Bezerfil Ing

8/14/2019 Bezerfil Ing

1/18

XIV Congreso Internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y de la Administracin Pblica, Salvador de Bahia, Brasil, 27 - 30 oct. 2009

Land regularization in the City of Recife

Joo da Costa Bezerra Filho

We can say that, historically, few programs of land regularization were implemented in poorareas which, in Brazil, represent most of the territoriality in almost of municipalities. Theseprograms are not equally significant in a number of countries, especially those that are part ofLatin America.

This is the result of a process of colonization marked by several characteristics, such as theformation of individual states, represented by authoritarian governments, the patrimonialismof real estate capital in favour of the economically dominant classes, and the individualismencapsulated in the legal concept of the right of property. We can add to this, the process ofindustrialization and urbanization in many countries, where municipalities or federal entities

designated areas in cities where urban planning was effective through the provision of basicinfrastructure, as opposed to the formation of exclusion and socially segregated areas of themajority of the population.

This observation leads us to highlight the existence of two types of cities: the formal city,legalized and planned, and the informal city, irregular or illegal, in which the great majority ofthe inhabitants of the municipalities live. In this context, the absence of access to theessential urban infrastructure to adequate housing conditions and respect for human dignityprevails.

This is the scenario that marks the process of post modernity and globalization. In order tosolve this problem these need to be effective public policies of land regularization in the greatmajority of the poor areas that are part of the territory of the municipality. It is necessary toform equally fair cities on the part of the majority of poor citizens to the essential publicservices, cities led by democratic governments to ensure the effective participation of theresidents in public policymaking. Cities require a defined area of operation. Above all, Citiesneed to be established with participatory budgets, which are, par excellence, representative ofthe effectiveness of democracy, cities whose greater purpose is to minimize socialinequalities, cities that have the sovereignty, the citizenship and human dignity in theconstruction of a free, fair and unified society as their main objective.

To achieve these objectives, it is essential to change the prevailing paradigm of privateproperty in Brazilian cities, through the implementation of instruments to induce an urbandevelopment that ensures the appropriate and democratic use of urban land and to carry outthe social role of the cities.

The cities or municipalities, since ancient history, are the locus of discussion, participationand political decisions where citizens achieve their full capabilities and desires. In face of this,the ancient goras arose, and unfortunately today, it is characterized by the state of urbandegradation that reflects the social inequalities and the concentration of economic power bythe minorities.

1


2/18


In this context, the social function of the city and urban property lose sense of direction andmeaning.

This process that actually occurs in the Brazilian society is based in the intensity of a quickurbanization since the second half of last century, due the phenomenon of industrialization.For example, we describe below some significant datas.

In 1960 the urban population represented 44.7% of the total population in contrary to 55.3%of the rural population. In 2000 the situation was reversed, the population of the citiesincreased to 81.2% of the total population, in absolute numbers. Otherwise, between 1960and 2000, the Brazilian urban population increased from 31 million to 137 million. Therefore,the cities received 106 millions of new residents in this period, reproducing the model of theformal city, legalized. On the other hand, the informal city, illegal and clandestine, without anyinstrument that indicates the land regularization in the use of the land and housing.

Since our last Constitution published in 1988, in the chapter called THE URBAN POLICY, itis stated that the urban property assures its social function and establish specific rights thatensure the designation and allowance for the use of urban areas to benefit the majority of itsinhabitants.

Although the constitutional thought has not been yet completly fulfiled, a new historicalregulatory framework of urban property and a new legal instruments were established, withthe City Statute edition, in 2001.

With this new conception, democratic and participatory governments have began to provide inits legislations, urban legal instruments of land regularization in their organic laws, directorsplans and municipal programs, respecting the competence and jurisdiction of its severalmembers of the Federation (the Union, States and Municipalities).

Several obstacles are still imposed to achieve those goals. Probably it will be necessary someparadigm changes, including the attitude of the technicians which should perform these tasks,through other powers of the Republic, as example local Judiciary Power in its recognized lackto solve judicial procedures, especially regarding the recognition of the field and ownership ofurban areas through the instrument of the adverse possession (usucapio) to be used forhousing, individually or collectively. This fact also occurs in the functions up to notaryservices, which have fundamental participation in the process of land regularization, in face ofthe necessity requirement to registrate the ownerships titles or regular possession of theurban land in the formal city.

As a governmental policy-making decision, since 2001 to nowadays, the City of Recifesearchs to obtain these goals as a priority programs policy to be performed, beyond toprovide in its Director Plan the obligation of land regularization in poor areas of the city, withthe necessary participation of its citizens and to implement the partnerships with otherinstitutions, public or private, to obtain the infrastructure needed and access to the essentialpublic services, such as urban operations and the public-private partnerships.

2


3/18


Therefore, land regularization, nowadays, in the City of Recife, it is not only an intention tocarry out the political will of the public administrator, but now is a subjective right of allcitizens, and it is a government obligation.

To obtain the effective success of our government program, we changed from the political-legal-popular rhetoric to the effective actions in benefit of the majority of our inhabitants.

