NO HOUSING FINANCE

In the convenient banking world

the poor are a bad security risk.
They have a little material
resources for collateral low saving
and frequently debts.
Their income fluctuates too much
and they are notoriously unreliable
in meeting regular payments.

For these reasons banks can not

support individual housing loans
for low income people. Instead
they prefer to make large loans for
bigger housing projects.

This is the myth of no housing

finance.
 The poor required a very different financial system to meet their
needs.

Poor people build small projects in small increments.

They improve their as their family grows and as they acquire small
savings.

To take advantage of these energies and to assist in financing, new

kinds of loans are needed in small amount for long period of time
and secured by house itself.
Nice
environment
 Nice environment requires squatter replacement.
Many people believe that their city or context is not a place for
squatter settlements. Squatters are dirty, disorderly and run down
to maintain the image of a nice place in the middle class area.
It is difficult to overcome this bias because it is related with the
taste not reasoning.

These taste of middle class and urban: they have little to do with
taste of lower income or rural people.
In squatter area they are quite satisfied with their housing.
Houses are
•Messy
•Always under construction
•Build with cheap and second hand material

Nicer environment and nicer housing are not high on the squatter
priority list of problem.
Charity
 It is necessary for those who are more fortunate to share with the
poor in the form of gift & contributions for which the poor would be
grateful- the myth is called charity.
It is the traditional way of addressing inequality & maintaining
good will between rich and poor.
Modern way is “welfare” – the commitment of the government to
help the poor on behalf of its prosperous citizens.

Thus the poor people

• become dependent on the government
•Lose self respect & self-reliance.

A charitable attitude discourages the poor from organizing into

that could take effective action.
Paternalism

Its like a father child relationship.

The elite know better and therefore should be allowed to decide and act
on behalf of the rest.

The people who have housing problems are-

less mature
less experienced
less responsible
less organized
less reliable.

Therefore their problem must be solved for them by someone else.

Example
Mirpur vasantek housing

The government planed this housing for homeless

people who cant afford housing. But now a days the cost of
the housing suits for middle class and lower middle class.

Bangkok housing

Thai government planed to solved the housing

problem in Bangkok in 1983 and the national housing authority
plans to build 70’000 units for the people who earns less than
1500 bath a month. It is estimated that the present
requirement just to eliminate the 300000 to 600000 squatters
who fall into this income is 50000.
This figure will have grown by an additional 50000 to 100000
units.
 The housing problem cant be solved by the
conventional paternalistic means.

If they (the poor) are given reasonable assurances that

their house will not be destroyed, the poor will invest in
their own housing.

But the problem is that the squatters cant be given any

assurance.
Upholding the law
Upholding the law

Squatters are illegal land

occupants. Basically they
have broken the law.

To recognize them and to

provide them with privileges
awarded to law-abiding
citizen, such as police
protection, education, health,
fire protection, water and the
like is an affront to the
principle of law.
 Upholding the law

This common attitude ignores the nature

of law.

Law exist as long as society is willing and

able to uphold them. When the majority or a
significant minority in a society finds
certain laws inappropriate, they must be
changed.

Upholding the law after they have

massively broken, and when there is no
possibility or need to maintain them,
increase the feeling of lawlessness and
promotes the breaking of other laws.
If those who are forced by circumstance to squat
are expected to respect the law, then the law
must be changed to respect the circumstances
in which these squatters find themselves.
Private property
 Private property

Private own land is private

property.

It is protected by law, because it

symbolize individual right.

In a situation of land scarcity,

those with more land than they
need, cannot expect the
government fully to protect their
unused land against trespassers.
Squatter never occupy productively used land
They occupy un-used land held by private speculators or by government
agencies.

Squatters hold a traditional view of land ownership. what they lack is the
legal tenure that will allow them to build for themselves to develop their
community and obtain the required public services. Urban land reform
which will provide the large amount of land necessary for expanding low
cost housing cannot be provided.
Nice Environment
Know your limit.
 Know your limit.

When the experts are brought in to provide a scientific solve to the

housing problem or for the matter the orientation problem, they
automatically start from dealing with land, as this would mean
hang on their toes of those who hired them.

Know your limit.

Proper use of land are largely and traditionally favor

landowning interests predominate in local and national
politics.
 Know your limit.

Typical results: those in power insure that the valuable

facilities are build on their land and their land is
developed, they ensure that it has distributed by
requirements for public developments.

As squatters have neither legitimacy nor ownership.

They are politically expedient, economical target for
eviction.

Moreover often they occupy lands owned by powerful

people.
Somebody else’s problems
Somebody else’s
problems

Major obstacle to
effective bureaucratic
action of housing can
be called the principle
of somebody else’s
problem.

Each division of
government has
defined responsibilities
and cannot overlap its
territory.
Somebody else’s problems
Low cost housing is a

Land problem
Housing problem
Economic problem
Social problem

No one in government can be blamed for not handling

“the squatter problem”

Even those sector of government who would like to

do something about it are powerless, because it falls
outside their responsibilities.
No one can act with a singleness of purpose

In short, there is an entrenched structure that

militates against accepting responsibility for
solving the problem.
The double bind
The double bind
1. The last myths comes together in one final myth,
the myth of double bind.

2. On one hand they can not alienate the powerful, yet

small land owning group.

3. On the other hand they recognized that squatters

have a problem and cannot be thrown out
wholesale without generating some public wrath
and perhaps organized resistance.

4. They cannot evict them totally, except in critical

places where an alternative use of the land can be
fully justified.
This is a typical double bind situation and the
best course of action is
do nothing.

But a large majority of the future urban

population will require low income housing,
because the
squatter problem is not going to go
away.
 I think that there will
always be a need for
Housing and Urban
Development.

Only considerable change in attitude and perceptions

towards the squatter problem simply can’t be solved.