15. NOT ALL LIVES MATTER...YET
#compassioninpolitics #publicinterest #ethics #BuildBackBetter
#landvaluetaxation #socialjustice #economicjustice #communityledhousing
 |
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title= User:Thepeoplesartist&action=edit&redlink=1 |
Land Journal Jan-Feb 2020 issue on Land Rationing.
He asserted that everything we do with land must have an ethical dimension. This
idea would probably not be the first to spring to mind if you asked members of
the public what they think surveyors do. Readers of my earlier blogs on the
findings of my Churchill Fellowship research, Property, Justice and Reason, will understand
why I have returned to Winston Churchill’s unique insights on the connection
between land use and ownership and social justice: sadly so unique that no
other politician in the last hundred years has come close to making the same
connections…not even those who claim him as a role model and draw inspiration
from his political beliefs.
A shorter version of this blog entitled “The role of the surveyor in the ethics of land use”
appears in the October issue of the RICS Land Journal (HERE)
I promise not to mention ‘the new normal’ more than twice. You
are probably weary of reading helpful suggestions about what our post-Covid19 world
should look like. However, the imperative to work within a new professional and
political paradigm has been staring us in the face since at least the beginning
of the century.
The work of the RICS Sustainability Working Group and EU
Advisory Group on Sustainable Property Investment and Management from the early
2000s and their
perceptions of the climate change challenges then remain enduringly
relevant to our understanding of what still needs to be done in response to the
Great Financial Crisis, the Climate Emergency, Covid19, and the prospect of
endemic change and uncertainty. They described how professional ethics must
shape the content of our work through the social, environmental and
economic impact of what we do, and not just our conduct: not bribing people
to win work, or running away with clients’ money.
 |
| Hairdressers being serious about sustainability? |
According to Professor Jeremy Till, Pro-Vice Chancellor at
the University of the Arts in his exploration of professional codes of conduct: “One of the most commonly made mistakes is
to confuse professional propriety with an ethical position, as if acting in
accordance with the codes of professional conduct will ensure ethical behaviour…standards
my hairdresser could meet. Simply meeting the requirements of a code of conduct
that serves only the client’s or the professional’s interest may be unethical
in my terms” [i]
These sustainable development pioneers were responsible for reviving
interest in our Royal Charter’s clause “securing
the optimal use of land and its associated resources to meet social and
economic needs”(3c), framing it as the overarching responsibility that
affects the actions of every surveyor, so capturing the essence of
sustainable and equitable development. The wisdom
of the 1881 phrase ‘social and economic’ makes up for the
absence of the modern ‘environmental’.
The political economy, when the Royal Charter
was drafted, was founded on substantial investment in public works, faltering first
steps towards redistributive fiscal policies, often to enable the development
of major infrastructure investments and to promote public health. Surveyors and
engineers were indispensable to the task of supporting the development of a
thriving economy and a healthier society in a period of dramatic social and
economic change; just as we must find new ways to do the same now. The Royal Charter
did not equivocate or suggest ‘social-if-there’s-anything-left-over-after-economic-needs-have-been-met’;
and explicitly recognised the interdependency between the public and private
interests in a well-working society and economy, and thus the rationality
of the ‘social and economic’ requirement.
Responding
to change
Like our 19th Century founders, we must be thoughtful about how change happens. You probably noticed that during lockdown you really didn’t need to wash your hair as often ‘as normal’. Even in London, a 100m away from a trunk road, the air was so clean that we have barely used shampoo since March! The situation and our response were almost instantaneous. As part of lockdown, the UK government found money to house all its street homeless, thus achieving in a matter of days what had been considered ‘too difficult’ over decades. Hopefully, sending those homeless people back onto the streets is now unthinkable.
Like our 19th Century founders, we must be thoughtful about how change happens. You probably noticed that during lockdown you really didn’t need to wash your hair as often ‘as normal’. Even in London, a 100m away from a trunk road, the air was so clean that we have barely used shampoo since March! The situation and our response were almost instantaneous. As part of lockdown, the UK government found money to house all its street homeless, thus achieving in a matter of days what had been considered ‘too difficult’ over decades. Hopefully, sending those homeless people back onto the streets is now unthinkable.
What of longer term changes to which our ‘response’
is a gradual almost unconscious process of normalisation that might nevertheless have quite significant consequences for good or ill? Every surveyor knows the meaning of ‘best consideration
reasonably obtainable’ as the basis for determining property values. Like that Clause 3c of the Royal Charter, ‘reasonably’
implies rationality, and rationality relies on evidence; but what happens when
land transactions, and thus values, no longer depend on evidence…depart from
rationality?
