Quote:
Originally Posted by GP_Matt
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.
|
Actually I wasn't thinking of ownership from a strictly capital asset point of view, I am thinking of it more as a way to break the power of the band councils, who right now can and do throw people out of their houses for complaining, I think it would also encourage people to take pride in their property, knowing they can pass it on to their kids etc.
I do think though you could set up a hybrid, strictly native lending system that would enable people to borrow against their house, and allow foreclosure and resale, but strictly within the band, or maybe the greater native population.