Few low-income urban settlements in Venezuela are located on land owned by their occupants. As a result, the occupants cannot register the structures they have built and are entitled to only a substitute title (“título supletorio”) granting them limited rights. A legal interpretation handed down by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s has been upheld by repeated court decisions: transactions involving structures on land not owned by the builder cannot be registered without the landowner’s express consent (Pérez Perdomo and Nikken 1979, 38). This is a general legal principle, applicable not only to urban shacks but to all structures.

It could be said, however, that the inhabitants of houses built in the country’s squatter settlements enjoy possession of the land they occupy, though strictly speaking it is what former Venezuelan President Rafael Caldera and others have called a “precarious possession.” These settlements have considerable stability in some cases, less stability in others, and in certain cases there is no stability at all; occupants are evicted and their structures are demolished.

Peaceful occupations of land, and occasionally more aggressive invasions, are by no means a new development in Venezuela; such settlements have been prevalent since the 19th century. As a result, Venezuelan cities are characterized by their physical and social diversity:

• varied materials and structures that reflect the country’s rapid urbanization (especially in the 20th century);
• the lack of access to standard housing for lower-income families arriving in the major cities;
• forms of urban government that have accepted unauthorized occupation of land de facto though not de jure;
• extreme socioeconomic inequality; and
• the Venezuelan people’s talent for building.

Changing Conditions

Many observers wonder, when considering the legal status of the squatter settlements, why it has become “normal,” and to a substantial extent accepted, for Venezuelans to build houses or take up residence on lands assumed to be owned by others. Reactions to this complex situation can vary. It is striking that, in many instances, neither the presumed landowners nor the occupiers of these lands have taken the extreme responses available to each party-demands for eviction or expropriation by the owners or purchase of the land and legalization of its ownership by the occupiers. The presence of a parallel official law has permitted the establishment of settlements and improvement of housing conditions on “invaded” lands (Ontiveros & Bolívar 2000, 128-139). Furthermore, this pattern has become a chronic condition whose end is not demanded by any of the parties involved.

However, this tacit understanding has broken down in recent years, chiefly due to new requirements by banks, which refuse to lend to anyone who does not have registered ownership of the land. The World Bank’s involvement as a co-financier of urban renewal projects has also changed the status of the urban squatter settlements. The national Housing Policy Act (Article 14) now provides for the legalization of land holdings in the squatter settlements, and a team of specialists, mainly lawyers, is drafting a bill that would help make it possible to end the illegal status of Venezuelan urban squatter settlements. Some lower-income neighborhoods with commercially built housing would also be legalized by this action.

Obstacles to Legalization

In spite of these recent developments, procedures and mechanisms relating to urban squatter settlements have been created and modified over many years. The state’s inability to legalize these entrenched settlements can be attributed to a number of interacting factors.

Unclear Land Ownership

Former President Caldera has argued that the main reason for the continuing illegal status of squatter settlements is a lack of clarity as to who actually owns the invaded lands. He argues that, given this prevailing doubt and uncertainty about land ownership, the most important and urgent need is to provide public utilities and other basic public services to the occupiers. Legalization has not been a top priority in the process of consolidating squatter settlements. Nevertheless, there are other causes for the continuing absence of legalization, causes that are deeper and less visible.

Acceptance of the Status Quo

Since the expansion of urban squatter settlements in the 1940s and 1950s, it has been commonly assumed that eventually they would be controlled and demolished, though that has not occurred; they have simply been banished from city maps. The replacement of self-built settlements with standard housing developments has not gone beyond political rhetoric or electoral promises. Proof of this assertion is that half the residents of Venezuelan cities continue to live in these informal settlements.

A kind of official but informal law has emerged for the squatter settlements. Pérez Perdomo & Nikken explain “… how the State itself has contributed to the creation of a kind of informal legal order to meet the squatter settlements’ legal needs in relation to the ownership of housing” (1979, 2). This is a de facto, but not a de jure, acceptance of squatter settlements.

Does this mean that the residents of these settlements do not want legalization of ownership? We know that is not entirely true because they treat the land they possess as if it were their own. When the owner appears and wants to evict them, they fight back until the eviction order is stopped. As long as mere possession poses no risk of eviction, the residents remain satisfied and make no effective distinction between ownership and possession in their settlements. Furthermore, some are afraid of having to pay taxes and accept other obligations that would come with legalization of their status.

