Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

112Security of tenureBox III.1 Security of tenure: The triumph of the ‘self-service city’They all laughed: six men laughing because an outsider didn’tunderstand their concept of landownership.They sat in a teahouse in a dusty patch of Istanbul (Turkey),called Pas˘ aköy, far out on the Asian side of the city.‘Tapu var?’ a researcher asked.‘Do you have title deeds?’They all laughed. Or, more accurately, some laughed, somemuttered uncomfortably and some made a typical Turkish gesture.They jerked their heads back in a sort of half nod and clicked theirtongues. It was the kind of noise someone might make while callinga cat or a bird, but at a slightly lower pitch. This indicates:‘Are youkidding?’ or ‘Now that’s a stupid question’ or, more devastatingly,‘What planet are you from, bub?’The researcher blundered on.‘So who owns the land?’More laughter. More clicking.‘We do,’ said Hasan Çelik, choking back tears.‘But you don’t have title deeds?’ This time they roared.And somebody whispered:‘Why is this guy so obsessedwith title deeds? Does he want to buy my house?’To understand the squatter communities of Turkey, it is importantto accept the existence of a sense of property ownership that iscompletely different from what exists in Europe and NorthAmerica. It is a system of land tenure more rooted in the legalrights of communities than in the apparatus of title registration andthe clean pieties of private property. While it may seem unruly tooutsiders, it has enabled the accommodation of massive urbanizationin a sensible and successful way by harnessing the power ofself-building and sweat equity.For instance, it is likely that the land under the sevenstoreycity hall in the neighbouring Sultanbeyli belongs tothousands of people who have no idea that they own it and havenever even heard of this obscure outpost far out on the Asian sideof Istanbul. That is because 70 per cent of the land in this squattermetropolis is held under hisseli tapu – or shared title. Today, thisanachronistic form of landownership exists where parcels of landhave never been divided into exact lots and ownership has neverbeen apportioned to individuals.So, why is this not seen as a problem by Sultanbeyli’s300,000 residents, and why do they not fear eviction at the handsof the rightful owners of their land? Perhaps the best answer isthat Istanbul is a ‘self-service city’, a place where nobody owns buteverybody builds. Between 1986 and 1989, people erected 20,000houses in Sultanbeyli and the city now boasts 150 major avenues,1200 streets, 30,000 houses, 15 neighbourhoods, 91 mosques, 22schools and 48,000 students.Yet, today there is increasing pressure to formalize tenurerights. The mayor of Sultanbeyli is encouraging people to buyprivate title to the land that they occupy. Many residents, however,are not so sure. Indeed, many in Sultanbeyli are balking at the ideaof paying a fee for their land. In the city’s Aks˘emsettin neighbourhood,Zamanhan Ablak, a Kurd who came to Sultanbeyli in the mid1990s, reports that his family initially paid approximately US$1500for their land (they registered their new right of possession withthe local muhtar, an elected official who functions as a kind ofjustice of the peace). They also paid US$120 for the city’s permissionto erect a new building, and approximately US$400 towards aneighbourhood fund dedicated to installing drainage culverts andbuilding a mosque and a school. Zamanhan, who works as a waiterin his cousin’s kebab restaurant, is already protesting the fact thatSultanbeyli is charging residents US$160 to hook into the watersystem. He explained his irritation with a little wordplay: the city’sfee (ruhsat in Turkish), is nothing more than a bribe (rusvet). So,Zamanhan asked:‘Ruhsat, rusvet: what’s the difference?’ Zamanhanand many of his fellow Aks˘emsettin residents do not lookfavourably on the idea of having to shell out more money topurchase a title deed for a parcel that was unused and unwantedwhen they arrived.After all, they say, it is through their own work thatSultanbeyli and many other informal settlements have becomeindistinguishable from many legal neighbourhoods in Istanbul.Through a combination of political protection and dogged buildingand rebuilding, they have developed their own communities intothriving commercial and residential districts that are desirableplaces in which to live. Indeed, with Istanbul continuing to grow, itis possible that selling private titles could set off a frenzy of speculationin Sultanbeyli. Informal ownership, while perhaps legallyprecarious, is perhaps safer for poor people because they do nothave to go into debt to formally own their houses. They build whatthey can afford, when they can afford it.Source: Neuwirth, 2007required to ensure adequate housing for all is distressinglyabsent from most government decision-making bodies.Public expenditure on housing remains minimal in virtuallyall countries, and private sector-led efforts to providehousing at an affordable cost have generally not achievedresults (even when heavily subsidized or provided with taxincentives or other inducements to do so). As a result,governments of all political hues are turning to the market asthe source of hope for housing the hundreds of millions ofpeople who today lack access to a safe, habitable and securehome. Indeed, the market can, and must, be a crucial link inany successful housing supply chain. Most commentatorsare, however, sceptical about the ability of the market aloneto provide affordable and accessible homes to all sectors ofsociety. And yet, from an analysis of the latest housing policytrends throughout the world, it is clear that the market –perhaps more than ever before – is seen by many people andgovernments as the ‘only real solution’ to solving the globalhousing crisis.As a result, the global housing crisis – characterizedby ever growing slums, housing price increases, conflict anddisaster-induced loss of housing and property resources, andcontinuing forced evictions and mass displacements –continues to get worse without any sort of positive end insight. Because of this, an equally massive response by localand national governments to address this crisis, backed by