Fair development is possible; reconstruction may delay or accelerate it: decisiveness is necessary

For decades, we have witnessed the great and exhausting effort exerted by the state to address the remnants of corruption in the housing and urban development sector, and what was called inadequate housing, which cost tens of billions of dirhams and thousands of hectares, wasting time and effort, causing lost opportunities for development in all its dimensions, and leading to an undignified living.

Many cities bear witness to this. Slum areas and neighborhoods of random construction have sprung up on state lands, tribal communities, and even private lands, inside cities and around them, and even on the coasts of the Kingdom.

In addition to that, there is the spread of residential clusters and isolated housing, both upscale and non-upscale, in villages adjacent to cities.

All of this happened on the best lands in terms of location and natural qualifications, in full view of some officials in the authority, communities, and the housing and urban development sector. I say some to be fair, because some officials, including governors, prefects, and others, firmly confronted this corruption which unfortunately left bad effects on urban, economic, and social development, as well as on citizens’ security and the aesthetics of cities.

Even when it was decided to combat inadequate housing through resettlement or restructuring projects, the result — in an important part of these projects — was residential clusters lacking some conditions of dignified living, in terms of security, cultural, social, and economic activities.

The same applies to some social housing projects where the state supported companies with billions of dirhams and thousands of hectares obtained at low prices and exceptional permits. Instead of these companies responding to this support and the large profits they made with national commitment and housing products that respect humans and contribute to development, they resorted to offering subdivisions and housing with traditional designs and poor quality in construction, infrastructure, and facilities.

This cost a large part of the National Initiative for Human Development to fill the gap and revive a cultural, social, and even economic spirit in the three mentioned areas: resettlement, restructuring, and social housing.

It also cost an important part of the city rehabilitation programs, for which tens of billions of dirhams were allocated and spent especially on road projects, public squares, water, electricity, sewage networks, various facilities, markets, and others.

Finally, it cost a growing security effort in terms of facilities, equipment, human resources, campaigns, and interventions to combat crime and prohibited activities.

Some may have enriched themselves at the expense of the homeland and citizens, and we may be surprised by the extent of this enrichment if the door of accountability is opened for all concerned parties at several levels. We may also be surprised by the size of the huge national effort to address the repercussions of this corruption in housing and urban development that has been growing for more than five decades, due to collusion or lack of firmness.

We draw four lessons from this:

1. It cost the state, the homeland, and the citizen a lot of effort and hardship, bad manifestations, and lasting negative effects.

2. It obstructed the course of development, which needed this huge amount of money, land, technical, administrative, and security effort.

3. The firmness adopted by some officials who dealt with the phenomenon is an argument against those who were negligent, turned a blind eye with weak excuses, or colluded.

4. Some human rights activists, politicians, community actors, tribal leaders, and employees who encouraged random housing committed a crime against the homeland and citizens, and against themselves as well.

In the next article, I will address the role of urban development in accelerating development.