Provision of Services and Infrastructure

Further evidence of this acceptance of squatter settlements is the provision of public utilities, services and infrastructure by state agencies, though in most cases the services are considered “precarious” investments. This official attention to the settlements is convincingly illustrated in the work of Josefina Baldó (1996), although it is well known that such attention is provided only to a minimal degree and only in exchange for votes.

Researchers and policy makers from other countries, especially in Latin America, express surprise at the range of public services provided in Venezuelan urban squatter settlements that do not have legal recognition. Even more surprising is the progressive improvement of housing units as they are transformed from shacks into solid houses and even multistory buildings made of appropriate materials (Bolívar et al. 1994). This pattern is not unique to Venezuela, but it reflects the path chosen by the country’s leadership decades ago: a consistent policy of providing “precarious” public services for settlements whose occupation has been accepted, rather than first settling the issue of ownership. This policy has prevented, or at least slowed down, the legalization of the squatter settlements. In addition, improvements built by the residents are paid for by the government if the land is ever expropriated.

Bureaucratic and Legal Procedures

Venezuela is a country characterized by unequal access to the legal and administrative systems. Bureaucratic procedures consume a great deal of energy and are very costly. Accordingly, until a legal deed to property is required of them, most occupants appear content without it, and may even forget that such an option exists. It should also be noted that technical experts are not always available to determine ownership status and that incorrect diagnoses are not unusual.

Furthermore, legalization initiatives run up against the need to identify the true owners. It is necessary to specify the legal tradition of ownership and resolve questions of legally undivided plots (“tierras indivisas”), which traditionally have been dispersed among multiple owners by inheritance. However, there is a prevailing lack of sensitivity and ignorance of the law among court employees and the professionals retained resolve these cases. The laws are very strict, and hence very difficult to apply. The situation is further complicated by unprepared and sometimes corrupt bureaucrats, who may be prejudiced against and resent the “beneficiaries” of land cases, especially when they are illegal occupants of self-built neighborhoods.

Still another obstacle expressed by government officials has to do with the diverse sizes and shapes of land plots in the squatter settlements (Bolívar et al. 1994, 53-100). Some plots may be only 20 m2 in size, while others may cover thousands of square meters, making legalization extremely complicated. A land survey of each settlement would have to be taken, and in many cases their maps would have to be redrawn, implying a highly detailed and difficult challenge to city or state agencies.

Conclusions

Peaceful struggles by settlement residents to occupy land are seldom publicized, although some fights have resulted in the loss of human lives. Most of these battles are not recorded officially, but for those who work in this field they comprise indispensable documentation for the study of the legalization issue.

Given these obstacles and other factors, the political will to launch a legalization process is also lacking in many Venezuelan cities. The politicians who depend on patronage to remain in office have no interest in “resolving” the problem, since that would “kill the goose that lays the golden egg.” To date the occupation of land and subsequent acceptance of possession has been the prevailing pattern, but many observers believe it is imperative to overcome that pattern. To continue relying on the ambiguous position that only possession counts and that ownership is irrelevant is to condemn both the possessors and the owners to a permanent legal vacuum. In time this posture leads to urban chaos and a daily life for the inhabitants characterized by uncertainty, fear and violence.

REFERENCES

Baldó, J. 1996. “Urbanizar los barrios de Caracas.” En: Bolívar, T. y Baldó, J. (comps.), La cuestión de los barrios. Homenaje a Paul-Henry Chombart de Lauwe. Caracas: Monte Ávila Editores Latinoamericana, Fundación Polar y Universidad Central de Venezuela.

Bolívar, T., Guerrero, M., Rosas, I., Ontiveros, T., y De Freitas, J. 1994. Densificación y vivienda en los barrios caraqueños. Contribución a la determinación de problemas y soluciones. Caracas: Ministerio de Desarrollo Urbano/Consejo Nacional de la Vivienda.

Bolívar, T., Ontiveros, T., y De Freitas, J. 2000. Sobre la cuestión de la regularización jurídica de los barrios urbanos. Caracas: SEU/FAU/UCV e Instituto Lincoln (mimeo).

