Relocated families move back to unsafe locations

london777

Bronze
Dec 22, 2005
786
29
28
The following item appeared in DR1 news on Monday:

Families return no matter what
According to the Santiago Civil Defense director, Francisco Arias, most of the families relocated during the 1999-2002 period have returned to live along riverbanks, even though their houses had been destroyed by intense rains during storms. According to the official, 4,000 families are currently located in potentially disastrous places. Of the 700 families relocated to the Villa Liberacion project, half of them have sold their houses and moved back to their old locations. According to Arias, of the 2,000 lots that were donated to the displaced families, over half have been sold. The Villa Liberacion project was created for families displaced by Hurricane Georges. Army units and personnel from the National Property Office are watching the area to prevent further construction in dangerous or vulnerable areas.
President Fernandez ordered that homes that were destroyed by Tropical Storm Noel and are located in high risk areas not be rebuilt, but this is not happening, and in many cases government departments have even provided construction material for the repairs.


I suppose that the chance to acquire some "cash in hand" was the main incentive for half the families to sell their new homes and move back to the riverbanks?

But can you think of any other factors? Any other benefits of living on the riverbanks? Or other stimuli to move back, such as lack of acceptance by existing inhabitants in the areas to which they were relocated?

I presume their new homes were either given to the families or sold to them at a price subsidised by public money? If so, the taxpayer has lost out. In this case was the government merely na?ve in not seeing an inevitable outcome, or was this seen as an opportunity by officials to dabble in property sales? Or perhaps the government accepted a 50% "wastage" as the price for achieving a 50% success?
 

Hillbilly

Moderator
Jan 1, 2002
18,948
514
113
Most of what you say is quite true. One of the factors i have heard mentioned is the fact that the unsafe areas are nearer the work opportunities that these people might have. The housing units, of necessity placed further from the city centers and where work can be found are considered "too far" or "too expensive to travel from" for these people.
Remember these are not people who think things through or beyond today and perhaps tomorrow..

In one of the barrios of Puerto Plata, for example, many of the men ditched their wives and got new women for the new houses. Others tore up the commodes and sold them to the hardware stores; after all there was a hole in the floor, and that was all they really needed!!

One question on resettlement remains: Where are these people going to live until they new housing units are built? There is no way in hell that the government will be able to "rent" space for them, since in most of the areas everything was either destroyed or damaged by the flood waters, so what is there left to rent?? The answer is to build barracks and hope that, if the PLD is voted out--as seems quite possible the way things are going--the next government will indeed continue the relocation process and not leave the people in the barracks (There were 200 people still in barracks build for Georges' victims from 1999)

Good luck with this one.

HB
 
Sep 19, 2005
4,632
91
48
I dont mean to highjack this thread, but it deals with cluster housing.

on the way to Moa( getting very close to Moa itself coming from Navarette) on the right side is a new development that was started last or earlier....now several dozen of these housing units are finnished. and as many more are very close. It looks like a goverment type thing...with a large sign out front . the housing units are very close to each other...not liike one would find if a developer was trying to sell quality homes.

does any one know of this place and what it really is?..possible goverment subsidized housing?

bob
 

london777

Bronze
Dec 22, 2005
786
29
28
Thanks for your interesting input, Hillybilly. Anyone else care to chip in?

Perhaps, as a non-resident (as yet) and absolute beginner in Dominican Life studies, I should first have asked a more fundamental question:

Why do they live there in the first place? Is it because the land is useless for any other purpose, and therefore no-one lays claim to it, so they can squat without molestation? And is the river water considered an asset (the mind boggles)?

Another question occurs to me, which also pertains to the rehousing project at La Union so extensively discussed on this board: why are these new dwellings sold to the poor, when they have such difficulty raising the purchase price and are later tempted to sell out and move back to their original areas? Why are they not rented, which sounds as though it would be more acceptable to them and more remunerative to the ayuntamiento (or whoever may be the housing agency) in the longer run?
 