The result of these programs and policies identify our administration. Currently, we try to actunder different approaches:

- Planning and democratic management of the city;- Democratic participation in budgetary decisions that enforce public policies;- Implementation of the land regularization Program Minha Terra in our municipality.

Based in several technical knowledge areas, it is essential universalizing all the conceptionsto be implemented as municipal policies, particularly with reference to land regularizationprogram in the City of Recife, known as Minha Terra.

So, in order to solve land regularization, representing the informal city, the ConstitutionalAmendment No 26 published in 2000, began to consider the dimension of the social law moreextensive to housing.

The City of Recife also execute an extensive program of construction of popular housing inareas for resettlement of residents whose live in inhospitable, unhealthy or with risk of lifeareas, or restoring buildings that are degraded and unused, for destination to popularhabitation. The City Hall still woks also in the implementation of development andrehabilitation programs for hundreds of poor and social interest areas.

We believe that to live in housing it must have human dignity conditions and respect. So, wemust grant the necessary ownership of the property and judiciary possession, using the realinstruments for permission and allocation, granting the special use for housing.

Generally, in capitalist countries the costs of housing is one of the most expensive. Moreover,in the Brazilian municipalities, the value of urban land, actually rare, specifically in ourmunicipality, has been presented as the most expensive in our country. This occurs becauseduring many decades it was used as a practice, the utilization of "empty lot", utilized forpurposes of real estate speculation, added to the urban plus value originated from the publicinvestment in infrastructure of the cities. As result, this policy is reverted to the benefit of fewpeople. This is a challenge that we strive to overcome, from the reversal of priorities forinvestment, through a large discussion in the preparation of the public participatory budget.

Even though and looking for the regularization of the urban space, other elements must beconsidered in the program implementation, such as: cultural, economic and environmentalfactors that determine the central point in the acquisition of areas for allowed use, in additionto the destination for residential purposes as defined in decent and desirable standards.

3


4/18


Accepted these changes, we can point that beyond the satisfactory housing, added to thenecessary land regularization, the citizens use adequated services and urban equipmentsthat provide the social inclusion in the space named "legal formal city. Therefore, the owner

of this right has the basic principle for the human dignity of its person, fundamental policy ofour government programs.

Making reference to Nelson Saule Jr. (1999), a lawyer specialized in Urban Law, which pointsto the necessary change in the role of the State, as we spoke previously, "precisely to meetthe desires and needs of the new man that was forced by the State to abandon its passive

position and to assume an active role, especially after the First World War. Therefore,appeared the interventionist State, planner, State service provider, an entity named bysomeone, as we can see the Social State of Law in opposition to the Liberal State of Law,essentially abstentionist. In the most advanced industrial societies, including the WelfareState, the State takes care of its citizens welfare. The new role of the State consists of

promoting the economic and social rights through the practice of a wide range of positiveactions that benefits its community ".

The same author says that: "The universalization process and the multiplication of the rightssets the break with the traditional system of the individual relationship who is subject of therights only in the sphere of the State where he is a citizen, and he became a new citizen, acitizen of the world with universal rights recognized as a subject of international law ".

The housing right - actually considered " the same coin face " of the land regularizationinstruments - is recognized as a human right in several declarations and international treatiesin which the Brazilian State (Federative Government) is a part, such as:

- Universal Declaration of Human Right 1948;- International Agreement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966;- International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights 1966;- Declaration of Human Settlements in Vancouver 1976;- International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers andMembers of Their Families 1977;- Convention of the Rights of the Child 1989;- Agenda 21 of Environment and Development 1992;- United Nations Conference on Urban Settlements Habitat II 1996.

The housing right (regular and legal access to the occupation of urban land) belongs to thehuman rights category, as reaffirmed in the second United Nations Conference on UrbanSettlements - Habitat II. This statement standardized a set of principles, goals, commitmentsand a global plan of action to guide in the first two decades of the 21st century, national andinternational efforts in the field of improving human settlements in cities.

According to the multidisciplinary required to implementate the municipal program of popularhousing and land regularization, we consult the General Comment number 4 of the UnitedNations Agreement on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which retify the essentialelements to housing, such as:

4


5/18


a) Legal Security of the Possession, b) Availability of Infrastructure Services, c) Access costof Housing d) Habitability e) Accessibility; f) Localization; and g) Cultural Adequation.

The great challenge is to make these recommendations effective and feasible in cities likeours, whose budget commitment is not enough to the achievement of all other policies, inaddition to the high costs of the "public machine."

To implementate the land regularization program, the City of Recife uses extensivelegislation, such as in the federal and in the municipal field, for example: the FederalConstitution, Statute of the Cities (Law no. 10.257/01), Decree Law No. 271/67 , ProvisionalMeasure no. 2220/01 (which established the concession of the special use for housing),Organic Law, Director Plan (Law no. 17511/08, Annual Budget Law (made with theparticipation of the inhabitants of the various administrative regions of the city), Municipal LawNo 16113/95, that established the Land Regularization Adjustment of the Special Areas of

Social Interest and Several Municipal Decrees.To understand the dynamics and the praxis of the land regularization programs andprocesses, we must remind the concept used by the lawyer and urbanist Betnia Alfonsin:

"Land regularization is the process of public intervention, under the legal, physical and socialaspects, which aims to legalize the right of people to live in urban occupied areas, accordingto the housing law, that implies improvements in the urban environment settlement, theredemption of the citizenship and life quality of the population.(1997).

