Building a house in Mexico
By Edward Rapp, Sept 8, 2006

Readers’ Forum is a section for readers to write on a wide range of topics. 

Opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

It has been said that there are many ways to go crazy. I know a good shortcut: build your own house in Mexico. Just be aware of the sand traps; there are more than you will find on the average golf course.

There is always the temptation to look at a lovely piece of land and see the house of your dreams sitting proudly amid the flowers and shrubs. It all looks so simple—a few bricks, some electric lines, glass for windows and a nice front door. Oh yes, footings, a tight roof, plumbing fixtures, garbage disposal and those louvered closet doors. When you get right down to it, building a house is not easy, and complications soon take over. They seem to multiply as you go. We’ve all heard the phrase “the devil is in the details.” The hard part comes last.

In my experience, procuring construction materials and maintaining a work schedule can be frustrating, but once you have launched yourself into your building project, you are almost bound to go ahead. The lure is cheap and excellent labor. Many building materials and methods are cheap as well. 

The Mexican workers who built our house seemed to enjoy their work, and we have had two excellent maestros. Maestros bring their own crews, and good maestros bring good crews. The guys may come late, but they get going and they work like mad. There is a fraternal congeniality in a work crew as the men handle the chaos of construction seemingly without a care in the world. 

There is a contrast between the way stateside construction is conducted and the way the Mexicans do it. The economies of the two countries are worlds apart. In the States, machinery has eliminated heavy lifting on construction jobs, and much of the routine work besides. Ready-made materials have taken the place of bricks and mortar.

Here, it is common to build houses with gangs of 20 men all mixing concrete to the sound of the radio operating at top decibel. The workers handle it like happy Volga boatmen, carrying buckets of cement up on improvised ladders or using ropes and pulleys.

The maestro building a large adobe house for us is called Nacho, short for Ignacio. He rules the job site. He will work for an owner, an ingeniero or an arquitecto, and he will probably do the hiring and firing. He keeps close tabs on the workers and, as a good maestro, he inspires them. We had another maestro a while back who worked with great zeal and would do whatever it took to advance the job himself. He was a comic, and he kept his men laughing and singing. They would work overtime without a murmur—and without a union. The work ethic, something these men probably never heard of, is alive and well in Mexico.

There are two ways to pay workers: 1) by the hour or day or 2) by the job. Hourly or daily pay means the less they work the longer they get paid, so that pay system could present problems. Pay by the job, called destajo, speeds things up. It is sound when you can trust the maestro.

He will estimate the cost of the major categories of construction work and then build as fast as possible. Destajo work may be more expensive than hourly work, but it gets the job done. You, as owner, only need to know that the maestro is reliable, and that he will keep the quality high and the work on track. 

There are job evaluators in Mexican engineering circles who keep abreast of labor costs. They can tell you how much you should pay per square meter of work or other standard measure. They may favor the worker (or the maestro) over you, but the destajo system can be negotiated between owner and maestro, engineer or architect. Most owners will dicker for fair rates of pay.

Plumbers and electricians work independently of the construction crew. You deal with them directly, and things go best when you are paying for the job rather than at a daily rate. They are freelancers; they go their own way and work at their own pace. They deal with costly hardware and have sometimes been known to cream things off the top. One has a natural sympathy for the plumber who passes his day changing toilet seats, unplugging sewage lines and handling other highly scented chores, but don’t be carried away. 

A laborer’s wages for a week’s work is around 900 pesos (about US$82). A mason will make double that. Rates of pay are not fixed; some men do the job better than others, but here it is up to you and not the government to decide what to pay and what to negotiate.

Every now and again we give a double ration of beer to the crew on Friday afternoons. One worker asked us to buy the beer in aluminum cans; he collects those cans as a sideline. We like that idea; that way, the empty containers leave the premises. 

