User:Icaaandi/sandbox

History
Colonias began in the state of Texas in the 1950s and 1960s as an informal housing solution for low-income predominantly Hispanic wage earners through a model referred to by scholars as the “incremental approach.” Due to the rise of the maquiladora industry in 1965, the border population quickly grew and created a housing shortage for these workers. The overlap of four variables attributed to the development of colonias: high demand from a population of low-income wage earners meeting a low supply of affordable housing, a supply of low-cost and fruitless land, the absence of regulations on the subdivision of that land, and a legal way for that land to be sold to individuals. Land developers recognized the high demand and dire need of affordable housing and began purchasing this land in peri-urban areas where strict enforcement of housing and environmental laws was either nonexistent or weak. Subsequently, these developers as well as hired realtors would section off the area and sell sections to individual buyers via contracts for deed ; these deals included undocumented and thus unenforceable promises to soon provide basic provisions such as water, sewage, and electricity. As more dwellings and minimal infrastructure made an appearance, the initial cost of the land decreased. As such, colonias became an affordable and viable living option to low-income families on the U.S.-Mexico border.

As of 2007, Texas has the largest concentration of people (approximately 400,000) living in over 2,000 colonias on the U.S. side of the border. New Mexico has the second largest, followed by Arizona and California. However, remote location and stealthy development characterize many colonias. It is therefore unlikely that an exact count is valid for an extended period of time. Despite the high count of individuals living in these areas, the severity of the living standards in colonias has yet to become common knowledge for US citizens. Scholars have found that little has been done to remedy the living standards of the colonians, as their situation has become normalized by the public and associated with the "lawlessness" of the U.S.-Mexico border region. Although the Spanish word “colonia” literally translates to “neighborhood,” these settlements are hardly recognized as safe, friendly communities by those that know of their existence. Scholars have criticized the naming of these settlements as “colonias,” stating that the use of the Spanish word not only creates difficulties within the public policy sector of government, but also fosters the notion that these settlements are alien and not a part of this country. However, those within the public that do recognize colonias and their living conditions view them as “border slums,” while scholars have since the 1990s described them as a “third world” within the United States.

Public policy action
Rather than being illegal, colonias are considered “extra-legal,” in that they circumnavigate the law rather than violating it. In response to these systems, scholars are split between egalitarian and libertarian approaches. Those that support the egalitarian approach believe that colonias currently substantiate a notion of inferiority for those that dwell there, and in response they propose standards of living enforced by government regulation. However, supporters of the libertarian style favor the informality of this living system for providing an affordable housing option for those in need. These same scholars criticize government action to impose living standards without providing colonians with the resources to sustain them.

Enhancing the lives of the colonians through policy has proven to be difficult and slow. Funding for infrastructure projects for colonias is contingent on the criteria that exist for determining a settlement to be a “colonia,” and establishing effective criteria has proved to be a challenge. The Farm Housing provisions of the United States Code define a colonia as a community that (1) is in the state of Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas; (2) is within 150 mi of the U.S.-Mexico border, except for any metropolitan area exceeding one million people; (3) on the basis of objective criteria, lacks adequate sewage systems and lacks decent, safe, and sanitary housing; and (4) existed as a colonia before November 28, 1990. Other definitions are used by specific governmental agencies. Many scholars criticize the existing federal criteria as being too broad in that most definitions of colonias are based on the archetype that exists on the border in Texas. While colonias in Texas are known for being peri-urban settlements with mostly Hispanic dwellers, settlements in California are located in old rural towns with ethnically diverse populations. This has proven to hinder colonia infrastructure development in California. Criteria have also been described as too narrow, relying on numeric values to determine whether a settlement qualifies. Under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), funds designated within the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) were to benefit colonias along the U.S.-Mexico border, defined by various numeric values. However, colonias such as those in Riverside and San Diego counties are disqualified from the CBDG for being metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) with over a million people. Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture limits its colonias to settlements of no more than 20,000 residents, disqualifying the majority of communities seeking funding in California. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of colonias derives from the North American Free Trade Agreement, which limits these colonias to a 62 mile distance from the border. This limits all designated colonias in California to roughly the area of Imperial County.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Crantston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 was created to help families that did not own homes make down-payments for purchasing homes, expand on the supply of affordable housing for low-income families, and promote cooperation between all levels of government and the private sector in the expansion of that supply. The Act is considered one of the most important policies relating to colonias for setting aside funds from the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) to go direct towards enhancing the living standards in the colonias, as well as bringing to the public an awareness of colonias in other bordering states, namely California, Arizona, and New Mexico. The set aside funds that come from the CDBG are used to help improve the lives of colonians, particularly regarding potable water, sewer systems, or sanitary housing. The Act is credited for inspiring other agencies to fund programs targeting development on the U.S.-Mexico Border, namely the EPA.

Critics of the HUD’s colonias efforts have stated that HUD’s focus has been on preventing the development of colonias rather than seeking to provide those of low-income with a bigger supply of affordable housing. As is the case with BECC/NADB, critics have also claimed that the projects seeking to improve infrastructure have also been underwhelming. Scholars have urged the HUD to make use of its ability to work with the private sector by encouraging private investment in the direct development of the current colonias. Rather than eliminating the colonias, many have proposed to instead have the private sector to create better dwellings at low costs within the area while also improving the already established dwellings within colonias.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) is an international environmental agreement between the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. NAFTA sought to promote economic growth by lowering most of the existing barriers to trade. While many advocates of NAFTA argued that it would indirectly increase the standard of living and thus environmental spending on the border, many critics commented on the fact that only a single sentence in the agreement’s preamble addressed the environmental impacts of promoting free trade. In order to ensure that NAFTA would pass, the Clinton Administration pushed for NAAEC as a side agreement specifically to aid border environmental issues. From NAAEC came the creation of the Commission on Environmental Cooperation (CEC), an institution providing a forum for environmental law enforcement disputes to be resolved. Scholars generally agree that the NAAEC’s diction is ambiguous and does not clearly define the authority that the organization has; it is also unclear whether violators are obligated to respond to inquiries made by the CEC, and thus few parties have actually been investigated and punished for failing to cooperate.

The charter creating the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADB) was the first multinational agreement to address the problems faced by colonians. These two institutions were created to resolve are those that revolving around include land contamination and sustainable water/wastewater infrastructure and compensate for CEC's shortcomings. However, BECC/NADB does not explicitly address the colonias themselves but rather the border, defining the border as areas in the US “within 100 kilometers and the area in Mexico that is within 300 kilometers of the international boundary." BECC/NADB consists of a board comprising members from both the US and Mexican governments, and thus lies equally within the jurisdiction of each nation’s government; this includes the Administrator for EPA and the Secretaries of State and Treasury from the US, and the Secretaries for the Environment and Natural Resources, Treasury, and External Relations from Mexico, as well as one state representative and non-governmental organization from each country. The BECC certifies projects that meet criteria in order to receive funding from the NADB. Projects can be proposed by anyone; in doing this, the BECC/NADB seek to promote public participation in sustainably developing the US-Mexico border.

Though the programs have been praised as revolutionary, critics have said progress is slow with NADB; within a year of its creation, it was criticized for failing to fund a single infrastructure project, despite the approval of several projects by BECC. These programs have been criticized for failing to consider who will pay to maintain this infrastructure after the project is complete. Because BECC is not a regulatory agency, and it has no hard laws that must be abided by. Critics of BECC/NADB have suggested the implementation of "stick" measures to complement the current "carrot" measures currently in place, including punitive measures such as monetary penalties.