ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The problem of homelessness is cities around the world defies generalization, essentially because the growth of every city and the way the authorities attempt to manage its growth are rooted in its history, culture, as well as its local politics. In their well-researched book, squatter citizen (1989), Jorge E. Hardy and David Satterthwaite bring out this point succinctly. “When two governments appear to have similar (housing) policies, they probably arise form different motives and may have very different implications for their citizens”. Nevertheless, at the global level, some useful lessons for the future.
The urban poor situation arises as a direct result of the rapid increase of population in the commercial cities of the country especially Lagos during the oil boom era of the 1970s as opined by Fatah J, Ehondor B, Balogun T and Uduoye U (2004).
The lack of poor state of infrastructures in the rural areas as well as the poor economic base already catapulted the rush of rural dwellers to
Increase in birth rates as compared against low birth rate also compounded the housing situation in addition to low and unattractive agricultural production. This alarming growth in population led to over consumption of infrastructure including housing. This had led to gradual degradation of residential areas to slums and inadequate supply of housing in the urban area. Be that as it may be, one of the major need of man is, the need to be safe that is why any management agent is concerned with the continued existence of the house under a man’s care and to take steps to ensure against hazards, and any unforeseen acts that may have negative effect and impact on the general well being of man, his property, and the general environment.
URBAN DECAY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IN
Higher percentage of urban settlement in Nigeria such as Lagos, Enugu, Ibadan Kano, Kaduna e.t.c. are in their worst states of decay and deplorable condition. The colonial masters did not pay any attention to housing for Nigerian people. Tatah et al (2004) noted that any effort made to providing housing occurred only when the health of the colonial administrators was threatened. It took Nigeria over thirty-one (31) years after independence to articulate a National Housing Policy and up to this time the poor was not given any consideration in the housing delivery system, it is therefore, not a purpose that our urban centres one replaced with shanty structures and shanty settlements. The core residential areas close to the Central Business District (CBD) in most cities are already in slum. In
Federal office of Statistics (1998) recorded indicated that about 43% of Nigeria’s population are living below poverty line, that 1 million of our urban population do not have access to any form of housing while about 8 million are at best accommodated in shanties and make-shift-housing; and that Nigeria would require about 3 million units of accommodation to cater for the urban poor. According to Tatah et al (2004) in the face of high inflation, low economic growth of the Nigerian economy, the urban poor with low credit worthiness may never have access to a modicum of housing through self help.
BASIC FACT ON HOUSING THE URBAN POOR AROUND THE GLOBE
By Farouk Tebbal and Kalyan Ray Globally, the shelter conditions of the poor are deteriorating: 1.3 billion people do not have access to clean water and the same number live on less than a dollar a day; 2.6 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation, while 5 million die from diarrhea diseases every year. Poverty will clearly dominate the international development agenda of the 21st century. Much of the focus of this agenda will be on the world’s urban areas where an estimated one billion people still lack adequate shelter and basic services.
The problem of homelessness in cities around the world defies generalization, essentially because the growth of every city and the way the authorities attempt to manage its growth are rooted in its history, culture, as well as its local politics. In their well-researched book, Squatter Citizen (1989), Jorge E. Hardoy and David Satterthwaite bring out this point succinctly: “When two governments appear to have similar (housing) policies, they probably arise from different motives and may have very different implications for their citizens”. Nevertheless, at the global level, some general trends are evident and offer some useful lessons for the future.
Lessons Learned (1960-1996)
By the late 1960s (much earlier in some Latin American countries), most developing country cities were getting disillusioned with public housing programmes (many of which were launched after 1960) as solution to the proliferation of slums and squatter settlements. Though this losing game of numbers continued- and it continues to this day in government statistics and planning departments – the shortcomings of this approach was evident on a number of counts.