In this context, the land regularization actions in the City of Recife are considered as adynamic process, complex and continuous, for thousands of families residents / occupants ofurban areas in irregular situation. To make it effective, it is necessary, initially, to make asocial diagnostic that requires a complex work with legal procedures, mapping, social andpolitical; identification of families to be served in the program; legal instrument to be used forlater registered office and the judgment of lawsuits actions as adverse possession (usucapio)for urban housing.

The Program implementation requires a permanent articulation between the various socialactors, public institutions and society, looking for more agility to the resolution of the cases, as

well as to minimize, applying economically its resources, especially, with costs and notarytaxes.

The land regularization in the social areas is presented as a priority program of ouradministration. So, Minha Terra Program intend to aid the families in several areas in the city,such as residents in the neighborhoods of: Coelhos, Greve Geral, Entra Apulso, Vila Unio,Jardim Uchoa, Aritana, Rosa Selvagem, Braslia Teimosa, Vila Felicidade, Vila Vintm, VilaSo Miguel, Beirinha, Trs Carneiros, Torres, Planeta dos Macacos and Mangueira daTorre.

5


6/18


Minha Terra Program, since 2005, looks for to grant the permanence of the families in theirorigin places to ensure the final lots ownership, with the registration in the competentRegistry Office.

These actions make reference with several situations concerning the relation to the legalnature of the land in which the settlement is based searching to priorize those where aresettled in public areas, public areas of our municipality, land ownership by the Uniontransferred to our municipality, federal public properties and individuals lots, objects of judicialactions or amicable expropriation by administrative ways. According to the legal nature of thearea, the municipality intends to use different procedures and legal instruments.

The City of Recife establishes the following steps to implementate Minha Terra Program, asspecified below:

1. To present Minha Terra Program in the land regularization area, explaining therequirements of the participation and performance of its inhabitants, the intentions and thelegal instruments used and its judicial procedures;

2. Workshops for discussion of technical actions of land regularization, invitingrepresentatives of the Judiciary / PE, Public Prosecutor / PE, Manager of Heritage Union,notaries and registered officials, non-governmental organizations in our city such as CentroDom Hlder Cmara CENDHEC, Peace and Justice Service, all NGO's;

3. Integration with the Federal Government programs, through the Ministry of Cities, CaixaEconmica Federal, to celebrate contracts and agreements, obtaining resources for theprogram. With those agreements, the City of Recife obtained approximately one million reais.As counterpart, our municipality paid the logistics, administration and personnel costs;

4. Signature of the agreement with the Association of Notaries and Registrars of Brazil -ANOREG-PE and the Institute of Real Estate Registry of Brazil - IRIB, being possible thelocal registrary without taxes;

5. Signature of the agreement for technical and personnel cooperation with the RegionalManager of Heritage Union GRPU / PE (Ministry of Planning of Brazil);

6. To establish joint actions with the Order of Counsels of Brazil (Ordem dos Advogados doBrasil) Pernambuco Section - OAB / PE, to train and select trainees to the Graduation Coursein Law, to act in the implementation of the Program actions, paying the trainees salaries;7. Workshops with the Order of Counsels of Brazil (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil) - OAB /PE and Escola Superior de Advocacia Professor Ruy Antunes - ESA / PE, for professionaltraining to the lawyers about Land Regularization in the City of Recife;

6


7/18


8. Signature of an agreement between the non-governmental organization, Centro DomHlder Cmara de Estudos e Ao Social CENDHEC, Empresa de Urbanizao do Recife URB Recife e Fundo Municipal do Prezeis, to monitorize and judge the actions of adverse

possession (usucapio) in the presence of the judiciary, all these actions already in course inthe capital, around 369 (three hundred and sixty-nine) actions, including the communitiesEntra Apulso, Torres, Campo do Vila and Sitio Grande, and UR-5/Trs Carneiros, that willbenefy around 1.000 (one thousand) families. The Fundo Municipal de Prezeis was createdby law, for enforcement to land regularization program in social interest areas.

9. Signature of an agreement with a non-governmental organization, Peace and JusticeService and the Empresa de Urbanizao do Recife- URB and Fundo Municipal de Prezeis,for judgement and monitoring the actions of adverse possession (usucapio) in the presence ofthe Judiciary, in legally areas defined as Special Areas of Social Interest - ZEIS, asMangueira da Torre, Caote, Vila Felicidade, Brasilit and Stio do Berardo, that will be benefy

around 1.000 (thousand) families.Thus, we try to guarantee the social function of the city and urban real estate, and toguarantee the final realization of the following objectives of the our administration:

- To reduce the territorial exclusion existing in informal settlements; transforming thisaction in social inclusion factor.- Intensify the notary regularization process, eliminating all the difficulties existing withthe institutions involved in the process.- To promote the recognition of social rights and constitutional settlement of landhousing, reflecting directly on the citizens life quality.- To promote the recognition of new urban constitutional and municipalities rights, suchas urban collective adverse possession (usucapio), granting of special use for housing,prioritizing solutions to the collective problems, object the intervention.