Recently, I have been visiting a child health charity that I helped
establish in SE Asia. Talking with the chair of the charity about some of the
new developments that I had seen, I suggested they did not seem to be doing
much positive for the social, economic or environmental fabric of the cities I
had visited. Although not a surveyor, he heads the property advice business of
one of the region’s long established trading houses. Q. ‘Who are the investors?’…A. ‘You really don’t want to know! There is just
so much free capital in the world just waiting for any opportunity to put money
into property…the sure fire ‘bet’...something that in more normal times people
would not be doing…especially from people who really understand the risks
associated with property,’… ‘Oh,
the usual roster of bad guys? Oligarchs, money launderers,
exploiters of natural resources etc?’ … ‘Exactly,
and the real concern is that they are spending money on what I would call an entirely
irrational basis. They don’t understand the urban context, and they are not
taking any advice based on market evidence. This really started back in the
mid-80s with the deregulation of capital, but now we are at ‘peak whim’. They
do it because they can.’ … ‘But they have surveying firms advising them in
these transactions?’…Shooting eyebrows, a shrug of the shoulders…we are
interrupted by others at the charity reception.
 |
 |
Above...site for advertising hoardings but also
an area cleared of an existing township and lying
empty for a decade - Right...18 months later
|
The way we talk about land use suggests that professional
attitudes, as they respond to change, can easily dilute the rational connection
between social and economic need, and thus the integrity of the evidence
used to rationalise investment decisions and determine values - as these ‘overheard
in everyday work’ conversations also suggest:
- Surveyor 1: “Busy?” Surveyor 2: “BUSY??? Soooo busy! Just rushed off my feet with viability appraisals for developers to avoid providing any affordable housing.” The RICS has spent considerable time reshaping the Financial Viability in Planning guidance, in a less than perfect public policy environment. Ensuring that surveyors act in the public interest in this kind of work has been a major pre-occupation. Their efforts have not been helped by surveyors and planners openly advertising how to minimise or avoid public policy obligations: even suggesting their clients can ‘go on a nice holiday!’ with the money they have saved, latterly changed to ‘now you can start your project!’
- "I think you misunderstand what is going on here. Our job is to get planning for our client, promise as little as possible (at planning), and sell the client’s land for as much as possible.” In countering proposals for sustainable development, perhaps this speaker misunderstood the difference between his Land and Planning team’s business model and the intentions of its institutional landowner client determined to promote a truly sustainable urban extension to justify the use of Green Belt land, and to de-risk a 30 year plus investment that would be resilient to future climate change and energy shortage uncertainties.
- “We’ll build more sustainable homes, provided people are prepared to pay more.” The logic of that housebuilder’s position is that only the already well off can benefit from sustainable development. This is certainly not the underlying purpose or ethos of sustainable development. It also expects the cost of sustainable development to be externalised from land value, thus exempting both landowners and developer from the ‘burden’ of sustainable development obligations, which then have to be carried by everyone else but them.
- “This is a ‘sustainable offer’ (for this land). That is a ‘commercial offer.” There is certainly no recognition of the need to satisfy both social and economic objectives. But, honestly, what on earth does this assertion even mean?
 |
| Good work by chartered town planners and surveyors intent on fulfilling the expectations of public policy introduced by a democratically elected government in 1981, albeit one headed by those well known politicians with suspected Marxist tendencies, Prime Minister Thatcher and Planning Minister Sir George, now Lord Young. |
I use these cases in ethics workshops with mid-career planning and development professionals in London. All the speakers rather miss the point about what is needed to make any settlement work well, both socially and economically, and sustain values over the long term. ‘Fraud against the public interest’ is probably the neatest and most printable reaction I have heard from my students. Next time, their verdict may be more severe, as initial research links higher rates of Covid19 mortality in London to overcrowding, homelessness and poor housing conditions arising from an insufficient supply of affordable housing. Some lives clearly matter less than others…
Why is ‘sustainable
development’ intrinsically ethical?
I and colleagues
have explored this subject extensively in the peer reviewed pages of Building
Research & Information (BR&I). [ii] We aimed to capture the dual
drivers of public and private interest, with particular emphasis on acting to
minimise long term risks arising from climate change or similar global
phenomena, and related to insurable risks. The BR&I papers describe
practical frameworks for analysing sustainable and equitable development
objectives and risks, and the ethical dimension of the choices to be made.
For now, let’s just look at the UN 2030 Sustainable Development
Goals. Their ‘motto’ ‘Leave no one
behind!’ and the objective of SDG Goal 11. ‘Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and
sustainable’ come very close to the definition of ethics offered by
sociologist and ethicist the late Prof. Zygmunt Bauman: “Ethics is defined simply and directly as ‘being-for the Other’. To assume
an ethical stance means to assume responsibility for the Other”. [iii] This
sounds disarmingly simple, and is grounded, of course, in the core principles
of most world religions. It also feels like a step into the political domain,
and as we know, professionals, especially surveyors, don’t ‘do’ politics. Our
job is to provide informed objective and rational advice, and let the politicians
take the ethical responsibility for their political choices. We just reflect
the markets and the political context within which markets operate; we do not
shape them. Really?
