This enables developers to proceed without government intervention through completion of the home, then if anything, they pay fines that are maybe 1-2% of the project cost.
Meanwhile, even protected wildlife preserves are fair game. One trick used often here is listing the wrong address on your permits so that neighbors don't receive notices, then later they update it to the correct address claiming a scriber's error. This is starting to get some more attention but not enough to compel our elected officials to enforce their own building and zoning laws.
Apparently the old way was to build in unauthorized locations and then pay the fines as part of the operating budget. The new plan is to enforce the existing regulations and try to have them demolished.
When a story about laws actually being enforced is news, it’s a good reminder that the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries.
- Most of Latin America is 'should/oughta' - North America is more like 'have to' - Europe is 'need to' - And majority of Asia is simply 'WILL'
(disclaimer: I'm from LatAm)
These days, the authorities are somewhat less forgiving: https://www.archiwik.org/index.php/%27Archer%27s_Garage%27,_... (illegally demolished building, _forced to reinstate it_), https://www.thejournal.ie/diggers-begin-demolition-of-co-mea... (illegally built building, demolished).
(Ireland has become generally significantly less corrupt in the interim.)
Have to - I know it's the right thing to do, and if I don't, there's a good chance I'll get caught and fined heavily enough that it's not worth the risk.
Need to - rules are to be followed, and the alternative is massive fines and/or jail, plus disobeying might make me a social pariah.
Will - there is no alternative. (but I'm not sure that's actually true for Asia writ large).
"need to": It is a moral imperative for me to do this
"WILL": Because of course this is the case
When people say the government has a monopoly on violence, this is what they mean. Eventually, violence will be used to ensure compliance. Most people comply before that happens, under threat of it.
Nope. It's also "should/oughta" as well - even in developed Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan where bribery in development tenders is treated as the cost of doing business.
GAN Integrity [0] and the Yeun Yuen Ang's unbundled corruption matrix [1] is the best way to think about corruption and compliance risk.
To quote the 2016 remake of The Tick:
"Goat: I'm going to speed-dial the police.
Arthur: You pay organized crime weekly to protect your store and you say nothing.
Goat: At least the organized crime is organized."
LatAm isn't that different from much of Asia or Eastern Europe (or much of Southern Europe 15-20 years ago) - the only difference is the bulk of FDI that would have gone to LatAm shifted to Asia in the 1990s-2000s because of stronger linkages thanks to Japanese and Taiwanese financial partners. And European FDI in LatAm shifted to the CEE, Balkans, and Turkiye thanks to the EU expansion and the Eurozone crisis overimpacting LatAm oriented countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France.
One of my acquaintances at the HKS who's the goto researcher on anti-corruption (eg. Worked directly with national governments in Asia, the UNODC, and the OECD on corruption and compliance standards) has themselves argued that LatAm (especially Brazil) got overly penalized following Lava Jato due to the lack of intermediaries. For example, American FDI into Asia is usually done in conjunction with Singaporean, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese partners who take the legal and operational burden which acts as a liability firewall but American and European FDI into LatAm is direct, which increases liability and compliance risk.
[0] - https://www.ganintegrity.com/country-profiles/
[1] - https://oecd-development-matters.org/2020/06/25/unbundling-c...
I don't think the weight of the law holds very different meanings in different countries, so much as the weight of the law holds very different meanings for different capital levels.
In the USA like in Mexico, there's plenty of cases where companies will just count fines as operating costs.
I would take this story with a huge grain of salt. There's illegal development everywhere in Mexico. Here's a story (one of many, and from an actual newspaper) about illegal development in Tepoztlán: https://www.jornada.com.mx/noticia/2022/08/15/estados/edific.... This goes on in the open -- you can look towards the mountains from town and see fancy houses that are literally within the national park.
I picked Tepoztlán because it's very beautiful, very close to the capital, and is one of Mexico's most visited "Pueblos Mágicos" (the most visited so far in 2026). If the government isn't stopping obvious illegal development here then one would wager they aren't really stopping it anywhere. Insitutions are weak, so crackdowns are limited and temporary, and they're usually just aimed at developers that aren't properly "connected". "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law" and all that.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblos_M%C3%A1gicos
- https://www.infobae.com/mexico/2026/05/21/por-esta-razon-tep...
Seriously, it's refreshing to see an authority figuring out that fines are only a bar to make an activity exclusive to the wealthy.