Peter M. Ward holds a joint professorship at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and in the Department of Sociology related photos

Texas Colonias Scholar recommends policy imperatives and intervention to improve the physical and social conditions of working poor living in colonia developments Colonias are residential developments promoted by land developers who sell lots with no basic services at a relatively low cost to the poor population. In the Rio Grande border region they are almost exclusively Hispanic, but colonias exist throughout Texas where they are more likely to be mixed and Anglo dominated. Residential lots in most colonias are sold under Contract for Deed, a common practice where low incomes, no equity, and lack of a sufficient deposit makes purchasers ineligible for regular bank credit or mortgages. Colonias are invariably purchaser-financed, whereby the developer holds the contract until the land is paid for, at which time it converts to a title deed. House construction is left in the hands of the households themselves and may be shacks, trailer homes, or wood frame or brick-built dwellings. The location of colonias beyond the city limits makes servicing from cities costly and often untenable because of the low fiscal viability of their populations. Given the lack of hygienic services and the distance from work, schools, shops and social providers, living in these settlements entails great hardship for all family members. Nor is this a small-scale issue: within the border region of Texas alone over 1,400 individual colonias house more than 350,000 people. These urban settlements represent a form of urbanization by stealth that has crept-up on cities, counties, and the state, and until a decade ago had caught them largely unawares. Nor does Texas have a comprehensive housing policy towards these low income populations. Faculty and graduate students at the LBJ School have been at the forefront of policy-oriented research on colonias for more than a decade. However, the research described in this article is innovative in two ways. First, it analyses the nature of colonias from a housing production and political economy perspective, seeing them as an inevitable consequence of regional economic growth and endemic low wages. It is also holistic, analyzing the politics, economics, and sociocultural processes embedded within the development of these housing areas. Second, it is unique because it presents a comparative perspective, looking not only along the border at Texas colonias in a number of cities, but also across the border. It uses the lens of Mexico's widespread phenomenon of colonias populares and that country's twenty-five year experience in the development of public policy towards colonias to sharpen our understanding of housing and community development practices in the border region as well our assessment of the effectiveness of policy implementation. Since the 1960s in Mexico irregular settlements (colonias) have come to dominate the built-up area of large cities. An initial premise of my research on colonias is that Texas policy makers should learn from their Mexican counterparts about how best to respond to the problems of low-income self-built housing. This includes formal and informal social infrastructure needs of these communities; policies that enhance the physical development and consolidation of existing colonia settlements; pragmatic approaches to standards and to regulatory planning; local leadership, community development, and mutual-aid programs; and fiscal integration and financing of colonia development. The Texas Legislature since 1989 has tried to ensure that no new colonias be created (particularly in the border region) and that many of the existing settlements receive basic physical infrastructure by the end of the century. But my research shows that while this "first wave" of legislation and policy development (1989-1995) has achieved considerable success in terms of addressing issues of physical infrastructure, colonia problems are far from being resolved. It is often not understood that while the number of colonias may not grow, the population of colonias will inevitably increase substantially as vacant lots are occupied and as settlements are built through. Legislation has not addressed the issue of absentee lot ownership and the inhibiting effect this plays in colonia development. Moreover, Texas lawmakers have inadvertently created a "Catch 22" situation which actively prevents densification and often prevents hook-ups in service. Even more important is the fact that legislation has not seriously addressed issues related to the development and stimulation of social infrastructure within colonias. I see future growth through population densification and lot infill as a major opportunity, not a problem, and not to be considered a process that will exacerbate existing inadequate housing and health hazards. One is immediately struck by the similarity in the phenomenon of colonia development on both sides of the border. One is even more struck at how the popular view of colonias in Texas, and the adopted public policy response, is often insensitive to the underlying nature of colonias and their populations. The focus of these views is misdirected, tackling as it does the symptoms rather than the underlying causes of the problem: so much so, that policies in Texas resemble the outdated conventional wisdom about colonias that existed in many less developed countries more than two decades ago. Even though a number of scholars have begun to write about "third world" housing conditions in a "first world" country, there has been little systematic attempt in Texas to learn from earlier experiences. Under my direction a group of LBJ School graduate students, in conjunction with Texas A&M's Center for Housing and Urban Development, in 1994 and 1995 embarked upon a research project designed to