Conflict between big hotels and local communities

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Please take the time to watch the video video (most of it is in english.) I'm just going to point out some of the main issues here.

1) This area, which has a great deal of natural resources and biodiversity, comprises several (underdeveloped) communities. Due to its whole natural beauty and everything, the tourism industry has increased significantly over the last years, and a whole bunch of hotels are getting built all the time. The residents of these communities are running out of water, and the big hotel chains are presumably holding 90% of it (I assume legally, but there's a very corrupt Government) So, of course, the local residents are all complaining about how these hotels are taking all their water and using it for filling up pools or irrigation systems for golf courses. It is said that one of these golf courses consumes the same amount of water as a village of five to ten thousand people. So, now when they see them watering constantly, they start questioning whether or not that water should've or could've gone to them. When the hotels were installing all their pipelines (without any legal permission, allegedly), these people went and blocked everything, claiming that they were defending their rights. On the other hand, these hotels are letting their sewage waters into various streams, and polluting the area in different ways.

2) They also complain about how this so-called development leaves nothing to the community, economically speaking. Now that rural communities are in the middle of international tourism sectors, most people simply go bankrupt with their traditional tourism business (the main commercial activity in that area), and are left unemployed, since these hotels come and cut down the forests they were living off for tourism, and the companies won't hire most of them, since the majority are uneducated and can't speak english very well. Of course, they're poor, and moving out is not an option. Since this kind of tourism is more focused on the hotel as the final destination (all inclusive resorts) tourists spend most money inside their resort complex, and way less in the local community business. They stay in the hotel, eat there, go to the beach there, etc. So, basically, yes, business and tourism increase, but leaves nothing to the still underdeveloped community, in spite of all this isolated development.

3) Now, the issue of externalities and "public property." I'm not quite sure of how to deal with this, since all of my answers would necessarily be circumscribed to a full laissez-faire capitalist system perspective, which is obviously far from what they have, and I don't want all my answers to basically amount to: "Sit and wait for capitalism to come someday" (not that this is the way to achieve it.) These people complain about how the hotels didn't buy the beaches. They claim that beaches are free and that they belong to everyone (or no one ftm) but that now the hotels are just delimiting the public area and simply blocking off the access for the local residents, allowing only clients. Can you do that? I'd usually be more inclined to take the side of the hotel industry, because of all the usual environmentalist bullshit and everything, but there's a lot more to it than that here, and I'm not really sure of how I should deal with this case in particular.

I'd appreciate your comments.

Edited May 27, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[DanLane]

Moving out is not an option? You sure?

[JayR]

Ive been to the Guanacaste reigion of Costa Rica many times. (I usually stay in Puntarenas) One thing thing I find interesting is almost every house has a for sale sign in front of it, from tin shacks to mansions. And theres tons of new development, CR is on the rise. Also, I can add, from what Ive seen these resorts do hire locals, and on weekends the resorts are patronized by locals. (they sell cheap all inclusive day passes) Im not aware of the water situation, but economically, from whay Ive seen, tourism is a huge benifit to the locals. Most people dont stay on the resort for their entire visit, the hotels offer tours of local attractions, and these attractions are usually owned and operated by regular old locals. Also from what Ive seen CR is pretty laisse-faire, anyone can set up a side of the road stand, selling food, beer, souvenirs, or anything else a tourist might need in their travels. On main travel routes, Im sure these shops bring in decent money, and are usually, just a small, half assed extension onto someones house. They put up a sign, and sit around and wait. Businesses accept dollars or colones, CR's currency. The people are generally honest, friendly, and seem to like tourists. (and Im not the type that stays at a resort with a bunch of other Americans the whole time Im there) Costa rica also has strict environmental protection laws, which in this case is a good thing, the beautifull environment is their bread and butter. Also, they have no real military, which is interesting.

Added on edit: Manuel antonio nat. park, is freakin awesome. Its very large, but only a small section is easily available to tourists, and its not even open to the public every day. And also, as far as the people being uneducated, and not speaking english very well, this is not true at all from what Ive seen. Their education sys. is good, and most speak english at least at a decent level. Most are excellent dancers as well .

j..

Edited May 27, 2010 by JayR

[RussK]

Why should an underground river, or however they get their ground water, be considered any different from one above ground? Should not this matter be resolved just like river, oil, air and rights to other such potential assets?

[0096 2251 2110 8105]

Moving out is not an option? You sure?

Absolutely. Most of them can't afford it, and it would simply result in squatting. We are talking about poor families here, which can't even afford three daily meals for their kids, or themselves.

Also, I can add, from what Ive seen these resorts do hire locals, and on weekends the resorts are patronized by locals.

Yes, but only a few. Thousands are still left unemployed.

Also from what Ive seen CR is pretty laisse-faire, anyone can set up a side of the road stand, selling food, beer, souvenirs, or anything else a tourist might need in their travels. On main travel routes, Im sure these shops bring in decent money, and are usually, just a small, half assed extension onto someones house. They put up a sign, and sit around and wait.

Not at all. This is just a sign of the Government's negligence, since it's supposed to be an illegal activity, but these are very remote areas, with a tremendous lack of policemen, where the Government can't and doesn't want to reach. That's why the coasts are full of drug trafficking, sex tourism, and things like that (even slaves were found in Limon a few months ago.) Of course, in places like the downtown, hundreds of people put up their stands on the streets every day, and the police comes and beats the shit out of them all the time, but they persist, or else they die, since there are no jobs whatsoever. I really don't understand how you are so sure that this sort of business brings in decent money to those families. How do you know exactly? I mean, I have to assume you're speculating, because this just isn't so. Quite the contrary. That's why these people make riots all the time when they get shut down. They can barely afford a minumum sustenance with their profits (if you want to call it that,) and you can ask them personally. You may have seen some, probably the most decent, as a tourist, which are the ones you're supposed to see, and drew your conclusions from there, but go and take a look at these people's homes, if they have one, and make your conclusions after that.

Costa rica also has strict environmental protection laws, which in this case is a good thing, the beautifull environment is their bread and butter. Also, they have no real military, which is interesting.

Yes, but they're not enforced most of the time. Take a look at the current strip mining controversy, for example. I'm not quite sure why you say this is a good thing. Do you support protectionism? There's no real military, in part, because the Government can't afford it. They can't even provide a decent police service. How is not having a military a good thing? Crime is taking over the country. People are afraid to leave their houses, and they get killed on the streets for less than a dollar. Of course, tourists are not supposed to see this. That's the point.

And also, as far as the people being uneducated, and not speaking english very well, this is not true at all from what Ive seen. Their education sys. is good, and most speak english at least at a decent level. Most are excellent dancers as well .

Well, that's exactly the impression they're trying to leave on you. Of course, you, as a tourist, get better attention (this is true in most businesses there), and are always tried to be put in touch with english-speaking locals and magnificent dancers, so you can go back to your country and tell everyone how much of a paradise Costa Rica is, but this is far from the truth. The education system is unspeakably bad, I don't even know how you can say that, but that is off the subject.

Edited May 27, 2010 by 0096 2251 2110 8105

[JayR]

The road side stores, and makeshift restaraunts are everywhere, and I dont know where you heard about police beating the shit out of people making money this way, in the city, or anywhere else. The only evidence I have that they bring in decent money is the fact that Ive spent money, and seen others spending money at these locations. Most of the ones Ive been to are along Rte. 1, a pretty heavily traveled road that snakes across the whole country though. And granted, the only actual costa ricans (they call themselves ticos) Ive hung out with have either worked at a resort, or were friends with someone who did, so their standard of living (and sense of life) may have been above average for CR. But most of the time Im there Im not doing touristy things. Im out raising hell with the few people I know down there, in their homes, at their local bars at night, away from all the tourist traps and places that tourists are "supposed to" see. I havent spent much time in the east part of CR, so I cant speak for most areas, but the places Ive been seemed much better off than youre describing. As far as drugs, and prostitution, yes, Ive seen both down there. Robbery is not uncommon, but as a whole its no worse than any other poor country. On education, maybe Im wrong on this but from what I heard, and saw, I got the impression that the system was comparatively good, especially for Central America. Not that its any indicator of quality, but there are tons of schools, and the students have long school days. The fact that many people move from Nicaragua, Colombia etc. to CR for a job in the tourism (or any other) industry shows that there is work, you just have to act, and tourism is a net gain for the area.

