Shanty town demolitions

[chequita guevara]

No one's argueing they're a good thing, but if you demolish them without replacing them with something affordable, all you will see is a temprorary jump in homelessness (because many of these people are jobless) and then a relocation of the shantytowns as people move.

Government tenements are a better solution, at least in that they'll get clean water and a more secure building. Just pay the $2000 to Russia to get the subsidized apartments and tenements.

[DanS]

Obviously, if you destroy the shanties in one fell swoop, you would have elevated homelessness. However, I can imagine a scenario where the government over time forces these people to move from the area or somehow to get into the functioning housing market. Building government projects doesn't force these folks into the functioning housing market. Now you may say that this payoff to the poor is worth it, at least from an expediency point of view, but I'm not so sure.

[BlackCat]

Just to give an impression of what demolition of a shanty town means :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4706115.stm

[DanS]

It just occured to me that this thread and the unwanted houseguest thread are strongly related.

More unwanted houseguests! Fewer shanties!

[Combat Ingrid]

Kill kill kill kill kill the poor...

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by DanS
It just occured to me that this thread and the unwanted houseguest thread are strongly related.

More unwanted houseguests! Fewer shanties!

Regarding social inertia - I've observed Africans have a somewhat fatalistic attitude toward life just as Oerdin observed Iraqis having same attitude (God Willing). In Kenya they often say "No worries" which basically means "Life sucks big time, we cannot change our living circumstances, it's all in hands of God or some other higher power, so why worry? Accept it." This is not limited to Kenya, I've seen it in other African countries as well. So I won't be surprised if Zimbabweans have similar views upon life.

[St Leo]

Re: Shanty town demolitions

Originally posted by DanS
And then you have the fact that most of these shantys are on land that isn't theirs.

Look, Dan. Private property is a convenient metaphor. It's useful and convenient, but it's not some sort of an intrinsic fact. Exceptional circumstances can exist.

In this case, pragmatically, the ownership of the land isn't relevant. Ethically, the shantytowns have long earned a right to continue existing. Just as a trademark can be diluted if not defended, so land that lies abandoned and fallow stops being controllable from the moral perspective.

[Colonâ„¢]

Re: Shanty town demolitions

Originally posted by DanS
And then you have the fact that most of these shantys are on land that isn't theirs.

Which I believe to be the basic problem. I think that it would make more sense and that it would be more humane to ensure the peope living in shanty towns can legally reside it.

[DanS]

In this case, pragmatically, the ownership of the land isn't relevant.

It's quite relevant. Nobody is going to improve a shanty on land that isn't theirs. And no city is going to run utilities to an unimproved shanty. The investment from the city doesn't pay.

[DanS]

Re: Re: Shanty town demolitions

Originally posted by St Leo
Just as a trademark can be diluted if not defended, so land that lies abandoned and fallow stops being controllable from the moral perspective.

I agree with this, but neither is the squatter's right absolute in the context of the government's use of eminent domain.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by DanS


It's quite relevant. Nobody is going to improve a shanty on land that isn't theirs. And no city is going to run utilities to a shanty.

I think that you totally has misunderstood what a shanty town is. It is build by those that live there and they certainly tries to improve it - though, they don't have the resources to reach Kucistandard regarding bathrooms.

If cities don't run utilities to a shanty town, they are pretty stupid. If they don't do it, they just prolong the period they exist.

[Dis]

can you really compare shanty towns with the recent supreme court ruling (which I'm in total disagreement with)? One is on land they don't own. The other is the goverment forcing people off land they own. It's not the same.

[Spiffor]

If you want to remove shantitowns, just build public housing for the shanty's inhabitants. It has worked very well in France, as pretty much all shanties inherited from WW2 disappeared with the public housing programme.

(Now that we have stopped promoting public housing, shanties are slowly but surely reappearing)

[DanS]

Originally posted by Dis
can you really compare shanty towns with the recent supreme court ruling (which I'm in total disagreement with)? One is on land they don't own. The other is the goverment forcing people off land they own. It's not the same.

I was merely pointing out to St. Leo that the land rights that a squatter acquires by virtue of living on abandoned land is not absolute, just as other forms of ownership aren't absolute. In fact, the government could come along, kick these squatters out, pay them a pittance for their property (it isn't worth much, after all), raze the structures, and that would be that.

[Dis]

as for shanty towns, I'm not really qualified to say. I've never lived in one. And to be honest. I have never seen one first hand.

Unless you can count the homless setups we have here as shanty towns. We had one on D street I used to pass by everday going to work. It was basically set up with blankets and scrap wood. These weren't permanent structures. And it only ran along the sidewalk. the police eventually kicked them all out and tore the place down. there are a lot of homeless in my city. thousands of people.