analyze Texas colonias in a comparative framework of the housing development in Mexico's border cities. This analysis was updated by my field work and research during 1997 and 1998 and funded through The University's Policy Research Institute. Six border cities were selected for our research: El Paso and Ciudad Juùrez, Laredo and Nuevo Laredo, Brownsville and Matamoros. On the Texas side, these cities and their respective counties (El Paso, Webb, and Cameron) make up some 21 percent of the total colonias and 33 percent of the estimated total colonia population. This rises to 77 percent of all colonias and 68 percent of the population if one includes Hidalgo County adjacent to Brownsville (according to 1995 estimates). More than twenty-five colonias across these six cities were selected for detailed analysis and survey. Colonias Along the Border. The differences between colonia populations on both sides of the border are more of degree than of being a different phenomenon. They are similar in so far as colonia populations tend to be low waged working poor, Spanish speaking, low education levels, citizens of their respective countries (less than one-quarter of Texas colonia residents are not citizens and a negligible number are illegal residents), and relatively long-term migrants to the region. Low wages predominate on both sides, and while wages are higher in Texas (median around $8,500 per year) than in Mexico, they are significantly lower than the averages in the state as a whole. Wage levels in Mexico are only $3,000 per year, or seventy to eighty cents per hour, but they are higher than wage rates elsewhere in the country. The point is that in both countries wages are too low, and sometimes too ephemeral, for these households to qualify for loans that would allow them to buy completed and fully-serviced housing. Many households fend for themselves, therefore, acquiring small unserviced lots through a complex variety of means (legal and illegal) and later organizing and often participating in the construction of their homes on those lots. This process usually takes a number of years to complete as households invest in self-help home improvements when resources permit. Starting as provisional or temporary homes, the settlements are slowly consolidated and upgraded by the residents themselves, with varying levels of post-hoc support from local authorities to legalize "clouded" land titles and install basic services. Although this process has been widely documented and analyzed in Mexico, no equivalent research has been conducted in Texas colonias. The significant difference between colonias on either side is their size and scale. Texas colonias tend to be much smaller in population because of lower levels of lot occupancy (in other words, a high proportion of absentee ownership) and much larger average lot sizes. In Texas the sale of unserviced lots under Contract for Deed was legal (although now restrictions apply which require services before lots are sold), whereas in Mexico this kind of sale is uniformly illegal and requires intervention to legalize titles. The settlement process in Texas colonias means that population distribution is "spotty," dwellings are likely to be prefabricated and involve less ongoing self-help, families are more isolated, and there is a lower propensity for mutual aid and resident community development to emerge. Important differences in jurisdictional authority over colonias also are evident. In Mexico the municipality (county-cum-city) has full responsibility. In Texas, however, colonias invariably fall between the cracks of state, county, and city government, ending up in a no-man's land of county jurisdiction. This is a severe problem since counties have almost no planning authority, have minimal resources, and are governed by commissioners who have little political interest in colonia residents and are often in cahoots with developers. Thus the public responsiveness to colonias is much weaker in Texas. Colonias Legislation. Ten years ago Texas government got its wake-up call to the "colonias problem." This was prompted in part by a small number of increasingly powerful voices within nongovernmental organizations which had emerged from the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation. Slowly politicians came to realize that colonias were a double-edged sword. Since they were inhabited by U.S. citizens, voter registration drives offered access to possible voters; but colonia poverty and neglect was a major political embarrassment and potential liability. At this time, too, Texas was beginning to turn its attention south towards Mexico as an increasingly important trading partner. No longer was the border just an area of maquila assembly industries, but an emerging area of economic osmosis between the two countries. Eyes far beyond Texas were focusing upon the border region and beyond. The Texas Legislature began to respond to the colonias problem in 1989. Measures were passed to prevent the proliferation of unserviced colonias (The Model Subdivision Rules) and to create an Economically Distressed Areas Program that would bring financial assistance to colonias whose development had been "grandfathered" prior to 1989 in certain designated counties in the border region. This spate of activity, including the Colonias Water Bill, was expanded in 1991 and had a significant positive impact upon many Texas border colonias. Enforcement of the Model Subdivision Rules remained a problem, however, and in 1993 a Colonias Strike Force, established in the Texas Attorney General's office, began to prosecute developers under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and under Health and Safety Codes. The aim was to stop further colonia development and to provide for the sequestration of colonias, stripping them away from developers. This led to a further spate of legislation during the 1995 session. Senate Bill 