Chip

Platinum
Jul 25, 2007
16,772
429
0
Santiago
Thanks for your interesting input, Hillybilly. Anyone else care to chip in?

Perhaps, as a non-resident (as yet) and absolute beginner in Dominican Life studies, I should first have asked a more fundamental question:

Why do they live there in the first place? Is it because the land is useless for any other purpose, and therefore no-one lays claim to it, so they can squat without molestation? And is the river water considered an asset (the mind boggles)?

Another question occurs to me, which also pertains to the rehousing project at La Union so extensively discussed on this board: why are these new dwellings sold to the poor, when they have such difficulty raising the purchase price and are later tempted to sell out and move back to their original areas? Why are they not rented, which sounds as though it would be more acceptable to them and more remunerative to the ayuntamiento (or whoever may be the housing agency) in the longer run?

In addition to what Hillbilly said, many of the Dominicans would gladly sell their home for a nice sum and then move back the shacks knowing that they have an amount of money that will last them a while. Of course, after it is gone in a year or so with nothing to show they will be back in the same place. Many Doms are unfortunately poor planners because of lack of education and ignorance.

The only solution is to have a bulldozer trucked to the site a few times a year to start bulldozing whatever is built. If not, these people will continue to put their lives and the lives of their children in harms way.
 

Chirimoya

Well-known member
Dec 9, 2002
17,850
982
113
Why do they live there in the first place? Is it because the land is useless for any other purpose, and therefore no-one lays claim to it, so they can squat without molestation? And is the river water considered an asset (the mind boggles)?

Pretty much sums it up, yes.
 

bachata

Aprendiz de todo profesional de nada
Aug 18, 2007
5,341
1,246
113
Thanks for your interesting input, Hillybilly. Anyone else care to chip in?

Perhaps, as a non-resident (as yet) and absolute beginner in Dominican Life studies, I should first have asked a more fundamental question:

Why do they live there in the first place? Is it because the land is useless for any other purpose, and therefore no-one lays claim to it, so they can squat without molestation? And is the river water considered an asset (the mind boggles)?

Another question occurs to me, which also pertains to the rehousing project at La Union so extensively discussed on this board: why are these new dwellings sold to the poor, when they have such difficulty raising the purchase price and are later tempted to sell out and move back to their original areas? Why are they not rented, which sounds as though it would be more acceptable to them and more remunerative to the ayuntamiento (or whoever may be the housing agency) in the longer run?
The poor people relocated for the government don"t have to pay one cent for the new houses. this people don"t pay for the electricity, they don"t pay for the water. they are happy people. Dancing bachata and drinking rum and beers every day.
we have to pay for them.
 

Texas Bill

Silver
Feb 11, 2003
2,174
26
0
97
www.texasbill.com
I have this underlying feeling that these people sold their houses for the reasons stated in a previous posting. Now they move back to the same area, betting that another flood will wipe them out again, thegov't will again give them land and build a house for them that they can sell again.
That seem to be the mindset of people like that. The gov't is SUPPOSED to take care of them in emergencies of this type, so why not sell what they get and wait for the next time????
Seems like a good plan to me.
In the meantime, continue to bulldoze the shacks they have moved into and maintain the area clear of dwellings and structures. Eventually, these people will go someplace else to squat and suck on the gov't teat.
Who knows, they might even get a job and start to be productive.

Hard A$$ Texas Bill
never suffer fools lightly, lest you become one yourself.
 

GringoCArlos

Retired Ussername
Jan 9, 2002
1,416
40
0
Another reason those folks keep returning to the riverbank - most came to the city from el campo, and want to keep animals and a garden by the house. The government slaps up new concrete houses, out on the edge of the city, side by side with no garden space , no space for animals, etc. - They cannot or will not live without their animals or their finquita - whether it is a few chickens, goats, pigs, whatever.

They sell the fixtures in the house so they can buy the things they no longer raise themselves, and after those things are gone, the house goes next so that they can rebuild down by the river and get back to their way of living as they want to.