October 16, 2006	Monday	Ramazan 22, 1427

IN order to assess the prevailing housing situation, it is necessary to asses the need of various income groups. The problem of housing is most acute for lowest to lower middle classes which constitute around two-third of the total population. With very limited financial means, they find it extremely difficult to sustain their white collar life styles.

In the absence of adequate supply of land at affordable prices, lack of credit facilities, absence of proportional technical and managerial support, access to housing appears any thing short of an impossible task.

The available housing or land stock has become extremely expensive. Similarly, land supply and development is mostly done in high income areas where the property market has experienced a meteoric rise till recently.

No new scheme has been launched in Karachi for low income groups since 1979. The poor or low income groups either walk away from such schemes or consider it a waste of time and resources.

Scores of research studies have established the fact that housing and community development cannot be achieved by creating extraordinary stimulus in real estate markets. Both of these sub-sectors have an entirely different clientele.

According to present demographical characteristics, the number of nuclear families are on the rise. The percentage of population below poverty line stands any where between 35 to 40 per cent. Amongst the basic unfulfilled needs, housing is of prime importance. This category of population and other categories which are marginally better, cannot access housing through the conventional practices due to their financial status.

Housing has to be evolved as a comprehensive approach for the community development. It cannot be narrowed down to the status of a real estate product.

For settling low and lower middle income groups, land is a key asset. Over a period of time, the status of land has changed. It used to be a social asset which was provided to the needy through state support. Now it has become a commodity which is openly traded in the market. Thus it is obviously acquired by that investor who has best bid to offer.

Another major change is the growing incapacity of the government to influence what is now termed as land market. The land delivery for housing are governed in proportion to the relative influence exercised by each category of stakeholders. Thus armed forces and their various foundations, local and foreign real estate businesses, political groups, ethnic and religious lobbies, transporters and civilian bureaucracy are some prominent categories of stake holders that directly affect the decisions relating to land.

Neither poor nor their well wishers/sympathizers show up in any of these categories. The outcome is stark apparent. The choices, formats and typologies of housing development are undertaken in an entirely self-fulfilling manner without any trace of social justice towards the real needy groups.

Laws, regulations, bye-laws and procedures do not account for the socio-economic, cultural and technical requirements of low and lower middle income groups. The income status of such groups does not allow them to set aside savings sizable enough to finance a major undertaking like housing. They build their houses incrementally, in non-continuous cycles and in strict response to the pressing nature of need.

For instance, in a squatter settlement, people first build a boundary enclosure to derive a sense of ownership of the house. Thereafter they would build a shelter in the form of a room or shed as per their affordability. Toilet is the next important thing that is developed. Rest of the spaces are developed entirely according to need. Marriages of siblings or children would force to create additional rooms.

At times small workshops or work places of artisans are also internally allocated. Existing bye-laws can not accommodate this process. The origin of such bye-laws was based on colonial planning traditions where segregation of land use was adhered to. Neither mixed land use nor incremental manner of development is currently given a place in planning and development of neighbourhoods.

In a number of cities, squatter settlements became the alternative for housing. Initially, state policies and actions strongly discouraged their development. However when the bulk of housing problem could not be addressed by government institutions, the state quietly accepted their existence. No clear policy directive was prepared to deal with this issue.

Attempts at regularization were made in the 1980s and 1990s but with no large scale impact. In Karachi alone there are 572 such settlements. The other large and medium-size cities of the country depict the same scenario.

It is a well-known fact that land and housing are expensive. Even the upper income groups can acquire these with the help of credit. However the credit worthiness of low and lower middle income groups is almost zero.

Bank credit can be obtained by those who possess stable and recognised employment, moveable or immovable assets, marketable social status and an understanding of the banking system.

Thus, the credit access remains confined to individuals who are employed in corporate sector or own formal business enterprises; possess properties and assets and are socially well- connected.

In a snow balling effect, they acquire more and more resources to upgrade their already plush life styles or expand incomes by investing in properties. The poor and the needy belong to a different category. They are usually employed in the informal sector; do not own any worth while assets and hardly possess any relations with influential lobbies.

Whereas they desperately need credit to fulfil their most essential needs for housing, the system does not offer enough opportunities.

The credit requirements of low income groups are usually of small amounts which are discouraged by commercial banks due to rising overheads. With the exception of few micro credit windows, this group does not possess any other alternative in the formal sector. It either obtains credit from money lenders who fleece them by charging exorbitant interest rates or the suppliers of building materials if the need is of a small scale. None of these options favours their socio-economic status.

There are few fundamental steps relevant to housing that must be considered for the masses. Credit for the needy and poor must be ensured through appropriately laid down mechanisms.

Relevant changes must be introduced in the building and zoning bye laws to provide for mixed land uses in an effective manner. And checks of proper urban planning provisions must be applied on the real estate markets.