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.