We will all have observed the relationships between
politicians and scientists around the world over the ‘best’ courses of action
to tackle Covid19. Professionals advise: politicians decide. Yes? However, the over/mis-use
of the phrase ‘following the science’ has probably undermined its power to
suggest objective, simple and rational answers. We now understand that ‘the
science’, just like any other body of technical knowledge and expertise, deals
in complexity, uncertainty and the need to exercise both professional and
political judgement, however much both politicians and professionals may wish otherwise.
 |
| Science has the answers to everything? |
Politicians around the world have been making choices that do
aim to balance social and economic priorities, some weighted very
differently from others, reflecting the character and circumstances of their
political economies. The scientists are certainly providing informed, objective
and rational advice. Some are also using their ethical intelligence to speak
out when they think the politicians are not serving the wider public interest,
by ignoring or misinterpreting their advice…because they must, in the interests
of saving lives. There is an ethical imperative to act, even if that means they
must enter the political domain. Possibly more important than that, they may
fear that if the actions of politicians stray too far from the advice, the
public will stop trusting in the science, the expertise and judgement of
scientists, and will thus cease to respect and trust politicians too. However
great the damage thus inflicted on the political economy, it can at least be mitigated,
in many countries, as politicians rise and fall at the ballot box. Professionals,
on the other hand, have an enduring responsibility to the public interest to use
their knowledge, skill and judgement in ways that must transcend political
tenures.
Covid19 cannot be
written off as exceptional
The political approach to Covid19 is not just about the social need to safeguard national health and save life. Balancing the social need with safeguarding the economy are the subjects around which ‘the science’ and ethical and political intelligence must be deployed. That is not so different in scope from the ownership and use of land. What we do to, on and with land, encompasses everything that enables us to survive, do business and hopefully live well.
The political approach to Covid19 is not just about the social need to safeguard national health and save life. Balancing the social need with safeguarding the economy are the subjects around which ‘the science’ and ethical and political intelligence must be deployed. That is not so different in scope from the ownership and use of land. What we do to, on and with land, encompasses everything that enables us to survive, do business and hopefully live well.
Surveyors may face the same challenges as the scientists.
Take the example of community land held under customary forms of ownership, estimated
by Peter Veit, in the RICS Land Journal (Land Journal
May-June 2019 Land Rights Conflict Avoidance), to be about 50% of
all land globally. He describes how community land can be acquired or seized by
force by governments or corporations without the knowledge, approval or consent
of communities, and often without paying fair or any compensation. Apart from
the loss of life often involved, ‘this raises
serious human rights issues as community land is a primary source of income and
livelihood, establishes social identity and security, has cultural and
spiritual significance, and generates significant social, economic, and
environmental benefits for society.’
 |
| Never say 'I'd kill for a cup of coffee' again...you probably already have |
These are characteristics of place and personal identity that shape and affect us all. So, community land is not an exotic issue whose effects
are limited to remote places and people, with not much connection to more
general professional practice, as previously discussed in the RICS Land Journal (Land Journal March-April 2017 Right to Land).
If you want some idea of just how closely we are connected to those who used to
live self-sufficiently and well on communally owned land, read this story about a 19th century Englishman, James Hill (not related), who prototyped modern systems of
coffee production, by depriving native El Salvadoreans of their land and
ability to feed themselves, so that hunger drove them to work for him: so don’t
expect to enjoy your ‘coffee break’ – as you will learn another but more subtle
exploitation of labour – ever again.
In Bauman’s definition, these are the ‘Others’ who demand the
same respect and ethical consideration, whether they live in tropical rain forests
(which might yet harbour valuable ingredients for a Covid19 vaccine or other scientific
discoveries)...or could and should have been living in the affordable housing
which developers, landowners and politicians have chosen not to provide...or on council
housing estates in London, where residents have only recently had the right to
a ballot restored to them to decide the future of their communities affected by
regeneration and the attention of footloose global capital. Each of these
situations is driven by the same flows of ‘free capital’ as observed in SE Asia.
[iv]
If surveyors play such a critical guardian role for society
for the use of land, then the surveyor must also have both the right and a duty
to challenge what 'the client', 'the market' or politicians may ask for. This must be at the level of specific projects
and assignments, and at a thought leadership level about the remit of the
profession and its role in shaping and sustaining the political economy within
which we all have to survive and thrive.
