Urban Brazil: Visions, Afflictions, and Governance Lessons By Iva ...

With the state capitals becoming loci of social unrest due to poverty and street violence, the military regime decided to exercise territorial control of the major urban centers by designating them as “national security areas.” As part of this strategy, they suspended popular elections for mayors in state capitals; instead the appointment was made by governors, who in turn were nominated by the military rulers.

Although the military’s rule (1964–1985) entailed a great degree of centralization, political repression, and violation of human rights, local governments did enjoy some level of autonomy due to their ability to collect municipal taxes. This gave them limited freedom to design and implement public policies.¹⁶ However, against a backdrop of strong political authoritarianism, moderate-to-high administrative centralization, profound changes in the economic structure of society, and unsettling population shifts, city governments around the country faced significant challenges and constraints. They were unprepared to deal with the arrival of huge contingents of new residents as the country as a whole lacked a comprehensive national urban development strategy. Dislocations produced by the national economic model exacerbated existing urban problems, most critically in the areas of public transportation and adequate housing. The housing crisis triggered a perverse process of land occupation and illegal human settlements, which led to a number of deleterious consequences, including contamination of water resources and degradation of the urban environment.