Adding to that, to include the Program in areas subject to implementation of landregularization, it is necessary to be characterized as:

- Areas belonged by the Municipality.- Areas acquired by the Municipality for land regularization.- Areas belong to the Union in renting process by the Municipality.- Areas identified as Special Areas of Social Interest - ZEIS.- Areas already consolidated and / or conditions of urbanization.- Areas prioritized during the Plenary and Meetings of the Program of ParticipatoryBudget and / or the Forum of PREZEIS.

Priorizing this matter, we introduced in the Organic Law of the City, published in 1990 andrevised in 2007, actually in validity, the general guidelines set down in federal and state laws,in order to prioritize the social functions of the City and urban property. The Director Plan,recently published, also used as government guideline the urban policy of the City, which hasthe fundamental principles:

7


8/18


- Social function of the city;- Social function of urban property;- Sustainability;

- Democratic management.We consider that land regularization has as one specific objectives, the real effectiveness ofZEIS. In the City of Recife, concerning ZEIS, generally and preferably, we will use theinstruments of the Special adverse possession (usucapio) of the Urban Property and Grantingthe Right of Use to the Special Use for Housing Purpose, preferably in their collective form.

In the City of Recife, to implementate the land regularization Program, it is absolutelynecessary this institution, using laws and decrees, the Special Zones of Social Interest -ZEIS, because of this, for such areas, urban solutions are required, specifically rules of landurban fragmentation, with the size of their lots, allocation of areas for deployment of public

and community facilities, road systems with different dimensions and, above all, constructiveparameters in order to avoid that occur in area of excessive buildings verticalization oracquisitions by others holders with high economic power, in order to use the area for nopurposes of the various social and public interests.

Our expertise, considered innovative, has been recognized by national scholars, like BetniaAlfonsin, that explaining the importance of the instrument ZEIS in the context of Brazil, sayingthat "the ZEIS is an innovative urban planning in the context of Brazilian, making the rupturewith the segregational dynamic that use the traditional zoning, that In face of the slum,showed all its impotence. To establishment a special area of social interest still requires anew position of urban planner, what implies the recognition of the Public Power, that the low-income production, also, producer and city constructer. (In FERNANDES, 2001).

Using this instrument, it has been demonstrated as a right recognition of the differences inpublic policies treatment on the city zoning. The poor communities, known as ZEIS, havedifferent parameters on the remaining territory of the city, looking for to prioritize the landregularization housing right.

Another legal instrument that deserves emphasis, in accordance of its importance andobjectives obtained, is the Royal Grant of Right of Use (Concesso de Direito Real de Uso)(CDRU), the most used by our municipality, to regulate areas under their domain andownership. This instrument was established by Decree-Law n 271, February 28, 1967,during the military dictatorship period, which strangely granted the Public Power to legalizepublic spaces used for residential and industrial purposes, probably with this last decree, thereal purpose of the decree publication.

In the City of Recife, this instrument is free of charge, to use in social interest, to transfer thedomain only use for the beneficiary, in other words, without the full ownership, by the way itmay be acquired and transferred inter lives or by succession due to death, in favor ofancestors or descendants.

8


9/18


Using this instrument, in spite of real right, the titulation contract has established the termswhich make it solvable and ensure compliance with the purpose of its establishment. In caseof amendments concerning the use of the grant, automatically will result in the extinction of

this right.From the edition of the Provisional Measure 2.220/2001, the Municipality of Recife began touse, also, the Grant of Use of Special Purpose Housing. In the same way, the previousconcession is used for settlement of public areas domain, which concession in the free orpaid form, but only for housings in areas inhabited by people considered as low income.

We emphasize as innovation in the edition of the Provisional Measure, the possibility in usingthe Grant of Special Use for the Purpose of Housing, in its collective format, in order to makeits concession for a greater number of families and fragmentation of areas in ideal fractions,assuring the collective use and maintenance of its purposes.

Finally, as demonstrated previously, the use of the instrument for judgment of Individual orCollective adverse possession (usucapio). This has proved as less effectiveness, in face ofthe requirements processual and the delay by the Judiciary in the judging these actions.

According to, all the legislation available to the operators and managers from the government,there are many difficulties to obtain the property registration free and to make theseprocesses fast or priority, because these institutions, use the traditional logic that is privateand individual.However, there is a relative improvement in the institutional relationship with the institutions ofthe Judiciary and the General Registry of Notary Public Buildings, since the signature of anAgreement of Technical Cooperation in 2006, which reflected in our country in face of itsinnovative character. Currently, there is a sligtly modification of the old practices, by theregistry institutions and the Judiciary.

