"The City for All": Is this Real?
A Matter of Resource Sharing?

October, 2008
By Antonio Ismael Risianto

It's very sad to hear the news about the recent police violence in Bangkok. I feel that it is a phenomenon that happens when the world - at least in Thailand and Indonesia – is becoming more and more reactionary as it scramble for the ever-scarcer resources. Perhaps unclear to the naked eyes, there lies an indirect competition for resources between the have's and the have not's? Similar to the Global Warming crisis and the recent financial crisis, this is a classic conflict between "corrupted" big businesses and the civil society (with the poor again being its worst victims).

The conflict seems to be centered upon "guarding and controlling" these strategic resources - like urban land, forest, mines, oil, capital, business territories/ opportunities, and even political space. In both of our countries, this often clashes directly with the vast majority of the poor. It often put pressure on the poor, and in truth, we could see this happening everywhere from the Mayan jungle of Mexico to the streets of Bangkok.

I also fear that a similar phenomenon is happening in Indonesia in a different form.

In the past 3-5 months, we see the rampant evictions of the poor from their slum settlements throughout the cities (some even occurring in rural farms). This week alone - as seen in the news – there is the eviction of thousands of people in Jakarta, Bekasi, Bandung, Medan, Surabaya (four major cities in Indonesia). Last week, the Jakarta's "BMW" settlements are again being brutally evicted for the second time.

BMW was the 26 Hectare of government land that was illegally occupied by about 2,000 families of poor squatters. As you may recall, we've been proposing for a "more humane" alternative to eviction - some sort of participatory resettlement. At least, it is a process of giving the squatters the dignity of becoming a "legal citizen"; keeping it in line with the objective for developing a "City for All".

For the case of Jakarta, there are hidden histories to these evictions. The evictions, this time, are being done in the name of mitigating the coming floods. The Jakarta government claims that 'eviction' is the best method in recapturing greenbelt land.

As one who've caught a glimpse of its hidden history, this choice seems like a "quick and dirty" solution to cover up its muddled past and malpractices; making the "squatter problems" very messy indeed. Aside from having some state officials requesting "Protection Fees" from the illegal squatters (for assuring the "not –so-legal security protection"), some other officials also took a large chunk of shares from the lucrative sale of greenbelt land to the big real-estate developers. This common practice had happened continuously in the past 2-3 decades.

A massive re-designation of 'Green Zones' to the more lucrative 'Yellow and Red' commercial/residential zones was conveniently done so as to be able to 'legally' sell them to developers.

The records have shown that over 20% of land that were previously designated as greenbelt zones - rectified under a legal Master Plan - had been "converted" to commercial zones. Because of this collusionary practice between state officials and real estate developers, we are now left with a meager 8% 'green' land.

We could now see the previously designated greenbelt - even water catchments –populated with vast high-ended real estate housing and commercial development such as apartment, malls, and super-blocks. As a result, the environmental balance was compromised; leading to the flooding the city - with the poor again becoming its worse victims. It is the phenomenon where Real Estate Businesses were very much "serviced and supported" by the government in acquiring land for housing the have's, while the have-not's must continue to struggle and "scramble" for land on their own.

Now, with the city at the risk of flooding, the government is being pressured to quickly recapture the lost greenbelts. And how else should the government 'recapture' these greenbelts if not by evicting the illegal squatters – all in a flash!

Don't take me wrong, I am not blindly supporting the poor in settling on "others people's land" (squatting) either, but there is a need to reorganize the entire system of city development away from this anarchical trend - a move towards a more humane "City for All" ideal.

Currently, some of the legal instruments - such as the Zoning Ordinance for the Poor, land acquisition laws, building permits, credit availabilities, and even subsidies – does exist in tokenism, but unfortunately most of them are unimplementable (or being evaded).

It seems that the issue now is about the "political will". We need the political will to create a more egalitarian city (or nation) that is inclusive with respect to all of its citizens - the majority of which are still considered 'poor'. These people just want to survive! They seem to be running out of places to survive. In their villages, the resources - especially in the agricultural sectors - have also been depleted and are often being literally "destroyed" (by rampant acquisition of land, illegal logging, intoxicating the land with chemicals from factories, etc.). The poor is then forced to move out and go search for ways to survive in the cities where 70- 80% of the national wealth is floating. They hope to tap a drop of this wealth for their families. But in the cities, they are again faced with inhuman treatments to say the least. The poor is clearly the victims in this on- going conflict of resources. Something is wrong with the system?

As of now – in a world with limited resources - the "City for All" discourse remains a 'noun' and not a 'verb'. I guess, it still lacks the life and blood of action as well as the political will.

With this general reality, many of us - academians, practitioners, NGOs, progressive government officials, and even some large real estate developers – are working together with the hope of some changes (slowly with lots of hardship).

Perhaps it's a long (and winding road) as the political will to imagine a better and sustainable world is still in question.