I have seen neighborhoods that are built of tin shacks, full of drug dealers, and hookers, and criminals of every type. Neighborhoods so bad that my local friend told me never to look anyone in the face, and Id surely be killed (or raped) if I went there at night. Those places do exist, but I dont think theyre the norm.

j..

[2046]

I don't know about the rest of those problems, but on the water issue I have some questions. First, the "water of Costa Rica" doesn't belong to this group or that group, but according to Costa Rica's Drinking Water Law of 1953 the municipalities are given authority to control the drinking water distribution. I don't know whether that is carried out by the State directly, financed by taxes or loans, or handed over to connected private firms, but probably a mixture of both. Either way, none of that is laissez-faire, or based on private property rights.

As we know, an objective system of private property would solve the problem of the pipeline installation you mentioned. However, there's a sentiment expressed in the video repeatedly about concern that development and increased tourism demands bring "impact," this "impact" which is bad for the poor natives, eg., "taking their water."

"We've seen in so many places how it would have been if there had been uncontrolled development. We are afraid of big chains of hotels coming down here because there's just so much interest in this area. A lot of people want to come here, so why not buy and build bigger hotels so we have can more and more people? But the bigger the group of people, the bigger the impact you make as well. ...the more people you have, the more facilities you are going to make as well. I'm not sure if all that is able to give all of this and keep its value in the natural aspect of it."

Again, this is the intrinsic value of the natural area, untouched, and unblemished by industry, and you're destroying that intrinsic value by building here.

But as far as the water goes, supply and demand must equilibrate, so if you have a compulsory monopoly on water, or favored interests having a monopoly on water, then whichever decisions are made about the water are not a result of rational economic calculation, but coercively imposed on the group. Under total laissez-faire conditions, the increased demand would not be a disaster for the group, but a gread benefit (as totally private firms would love to increase and expand their operations to fill the new demand), and private enterprise would simply price the water so as to clear the market (ie., it would have to price the water higher for the developers and lower for the poor.) But under governmental control, whether socialistic or quasi-mercantilistic etc., when those in control fail to supply enough water to everyone who is demanding it, then a scapegoat must be found, and of course it's easy to blame the evil rich developers, who would otherwise be competing customers, for "using too much" water. The "solution" being to increase control over development, to "use less," and ban the use of sprinklers, pools, etc.

The same thing happens in the United States, in California and New York when government municipalities fail to clear the market, shortages develop, the consumer gets blamed for "using too much water," and laws are introduced to ration the artificial shortage.

Edited May 27, 2010 by 2046

[RussK]

But as far as the water goes, supply and demand must equilibrate, so if you have a compulsory monopoly on water, or favored interests having a monopoly on water, then whichever decisions are made about the water are not a result of rational economic calculation, but coercively imposed on the group. Under total laissez-faire conditions, the increased demand would not be a disaster for the group, but a gread benefit (as totally private firms would love to increase and expand their operations to fill the new demand), and private enterprise would simply price the water so as to clear the market (ie., it would have to price the water higher for the developers and lower for the poor.) But under governmental control, whether socialistic or quasi-mercantilistic etc., when those in control fail to supply enough water to everyone who is demanding it, then a scapegoat must be found, and of course it's easy to blame the evil rich developers, who would otherwise be competing customers, for "using too much" water. The "solution" being to increase control over development, to "use less," and ban the use of sprinklers, pools, etc.

How can laissez-faire be applied to ground water? One would have to own, in most cases, quite a bit of area; in this country, from what I've come to understand, multiple counties in a state or states. Do you think one can own a whole river or ocean? I don't, and I think government licensing of such resources is the best option that I know about.