Although we cannot say that we particularly changed the paradigms, established by centuries,which prioritize the protection of individual property as a fundamental right of citizens,according its social function, through the instruments of land regularization.

Such challenges, only will be overcome, as bigger as the democratic efforts will be used withthe cities participation, allowing to everyone and specially to the great majority, the election ofpublic policies to be implemented, assuring the real change in the still existing context,measured by exclusion, segregation, privatization and deterioration of urban centers. Then,

we can have a unique city for everyone.

9


10/18


TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 01 - List of ZEIS (location, denomination and area)

Item Localization Discrimination Area (ha) (%)Micro-region RPA 1 Center 1.571,78 100%

Total of area ZEIS 140,65 8,95%1 1.1 Joo de Barros 1,80 2,38%2 1.1 Santo Amaro 37,45 1,60%3 1.3 Coelhos 25,10 4,85%4 1.3 Coque 76,30 0,11%

RPA 2 North 1.489,49 100%Total of area ZEIS 243,45 16,34%

5 2.1 Campo Grande 106,50 7,15%

6 2.1 Ilha do Joaneiro 13,24 0,89%7 2.2 Fundo de Fora 26,97 1,81%8 2.3 Dois Unidos 34,34 2,31%9 2.3 Linha do Tiro 62,40 4,19%

RPA 3 Northeast 7.736,77 100%Total of area ZEIS 986,42 12,75%

10 3.1 Alto do Mandu Alto Santa Izabel 69,20 0,89%11 3.1 Apipucos 6,00 0,08%12 3.1 Campo do Vila 1,34 0,02%13 3.1 Casa Amarela 895,00 11,57%14 3.1 Poo da Panela 2,51 0,03%

15 3.1 Tamarineira 1,57 0,02%16 3.1 Vila do Vintm 0,40 0,01%17 3.1 Vila Esperana Caboc 4,06 0,05%18 3.1 Vila Inaldo Martins 0,46 0,01%19 3.1 Vila Macionila Mussum 1,36 0,02%20 3.3 Vila So Joo 4,52 0,06%

RPA 4 West 4.194,20Total of area ZEIS 250,62 5,98%

21 4.1 Carangueijo Tabaiares 7,36 0,18%22 4.1 Mangueira da Torre 1,70 0,04%23 4.1 Prado 10,13 0,24%24 4.1 Stio do Berardo 13,50 0,32%25 4.1 Stio do Cardoso 14,57 0,35%26 4.1 Vila Unio 4,86 0,12%27 4.2 Torres 92,50 2,21%28 4.2 Vietn 7,70 0,18%29 4.2 Vila Redeno 5,34 0,13%30 4.3 Brasilit 13,46 0,32%31 4.3 Campo do Banco 9,40 0,22%32 4.3 Rosa Selvagem 49,49 1,18%

10


11/18


33 4.3 Stio Wanderley 6,16 0,15%34 4.3 Vila Arraes 8,05 0,19%35 4.3 Vila Felicidade 6,40 0,15%

RPA 5 Southwest 3.008,66 100%Total of area ZEIS 401,98 13,36%36 5.1 Afogados 34,00 1,13%37 5.1 Mangueira 67,50 2,24%38 5.1 Mustardinha 51,44 1,71%39 5.1 Novo Prado 5,90 0,20%40 5.1 Vila do Sir 1,75 0,06%41 5.2 Beirinha 10,70 0,36%42 5.2 Caote 37,10 1,23%43 5.2 Capu 8,20 0,27%44 5.2 Jardim Ucha 8,80 0,29%

45 5.2 Rua do Rio Iraque 18,43 0,61%46 5.3 Areias 28,00 0,93%47 5.3 Barro 28,22 0,94%48 5.3 Cavaleiro 56,50 1,88%49 5.3 Jardim So Paulo I 2,01 0,07%50 5.3 Jardim So Paulo II 2,20 0,07%51 5.3 Planeta dos Macacos 27,63 0,92%52 5.3 Tejipi 13,60 0,45%

RPA 6 South 3.874,29Total of area ZEIS 523,31 13,51%

53 6.1 Aritana 1,00 0,03%54 6.1 Borborema 4,60 0,12%55 6.1 Braslia Teimosa 72,70 1,88%56 6.1 Coqueiral 0,99 0,03%57 6.1 Coronel Fabriciano 0,80 0,02%58 6.1 Entra Apulso 8,33 0,22%59 6.1 Ilha de Deus 15,30 0,39%60 6.1 Ilha do Destino 7,40 0,19%61 6.1 Pina Encanta Moa 42,31 1,09%62 6.1 Stio Grande 66,5 1,72%63 6.2 Alto da Jaqueira 37,21 0,96%

64 6.2 Greve Geral 1,51 0,04%65 6.2 Ibura Jordo 149 3,85%66 6.3 UR5 Trs Carneiros 115,66 2,99%

Source: URB Recife, in: SILVA, 2009

11


12/18


Table 02 - List of ZEIS Under the Action of the Land Regularization in the City of Recife (from2001 to 2009).

