The devastating earthquakes that struck Venezuela's northern coast last month have triggered growing criticism of the country's decades-old public housing program backed by the Chavez and Rodriguez administrations.

Survivors, engineers, and construction experts have questioned whether years of ignored warnings, opaque construction practices, and political priorities contributed to a death toll that critics argue extended beyond the natural disaster itself.

A detailed investigation by The New York Times found that many of the worst collapses occurred in large government-built housing developments in La Guaira, the coastal state that serves as the gateway to Caracas. 

Survivors searching through the rubble expressed anger not only at the earthquake itself but also at the quality of the buildings constructed under the socialist housing initiative launched by former President Hugo Chavez,a program that has continued under Acting President Delcy Rodriguez.

"These people weren't killed by the disaster," Juan Manuel Chirinos, whose son, daughter-in-law and two grandchildren were trapped beneath a collapsed apartment tower, told The New York Times. 

"They were killed by the government because they built these buildings like garbage,” he said.

The buildings were constructed under the government's Mision Vivienda housing program, one of Chavez's signature social initiatives, intended to provide affordable homes for millions of Venezuelans. 

Today, the program remains a centerpiece of the government led by Rodriguez, which says more than 5.5 million homes have been built nationwide.

Maria Corina Machado has been sharply critical of the Rodriguez government's response, although her criticism has focused primarily on the government's handling of the rescue and humanitarian response rather than on making definitive engineering conclusions about why buildings collapsed.

Machado has argued the earthquake exposed "the total absence of the state." 

Machado said the Rodriguez government's response revealed fundamental weaknesses in state institutions and claimed Venezuelans were left largely to fend for themselves during rescue efforts.

The earthquake has also renewed long-standing concerns from engineers and independent experts who, according to the report, warned for years about structural problems, cracks, unsafe gas-line installations and whether some developments could withstand a major seismic event. 

Construction plans reportedly began in 2011 during a politically significant election period, and details of engineering studies and soil analyses were largely withheld from public review.

In 2017, Enzo Betancourt, then-president of Venezuela's College of Engineers, described the structural integrity of the government-built housing as "a state secret," criticizing the lack of transparency surrounding engineering specifications and technical reviews.

Critics note that many of the projects were built during Venezuela's oil boom, when the country still enjoyed substantial petroleum revenues and state spending was at historic highs. 

As a result, several observers argue the controversy cannot simply be attributed to financial constraints but instead raises broader questions about engineering oversight, procurement and political decision-making.

The New York Times also reported that many developments were constructed by foreign companies operating under contracts critics characterized as opaque. 

Among them was Turkish construction firm Summa, which built part of the Hugo Chávez housing complex. 

Jose Luis Sarmiento, a construction worker involved in the project, recalled that buildings were completed at extraordinary speed. "Those people finished a building in less than a week," he said.

Construction executive Guillermo Rivas, who has worked in La Guaira for more than four decades, argued that political objectives often appeared to outweigh technical considerations.

"There was no technical interest there," Rivas told the newspaper. "The interest there was populism."

Other experts cautioned that determining responsibility will require detailed engineering investigations. 

Mario Lieghio, president of La Guaira's construction chamber, noted that the region's unique geography — situated between mountains and the Caribbean Sea — creates difficult soil conditions requiring extensive geotechnical studies, deep foundations and earthquake-resistant construction techniques. 

Architect Burak Pelenk, who worked on approvals for one project, said he believed the buildings had been designed with earthquakes in mind and suggested any failures could have resulted from flawed soil analysis or foundation issues rather than architectural design alone.

The Rodriguez government has rejected suggestions that state housing was primarily responsible for the destruction. 

A government representative declined to answer detailed questions from The New York Times, while Rodriguez stated publicly that most buildings that collapsed in La Guaira had not been government-built. 

The report also notes that privately developed apartment buildings for middle- and upper-income residents suffered catastrophic collapses as well, raising broader questions about construction quality in the region.

Nevertheless, criticism of the government's disaster response has continued. 

Survivors described rescue efforts as lacking equipment and coordination, with volunteers, firefighters and emergency personnel often working without a unified command structure. 

One resident told the newspaper that rescuers were "scraping by with our fingernails" as families searched desperately for loved ones buried beneath the concrete.

As recovery operations continue, independent engineering investigations are expected to examine whether the widespread collapses resulted primarily from the earthquakes' intensity, local geological conditions, construction practices, or a combination of those factors. 

For many grieving families, however, the disaster has already become a symbol of deeper concerns about transparency, accountability and infrastructure built under one of Venezuela's most ambitious — and now most controversial — public works programs.