Ontiveros, T., y Bolívar, T. 2000. Vivienda y acceso al suelo urbano. ¿Institucionalización de un derecho oficial paralelo. En: Edesio Fernandes (coordinador), Derecho, espacio urbano y medio ambiente. Madrid: Instituto Internacional de Sociología.

Pérez Perdomo, R., y Nikken, P. 1979. Derecho y propiedad de la vivienda en los barrios de Caracas. Caracas: Universidad Central de Venezuela y Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Teolinda Bolívar Barreto is an architect and professor in the Department of Architecture, Central University of Venezuela, Caracas. The Lincoln Institute is supporting her research and educational programs on this topic. Translator Richard Melman contributed to this article.

Public policies and actions regarding social housing in Colombia, as in other Latin American countries, have concentrated on regularization and upgrading programs, which in many cases are linked to the need for infrastructure funding. These programs also are seen as the only palliative instrument for addressing an apparently insoluble problem—illegal (pirate) urban development—although they have been found to be quite limited and even counterproductive. Here we present an alternative policy: the application of principles and instruments for land management and participación en plusvalías (public participation in land value increments resulting from administrative actions). This policy was established in the Colombian Constitution and in Law 388 of 1997, which prescribes that the revenues generated from land value increments are to be used for social investments.

Operación Urbanística Nuevo Usme is one of the strategic projects promoted by Bogotá Mayor Antanas Mockus to solve the problem of illegal developments. Located in the southeastern sector of the city, Usme is one of the areas most vulnerable to the pressures of illegal urbanization; powerful pirate subdividers have developed more than half of the 1,000 hectares already set aside for urban use. The predominant mechanism for this kind of extra-legal development, besides invasions or squatter settlements, has been the sale of plots by subdividers who buy large areas of land at rural prices and sell them without providing any services or infrastructure and without approval from the public administration. The negative consequences of this kind of development include relatively high land prices and inequitable land occupation patterns.

Usme is expected to expand into another 600 hectares of steeply sloped, ecologically fragile and still predominantly rural land, according to the city’s master plan (Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial or POT), which was approved in June 2000. Bogotá’s administration already has invested in water and sewage systems for the area and is executing other projects, including the extension of the Transmilenio public transport system and construction of 6,200 low-income housing units. In addition, under the initiative of citizens organizations, two large areas, the Parque entre Nubes and the Agroparque los Soches, have been designated by the POT as both meaningful and symbolic local landmarks. The first is a large park marking the transition area between urban and rural, which is constantly threatened with illegal development and exploitation. The second area, a type of agricultural buffer zone, was created by a peasant organization that consciously assumed an important reduction of its land price by changing the land classification from suburban to rural, in order to preserve its agrarian character. This organization is now developing innovative alternative means of land management through ecological conservation projects to benefit the city as a whole and to block the threat of illegal urban growth.

How can this diversity of elements, ranging from social housing to public transportation and agricultural land conservation, create an opportunity for sustainable living conditions for the poorest people of the city? How does one reconcile the objectives of urban policy with social justice? How can the city prevent pirate subdividers from taking undeserved advantage of Usme’s new development area? This is the challenge for the city’s administration, for popular housing organizations and for the residents living south of the city.

Alternative Mechanisms for Value Capture

One of the topics under debate with regard to Law 388 is the precedent of recovering land value increments for areas designated for social housing. Housing organizations have sought to exempt such lands from participation in plusvalías, based on a common misunderstanding about the nature of the instrument, which views the value captured as being transferred to the final price of housing (see Smolka and Furtado, page 12). Taking a different approach, the Usme project is structured around several alternative mechanisms for value capture that go beyond its restricted and misconceived role as a tax.

The first mechanism is simply the announcement of the Usme project, since Law 388 provides that in the case of public land acquisition the land’s commercial value (for compensatory purposes) cannot include the amount corresponding to the plusvalías generated by the project. This provision freezes the land price to its level prior to the announcement of the project, and therefore is an expedient instrument to reduce the cost that the local administration would otherwise pay for land for its own urban development projects.