Item Discrimination

Promoter of Land

Regularization

Titulationalready

started orcompleted

Legal instruments used Property

1 CoelhosMunicipality ofRecife

Yes CDRU Public

2 CoqueMunicipality ofRecife

No No usedPublic

3Vila Esperana Caboc

Municipality ofRecife

No No usedPublic

4 Vila do VintmMunicipality ofRecife

YesCUEM

Public

5 Campo do VilaMunicipality ofRecife

Yes Adverse Possession(Usucapio)

Public and Private

6 ApipucosMunicipality ofRecife

No No used Public and Private

7 Stio do CardosoMunicipality ofRecife

No No used Public

8Mangueira daTorre



Public and Private

9 Vila UnioMunicipality ofRecife

YesCDRU Public

10 TorresMunicipality ofRecife, State andNGOs

YesAdverse Possession(Usucapio)

Public and Private

11 Vila FelicidadeMunicipality ofRecife and NGOs

Yes CDRU and AdversePossession (Usucapio)

Public and Private

12 Rosa SelvagemMunicipality ofRecife and NGOs

Yes CDRU and AdversePossession (Usucapio)

Public and Private

13 Brasilit Municipality ofRecife and NGOs No No used No information

14 AfogadosMunicipality ofRecife and NGOs

Yes CDRU e CUEMPublic

15 BeirinhaMunicipality ofRecife and NGOs

No No usedPublic

16 Jardim UchaMunicipality ofRecife and NGOs

Yes CDRUPublic

17Planeta dosMacacos


No No usedPublic

18 Braslia TeimosaMunicipality ofRecife

Yes Donation and CDRUPublic

19CoronelFabriciano


Yes CDRUPublic

20 Entra ApulsoMunicipality ofRecife, State andNGOs

YesCDRU and AdversePossession (Usucapio)

Public and Private

21 AritanaMunicipality ofRecife

Yes CDRU Public

22 CoqueiralMunicipality ofRecife

No No used Public and Private

23 Greve GeralMunicipality ofRecife

Yes CDRU Public

24UR5 TrsCarneiros

Municipality ofRecife and NGOs


Private

Source: Land Regularization Management, in: SILVA, 2009

12


13/18


CHART N 01 List of communities and number of securities lawsuits and granted proposalsunder the Judiciary Power of the State of Pernambuco (from 2001 to 2009)2001

COMMUNITYPHYSICALAND SOCIALREGISTER

ISSUEDTITLES

DELIVEREY ANDREGISTEREDTITLES

ACTION OFJUDGEMENTADVERSEPOSSESSION(USUCAPIO)

Vila Unio *** 247 *** ***Torres *** 27 *** ***Entra Apulso *** 16 *** ***Coelhos *** 48 *** ***TOTAL 338 *** ***2002

COMMUNITY

PHYSICAL

AND SOCIALREGISTER

ISSUEDTITLES

DELIVERY AND

REGISTEREDTITLES

ACTION OFJUDGEMENT

ADVERSEPOSSESSION(USUCAPIO)

Coelhos *** 250 108 ***Jardim Ucha *** 20 *** ***Entra Apulso *** 35 *** ***TOTAL 305 108 ***2003


ISSUEDTITLES

DELIVERY ANDREGISTEREDTITLES


Vila Unio *** 35 247 ***Coelhos *** 135 313 ***Entra Apulso *** 10 *** ***Greve Geral *** 23 *** ***Aritana *** 73 *** ***Entra Apulso - Lot J 73 *** *** ***Rosa Selvagem 1518 *** *** ***Apipucos 344 *** *** ***Coque - Esplio deEstevinho 264 ***

******

Campo do Vila financed area by

Habitar/BID557 *** ***

2 coletive actions,favouring to 92families

Torres - Vila da Pazand Asa Branca 480 *** *** ***

TOTAL 3236 276 560 2 actions (92 families)2004


ISSUEDTITLES



Coelhos *** 107 24 ***

13


14/18


Greve Geral *** 28 *** ***Torres *** 66 *** ***Jardim Ucha *** 8 *** ***Entra Apulso Lot J *** 40 *** ***TOTAL 249 24 ***2005


ISSUEDTITLES



Vila Unio *** *** 35 ***Greve Geral *** 15 77 ***Coelhos *** 5 63 ***Jardim Ucha *** *** 28 ***Entra Apulso - Lot J *** *** 39 ***

Entra Apulso *** 24 *** ***Aritana *** *** 67 ***Rosa Selvagem *** *** *** 02 actions to 242

authors

TOTAL *** 44 30902 action to 242authors

2006


ISSUEDTITLES



Vila Vintm 78 48 ***

Vila So Miguel 1660 *** *** ***Beirinha 1041 *** *** ***Entra Apulso *** *** 39 ***Coelhos *** 45 141 ***Aritana *** *** 13 ***Greve Geral *** *** 7 ***Rosa Selvagem *** 52 *** ***TOTAL 2779 145 200 ***2007


ISSUEDTITLES


ACTION OF

JUDGEMENTADVERSEPOSSESSION(USUCAPIO)

