Sunday, February 7, 2010
By Mohammad Romadhoni
Land works in its own paradox, it is widely agreed that its value stands in several dimension. What is normally face to face is the economic and social dimension
Land as Economic Commodity
For any emerging economies, land commonly perceived as the cornerstone in fostering business expansion. The notion of commercial land corresponds to economic commodity, which is transferable following the flow of capital. In this sense land is recognized by capital intensive organization as prominent tools in fulfilling their thirst for profit. It is also the foundation of economic asset for business entity, combined with its nature of scarcity, make it one of the most profitable investments.
Dominant role of land as commercial commodity may affect city’s competitiveness. However, this leads to other serious implication, as it simultaneously undermined the agenda for a more equitable access to resource, and neglecting lower income city inhabitants. At the end of the day, the benefit of land value merely circulated amongst only a small segment of society. This what ‘the rich gets richer’ is all about, and leads to bigger gap within society, making it a direct attack to city’s sustainability.
Land as key instrument of social equity
As one of the key components in forming the structure of a society, land contained other dimensions, the social equity .Given the the facts that that as much as 70% of Jakarta population reside in informal settlement, not to mention million of families still live in sub-standard housing, even in urban slums across the city. Therefore, social equity issue counts and should be the key city-wide objective in any urban development interventions. What we need is land allocation management that underpin a more just social fabric, strengthening social equity and in turn determined city sustainability.
On the contrary, once land value is freely exposed to ruthless market mechanism, as the common practice in Indonesia. It become an object that any speculator can play around, and all they care is to make its price skyrocketing. In such fighting for scarce land resource. The poorer city inhabitant , which frequently attributed with weak network, no access of information, and lack access to decision maker, most of the time have been defeated
Instead of city government play a role as either fair regulator or facilitator. All too often, higher government official hand in hand with the powerful investor to devour strategic located land. Gaining huge profit, this situation surely a win-win situation for both parties, yet at the same time undermining the interest of the poor. The current practice of high pace land allocation and development , unfortunately merely benefiting the upper level of city inhabitant. This basically is a clear statement that the city is only for those the wealthy.
Recently some improvement have been put in place, particularly in reverting some commercial land areas to its original function, the green parks and public open spaces. As can be seen in a number petrol station in city center. It seems that government have finally realized that land should not merely defined as money making tools. Unfortunately, at this stage the focus is more on city beautification, which parallel with their interest to fix the image of city government.
The mushrooming superblocks, sky reaching elite apartments and gleaming supermalls, these also beautify city. Yet, these are not what cities all about. These are the beauty that only a skin deep. City with integrity is also the one that look after its lower income inhabitants. A more substantial approach is needed. Consequently, the benefit of land should be more equally distributed . Land should benefit as much as possible community layer, to include the ‘have not’ , not just for ‘the have’.
The future key challenge thus is land to function as genuine instrument of social equity. In this light, an effective land development is defined by its capability in guarding the poor from being isolated in terms of physical, social, and economic. Even further, to avoid the poor being exploited by the powerful group. It is not a ‘wall’ kind of land pattern, instead it is a ‘bridge’ kind. It is a land pattern that connecting the economically and socially fragmented society. We seek land development management that could cementing the gap within community , which attributed with different economic and social status.
Land allocation management, including land ownership structure should emphasize on long run need, rather than merely focusing on short term money making motives. It is about n approach that support the poor’s vertical mobility. This intervention means developing a more inclusive access to land resource, allocating land in building more and more low income housing, build pro-poor infrastructure system , build more public open space and put in place urban facilities, that benefits the community as a whole.
Balancing Approach
This essay is not intended to belittle the importance of commercial value of land, the economic advantage side. As a matter of fact, tax from commercial land, could wisely allocated in subsidizing non-commercial one. Thus creating stronger economic base in developing low income settlement. By doing so, lower income inhabitant could also reside nearby their job, enjoying good access to income opportunities. The key thing is to balance between the two forces, social and economy.
Instead, this essay meant to provide broader perspective in perceiving land .A just land allocation structure would significantly contribute to city’s sustainability and deliver better quality of life of it’s citizen.
Wallahualam.
