translated from Spanish: "It is not laziness to refuse opacity": Broad Front responds to criticism of rejection of social integration project

“It is not laziness to refuse opacity and indefinition,” said In a statement the front of action in housing, city and territory of the broad front, leaving the criticism of the attitude taken by the conglomerate against the bill on social and urban integration.
In particular, the block was criticized by the urbanist Ivan Poduje, who questioned that the Broad Front (FA) rejected the idea of legislating the project.
The member of the National Council of Urban Development castigated the way the coalition expressed its rejection, “sending a minute on Twitter, which seems more like a strategy to evade the downside than a serious political action”, instead of presenting a proposal Alternative.
In the opinion of the architect, “this laziness of the FA is costing the country expensively. Every year that passes with the current system, are thousands of new families who must live crowded or paying abusive leases for parts and tenements. Congress should help by legislating and not sending minutes with punching names, but without proposals commensurate with the magnitude of the problem and the resources that parliamentarians receive from the state. ”
According to the action front in housing, city and territory of the FA, the commentary of Poduje “caricatures” the posture of the block. But beyond this controversial form, they justify their rejection of the project, noting that “there is no coherence between the problem identified and the response promoted by the executive.”
They claim that “the project has a substantive debt: it does not propose a conceptual and operational definition of Social and urban integration” and that “there are so many indefinitions in the project that, reasonably, the imputation of laziness could be assigned to others”.
We then reproduce the declaration of the Action Front in housing, city and territory
Of the Broad Front:
In a column of opinion titled “The laziness of the Broad Front”, Ivan Poduje caricatures the critical position of our political conglomerate regarding the bill on social and urban integration presented by the Government, pointing out as “laziness” the Legitimate democratic opposition to this particular proposal. Certainly, referring to the allegations of laziness is something that we are prepared to circumvent in favour of a discussion with arguments on social and urban integration and the aforementioned bill.
Of course, we demonstrate a transversal consensus on the social and political scene regarding a diagnosis: Chilean cities suffer from high levels of residential segregation, in which the gaps and socio-economic breakdowns are identified with complete clarity , because of the abysmal differences that housing, facilities and urban services exhibit. Obviously, the quality of life and the structure of opportunities are very different depending on where people reside and develop their lives.
So why is the FA opposed to the project presented by the Government? Basically, because we consider that there is no coherence between the problem identified and the response that the Executive promotes. Indeed, it is not possible to determine clearly from the bill how these measures would promote social and urban integration.
First of all, the project has a substantive debt: it does not propose a conceptual and operational definition of Social and urban integration. In this way, we are urged to choose the route, without having defined the destination. Is integrating rich and poor into the city? Is it equating the conditions for access to urban services? Integrating is Densify? In this regard, we consider that only by explicitly pointing out the objective of legislative amendments will it be possible to determine today’s relevance, or in the future, to evaluate the performance of this law (how much more integrated will we be?).
For its part, the most important mechanisms that incorporates the project to produce this indefinite integration, are the creation of the zones of Urban Integration (ZIU)-above the attributions of the municipalities-, and the faculty of the SERVIU of concessions Tax land. Although there are those who-like Mr Poduje himself-have held these headlines, assuming that this law will allow for well-located social housing, in the core, the project only lists a number of blind spots and uncertainty.
For example, according to numeral 4) of the second article of the project, the concessions will apply on tax land-well or poorly located, the law does not say-where the concessionaire may commercially exploit the houses and equipment that it builds, Contemplating a percentage of housing for the rental subsidy. What percentage of rental housing? Will it be a single house? Will it be 20%, or will it be 80% of the built units? The law does not clarify it. Protected rent? Does the law require to guarantee a rental price on that indeterminate percentage of homes? Again, the project omits.
The ZIU, whereas-see numeral 4) of the third article-they shall apply in sectors with or without a regulatory plan, with appropriate indicators and standards of quality of life and urban development, or, in deficit sectors, which in an uncertain future could improve (or not). I mean, they would apply anywhere in the city. In these, the aim would be to encourage projects with “integrated housing” (concept not defined), generating benefits and regulatory incentives-not identified in the bill-, in exchange for incorporating housing destined for beneficiaries of programs and other aspects of the room. What proportion of housing for residential program beneficiaries will be required? It’s not defined. Will there be a relationship between the proportion of housing for beneficiaries of residential programs and the benefits and policy incentives? How will urban quality standards be improved in the ZIU delimited in “deficit” sectors? Nothing says the project.
Only with what has been said here, is it difficult to share the joy and confidence that Mr Poduje demonstrates in the face of this initiative. There are so many indefinitions in the project that, reasonably, the imputation of laziness could be assigned to others. Issues of high importance should not remain in uncertainty nor be derived from other instruments of lesser legal hierarchy, without a clear orientation in the text of the law.
That is why, under the terms that the bill was presented, it is impossible to know what results and impacts to expect on social and urban integration or on the growing housing deficit. However, if approved as it is, the only thing we can be sure of is that there would be concessions of public land (fiscal, SERVIU, municipal) and incentive zones for densify, concentrating efforts on generating a lucrative scenario, without Securing a correlate in social or urban benefits. Therefore, due to the obvious weaknesses and indefinitions of the project also identified and expressed by the Habitat and Housing Committee and the Urban Development Committee of the College of Architects, academic institutions and various organizations of people, It was reasonable to oppose the idea of legislating and tackle to work on a project with a genuine approach to housing rights and urban development.
Action Front in housing, city and territory
Broad Front