- Thread starter A.Hidalgo
- Start date
Highway homes!!
Landless Builders
They simply do not care.
So people build homes on other people's land, on river banks and .....near highways.
It's against the law, so what?
Don't like it?
Your problem. Employ a lawyer. Pay and (most likely) lose
(money and case).
m'frog
thanatos said:
They simply do not care.
So people build homes on other people's land, on river banks and .....near highways.
It's against the law, so what?
Don't like it?
Your problem. Employ a lawyer. Pay and (most likely) lose
(money and case).
m'frog
thanatos said:
What's going on here! What's going on here! What's going on here!...
There used to be a very popular merengue that went along those lines:
Que es lo que pasa aqu?, ah! Que es lo que pasa aqu?, ah! Que es lo que pasa aqu?, ah!
-
Most of those homes you see scattered along the highways (in addition to the homes/shacks crammed into riverbanks, on government and private lands, etc) were built illegally.thanatos said:
In fact, almost all ramshackle slums in the DR (and perhaps in much of the world) are built by landless peasants who move into the city and due to their poverty, the only thing they can afford to live in are ramshackle slums built on land owned by someone else. Some times agreements are made between the land owner and the squatters, but most of the time it's a virtual invasion against the land owner's will.
After such invasion occurs, it takes plenty of time and money and a good lawyer to get a good case in order to remove these squatters from the owner's land. When the land is owned by the government, the government simply asks the squatters to move someplace else (as is the case with the squatters in La Zurza along the riverbank of the Ozama in Santo Domingo - yes, the slums visible north of the Juan Bosch bridge) and other times the government responds by force when the squatters refuse to leave (as was the case with the squatters who refused to make way for the Faro a Colon).
In either case, the government had the right to expell the squatters since the land belong to the government, but as is often the case with many Dominicans, many people think that just because they live for a certain amount of time on a property, that it automatically means it belongs to them. What makes the matters worst is when you got NGOs or humanist getting involved to keep the squatters on the land they don't own, this was the case during the building of the Faro A Colon which even today you will read books and articles mentioning the forceful expulsion of the squatters and the small amount of money paid to them for their properties and they try to make such act seem as an act of abuse from the part of the government to those poor people. They always fail to mention that those ramshackle slums are virtualy worthless and built on private land and in private land whatever th owner wants is what goes, not what some theif believes should occur - I found the fact that the government wanted to pay them something rather generous. That their shacks were only worth US$50, well that's what it was worth. What can you expect from a structure built of tin, cardboard, and sticks?!
Even if the government expells the squatters, if the land is not used for something by the authorities it will only be a matter of time before its reclaimed by landless squatters. This was the case with a hill along the Autopista Duarte on the northbound side (I believe it was near Villa Altagracia, not sure) which was built up by supposedly Haitian immigrants and people started to complained of the demise of the trees that used to grow there. The government took action to dismantle the illegal community and expell the squatters from that hill which was government owned and the government replanted some trees on the hillside. Today, the hillside has been filled with shacks again and the trees are being felled again!
In any case, lack of respect for the law and lack of respect for other people's private property has lead to that problem of homes and full villages being built on land that does not belongs to the squatters and sometimes, dangerously close to major highways.
The lack of respect for the law and private property is at the root not just of the rampant and low quality development, but also of the electricity problem, the water shortages, so on and so forth. People simply take what they want, disregard those who are actually paying, and then they feel the need to demand the government to fix a problem they created in the first place.
We can't blame people for being born into poverty, but everyone is responsible for his/her actions. Squatting on other people's land is wrong, illegal, and unjustifiable.
-NALs
Last edited:
From Cardboard to Blocks
True, and regularly done so by squatters on river banks when their houses get washed away or flooded.
On the simple grounds that they are poor they demand aid for upkeeping their illegally built homes.
m'frog
NALs said:
True, and regularly done so by squatters on river banks when their houses get washed away or flooded.
On the simple grounds that they are poor they demand aid for upkeeping their illegally built homes.
m'frog
NALs, you know very well that the lack of respect for the law is not the cause, nor is poverty... This state of affairs is a manifestation of the DR?s particular culture as reflected in its political system, where political parties perpetuate their power through a system of spoils and patronage, which encourages the political party in power to protect land invaders and squatters for their loyal party support. As long as the DR?s political system is based on clientelism, this state of affairs will perpetuate itself?
-
-
Poverty does motivate people to do dumb or desperate things. To build a home or shack next to a highway were at any moment a runaway truck can park itself in your livingroom or run over your children is madness. The bottom line is its the responsiblity of the goverment to remedy this problem whether its goverment lands or private.Mirador said:
thanatos said:
Thanatos, we all know what poverty, ignorance and despair can make people do. You asked in your opening post why the government allows people to build homes very close to highways, and I gave you a response. The DR?s clientelist political system, and hence its government, actually encourages, sustains and protects squatters.
-
thanatos said:
Destructive clientelism? Actually, quite the contrary. Political fiefdoms have been built, huge fortunes have been amassed -alll based on the loyal votes of squatters and residents of shanty towns, who, in their ignorance, have not made the connection that it is the highly corrupt and clientelist political system that has forced them to live under such sorry conditions. It is advantageous for the current political system to keep people in squalor and ignorance, since that is where their political base resides. Poverty and lawlessness will never be erradicated until the current political system is destroyed...
-
As the OP has observed, it seems that - squatters, poverty and clientilism aside - a lot of people choose to build their homes right on the roadside. You see this even when the plot is large enough for the house to be built a fair distance away, and in cases where the family in question is clearly not that poor.
People like to be where the action is. In both urban and rural areas you see them pulling out their chairs and sitting right on the edge, small children running around while the traffic whizzes by.
People like to be where the action is. In both urban and rural areas you see them pulling out their chairs and sitting right on the edge, small children running around while the traffic whizzes by.
As Mirador said in post #6, “This state of affairs is a manifestation of the DR’s particular culture” and like he also said that it is “reflected in its political system”. As Chirimayo pointed out in her post “People like to be where the action is”.
Until such a time as the culture is changed or laws are enforced you will not see change in the why, how of wherefore in a lot of the goings on here in the DR.
Mirador’s statement “As long as the DR’s political system is based on clientelism, this state of affairs will perpetuate itself” is a testament that he doesn’t approve of the present system nor do most people on this board. Correct me if I’m wrong Mirador.
Rick
Until such a time as the culture is changed or laws are enforced you will not see change in the why, how of wherefore in a lot of the goings on here in the DR.
Mirador’s statement “As long as the DR’s political system is based on clientelism, this state of affairs will perpetuate itself” is a testament that he doesn’t approve of the present system nor do most people on this board. Correct me if I’m wrong Mirador.
Rick
No Mirador, he wasn't referring to any specific case.
While in many cases your explanations apply, and V. Altagracia is a case in point, there are other instances where I believe people live on the roadside by choice.
One example would be the road from Sanchez to Samana, among others.
thanatos said:
While in many cases your explanations apply, and V. Altagracia is a case in point, there are other instances where I believe people live on the roadside by choice.
Chirimoya said:
One example would be the road from Sanchez to Samana, among others.
Chirimoya said:
Chiri, I also like those quaint, bucolic, picturesque little huts lining the road from Sanchez to Samana, but rest assured that those people don't own title to the land, and, if opportunity arises, would rather live in better quarters closer to town...
-