In 2008, the Government of the City of Buenos Aires created an area that would manage 1,230 properties belonging to the State. But the Buenos Aires City Audit (AGCBA, for its acronym in Spanish) found that since then, 211 properties were surveyed and 500 were listed as "illegally occupied" or "vacant", which means they have bad records for 58% of the properties.

The unit in question is the Directorate General of Estate Administration and operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Economic Development. In May of this year the watchdog published a report on data from 2010 which states that the properties that were relieved had canon, ABL (house tax), water, and canons for more than $ 5 million, which in some cases exceeded 10 years old.

According to the research, there are "529 properties that have 10 year old debts, totaling $4,735,751.04."

A canon is a form of payment for the rent of a property and above all this, the AGCBA said the Directorate was not keeping records of each property, nor "renewals of agreements orchestrated to guarantee an updated value of the fee" by the City Government.

With regard to the water company, the unit had not analyzed at the time of the report the status of some 576 properties with outstanding service. However, of the 654 units that were successfully controlled, 497 owed the company $851,072.40. Some of these debts were over two years old.

In terms of ABL (lighting, sweeping, and cleaning tax), the audit stated that "no controls were done directly," adding that officials responsible for the Directorate had asked their peers in the Tax Department the debt status of the properties, but until December 31st, 2010, they had “no answers."

Beyond debt, one of the objectives of the Directorate is to control the occupational and physical status of the properties. The AGCBA took a sample of 92 properties to see how they satisfied this aspect, and noted that in 49 cases "the information was outdated," referring to the latest data of these properties which had been obtained before January 1st 2008 .

For example, in two buildings of 100 Homer Street, the physical survey date had not been updated. Indeed, the last check dated May 2004, but the audit found that there was another checkup in March 2007. But that’s not all, according to the report: "These properties were classified as occupational status 'to be determined' even when it was found that they (were) being used by the Association of Pensioners of Villa Luro”. 

Something similar happened to another location, located at 671 Margall Py. In this case the property was classified in "irregular" employment situation, but according to the documentation in the records, it had been the City whom had given permission (by law in the year 2000)  to the Association Catalinas Sur, precarious and gratuitously. 

RUBI

Within the City Directorate works the Register of Real Estate, known as RUBI.

Among the properties examined by the Audit, 43 did have the updated information, but in six cases the data was not replicated in the RUBI.

It happened with a building located on 349 Cochabamba Street, which had an "occupational 'to determined' status (in the RUBI system) even when it was found -through a survey conducted on October 26th, 2010- which was occupied by the Mutual Society of Argentine Taxis (SMAT, for its acronym in Spanish)", the audit explains.

Another property in Juan de Garay 627, was in the same situation with the RUBI, although in April 2011 it was found that the space had been incorporated into the street with the widening of the Avenue.

It was also classified in the RUBI with a "determine occupational status", a building of Pedro de Mendoza 2835. According to the records of the audited Directorate, it was a fraction that had been expropriated in 2006 to the signing Barraca Merlo SA, with payment of compensation. However, the city watchdog concluded, "it was found by photographic survey of February 10th 2010 that that fraction was illegally occupied by the firm Lo Primo SA".

Squatters

Auditors also analyzed 29 buildings occupied irregularly, and found that in four cases there was no evidence that the Property Management Directorate had made "efforts for eviction." Finally, on the work of the Office, the audit adds that this dependence does not “have in writing” the standard operating procedures governing the management and administrative circuits.

In addition, the report adds that "there is no “evidence” in the files of physical and occupational surveys conducted by the Department of the listings they administered. In fact, (the files) contained no occupational or physical survey designed to deposit that information. "