[2046]

How can laissez-faire be applied to ground water? One would have to own, in most cases, quite a bit of area; in this country, from what I've come to understand, multiple counties in a state or states. Do you think one can own a whole river or ocean? I don't, and I think government licensing of such resources is the best option that I know about.

Property rights can be applied to anything where humans can make use of or harness previously unowned nature, which means it doesn't require someone owning an entire river or ocean. There is no basis for government licensing of groundwater, that would simply mean government claims to own the entire thing, (Do you think government can own a whole river or an ocean?) and the State Water Board grants permission to the well-connected merchants to make use of the resource or to apply the "public trust doctrine." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine Why should I have to ask the State permission to dig a well or extract water from my land? So long as I do not aggress against someone else's property, what is the problem? The idea that in order to make use of ground water one has to own a bit of area, therefore the State should de facto nationalize all groundwater isn't really logical. Whatever the problems of such a thing, it is for an objective law and courts to demarcate property titles in accordance with rational principles so that one's staking out of such an area would not constitute destruction of another's property, and any invasions thereafter would be subject to prosecution.

There are plenty of property rights applied to things under the ground, such as oil, minerals and metals (and water already.) There's no reason to make an exception for water.

Edited May 27, 2010 by 2046

[RussK]

Property rights can be applied to anything where humans can make use of or harness previously unowned nature, which means it doesn't require someone owning an entire river or ocean. There is no basis for government licensing of groundwater, that would simply mean government claims to own the entire thing, (Do you think government can own a whole river or an ocean?) and the State Water Board grants permission to the well-connected merchants to make use of the resource or to apply the "public trust doctrine." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_trust_doctrine Why should I have to ask the State permission to dig a well or extract water from my land? So long as I do not aggress against someone else's property, what is the problem? The idea that in order to make use of ground water one has to own a bit of area, therefore the State should de facto nationalize all groundwater isn't really logical. Whatever the problems of such a thing, it is for an objective law and courts to demarcate property titles in accordance with rational principles so that one's staking out of such an area would not constitute destruction of another's property, and any invasions thereafter would be subject to prosecution.

There are plenty of property rights applied to things under the ground, such as oil, minerals and metals (and water already.) There's no reason to make an exception for water.

You're right, property rights can be applied to just about anything; however, as far as I understand it, it cannot be applied to commonly owned things like rivers, oceans, oil reserves, air space, and if it isn't considered one already, groundwater aquifers, except through licensing. That's why I asked what type of laissez-faire solution you were proposing for use of ground water. Note, I'm not talking about someone laying infrastructure to pump that water and charging other people to use that infrastructure if they are interested in using it. I've got no problem with that; I just would like to know how that is supposed to stop the use--and scarcity for some--of ground water in this case.

[2046]

however, as far as I understand it, it cannot be applied to commonly owned things like rivers, oceans, oil reserves, air space,

Isn't that begging the question though? Why can't it?

Edit: if that may be opening a seperate topic, there's some stray threads already that contain that subject:

"THE ENVIRONMENT, Should waterways by privately owned?"

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=18028

Ownership Of Waterways, Can it be done?

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=4385

Property Ownership, water,airspace, and the moon

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=782

Edited May 27, 2010 by 2046

[RussK]

Isn't that begging the question though? Why can't it?

Edit: if that may be opening a seperate topic, there's some stray threads already that contain that subject:

"THE ENVIRONMENT, Should waterways by privately owned?"

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=18028

Ownership Of Waterways, Can it be done?

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=4385

Property Ownership, water,airspace, and the moon

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=782

They cannot be owned because the thing has a property of being shared by many. In some cases it would be technically possible to own such commons, but it would require great, unrealistic amount of assets. Other commons, like air waves, could never be owned because of their shared property. In certain cases, a whole oil reserve--if that's what underground oil is even called--and groundwater sources can be owned, but that's because they are small in comparison to the larger reserves and aquifers that are shared by thousands due to property rights.

[2046]

They cannot be owned because the thing has a property of being shared by many. In some cases it would be technically possible to own such commons, but it would require great, unrealistic amount of assets. Other commons, like air waves, could never be owned because of their shared property. In certain cases, a whole oil reserve--if that's what underground oil is even called--and groundwater sources can be owned, but that's because they are small in comparison to the larger reserves and aquifers that are shared by thousands due to property rights.

