Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
It would also help if they were all given a plot of land of their own as opposed to community ownership, it could be restricted covanent so as to ensure it stays within the band, but it would, none the less give them some sense of ownership, and even, in a limited way, an asset they might be able to borrow off.
|
I think this is a big part of the problem, but your solution does not work. The reason you are able to borrow against your land is because you are putting up your land as collateral. If you default the lender can force the sale to recoup their losses. If the land has to stay with the band then it can't be used as collateral.
As it stands right now, the federal government holds the land in trust for the band. They are free to use it and develop it as they want to, but they can't sell it to raise money or use it as collateral. They have effectively been given free rent for perpetuity. I think the solution has to involve turning ownership over to the either the band or individual members. (I am thinking of South America and Africa)
There are quite a few case studies where title has been given to the occupants of slums who were previously allowed to squat. The results will invariably have a mixture of positive and negative stories, but the overall trend is towards greater development and a higher standard of living.