336 sought to level the playing field for purchasers acquiring lots through the Contract for Deed mechanism. It provided far greater information and protection for buyers, turning the contracts into the functional equivalent of mortgages in designated economically-distressed counties and those within 200 miles of the border. Furthermore, House Bill 1001 sought to close the loopholes for continued development and sale of plots carried over from the 1989 legislation. The 1995 legislation not only prevents new colonia development, but it also applies to unsold lots in existing colonias (even "grandfathered" ones) and to lots repossessed under Contract for Deed. Developers in specified counties must obtain from the outset county approval for plat development as well as provide water, sewage, and drainage services. A principal problem still remaining is the way many of these provisions apply differently throughout the state. Outside of designated counties and those beyond the 200 mile limit, Contract for Deed and the potential for further colonia development appears to be alive and well. Public Intervention. While much has been achieved during the last ten years, particularly in areas such as water provision, the curtailment of colonia development, and residential contract law, the task is still less than half completed. How so? First, many colonias eligible for water and basic services have not received them since funding authorized under the Colonias Water Bill was only 60 percent of the total required. Then the 1995 legislation inadvertently created difficulties by requiring that homes cannot be provided with new gas or electricity services unless there are adequate water and sewer services installed. Prior to this legislation it was fairly easy to get electricity hook ups; now even long term residents must wait until the more costly "second stream" services are on line. Second, in most colonias between one-third and one-half of the lots are not yet settled. Some lots remain unsold, others have been repossessed, and others are held by absentee owners. Thus there is a continuing and urgent need (and opportunity) to settle new families in colonias. The increased population will make further public and private sector improvements financially viable and will enhance cost recovery to retire existing bonds and to finance new ones. Current legislation inhibits the sale of unsold lots, particularly in those colonias that are not fully serviced. To the extent that plot occupancy and electricity installation is inhibited, it is apparent that elements within good-faith legislative efforts exacerbate the problem rather than relieve it. A third area of concern and policy making is in social development. Until now the focus has been almost exclusively upon physical infrastructure, and this is only one side of the coin. Social infrastructure has been neglected or under emphasized in making available social services as well as in promoting community outreach efforts that foster informal social infrastructure within the colonias. The aim should be one of supporting efforts that will shift colonias away from dependency on government and towards greater autonomy and self-reliance. Yet such local organization rarely happens spontaneously in Texas; rather, it needs to be cultivated. Finally, major weaknesses exist in the capacity of political entities (the triangle of state, city, and county intergovernmental relations) to exercise authority over matters pertaining to colonia development. Colonias often have been designated a sort of no-man's land, falling through jurisdictional cracks at the slightest excuse or opportunity. Lack of incentive, bureaucratic turf wars, administrative incapacity and inability, sometimes even incompetence and corruption, often have conspired to do what comes easy in such circumstances--nothing. However, to give credit where credit is due, many positive advances have been achieved since 1989, and state and local governments should be congratulated on the progress made in policy making and implementation. Moreover, the opportunity to deal definitively with the problem of colonia housing and development is within grasp. The "definitive solution" is not primarily a question of finding additional resources and appropriations. Rather, it requires the following low cost commitments and change: 1) greater political will by legislators and officials; 2) a shift in the thinking about colonia development; 3) the exercise of greater imagination and willingness to move towards lower-tech solutions, minimum norms, and even the adoption of temporary dual standards that temporarily would apply within colonias; 4) greater attention to social infrastructure and to methods of enhancing community organizational capacity and responsiveness; and 5) concerted efforts to cut through bureaucracy and to empower agencies and officials to get the job done without fear of reprisal or personal and institutional liability. In some respects, of course, these requirements are considerably more difficult to achieve than finding additional resources. Policy Imperatives. Five policy imperatives pertaining to colonias need to be addressed during the 1999 and 2001 Texas legislative sessions. First, people in Texas need to think differently about colonias and not just see them as rural settlements of unemployed Hispanic populations bedeviled by social pathologies and unhealthy living conditions. Instead, they should be seen for what they are: the working poor tied primarily to the urban economy, and representing a rational response to low wage rates and lack of viable housing alternatives offered by either the public or private sector. While colonias require public intervention and assistance, principally in services, these are "bootstrap" communities capable of developing self-help and mutual aid solutions to their problems. By shifting the way colonias are socially constructed, the