• herr_hauptmann@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok since I live in the same city I can give you some insight.

    The wall divides 2 districts and marks the territorial boundaries between them. The bad thing here are the land traffickers. They “sell” spaces on the hills to not-much-so-unsuspecting people. Land trafficking brings gang violence and murders with them. By the way the hills are property of the State, so there’s that.

    Now, the ruling helps only these traffickers who will have new land to “sell” and traffic with.

    What about the poor people? Once they get there they demand the State to bring water and electricity services, for A land which they don’t really own or made an effort to buy it properly. The State can’t do much because of the social cost and lost votes and has no choice but to please them.

    • maporita@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Damn poor people… always demanding services like water and electricity /s

    • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How dare those poor people want to live somewhere?

      Why doesn’t the state just give them the land legally if they live there anyways and the state doesnt use it? Then it can bring them utilities and people can actually live instead of just exist