Taxing kampong dwellers to relieve the blight

Taxing kampong dwellers to relieve the blight

Growing slum areas and evictions in Jakarta have prompted some
urban architects to further promote concepts of urban development
that involve the local communities. Scholars from Delft
University of Technology in Delft, the Netherlands, Jakarta's
Erasmus Huis and other academics recently held a workshop
involving young urban architects.

One of the organizers, H. Juergen Rosemann, a professor at the
Delft School of Architecture, shared some of his views with The
Jakarta Post's Evi Mariani.

Question: What should be done with cities in Indonesia,
particularly Jakarta, to improve slum areas, or kampongs

Answer: During our discussions here it has become clear that
the main threat regarding the kampongs is that they have been
identified as slums. Of course they have the characteristics of
slums, like poor people living there, poor living conditions,
with problematic waste and sewage disposal.

Therefore, people think such areas are temporary, and it means
nobody takes care, nobody invests, nobody improves the
infrastructure or sanitation, for example.

These areas are a source of activity. There are marketplaces
and a lot of people produce things.

So a change of mind is necessary -- to explore the kampong
areas not only as slums or deteriorated areas but also as areas
with a certain potential. They could be developed and have better
qualities, particularly for people living there. With that in
mind, the kampongs would be seen as places that need to be
sustained, not just temporary locations.
Who do you think should invest in the kampongs?

The main investment, the main improvement, should be done by
the people themselves. But the government could help in a very
effective way by making these areas really permanent.

The government should ensure that land use will not be
changed, that developers will not take over the land.

Uncertainty on the part of the government is one big threat
for these areas. That could be the important point of the
government to provide security and certainty.

And at a relatively low cost, the infrastructure can be
improved profoundly, for example by implementing better sewage
and garbage disposal.

The people could improve their quality of life by themselves,
but under these conditions: The improvement of the infrastructure
and certainty of their future from the government.
Have you ever been to a kampong in Jakarta?

Once this week, I visited (Bukit Duri in South Jakarta) and
talked with the people. I can compare it with slum areas in Latin
America like in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo and I think the
kampongs in Jakarta have much more hope because they are less
deteriorated and they have integrated economic factors much more
than the favelas have in Latin America.

I was really impressed by the possibilities the kampongs here
have. From what I've seen, people support each other, they work
together. It was a complete and functioning community.

There are street vendors and small shops. But they do not only
sell things, they produce things and there is an astonishing
range of products. And I call that the potential of kampongs.
How do you see the policy of the City administration, which is
evicting people from slum areas, then building low-cost
apartments and forcing them to move to those apartments?

In general, in a segregated city, relocating people to other
areas is only relocating problems. And the problem will increase
because the people who are replaced lose their social network,
and then they have to build up a whole new environment.

Relocation should be avoided as much as possible. Of course,
sometimes it's not possible. Jakarta, a city that depends on
powerful economic development, has to provide space for it,
otherwise it will become a city only of the poor.

But particularly for the traditional kampong, it's important
not to destroy them because it will only increase social problems
like criminality and vandalism.

But not only that. There's some interesting research in the
United States and Europe. The conclusion was that a city that is
more integrated, with less of a gap between the poor and the
rich, has more advantages in economic terms.

The research concluded that to support integration means, in
fact, to support the economy.

In Jakarta, you have a formal economy and an informal economy.
The big part is the informal one. The income of the government is
only based on the formal economy. Having a weak formal economy
and strong informal economy means you have a poor government.

And that means the government has no money to develop
facilities like public transportation or an underground transit
system. They have no money to prevent floods.

Meanwhile, people from the informal sector do not really
participate in the development of infrastructure because they
don't pay taxes. But, of course, rich people also gain more
advantages from the highly segregated situation as they can hire
people, paying for services at low cost.

This highly segregated situation also can be seen this way:
The government does not have much money for infrastructure, so we
see enormous traffic jams each day.

So lack of infrastructure is threatening, and limits the
city's development.

Even though the urban poor don't pay taxes, could they at
least improve their own surroundings?

Yes, they can improve their situation. And improving
themselves means that at a certain moment they can grow from the
informal to the formal economy.

But the important point is, the improvement should be
supported by the government by creating stable circumstances.

Once the government can assure the certainty of their future
in the kampong, they can produce more, and in return pay taxes.