Trs Carneiros 1757 *** ***11 actions to 62authors

Braslia Teimosa *** *** *** ***

Coelhos *** 3 *** ***Rosa Selvagem *** 6 *** ***

14


15/18


Vila Felicidade *** 100 ***11 actions to 11authors

Caote *** *** ***

132 actions to 132

authors

TOTAL 3685 109 ***154 actions to 205authors

2008


ISSUEDTITLES



Vila So Miguel *** 100 *** ***Braslia Teimosa *** *** *** ***

Vila Vintm *** *** 48 ***Entra Apulso *** *** 23 ***Greve Geral *** *** 15 ***Coelhos *** *** 45 ***Vila Felicidade *** 67 *** ***

Trs Carneiros*** *** ***

30 actions to 239authors

TOTAL 496 167 13130 actions to 239authors

2009

COMMUNITYPHYSICALAND SOCIAL

REGISTER

ISSUEDTITLES

DELIVERY ANDREGISTERED

TITLES

ACTION OFJUDGEMENTADVERSE

POSSESSION(USUCAPIO)

Braslia Teimosa 12.000 150 *** ***Vila So Miguel *** 200 *** ***TOTAL 1100 350 *** ***

GENERAL TOTAL 10269 1983 1332188 actions to 778authors

Source: Land Regularization Management, 2009

15


16/18


CHART N. 02 List of acquired areas for implementation of Land Regularization Program.COMMUNITY AREA ACQUISITION PROCESSBraslia Teimosa 49,51

hectaresSignature of the Assignment of Renting, transferring theownership of the area to the City of Recife, representingpublic area to subject to CDRU. Contract registered ofthe 1st Buildings Office.

Vila Vintm 0,4 hectares Signature of the Assignment of Renting, transferring theownership of the area to the City of Recife, representingpublic area to subject to CDRU. Contract registered in2nd Buildings Office.

Beirinha 5,58 hectares Signature of the Assignment of Renting, transferring theownership of the area to the City of Recife, representingpublic area to subject to CDRU. Contract registered in4th Buildings Office.

Vila So Miguel 22,02hectares

Signature of the Assignment of Renting, transferring theownership of the area to the City of Recife, representing

public area to subject to CDRU. Contract sent to the of4th Buildings Office for Registration.Entra Apulso 2,92 hectares Signature of the Assignment of Renting Contract,

transferring the ownership of the area of the Country tothe city of Recife, representing public area to be CDRUssubject. Pending for registration in accordance withrequirements of the 1st office on the Management ofReal Estate of the Union

Rosa Selvagem 5,54 hectares Preparation of the drafts of 02 Decrees ofDismemberment, referring to 74 areas (sections ofstreets and squares), representing public area of CDRUs object and / or CUEM. Decrees already published andsent to the 4 office of Buildings for registration.

Vila Felicidade 1,98 hectares Preparation of a draft of the Decree of Dismembermentof 10 areas (sections of streets and squares),representing the public area to subject to CDRU. Decreealready published and sent to the office of Buildings forregistration.

Coqueiral 0,57 hectares 1. Preparation of draft Decree of Dismemberment of 06areas (sections of streets and squares), representing thepublic area to subject to CDRU. Decree alreadypublished and sent to the office of Buildings forregistration.2. Preparation of draft Bill to Dismemberment for publicaddress and exchange of private property, allowing the

construction of a municipal day care center.Planeta dosMacacos

15,28hectares

Acquisition of area neighbors the INSS, through Scriptureof buy and sale, representing public area to be subject ofCDRU and / or CUEM. Registration process in progress.

Stio do Cardoso 6,94 hectares Monitoring, in conjunction with the Management ofexpropriation / URB, the record of the deed ofexpropriation from the 4 office of Buildings.

TOTAL AREA 110,74 hectaresSource: Land Regularization Management, 2009

16


17/18


REFERENCESALFONSIN, Betnia de Moraes. Polticas de regularizao fundiria: justificao,

impactos e sustentabilidade. In: FERNANDES, Edsio (Org.). Direito Urbanstico e Poltica

Urbana no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey, 2001.ARAJO, Adelmo et al. PREZEIS Plano de Regularizao das Zonas Especiais deInteresse Social Manual para Lideranas. 2 ed. Recife, FASE/NE, CENDHEC,URB/RECIFE, 1997.

CAIXA ECONMICA FEDERAL. Regularizao da Terra e Moradia O que e comoimplementar. 1 ed. Brasil, 2002.

DE LA MORA, Lus. VILAA, Ana Paula. Mecanismos de gesto da poltica dedesenvolvimento urbano da cidade do Recife: Identificao de suas sobreposies e lacunase propostas de compatibilizao. Disponvel no site:http://www.ibdu.org.br/imagens/democratizacaodagestao.pdf , 2004.

FALCO, J. SOUSA, M. Mocambos do Recife O Direito de Morar. In Revista Cincia

Hoje, v. 3, n 18, Mai/Jun. 1985.FERNANDES, Edsio. Direito do urbanismo: entre a cidade legal e a cidade ilegal.In: FERNANDES, Edsio (Org.). Direito Urbanstico. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey, 1998.

