Evictions no solution to city's housing problem

Evictions no solution to city's housing problem

Marco Kusumawijaya, Architect, Jakarta

The violence with which the Jakarta city administration
recently evicted the urban poor from their river bank community
has shocked many, especially given indications of arson.

We should be concerned, not only about the poor, but about a
government that we all contribute to financially which seems to
lack understanding of a very basic human right.

And this is not the first time. Another appalling example,
still before the courts, involves the eviction of people from the
area below the elevated railroad in Kampung Karang Anyar, Central
Jakarta.

The government mostly argues that the inhabitants are illegal
and claims it protects wider environmental concerns or other
public interests. Most disdainful is its argument that the
evicted urban poor are "migrants" from other areas in Indonesia,
not the deserving permanent residents of Jakarta.

Those arguments are not only naive and misguided, but also
cruel. Violent eviction and banning alone, without any viable
alternative, has proved to be a non-solution. At best, they shift
problems from one place to another and keep the poor out of sight
only temporarily.

The United Nations' covenant on social economic rights
declares housing as a universal human right. Each and every
government is responsible to take care of not only their own
citizens, but all that reside in its country. If this principle
is applicable among sovereign nations, it certainly should apply
among local governments in a united state of Indonesia.

Illegality is an illusive argument. Many of the houses in the
illegal settlements have registered electrical and telephone
connections. While the issue of illegality is correct, its
solution is not single-minded -- let alone violent -- evictions.

Many cities in developing countries, including Kendari and
Palu in eastern Indonesia, accommodate urban "illegal" settlers
in one form or another. They are either given certified titles
over the lands they are occupying, or moved to other titled
lands. The basic issue is not legality, but availability of land
for the urban poor. Legality can be endowed by a willing
authority.

Are lands available in Jakarta? The administration, Jakarta,
through its companies such as Sarana Jaya and Pasar Jaya controls
hundreds, if not thousands, of hectares of land. The lands that
are often cleared on behalf of "public interest", such as
protection of river banks or other environmental concerns, have
in some cases been re-allocated for commercial purposes.

The coastal natural reserve in North Jakarta was transformed
into high-income commercial housing estates. On spaces below the
elevated railroads in Karang Anyar, where from hundreds of
families were evicted, are now dozens of kiosks erected by the
railway company.

The so-called river right-of-ways are not without
possibilities to be optimized to give spaces to the poor. The
National Housing Corporation Perumnas controls hundreds of
hectares of land in the city.

On one of their largest chunks at the West Jakarta Outer Ring
Road, however, they are currently building houses for ever higher
income groups. There are also hundreds of hectares of wasted
lands resulting from and surrounding the construction of large
toll road interchanges. One of these is just across the burned
Kampung Tanggul Indah by Pluit interchange in North Jakarta.

Why not subsidize lands to the poor, instead of charity
subsidies?

The urban poor need space more than money or other consumable
subsidies. The very reason they have been occupying marginal
lands inside or nearby city centers is survival. They ought to be
close to employment opportunities and cheap resources, such as
river water even if it is polluted, and garbage dumping sites
from where they can salvage any items of value.

Of course, even if they wanted to live in better places on
"legal" lands, they could not afford them under the current
system.

It is indeed hard enough for average middle-income groups to
afford lands and houses inside the city. And this is no simple
capitalist mystery. It is more the lack of policy by the city
government to plan and control affordability of lands and
housings inside the city.

They are more interested in increasing commercial land-use, as
this yields more short-term gains for city coffers as well as
creates private wealth for some corrupt city officials.

For the poor, the larger the city, the more "location" is
crucial for their survival. But this locational value is not even
for profit as is the case with developers. Locational value is
just basic for their survival, considering the high cost of
transport.

"Space, not money" has been exposed as the required assistance
for the poor. But the irony and hypocrisy continues: More charity
subsidies are given while no real policy is being made to
allocate affordable spaces for the urban poor. It may seem
difficult to promote such a policy. Poverty is not likely seen as
a persistent reality. Instead, it is illusively seen as an
unwanted reality that should visually disappear from the city, as
if the city is a fantasy land only for the rich.

Without a viable policy to control land prices and make them
affordable for housing of the poor and middle-income groups
alike, there is no other place to go for the poor but public
space, wherever it is!

It is of course important to protect rivers and other
environmental reserves, but it is a noble obligation to take care
of the citizens with human rights. Not to forget: Studies show
that urban poor in Jakarta are as productive as others. They are
functional in the economy of the city, and not at all are
parasites like many of the city's corrupt officials.