potential for development may be more appreciated and appropriate policies could be formulated. Second, the largely negative and top-down view of Texas colonias has been compounded by local government structures and poor intergovernmental coordination. Colonias fall between the cracks of county and city authority, and new policy development is required that will reduce the (very real) liability that jurisdictions perceive in taking responsibility for colonias. This means greater planning empowerment for counties; fiscal incentives for cities to extend infrastructure to colonias situated near the existing network; relaxation of liability laws associated with minimum standards; and greater collaboration over sharing social services on a pay-as-use basis. At all levels, it is necessary for government to step up to the plate and to respond positively and collaboratively to colonia population needs. Third, by recognizing that colonias are likely to double their populations in the coming decade, we need to see colonia densification as a solution: as a housing policy to meet low income demand, as a means of reducing the unitary cost of service provision (sharing and recovering those costs among a larger population), and as a contribution to greater local capacity for community self-help. Policies need to address blockages in the land market that currently prevent or act as a disincentive to lot sales and occupancy. In Mexico fiscal measures (land taxes) are used to penalize non-occupancy of lots and land speculation and to reward social use of property (housing and low cost rental). Something along these lines could work in Texas. More research is required about colonia non-occupants, and we are currently tackling this question at the LBJ School. Fourth, my call is for greater responsiveness to "low-tech" solutions and the lowering of infrastructure and house building standards, at least on a temporary basis while settlements get up-to-code. Mexico provides what it calls "austere" levels of servicing (modest street lighting and nonpaved side-road infrastructure, for example). Minimum (rather than maximum) standards legislation is common in less developed countries, but it is an anathema in Texas for political and local liability reasons. Yet it makes little sense to criminalize self-builders or to place them in "Catch 22" situations where they cannot apply for service hook-ups or for financial support if the colonia is unserviced. Neighbor lot-shared septic field systems are not necessarily an inadequate solution, particularly in the large lots in Texas colonias. Indeed, providing they are monitored and, where necessary, complemented by a physical (truck) waste removal system, such fields could provide valuable green space areas. Formal waterborne systems of waste removal make little sense in desert areas like El Paso, and the alternative of separate individual septic field systems is expensive. This situation can be temporary, with an expectancy that colonias will comply with code requirements over a ten-to-fifteen year period. In effect, they would be designated as low income "enterprise zones." Finally, there is the imperative to improve social infrastructure and community involvement in Texas colonias. This emerges spontaneously in Mexico as it is tied to the land settlement process. In Texas it has to be cultivated in order to turn settlements into communities. Raising densities will help, but much more needs to be done to recast the top-down mentality of social services and to create greater public (local) participation in community development programs. Tying the community's agreement to decisions about standards to be adopted and city liability waivers would ensure that people were fully, and not nominally, involved in local planning decisions. Conclusion. Such policy imperatives are not naive or overly optimistic. A key role of scholars is to draw attention to what needs to be done. There is no guarantee that things will change significantly in the directions that I have charted. Indeed, despite their relatively low or even negligible economic cost, many of these changes, dealing as they do with politics and institutional dynamics and resistance, may prove considerably more difficult to implement than securing high budget appropriations for infrastructure. I do guarantee, however, that if the next two legislative sessions do not undertake significant policy shifts, then the "colonias problem" will never be satisfactorily or even substantively resolved. Given that resolution is within Texas policy makers' grasp, the colonias problem should be viewed not as a problem but as an opportunity. And the opportunity cost of doing too little, or of abrogating that responsibility, is just too high. This article is adapted from public policy research published in my latest book, Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth, University of Texas Press, 1999.   Dr. Peter M. Ward holds a joint professorship at the LBJ School of Public Affairs and in the Department of Sociology at The University of Texas at Austin. A former director of the Mexican Center of the Institute of Latin American Studies, Dr. Ward is an internationally renowned scholar in the field of low-income housing and planning in less developed countries, particularly Mexico. He is the author or editor of several major works on housing and urban development including Self-Help Housing: A Critique; Housing, the State and the Poor in Latin American Cities; Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis;and Mexico City.His most recent book is Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth.Dr. Ward can be reached at 512-471-6302 or by E-mail peter.ward@mail.utexas.edu

	HOME |	NEWS |	FACTS |	ON CAMPUS |	DISCOVERY |	ABOUT O P A
March 18, 1999 Comments or suggestions to utopa@www.utexas.edu Copyright © 1999 Office of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin