Opinion Archive

What to Make of Mexico’s Urban Blight

January 30, 2008

Most editorial ink regarding indifference in Mexico touches on indifference to poverty and to bad government, both of which inspire more exasperation than actual indifference. But there is another indifference in this country that has to do with a lack of shame regarding our image and our surroundings. This type of indifference costs the country billions in lost tourist revenue, security and self-image.

Have you no shame?

In general, Mexicans tend to have excellent personal hygene. Studies at Procter & Gamble from the 1990s showed that Mexicans wash their hair twice as often as Europeans, for example. Nevertheless, our streets are littered and our walls graffitied. People seem to have an utter disregard for their surroundings, throwing away their PET bottles and ignoring the defacing of public spaces. This is in direct contrast to most of the US, where people have understood that this sort of anti-social behavior is unacceptable, at best, and leads to higher crime, at worst. Why the difference?

Perhaps it’s because people lack a sense of ownership. Americans are obsessed with property values and they understand that the quality of the neighborhood “experience” affects their pocketbook directly. It also probably has to do with enforcement: there is no disincentive to litter. Tellingly, many of the same people who do it here don’t do it in the US, where they might be punished. Lastly, for some latter-day anarchists (mostly on the far Left), this type of anti-social behavior has become a badge of honor, raging against the “establishment” and lowering everyone’s quality of life in the process.

But indifference to urban blight has dire consequences. The “broken window theory”, which was successfully applied in New York in the mid-1990s, showed the link between urban decay and serious crimes. The idea is that if a building has a broken window which goes unfixed, over time it will generate an atmosphere of permissiveness that will lead to further vandalism. Eventually, the area surrounding the building will be in danger of being used for selling drugs, prostitution, etc., as tolerance to crime is tested. This works in reverse when “neighborhood watch” signs are posted, which help even when the neighbors aren’t actually watching.

In your face

In terms of the graffiti that has defaced public and private spaces in Mexico in the last 15 years, it comes in three varieties. The first is “graffiti”, which has an aesthetic intent. The second, more common, form is known as “placa” (“plaque”). This consists of hieroglyphics that send messages to other criminals. They signal which gang dominates where, which drugs are sold, etc. Thus, thousands of delinquent “billboards” dot the landscape without the public, or governments, batting an eye. The third are “pintas” (“paints”) which are typical anti-establishment rants, like “Viva la revolución”, etc. They’re purile and annoying, but less dangerous than “placa”.

Apart from fostering crime, urban blight also affects tourism. Tijuana, for example, is one of the most visited cities in the world. It lies across from idyllic San Diego and millions of potential tourists. But anecdotal evidence shows that there are many thousands of people who avoid visiting the rest of Mexico because of their negative impression of Tijuana. The same goes for places like Juárez and Nuevo Laredo. Looking at our border, it seems that Mexico wants to give the worst impression possible. For the cost of one luxury beachfront development in Cancún, these cities could at least be rid of their dirt and graffiti, even if much of the crime problem persists.

Don’t mess with Mexico

The pervasive nature of Mexico’s indifference to its urban blight is striking. It is telling that, despite Felipe Calderón’s bid to be a “law and order” president, the area around Los Pinos in the Miguel Hidalgo sector of the capital has some of the most unfortunate signs of urban decay. Fighting crime is partly about sending a strong message of order, which is today not being sent for lack of a minimal amount of political will.

Some people incorrectly assume that the situation is incorrigible. That cleaning up would lead to a cat-and-mouse game with delinquents. This argument was proved wrong in the specific case of the New York subway system, where the Transit Authority stopped the painting of its trains by not allowing them to exit their facilities with graffiti. After two weeks of seeing their “work” come to naught, the vandals gave up.

Neighboring Texas succeeded in getting people not to “mess” with their state by applying thousand-dollar fines for littering. But whether it’s Texas, New York, or Shanghai, fighting anti-social behavior successfully involves three things: enforcement, public opprobrium against the infractors, and consistency. Mostly, however, it depends on the public taking responsibility for their surroundings and pressuring their authorities to show some respect for the areas they govern.

For the latest thought-provoking article by Agustin Barrios Gomez please go to our Opinion Column page

Return to top