The Death of Ramon Gonzalez and the 21st Century Dilemma

In some areas of Mexico, the rapidity of change associated with Article 27
changes is nothing short of startling. Prior to 1992, Article 27 had made it impossible for
foreigners to be the direct owners of coastal property. The 1992 changes allow foreign
ownership, albeit with some complications, of coastal land. The result is evident up and
down the West Coast of Mexico, where fishing villages and ejidos are being pushed aside
in unprecedented numbers to make way for tourist and second-home developments
designed for the enjoyment of foreigners and usually owned by foreigners. Widespread
discontent among many of those who have lost homes and livelihoods along the coast is
palpable. Not surprisingly, there are those in displaced villages who did well from the
deals, often leading to the widening of pre-existing inequalities. In many other areas of
Mexico, change has been somewhat slower and more complex than anticipated. x
In the first edition, I discussed the power of ancient tradition in Mexican farming
with regard to agricultural methods and the organization of rural life. It is interesting that
rural tradition has also done a good deal to block or slow the impact of the Article 27
reforms. As part of the Article 27 changes, the Mexican government undertook in the
1990’s to survey land and validate land claims. This was a first step in making it possible
to mortgage and sell land. A surprising result of the survey was the discovery of how
often and how strongly land was being held, bought, and sold under traditional law that
made little or no reference to the supposed federal and state law governing landholding.
Villages and townspeople simply came to regard landholding in a variety of ways that
they were able to enforce with surprising frequency through local courts, in spite of
contradicting official law. Because of the strength of local traditions, the landholding
situation under the new Article 27 has changed somewhat more slowly than predicted by