The second mechanism is the Plan Parcial, a plan for local development parcels, which applies the principle of equitable distribution of costs and benefits that Colombian law has adopted from the Spanish law. This mode of reparcelación (or equitable land readjustment) includes the distribution of infrastructure costs as well as development rights, and allows the public administration to obtain a portion of the developed lands as a return payment for its investment in the development. Through this mechanism, the Municipality of Bogotá can obtain free or low-cost land for infrastructure or public facilities, or for social housing.

A third mechanism is the recovery of plusvalías as established by Law 388, which requires the prior approval of a specific agreement by the City Council. If the recovery plan is approved, the municipality could regain between 30 and 50 percent of the land’s price increment derived from the land’s change in classification from rural to urban, the authorization for more profitable uses, or the increment of development rights. The plusvalías could be paid in land, as a percentage of participation in the project, in infrastructure or in cash. Again, the effect is to reduce the price of land obtained by the local administration for the fulfillment of its social objectives.

A more innovative alternative is for the local administration or municipality to assign land development rights directly to the low-income beneficiaries of the housing program. This ingenious mechanism, based on the separation of building rights from ownership rights, in effect shifts the balance of power from the land subdividers to the low-income families who move to the area and subsequently share in the land value increment generated by the development. These new residents now hold the land rights that would otherwise have been sold to them by pirate subdividers who no longer have a captive market for selling irregular plots at high prices in anticipation of future upgrading programs

Taking an active role in regulating the occupation of the area through the distribution of such building rights, the municipality finds itself in a better position to negotiate directly with pirate subdividers, and to emulate in some way their actions by providing serviced land (“sites and services”) at affordable prices. This legal approach by the municipality ensures the provision of roads, public services networks, green spaces and recreational and public facilities that usually are not provided by pirate subdividers or that the original rural landowners are unable to support. In sum, the procedure assigns the building rights to the low-income inhabitants who will construct housing by their own efforts over time. Once the original owner’s development rights are reduced through the Plan Parcial, the land price is also reduced.

Broadening the Participation in Plusvalías

The plusvalías policy of capturing private land value increments for public benefit has been accepted in high-income areas, where revenues are used to subsidize social investments elsewhere. However, pirate subdividers often find ways to expropriate these investments in low-income areas through the prevailing illegal and clandestine activities used to access and occupy land. The Usme project represents an attempt to shift the bargaining power of the public vis-a-vis pirate subdividers by designing alternative urbanization processes.

The mayor’s office has already made a de facto commitment to apply value capture instruments, but they are still being explained and discussed within the broader debate over the policy of participation in plusvalías. As we have seen, the practical principle on which this policy is based is the separation of property rights from building rights. However, the policy faces enormous resistance because of the civil law tradition that unitary and absolute rights are associated with private land ownership.

The novelty of the program is its potential to directly address the challenges of low-income urbanization. Expectations have driven up the price of illegally subdivided lands in Usme and have stimulated pirate developers to “produce commercial land” by destroying peasant communities, degrading areas with environmental importance, and occupying risky zones. The tolerance of such practices reached such an extreme level that the prevailing inflated prices in these mostly informal market arrangements have been used by the local administration as the benchmark to determine just compensation for land acquisition.

In the absence of public mechanisms to intervene in the land market, such as through participation in plusvalías, landowners, particularly pirate subdividers, not only have captured all the price increments generated by the urban development but actually have taken control of the process. The resulting illegal urbanization is costly to the individual occupants of such settlements and to society as a whole, as it raises the cost of subsequent upgrading programs three to five times the cost of urbanizing unoccupied land.

Through the alternative mechanisms listed above, it is expected that more land use conversions, such as in the urbanization of Usme, will be managed in an alternative political economic environment whereby the municipality participates as an active and socially responsible regulator of the process. These projects will establish close ties between regulatory land policies and the rules under which land is publicly purchased or auctioned, the costs of infrastructure and public facilities provision are distributed, and development rights are exercised. The return to the community of the plusvalías derived from these changes in development regulations and public investments constitutes the most efficient way to construct more democratic relations based on the exercise of a renewed demand for urban reform and the right to access the city.

María Mercedes Maldonado Copello is professor and researcher at the Interdisciplinary Center for Regional Studies (Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios Regionales, CIDER) at the University of the Andes in Bogotá, Colombia. Martim O. Smolka is a senior fellow and director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean.