This week's Ha'aretz property weekly supplement carries and article about that infamous Jaffa abomination the "
Givat Andromeda" gated community.
This week's Arab language weekly "Al Medina" carries a front page article about the Jaffa H. Family, titled "
Save Us". They are fighting to continue living in their home, the home the H. family has owned literally for over a century.
A sad coincidence; Ahmed H. used to be a guard at the Andromeda Compound, safeguarding the property of its wealthy inhabitants. He personally knows many of Andromeda's wealthy inhabitants, but i wonder if even one of them will be willing to assist him and his family in their legal fight against Amidar.
The housing & property weekly of Ha'aretz is usually rather capitalist in its outlook. Property value, how to make money out of your property, how to receive more rent, raising young property tycoons to the status of cultural heroes etc. characterizes its writing. The paper hardly ever carries an article in which housing is seen as a basic human right. Nor it is ever suggested society as a whole has a responsibility to provide decent sustainable housing to its members. The point of view is always that of the owner, the tycoon, the guy (hardly ever there's a woman involved, gender is another weak point of this particular rag) who's making the bucks. Never that of the people paying over 50% of their income for a shitty little room in a sub-standard housing estate about to fall down.
The Andromeda article is different. It tries to critically approach the social meaning of the gated communities.
Architect Sharon Rotbard (author of "Black City White City", when will that important book be translated into English?) is quoted towards the end of the article. He wonders if it is at all possible for a Jewish architect to design and construct any property in Jaffa without being unjust, without feeling at least quite uneasy.
Rotbard is both right and wrong. (I do not know, of course, if he was quoted correctly). The problem is not the ethnic origin of the architect, but rather a question of true ownership of the particular piece of land, as well as who is the client.
If in each new complex constructed in Jaffa, 30% of the flats would go towards sustainable housing at a reasonable price for Jaffa's Palestinian and Jewish poor population the situation would look very differently.
If property developers would, in order to receive their building permits, (in addition to the 30% social housing) have to donate to the community in the form of constructing a youth club, a school, a day-centre for the elderly or a clinic for drug addicts, i wouldn't feel very bad about new constructions, designed by Chinese, Jews or Iranian architects or who ever.
Ofcourse only on land truly owned by the developer, not on land confiscated frmo its original owners in 1948 or after that.
An something else, the developers should be made to actually carry out their social obligations: until now the Andromeda developers have not constructed the children's playground they are supposed to develop. Nor is the compound
open to the public the way it is supposed to be according to court order.
When you are rich, maybe the law doesn't apply to you..