This article analyses performance of the land market in several irregular settlements (colonias) outside Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas. Specifically, it explores the impact upon land prices of a major title 'regularisation' initiative to clear property titles of very poor households undertaken by the Community Resources Group (CRG) Receivership Program at the behest of the Texas State government between 1995 and 2002. Land price data and trends are analysed using a major CRG database of over 1400 price records and files, complemented by a questionnaire survey of over 260 households applied by the research team as part of an evaluation of the CRG Program. The data show that prices are relatively 'flat' in real terms over time and that, while there was a spike in prices during the early 1990s, there does not appear to have been any significant increase since regularisation. The data suggest that prices appear to be shaped more by socially determined criteria associated with the developers themselves, rather than by settlement characteristics, location, etc. Regularisation of land title appears to make little difference to land market performance and, while colonias are a vehicle for investment for low-income groups, the rate of return compared with other segments of the (formal) property market is very low. These findings are compared with similar work for less developed countries and also challenge those theories that argue in favour of land regularisation as a means to improve land market performance and integration of the urban poor.

This article analyzes the impact of The Community Resources Group Receivership Program undertaken from 1998 to 2002 that provided clean property titles to residents in several informal housing colonias (subdivisions) in South Texas. Survey data were gathered from 260 low‐income households comprising two populations: those who had secure title from the outset, and those who were beneficiaries of the land titling program. Focus group interviews were conducted to explore how the beneficiaries construct the meaning of ownership before and after title “regularization.” Formal titling consolidates understandings of absolute property relations in comparison with de facto rights born of use (legal or not), which strengthens people's sense of self‐esteem and potential for political involvement. We found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, title provision per se appears to have little direct impact either upon home improvement or upon residents' receiving enhanced access to credit and financial services. We also found evidence that informality and illegality is likely to reemerge as owners die intestate, and as they revert to informal land market property transfers.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract