Facing Buildings Threatening Ruin and the Precariousness Affecting Their Occupants, the Issue Goes Beyond Simple Urbanization
Relocating families, protecting heritage, and organising competencies are not optional — they are decisive political choices.
Re‑ordering the priorities means deciding to act before the emergency becomes irreversible.
The Press – Relocating Vulnerable Families Is Today the Main Obstacle to Demolishing Buildings Threatening Ruin Across Tunisia
On 10 February 2026, representatives of the Ministry of State Property and Land Affairs testified before the Productive Sectors Commission of the National Council of Regions and Districts (CNDR). They affirmed that the relocation of precarious families is currently the principal barrier to the demolition of unsafe buildings throughout the country.
According to the officials, the ministry’s intervention is limited to structures that fall directly under its jurisdiction, as stipulated by Law No. 33 of 2024. This law obliges owners or tenants to report any danger, while municipalities are tasked with coordinating regional technical expertise and, when necessary, deciding on evacuation or demolition.
- When a danger is confirmed, the evacuation decision rests with the owner, or, failing that, with the municipality, based on an approved expert report.
- The court may then order a total or partial demolition.
- However, these decisions can be suspended and appealed before the administrative tribunal, dramatically extending timelines.
Legal constraints are compounded by major financial and social challenges. If an owner defaults, municipalities must coordinate and carry out the works. Their central obstacle is relocating vulnerable families, a process hampered by the absence of clear regulatory texts.
But should relocation really be presented as an obstacle?
Relocating Before Demolishing – In the Medina and Elsewhere
The problem is not new. It is acute in the Medina of Tunis, but it also affects many other Tunisian cities where old, often unsanitary buildings house low‑income families. In a coherent public‑policy framework, relocation should be the starting point of any discussion, not its blockage.
Consequently, urban‑re‑development plans, reconstruction projects, or partnerships with real‑estate developers cannot be seriously considered without first securing the fate of the affected residents.
- Demolition is a technical act.
- Relocation is a social and political act.
Presenting relocation as a hindrance flips the priorities. Because relocation is essential, the policy for managing buildings threatening ruin must be re‑thought from the outset, embedding a budgeted social dimension.
When the Questions Are Poorly Formulated
More broadly, this file reveals a deeper flaw in Tunisia’s administrative and institutional functioning: the problem is often mis‑framed.
- The effect is tackled before the cause.
- Demolition is discussed before relocation.
- Execution is addressed before organisation.
This logic is not limited to real‑estate heritage management; it permeates many sectors. Whether at the national level or within the smallest public or private structures, the same pattern repeats: a blockage is identified, but the system that creates it is never re‑configured.
This inability to pose problems correctly reflects a culture where reactivity outweighs strategy, and decisions are made under political or media pressure rather than through a clear, structured vision. It also shows a lack of accountability: everyone waits for someone else to act, leaving inter‑service coordination fragile.
- Competences are scattered, administrative redundancies abound, and simple mechanisms to re‑allocate resources and responsibilities swiftly are missing.
- Often, it is not about additional means but about different organisation: placing the right skills in the right posts, clarifying mandates, creating smoother decision‑making circuits, and instituting systematic follow‑up instead of ad‑hoc exceptions.
Even limited resources can yield significant results if applied according to a coherent priority order and if change is embraced.
Finally, this observation highlights a broader dimension: a state’s ability to anticipate and organise its interventions reflects its institutional maturity. Good governance is measured not only by enacted laws or allocated budgets but by the coherence between objectives, means, and priorities. Correctly framing the problem before seeking a solution is often the key that separates an effective administration from one paralysed by the status‑quo.
The Public‑Management Question
In many cases, modest adjustments would improve the functioning of structures: redeploying competencies, assigning agents according to their real specialities, placing technical profiles in technical posts and strategic profiles in decision‑making roles. An administration can operate with limited resources if it is well‑structured.
Conversely, it can become mired despite ample means if the decision‑making chain is vague, responsibilities are diluted, and no one wants to own the change. This is where the difference between two types of managers emerges:
- The proactive manager – even with tight margins, seeks to move the lines, optimise existing assets, and re‑distribute roles for greater efficiency.
- The risk‑averse manager – fears resistance, worries about union tensions, avoids reforms that could attract criticism, and prefers to maintain the status‑quo.
The former accepts the risk of unpopularity to improve the system; the latter preserves personal comfort and position at the cost of inefficiency.
Parallel Projects: Heritage, Law, and Reform
Beyond the issue of unsafe buildings, other dossiers were raised during the hearing:
- Foreign‑owned properties from the colonial era, governed by Law No. 61 of 1983 and, in some cases, bilateral agreements with France and Italy.
- Residential buildings subject to Law No. 39 of 1978, granting Tunisian tenants a right of first purchase.
- Housing built without legal title on state lands, whose regularisation is progressing slowly, if at all.
A large‑scale digitisation project of state assets—both movable and immovable—and a digital mapping of the public heritage are also underway. The declared goal is to better assess the real value of public assets and increase transparency in their management. These technical reforms are necessary, but they will only be effective if embedded within a clear, coherent, and hierarchical governance logic.
Properly Framing the Problem to Unlock Action
The issue of buildings threatening ruin is not merely an urban‑planning or land‑registry case; it is a revealer. It exposes a mode of operation where urgency is addressed without structuring the upstream, where obstacles are mentioned without questioning the very design of public policy.
- Relocating vulnerable families is not a hindrance; it is the priority.
- Re‑organising competencies is not a luxury; it is a condition for efficiency.
- Embracing change is not a risk; it is a responsibility.
Often, unlocking a file does not require extraordinary means, but simply asking the right question in the right order and having the courage to follow through on its implications.
Beyond procedures and texts, a stark reality confronts us:
- How can we accept that heritage jewels, transformed over time into precarious, overcrowded “oukalas”, are deteriorating before our eyes in the Medina of Tunis and elsewhere?
- How can we tolerate that historic dwellings, testimonies of unique architectural refinement, crumble for lack of a clear decision, an assumed arbitration, or a policy that protects both inhabitants and stone?
- How can we also accept that Art‑Deco buildings in downtown Tunis—urban signatures of a bygone era—are slowly cracking under near‑administrative indifference?
These are not just cracked walls. They are families living in precarity, a heritage narrating our collective history, and a state that must demonstrate its capacity to protect the most vulnerable while preserving the soul of our cities.
Grasping the situation head‑on means refusing to let the Medina become a dilapidated set or an indefinite waiting ground. It means linking dignified relocation, heritage rehabilitation, and a coherent urban vision. It means acting before collapse—both literal and figurative.
The question is no longer whether we can act. It is whether we still want to preserve what defines us: our social dignity, our architectural memory, and the proper functioning of our institutions. These decisions must be taken swiftly and efficiently.
When the correct order of priorities is set and the problems are properly framed, everything else should follow logically.