Jeremy Till's answer to the two obvious criticisms that the
client pays, so is entitled to get what they want, and that “the whole idea of wider responsibilities
smacks of idealism”, is that social values and ethical choices are inherent
in all professional work: “Just to ignore
them does not mean that they will go away. Better to face up to them, and…deal
with the tension between the values and priorities attached to the professional
codes and implicit in social ethics […] Not to engage with the dirty reality of
short term demands is as much a form of escape as the positing of utopian
proposals of a harmonious ethic.” [v]
 |
| The key words here are 'it did not seem strange'...just as the four 'overheard' sayings are quite normal - what some surveyors say without thinking they were strange or damaging other people |
Indeed, the kind of idealism of some politicians, which imagines
that we can ignore selective aspects of the science around Covid19 without
consequences, has already been shown to have been deadly for thousands of
citizens around the world, and thus failing to deal with the world as it is.
That would be irrational, and as with the avoidance of providing public policy
requirements for affordable housing, irrationality is so easily normalised that
it also becomes easy and normal to accept that some lives matter much less than
others.
The ‘new normal’
I’ve kept my promise, but when I mentioned it the first time, I may have implied that it was since at least the beginning of the 21st Century that ‘the imperative to work within a new professional paradigm has been openly staring us in the face’. I actually meant the 20th Century.
I’ve kept my promise, but when I mentioned it the first time, I may have implied that it was since at least the beginning of the 21st Century that ‘the imperative to work within a new professional paradigm has been openly staring us in the face’. I actually meant the 20th Century.
 |
| A young Winston Churchill in 1910 |
Leading UK politicians in the reforming Liberal government, in
the lead up to World War I, would have been familiar with the words of the
Royal Charter. Just two decades after it was adopted, one of them was arguing in
the two General Election campaigns of 1910 that the strength of the economy and
the welfare of all citizens depended on stable and fair land markets, and that
inequitable wealth creation though inflation and speculation in land prices
undermined basic freedoms: “The civilisation of modern States is
largely based upon respect for the rights of private property… that respect cannot be secured unless property is
associated in the minds of the great mass of the people with ideas of justice and of reason…The best way to make private property secure and respected
is to bring the processes by which it is gained into harmony with the general
interests of the public.” [vi]
Just as the scientists have been trying to do for Covid19, he
recognised that the success of any political economy depends wholly on the
public’s trust and respect for the basis of rationality and justice that
underpins political decision-making and the supporting professional advice: in
this case in relation to property ownership and thus land use decisions. The
wise politician? Winston Churchill.
But if it is possible to lose the public interest thread that
runs between evidence, rationality and value, how will we surveyors now fulfil
the task of optimising the use of land to meet social and economic need,
in the ‘new normal’, and as the world changes rapidly about us? And how, in
practical terms, can we demonstrate our accountability to the public whose
interests we serve, and whose trust and respect we must retain, to show that
all lives matter.
 |
During lockdown, hairdresser Joshua Coombes has been seeking out 'the Other' https://www.pointsoflight.gov.uk/do-something-for-nothing/
|
Till’s hairdresser can have the final word, or rather my
hairdresser can. When I told him about Till’s ethical hairdresser, he rushed to
show me his membership card for the Fellowship for British Hairdressers whose
motto is ‘Strength through quality’. ‘Makes
us sound like bridge builders, but like you, we will only survive if the public
value what we do because what we do is good.’…and as we come to the end of
lockdown, the public has been considerably more interested in visiting their
hairdresser than in hiring a surveyor.
[i] J. Till (2009) Chapter ‘Imperfect Ethics’ in
‘Architecture Depends’ MIT http://www.jeremytill.net/architecture-depends
[ii] S. Hill & D. Lorenz (2011) Rethinking
professionalism: guardianship of land and resources. Building Research &
Information, Vol 39(3), pp314–319. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09613218.2011.563051
and S. Hill, D. Lorenz, P. Dent & T. Lützkendorf (2013): Professionalism
and ethics in a changing economy, Building Research & Information, Vol
41:1, pp8-27: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2013.736201
and ditto in D. Lorenz, P. Dent & T. Kauko (Eds) (2017) Value in a Changing
Built Environment, Wiley-Blackwell https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Value+in+a+Changing+Built+Environment-p-9781444334760
[iii] Z. Bauman (1993), Postmodern Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford
[iv] B Colenutt (2020) The Property Lobby: The Hidden
Reality Behind the Housing Crisis : Bristol University Press & Policy Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvzsmcrm
[v] J. Till (2009) ibid
[vi] Quote (with my
emphases) is taken from Churchill’s speech on “The People’s Land” is contained
in Section 4:
W.S. Churchill (1909) The People’s Rights, Hodder & Stoughton and also available here: http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Churchill_TPL.html. Further discussion in S. Hill (2015) Property, Justice and Reason, Winston Churchill Memorial Trust https://independent.academia.edu/StephenHill3
W.S. Churchill (1909) The People’s Rights, Hodder & Stoughton and also available here: http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/Churchill_TPL.html. Further discussion in S. Hill (2015) Property, Justice and Reason, Winston Churchill Memorial Trust https://independent.academia.edu/StephenHill3