Firstly, few city governments or for that matter, national governments, had the necessary resources to match the burgeoning housing needs of the urban population, be it the in-migrants or the new households. Secondly, the rising cost of public housing (with rigid planning and building standards and persistent cost and time overruns) meant that public almost always missed the intended target groups. Thirdly, housing loans and remained palenry conservative and inflexible when it came to collateral requirements. Invariably, low-income populations were squeezed out in favour of the middle, and sometimes, higher-income groups. Even the more successful housing programmes such The Hundred Thousand and Housing Programme of Sri Lanka were considering switching to newer, more innovative approaches that could meet the needs and aspirations of poorer households.
The 1970s saw growing experimentation with the sites and services approach. In theory, this approach offered many advantages over (or in conjunction with) the public housing approach. Firstly, the available public funds could be stretched to benefit many more households. The approach also allowed for greater flexibility in building and the possibility of self-help or community help could keep the costs affordable. Yet another advantage was that the construction could be paced according to the capacity of the beneficiary, which allowed construction to take place incrementally over time, thereby giving beneficiaries the option of pacing the construction according to their household earnings.
HOUSING FINANCE
There is sample evidence from
¨ They cannot afford the debt service required to finance the cost of a minimum unit. They cannot meet the criterion used to qualify households (i.e., the mortgage payment to income) by financial institutions. For example, the ratio of mortgage payment to income for low-income households is 104 percent in Bolivia and 40 percent in Colombia which far exceeds the maximum (25 percent and 30 percent respectively) allowed by commercial financial institutions in these countries (
¨ Mortgages require payments every month for a long period of time. However, low-income households are often self-employed, their incomes vary greatly, and they occasionally face crises-such as sickness and injury- that absorb all their available resources (
¨ Commercial financial institutions usually have little interest in lending to low-income households (even if financial conditions allow) as the small loans required by these households are much less profitable (Payne 2000).
When housing loans are not available households have to use their own savings, sweat equity, and/or loans from relatives. Estimates from various countries show that it takes from 15 to 30 years of saving (30-50 percent of monthly income) for low-income households to afford a minimum standard unit in authorized stock. It should be noted that in reality households in the lowest deciles of the income distribution cannot save (like the households in upper echelons of income distribution) as in most cases monthly incomes are irregular and hardly sufficient for minimum nourishment requirements. Thus, building in illegal areas, without construction and/or occupancy permits, remains as the only option for the urban poor.
PROBLEM ASSOCIATED WITH HOUSING THE URBAN POOR
Land policies do not make sufficient developed land available: Urban planning tools, including master planning, zoning and plot development regulations, are not appropriate to make land available in pace with rapid urbanization, resulting in insufficient land supply and increases in land prices. Master plans in many developing and transition countries are too centralized, take too long to prepare and fail to address implementation issues or the linkages between spatial and financial planning. Resulting regulations are outdated and inappropriate.
Policies and/or regulations as well as public authorities’ approach are not conducive to regularization of tenure because:
¨ There is a widespread assumption by authorities that regularization may encourage illegal practices.
¨ Issuance of land documents can create considerable conflict, especially in places with multiple forms of property rights.
¨ Authorities may prefer to retain the informal status of some spontaneous settlements, as the land may be demanded by other uses, and informal occupation provides a sufficient ground for eviction.
Land and housing regulations make housing unaffordable:
Unrealistically high standards for subdivision, project infrastructure, and construction make it impossible to build low-income housing legally. Furthermore, urban land supply can be limited by:
i. Extensive public ownership of land and unclear land transfer procedures (most common in transition countries);
ii. Unrealistic standards for land and infrastructure development;
iii. Complex procedures of urban planning;
iv. Unclear responsibilities among public agencies. Limited land supply will cause the prices to increase.
Land and housing regulations make it difficult for the poor to follow cumbersome procedures
Procedures can be unduly cumbersome, difficult for poor people to save time and to follow. Observations from many developing countries show that the processes of obtaining construction and occupancy permits are complicated, not well-understood by the poor, especially immigrants, time consuming and costly. The results is invasions of state land or purchases of unplanned land from illegal agents.
Lack of access to credits
There is sample evidence from
Lack of tenure security leads to:
Loss of physical capital, damage of social and informal networks for jobs and safety nets, and sense of security.
