicted in Jleeb Al-Shuyoukh, this alone is a message that warrants study: A decision not preceded by alternatives may simply transfer the problem from one place to another, only for the state itself to later bear the human and social consequences.

This leads us to ask: If there is no urgent security or structural necessity, why is the evacuation scheduled during the hottest month of the year? Why not give people at least until mid-November, when the weather moderates and the relocation process becomes less arduous for the elderly and children? And most importantly: Why are we displacing families before we even know where they will go?

We do not want to see these scenes repeated with the 509 Kuwaiti families in East Taima.

We do not want the morning of September 1 to find the same state authorities responsible for enforcement facing parents, grandparents, and elderly residents clinging to the homes they have lived in for years.

Neither the government, nor the citizens, nor society at large, want this scenario.

The path to avoiding it is clear: temporarily halt the evictions, convene with community representatives, review the case legally, consider options such as property ownership or continued tenancy and usage rights, and then make a decision only after ensuring its fairness, legality, and social implications.

The Ministry of Public Works responded to a pothole within hours, and while we await their confirmation regarding the age of the video in question, the situation in East Taima is different. There, approximately five thousand citizens are not waiting for an answer about a pothole on a road; they are waiting for answers regarding their homes, the future of their families, and the stability of their lives in just a few days.

So, answer them and reassure their hearts before September 1.

If these homes ultimately remain residences for Kuwaiti families, then the current residents who live there today have the strongest claim to them.