Again, that seems to beg the question. I get that you are talking about a large mass of underground water, but surely, I can put my pipe in the ground over here, and you can put your pipe in the ground over there, and the courts can demarcate some objective rules for doing that. There is no cause for de facto nationalization by government.

But I just want to correct your point about air waves, it isn't true that they can never be owned, in fact they were owned privately at the beginning of radio broadcasting, as broadcasters staked out certain airwaves, and took aggressors to court, which then worked out titles according to common law theory of the homestead principle.

See

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u483g00165620um0/

Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station

'The Radio Act of 1927 was enacted so as to pre-empt the common law property rights then being asserted over radio waves, thus facilitating a political equilibrium where broadcasters and regulators shared license rents. The Oak Leaves case of November 1926, awarding AM frequency rights to a private broadcaster on the homesteading principle, helped motivate Congress, steering it towards a "public interest" licensing law.'

The courts actually struck down the Congress' attempts to license air waves in the cases of Hoover v. Intercity Radio 1923 and United States v. Zenith Radio Corp. 1926, which caused a boom in radio broadcasting. The government enacted the Radio Act of 1927 which gave the Federal Radio Commission, which became the FCC the authority to control air waves for the explicit purpose of putting a stop to property rights in air waves, ie., nationalizing them. The idea that it is "owned by the commons" or that ownership of such things is impossible, or "technically possible, but against the public interest" is all just nonsense and propaganda.

see

"A Property System for Market Allocation of the Electromagnetic Spectrum: A Legal-Economic-Engineering Study," Stanford Law Review (June 1969.)

[RussK]

Again, that seems to beg the question. I get that you are talking about a large mass of underground water, but surely, I can put my pipe in the ground over here, and you can put your pipe in the ground over there, and the courts can demarcate some objective rules for doing that. There is no cause for de facto nationalization by government.

But I just want to correct your point about air waves, it isn't true that they can never be owned, in fact they were owned privately at the beginning of radio broadcasting, as broadcasters staked out certain airwaves, and took aggressors to court, which then worked out titles according to common law theory of the homestead principle.

I support that. Anyone who drills a well for water has a right to that well. When it comes to using the water table, that's a different question. Until I see reason to think anything different, I'll support aquifers remaining part of the commons and wells being owned by individuals. Which, without management of that commons, means who ever can pump water gets the water. In the rural, it doesn't work much differently than that.

One of the things that stood out in your initial post was your argument that laissez-fair could solve these problems. I took it as you saying that private companies would be able to regulate the water usage based on what they charge for water, and to me that could only come from actually owning the water table. As we've both agreed, anyone can build a well and have that property protected because no one--for the large sources of water--owns that source. I'm not sure what's going on with these hotels, but I just took it for granted that they were getting their water by drilling their own wells, like those citizens who no longer had water.

As for the air waves, I'll have to look at some of your sources. Do you recommend any other reading that covers the subjects we've been talking about?

[Minarchist]

You're right, property rights can be applied to just about anything; however, as far as I understand it, it cannot be applied to commonly owned things like rivers, oceans, oil reserves, air space, and if it isn't considered one already, groundwater aquifers, except through licensing.

There is no such thing as a "commonly owned thing" (unless you want to refer to joint property as such, but this is not the same as what you mean here, evident by your use of oceans as an example).

There are owned things and unowned things. If "everyone" or "the community" "owns" something, no one does.

I've got no problem with that; I just would like to know how that is supposed to stop the use--and scarcity for some--of ground water in this case.

As I see it (and I could easily be wrong, I haven't thought the issue through thoroughly), two things.

1: The original "lease", which shouldn't be regarded as "the community" allowing an entity to use "it's property", but a legal recognition of property rights. A water company that has rights to a particular body of water DOES NOT have the right to pump it dry and fill their own tanks with it, since other people depend on it.

2: As scarcity becomes a real issue, prices would change to reflect it. Obviously, this does not hold true for modern society, and for obvious reasons.