Several million urban dwellers are forcibly evicted from their homes each year, most without any form of compensation.
Inability to use the house as a resource when other sources of income reduced
For poor people, housing is an important productive asset that can cushion households against severe poverty during economic hardships. Renting a room or creating an extra space for income generating activities are the common coping strategies. When the poor have secure ownership of their housing, they often use it with particular resourcefulness when other resources of income are reduced (Moser 1996).
Effort of Government in Reducing Urban Poor In The Country
The government is thinking hard about the ways to accommodated urban poor, a goal which can bring a round of applause for politicians. Urban housing is struck in between the outdated policies and bureaucracy.
The
Currently, there are over 100 Housing cooperative societies in
Considering housing for poor a prime responsibility, the government has largely focused its attention towards development of large number of houses and alloted them to the poor. Funds have been garnered for development of such units, with the remaining cost shared between a bank and the beneficiary.
Demand for residential property among poor is increasing because of a rapid urbanization. Since, there is a shortage of land in cities; an effective urban policy requires to be brought into effect to optimize proper land use.
Some Suggestions For Drafting Housing Policies For Poor
¨ Housing policies must meet broader economic goals in the best way, thereby ensuring regulated urban development.
Any urban housing policy must give the first priority to urban poor who actually run the urban growth engine. Else, it will only serve as one of the futile incentives, which do nothing than promoting indiscriminate migration.
Government should look toward developing enough stock of rented housing for the poor. It will set a new paradigm instead of transferring ownership to inhabitants.
The rents will seldom be an additional burden on the poor, as they pay 300-1,000 per month for dingy huts in slum, with out access to basic facilities. Contrary to this resident will not suffer from the problem of uncertainty in tenure. In any case, the growth government housing schemes now have a significant bank loan share, which the beneficiary (who can be alloted ret vouchers) repay in monthly installments. Rent vouchers will only be helpful in replacing the rent payments.
A contract can be signed with private builders to develop these housing must for poor. A build-operate-transfer contract for tenure of 15-20 years can be an attractive proposition. They can collect predetermined rents and the rental subsidy from the government can be directly transferred to the builders. The move can help to ensure better focusing of the subsidies.
Recommendation/Conclusion
After appraising all the features i.e. the causes state of decay, as well as measures and strategy to mitigate the problem of urban poor, I hereby come up with the following recommendation for tackling the challenges of housing the urban poor which include:
¨ Public authorities should establish systems to provide tenure security (e.g.) freehold or use rights) in view of the country’s cultural context and communicates particular circumstances. The aim should be to incorporate common practices into a formal system. If the majority of land acquisition practices and tenure system do not fit into the current legal system, regulatory and policy frameworks have to be adjusted to incorporate current practices. Systems need not be restricted to freehold titles, but can be flexible. For example protected use rights can be gradually upgraded to full ownership rights. In general, public authorities need to establish and publish guidelines for property registration and development. Also, property rights should be designed to allow free transaction of property. Owners should also be allowed to use their property as collateral.
¨ Government should embark on some upgrading programmes e.g. slum upgrading programmes. The federal and state government should assist in urban renewal programmes which will mean a continuous strategy of improving the neighbourhood of the poor by slum upgrading schemes.
Public and private participation should also be involved in housing the urban poor centres in the country and this can be through subsidizing of building materials, provision of partial labour and private participation including savings and loans, mortgages and e.t.c.
REFERENCES
¨ Downs C. James (1975)
Principles of real Estate Management
¨
¨ OKOH, Victor PHILIP OKORIE
Journal of Estate surveying and research
¨ Thomcroft M. (1965)
Principle of Estate Management
¨ Federal Office of Statistics
(1998) Annual abstract of statistics
¨ Lawal M.I
(1997) Principle and practice of housing
¨ Tatah J, Ehondor B, Balogun T, and Udoye U 2004
Housing the urban poor: The challenges of this decade
¨ Omujine Emmanuel (2000)
Property development and investment in the millennium
Oyebanji A.O (2002) Students’ project and research work
¨ Moser (1996).
No comments:
Post a Comment