Flotsam, jetsam and then some: Mangrove trees are swamped in piles of garbage near the Pantai Indah Kapuk housing complex in North Jakarta, in this undated file photo. Ecological experts have warned authorities not to use mangrove forests for development projects of any kind. JP/Desy Nurhayati
Expert on urban management Bianpoen recently celebrated his 80th birthday with a small gathering of close friends and students, colored by a short discussion on themes relating to his concern: Urban management and ecological issues.
His “preferential option for the poor” mindset is crystal-clear and he voices it in a straight forward manner.
“I have no doubts [about the intellectual capacity of those] in positions of authority, but sometimes intellectuals develop Jakarta by disregarding ethics,” he said.
Question: If you were asked to re-plan Jakarta, what you would you do?
Answer: Cities are for human beings. City planning should be based on the calculation of an accurate population number, Jakarta’s physical condition and its ability to provide the space for quality of life.
I would first discuss the natural capacity of Jakarta to provide proper living spaces for residents from all walks of life. The population should become the basis of urban spatial planning to uphold sustainability and principles of humanity.
Jakarta is now at its maximum capacity, because only a small number of people can presently live in quality living conditions.
Thus, I would stop issuing permits for new housing complexes and offices.
Does it mean you would plan Jakarta as a closed city?
Our law guarantees that every citizen has the right to live anywhere in the country.
In a bid to control the population, (late respected) governor Ali Sadikin (1966-1977) once tried to close the city to newcomers; he stipulated that Jakarta could only provide for those able to secure housing and jobs. He failed.
Jakarta is an open city. People kept arriving and obtained ID cards through bribery.
The root of urbanization is humanity’s search for a better quality of life. Urbanization can only be controlled through village development, decentralization of educa-tion, healthcare, economy and life necessities.
The Jakarta administration should prioritize empowering the urban poor. Authorities tend to hide poverty through eviction and relocation instead of addressing it. Poverty eradication should be done in situ, by providing education, healthcare, vocational skills and jobs.
If they (the urban poor) lack ID cards, facilitate them. The relocation issue can only be discussed if their standard of living has been addressed. Authorities should learn to be humble and pay more attention to the needs of the urban poor. So far, authorities have behaved as if they know best.
As part of city flood management, Governor Fauzi Bowo plans to relocate people living along riverbanks to low-cost apartments.
What is the problem with people living near riverbanks? Has there been research confirming those residents actually cause floods in the city, as they have been accused of doing? Yes, they do pollute rivers with garbage (and thus contribute to floods), but why? There was an agreement with authorities on garbage management along riverbanks, but the administration did not execute this function well.
The administration should first work out what its obligations are before pointing the finger at other parties.
While it is true the citizen’s lack of awareness about garbage management and poor drainage contribute to flooding, the root of the problem is the deforestation carried out in upstream areas — like the Bogor regency, Puncak and other areas in West Java — so that the rich can build their villas there. In many cases, the urban poor who have been relocated return to their slum areas, leaving the allocated apartments to the upper class; the phenomenon confirms relocating the urban poor is not the answer.
Is spatial planning in Jakarta determined by those with an upper-class mindset?
Authorities do not acknowledge the social-economic differences among residents of Jakarta. (The current spatial planning reflects that) all Jakartans are rich, which is not the reality.
Has there been a paradigm shift in the 2030 Jakarta Spatial Planning?
What surprises me is that the 2030 Jakarta Spatial Planning (draft) lacks formulation and grounding for its population projection. (The draft of the 2030 Jakarta Spatial Planning limits the city population to 10 million by 2030 without further explanation).
I also do not see any planning for the severely disadvantaged. The planning reflects the perspective of the higher economic class.
The urban poor are continually accused of breaching regulations such as constructing buildings illegally. But if the poor asked where they could live, we wouldn’t be able to find it in the planning. The price of land (allocated for housing) remains unaffordable.
Consequently, the poor are conditioned to breach regulations.
But Jakarta should become a city for everyone: The rich and poor.
If the rich feel like they cannot live a comfortable life near poor neighborhoods, they should avoid living near those areas, avoid the socio-economic contrast and the tension that may ignite.
It is the government’s obligation to first address the needs of poor communities at least to lessen the socio-economic gap between the wealthy and low-income citizens.
Here, spatial planning plays a key role. It needs to ask what do people living along riverbanks need, for example, to ensure better living conditions. If there are no facilities for education, healthcare, skill development and job creation, it is the government’s responsibility to provide or create what is needed, as mandated by our law.
The administration should allocate spaces for residents across all social classes.
