In the wake of the Guachupita disaster: a member of a UN advisory group proposes social housing policies

Studies indicate that 75% of the country’s houses are built by the residents themselves (by the residents who are to live in the house or by social production). It is also up to them to set up many of the facilities as well as community services. But 44% of the houses are weak and need improvements. The repercussions are tragedies like the recent one in Gualey, where at least eight people died as their homes were crushed by the rains. By investing less than half the amount that the Dominican government injected into failed banks from 2002 to 2004, situations like these could be avoided ahead of time by granting equity to a large part of the families who have built on private or state land and by planning aid for would-be family units.

This information comes to us from Pedro Franco, UN-designated member of the Advisory Group on Forced Evictions of UN-HABITAT (UN-AGFE). He has proposed that the Dominican government establish social housing policies and land rights and to enable communities to relocate from danger zones. These measures will fall under article 11.1 of the The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and General Comments IV and VII from the Committee on Rights indicated by the Covenant.

He mentioned that a study conducted by the International Alliance of Habitants in 2007 on the feasibility of the creation of a land and housing fund in the Dominican Republic and Peru, brought to light some notable situations, and drew some interesting conclusions, some of which are mentioned below:

- A ten-year investment, equivalent to 4.4% of the GDP, would fill the gap in housing, currently more than 800 thousand units; solve the problem of insecure structures, which affects 40% of families who pay rent; and above all, give equity to millions of families who live without security and are susceptible to eviction.

-The study shows that the government only has to provide the sum of this 4.4% let alone offer it to the families. Still, it acknowledges that, given the unstable situation, a certain number of recipients, estimated at the most to be 10%, should receive a subsidy.

-The study makes clear that, in the Dominican Republic, the social housing production sector (informal producers) build the majority of the housing, given that the banks and the property sector barely contribute even 5.2%.

Social housing policies cannot rest on the property sector.

The UN-AGFE member explains that, at the time of strong discourse last August 16, the Dominican president Mr. Leonel Fernández recognized for the first time that housing was a necessary social policy in the development and modernisation of the country: “Housing is a fundamental necessity for the human being from the time of birth. The subject has been missing from the speeches that the parties and presidents, including Mr. Fernandez, have delivered at international events and summits.”

He points out that it necessary that state investment in housing directly serve to stimulate the social housing production sector, which produces 75% of housing. This subsidy will enable the reduction of insecure structures, now at 44%, as well as the creation of secure structures for new families and will provide equity to a large majority of families who currently live without security. It is the problem of ownership that brings about numerous forced evictions which degrade the image of the country to the rest of the world when the rights of the poor are not respected.

Initiatives that must serve as an example

He also points out that “these past ten years, in the country, a series of community initiatives has been put in place. They were advanced by the nongovernmental institutions such as Cuidad Alternativa, Centro Montalvo, and CEDAIL and by various international networks such as Habitat International Coalition (HIC) and International Alliance of Inhabitants (IAI). It is imperative that the government study these initiatives and propositions since they are essentially experimental models that shed light on the prospect of the establishment of social housing policies and land rights necessary for the country.

Among these initiatives organised by the community he highlights the following:

The proposal of the Cigua Plan developed by CIUDAD ALTERNATIVA. This solution is for the families living on the banks of the rivers Ozama et Isabela. The Red Urbano Popular and Coophabitat housing bills. The latter, as well as creating a minister of housing, habitat, and improvised living, provides for the creation of a national fund such as the one in place in Uruguay since 1968, which guarantees access to land and housing equity to a large part of the destitute population that lives without security.

To create a framework to promote cooperation in regards to housing, such as that which is in place in such countries as Uruguay and Mexico, this framework would regulate the application of credit and state subsidies in such manner that the recipient families can’t use them for commercial purposes as has been the case in the past. The housing must be intended for the family and remain the property of the cooperative: it cannot be sold, rented, or negotiated. This represents a definitive solution for the families, their descendants or ascendants.

To reorient the role of the National Bank for Housing, which must be intended for housing and land. The current definition of ‘bank for housing and production’ does not clearly point to the public sector, the transcendence and urgency of social housing policies.

The creation of the social housing production cooperative, COOPHABITAT, the first to promote the project model lauded by the mutual aid housing cooperatives. Across these projects, the communities provide the labour, and thanks to credits and donations, they carry out a habitation project by constructing housing that cannot be sold, rented, or negotiated. This represents a long-term solution for the families.

The first housing project of this type began in the Villa Esfuerzo sector, in the municipality of East Santo Domingo. It affects 77 families, evicted by the property agency Esperilla Land, owned by the Porcella and Elmuesí families, among others. These families got the lands from the CEA in 1997 at the time of the Capitalisation law.

A delegation of UN-AGFE, directed by the world coordinator, Mr. Yves Cabannes, was introduced in the country during a period of family evictions. It opened the dialogue between the government institutions (Executive Power, Mayors, Chamber of Deputies), the civil society, the community, and the Pocella family, and they reached a relocation agreement.

The Porcella family, led by Mr. Enrique Porcella and Pedro Elmuesi, did not respect the agreements and did not deliver the land titles and the government did not assign the necessary funds. In response, the community formed Coophabitat and began a process of build-up and preliminary work. To do this it followed the advice of the Uruguayan Federation of Cooperatives for Mutual Aid—pioneer of this model on the continent—the Swedish Cooperative Centre, and the International Alliance of Inhabitants, the last of which provided the base allowing the work to begin.

The private sector must provide the solution

The traditional line between the great private capital and the government allowed not only for the private sector to enter into possession of the best and the largest parcels of land in the country, but also to create situations which today put to the forefront the crisis and the government’s inability to find a solution.

Nevertheless, landownership is a veritable deadlock that prevents the resolution of the housing problem. Proof of this is the situation where the Vicini family keeps down the residents of the northern zone of the National District. They keep them from improving their dangerous housing. It is estimated that approximately 70% of the residents of the National District and of the province are in the same situation. As to the southern region, one only has to go from San Cristobal up to the border before someone claims to have titles to the land. And the communities in the tourist areas such as Juana Vicenta (Samaná), Verón (Higuey), Juan Dolio (San Pedro de Macorís), Boca Chica (Santo Domingo), there are tens of thousands of similar cases.

A solution is impossible without a defined political will from the government and some social responsibility from the companies that, although it is unclear exactly why, own the titles of the land where the majority of the families built their own houses.

“Today the country is appalled. And this feeling has taken hold of the everyday government official at every level. But the ideal would be that the officials that have any decision-making power take from an event as painful as the above-mentioned deaths a force of action and social policies. This would allow some security and guarantee to life, land, and liveable housing to be given to the national majorities”, concludes Mr. Franco.