31–40 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s been tried but the political opposition is massive for various reasons.
I find this very interesting, why do you think there’s opposition to it? So property owners don’t get taxed on the real value of their assets?
There's still lots of small property owners that are still poor that would prefer not paying taxes on their small holdings.
I have no idea if it is true, but, in Egypt, my guide (who I will say was wonderfully knowledgeable on historic matters), stated that the reason many properties had rebar extending upwards (e.g., it looked like there were more stories to be added) was related to tax policy. I forget the full detail of her explanation, but there was some different kind of tax treatment if the building was "finished," so there were a n…
Rainwater and sea spray would corrode any exposed rebar away within a few years.
In fact, I wonder whether it is such a good idea to build on rebar that has been exposed to the environment for an extended period of time.
> For Senegalese hoping to build their own homes, mortgages are rare. In all they cover only about 20% of the need. Across many African countries even the cheapest newly built house is unaffordable for most people. Instead, people break ground knowing they do not yet have the funds to finish. When they earn a little more money they add more bricks.
I think it's worth noting these two paragraphs above because, whilst the topic refers to "unfinished buildings" (which, depending on your local English dialect, typically evokes a sense of large buildings being constructed), the same financing hurdles apply to far smaller "buildings" across Africa - such as single room homes and other types of small dwellings.
> The shortage of finance makes a vicious circle. Many Africans, in effect, save in concrete. Thus money gets tied up for years in unfinished buildings earning nothing, rather than being put into a business or bank where it could earn a return which could allow would-be homeowners to build more rapidly later. The lack of liquidity in the financial system then further limits what banks can lend to builders.
A vicious circle indeed.
To the more economically astute among us, how would a country go about solving this problem?
Any historical analogies would be appreciated.
Greece in the early 2000s had very many unfinished buildings as well, saw those as a tourist. I've been wondering ever since what the Greek reason for that was - any ideas?
> What is going on? Start with the lack of finance. Many Senegalese developers struggle to obtain loans without hefty collateral. Instead, some start building, hoping to tempt buyers to put down deposits on flats and then use that to help finance the rest of the building. But buyers are wary of making a commitment based on a construction site. These unfinished projects often tie up prime land, too. > For Senegalese h…
This is pretty common actually. You build one room, make it livable, and then build the next room, then the next, and when you run out of land, start on the second story. The end result is that a young family with children can own their own home, and live within their means immediately, rather than spend a decade renting and saving towards a down payment. You can see this over and over in the favellas of South America, and even on the outskirts of major cities in Vietnam like Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City ("Saigon").
Modern/western building codes do not allow for this kind of piecemeal construction, which is probably why it seems so odd to us.
> the only painting is of the scatological variety from the sole residents: crows. This was weird.
A few years ago I read an article that argued that one of the best ways to help many African countries would be to send accountants and help set up a cadastre.
A few years ago I read an article that argued that one of the best ways to help many African countries would be to send accountants and help set up a cadastre.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s been tried but the political opposition is massive for various reasons.
I find this very interesting, why do you think there’s opposition to it? So property owners don’t get taxed on the real value of their assets?
A few years ago I read an article that argued that one of the best ways to help many African countries would be to send accountants and help set up a cadastre.
In his research he found that the legal system around property was very ineffective for poor people and many developing countries. They followed real life cases trying to bring properties/businesses from the informal sector to being fully registered and taxed.
It was often a many year process and expensive. Owners would also have preferred to pay taxed when getting access to fully legal status, access to banking and capital markets an important one.
Findings where from places like Peru, Egypt, Philippines (if memory serves me), and contrasted with places like US, Germany, England, Sweden, and Japan. The latter mostly had a well structured, democratic system of property law and registries available to everyone, not just the wealthy or powerful.
Edit: Another key element was to open a process to convert squatted land into legal property. Many times formal land ownership was not conforming to lived reality, and some legal title nobody was interested in any longer was blocking legalization of actual use. US homesteading regulations are one example of how that was done, but all western countries mentioned earlier have or had equivalent processes.