___________. Direito urbanstico e poltica urbana no Brasil: uma introduo. In:FERNANDES, Edsio (Org.). Direito Urbanstico e Poltica Urbana no Brasil. Belo Horizonte:Del Rey, 2001.

___________. Regularizao Fundiria Plena. In: Revista Magister de Direito Ambientale Urbanstico, ano 3, n 16. Porto Alegre, Maro, 2008.

___________. Do Cdigo Civil ao Estatuto da Cidade. In: Revista do IRIB. So Paulo,Jan/Fev 2004.

GOMES, Marcos Pinto Correia. O direito social moradia e os municpios brasileiros.Disponvel no site: http://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/texto.asp?id=7746 , 2005.

MAGALHES, Ana et al. Terra, pra que te quero? A Regularizao Fundiria segundo aLei do PREZEIS. Recife, Coleo Cadernos Cendhec Vol. 10, 1999.

MORAES, Alexandre. Direito Constitucional. 23 ed. So Paulo, Atlas, 2008.SAULE JR., Nelson. O Direito Moradia Como Responsabilidade do Estado Brasileiro.

In: SAULE JR., Nelson (Coord.), Direito Cidade Trilhas legais para o direito s cidadessustentveis. So Paulo: Max Limonad, 1999.

________ Formas de proteo do direito moradia e de combate aos despejosforados no Brasil. In: FERNANDES, Edsio (Org.). Direito Urbanstico e Poltica Urbana noBrasil. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey, 2001.

SILVA, Jos Afonso da. Direito urbanstico brasileiro. 3 ed. So Paulo: Malheiros,2000.

______. Curso de Direito Constitucional Positivo. 15 ed. So Paulo: Malheiros, 1998.SILVA, Tiago Gonalves da. A Mediao de direitos na utilizao do contrato de

concesso de direito real de uso. A regularizao fundiria das ZEIS do Recife. Recife: OAutor, 2009.

SOUZA, Maria ngela de Almeida. Assentamentos populares do Recife: Transformaorecente da situao fundiria e jurdica. In: GOMES, Marco Aurlio (Org.), Velhas e NovasLegitimidades na Reestruturao do Territrio: Anais ANPUR; UFBa, Faculdade deArquitetura, Mestrado em Arquitetura e Urbanismo, 1993.

CONSTITUIO FEDERAL BRASILEIRA. 1988.

17
http://www.ibdu.org.br/imagens/democratizacaodagestao.pdfhttp://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/texto.asp?id=7746http://jus2.uol.com.br/doutrina/texto.asp?id=7746http://www.ibdu.org.br/imagens/democratizacaodagestao.pdf


18/18


DECRETO-LEI n. 271/1967ESTATUTO DA CIDADE Lei Federal n. 10.257/2001.LEI DO PREZEIS Lei Municipal n 16113/1995.

LEI ORGNICA DO MUNICPIO DO RECIFE. 1990.MEDIDA PROVISRIA n 2.220/2001PLANO DIRETOR DO RECIFE - Lei Municipal n. 17.511/2008.

BIOGRAPHYJoo da Costa Bezerra Filho was born in Angelim, in theAgreste of the State of Pernambuco.He began work early and arrived in Recife, in the 70's to study.He studied agronomy inUFRPE (Federal Rural University of Pernambuco) and business administration at the UFPE(Federal University of Pernambuco). At that time he began his activism in the studentdirectory of universities.He was director of the DCE (Central Directory of Students) of theFederal University of Pernambuco, President of the DCE of the Federal Rural University,

General Coordinator of the Students Federation of Agriculture of Brazil and director of UNE(National Union of Students).

He joined the Workers Political Organization(PT) in 1988. In the same year, after the electionof Joo Paulo as the first PT city-councillor in Recife, he was appointed to be the interlocutorbetween the popular mandate and the Political Organization. Each and every of the followingcampaigns of Joo Paulo - for deputy of the State of Pernambuco, mayor of Joboato dosGuararapes and mayor of Recife - were coordinated by him. It is 20 years of friendship,respect and hard work for the people of Recife.

In 2001, Joo da Costa was responsible for the Secretariat of the Participatory Budget,created in the first administration of Mayor Joo Paulo. The people of Recife began to debate,discuss priorities and define actions and the work performed by the City Hall. The result isthat the participatory budget in Recife is the greatest expression of popular participation inBrazil.

In 2005, Joo da Costa coordinated the Secretariat of Participatory Planning, focusing onthree areas of work: extension of the Participatory Budget process, drafting of the newDirector Plan of Recife, and the construction of an extensive mapping of inequalities in themunicipality - the Atlas of Human Development of Recife, which received an award from theUnited Nations. In 2006, he was elected the most voted State Deputy in Recife, with over 65thousand votes. Joo da Costa is 48 years old, is married to Marlia Bezerra and has a son,Joo Victor, who is seven years old. In 2008, Joo da Costa won the municipal elections inthe first round with 51% of the votes.

Bezerfil Ing

Documents

Transcript of Bezerfil Ing