Nacho is remarkably capable. Nothing phases him. If I tell him to punch a hole in the adobe wall for a doorway, he’ll have it punched out in half an hour. If I said I made a mistake and wanted it elsewhere, he will fill up the one hole and make another. The work slides along smoothly; you would think the man would want extra pay for the extra hole, but he doesn’t ask for it. You might want to pay him extra for your mistake. It is important to be fair, and it pays off with a good maestro.

A word about architects. The right ones can be lifesavers. They know local materials; they know the good workers. They are the first link in the chain. Good architects and good maestros bring good people, so your building problems should be largely solved.

Atención is interested in your story of building in San Miguel. Words of advice, successes and less than successful experiences are welcome. Send your submission, a maximum of 1200 words with at least four photos, to edit@atencionsanmiguel.org  No material deemed to be defamatory will be considered.







Letters, Sept 8, 2006

Send your letters to the editor to letters@atencionsanmiguel.org  Atención will not publish offensive, defamatory or anonymous material. 



Editor,

I want to express my thanks to Atención for printing such informative and thought-provoking articles. When I read Mike Rivage-Seul's article, “Report from Palestine,” I was amazed at the information expressed and impressed that I could find such an article here in San Miguel. This, the articles by John Barham, and the incredible variety of cultural offerings in the Santa Ana Theater all make me so appreciative of the Biblioteca and its desire to be a forum for well-thought-out information, some of which is controversial.

I have heard that the Rivage-Seul article has provoked an intense negative reaction from the “powers that be,” bordering on possible censorship of future articles. Hopefully, belief in freedom of speech will prevail and we all can continue to benefit from an open exchange of ideas, however different or controversial.

Jenny Norman

Editor,

The article [“Report from Palestine”] is so historically inaccurate (only one example: 48-year-old Israel practicing terrorism against Palestine for 150 years) that it is obvious that the rest of the article is equally fallacious. I would question the wisdom of a small English paper like Atención printing such anti-America, anti-Israel hogwash. You should stick to the local news.

Lee Asheroff

Editor,

Mike Rivage-Seul’s provocative “Report from Palestine” undoubtedly will have angered many readers. One did not hear much sympathy for Israel in his words, and some may believe they heard too much sympathy in them toward that which drives much of Palestinian terrorism. But I appreciated his attempt to jab us with his perspective, for it needs to be heard. There are two primary narratives in this conflict—Israeli and Palestinian—and while we often hear the one (Israel needs security) we seldom hear the other (Israel’s mind-boggling history of injustice toward Palestinians). Many Jewish groups—Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, Rabbis for Human Rights—would agree with much of what Michael has written, and those of us who care about both peoples in the region would do well to understand both narratives. (For a great book that does just this, see Sandy Tolan’s The Lemon Tree: An Arab, A Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East).

Joel Carillet

Editor,

A few comments about the recent article by Mike Rivage-Seul entitled “Report from Palestine.” I imagine Atención is hearing a lot from the supporters of Israel, so I wanted to add another voice to the debate.

First off, I’d like to salute Atención for having the guts to publish this article. For the most part in the United States, all we hear is the Israeli position. 

It’s instructive to look at the parallels between long-standing Israeli policy and U.S. policy since 9/11. Both nations have been reacting aggressively and inappropriately from a felt need for self-protection, and both have increased their insecurity precisely by those methods. Most of the world is able to see this, but both Israel and the U.S. appear to share a common delusion that tough action is effective action. Meanwhile, they drag us all closer to world war. 

The other aspect of this situation is that uncritical supporters of both nations share a belief that criticism is disloyal, unpatriotic, or shameful. 

If these supporters truly believe in their position, they should be able to tolerate healthy debate. The fact that they are not indicates the shakiness of their position.

I hear that Atención is being pressured to stay away from controversial topics. Nonsense. Keep up the good work. 

Stan Neal

Editor,

In regard to the August 25 article by Mike Rivage-Seul entitled "Report from Palestine,” I’ve seen some intemperate emails passing back and fourth on the subject. Two points: Suzanne Ludekens should NOT be faulted for printing the article.

The writer makes points that need to be heard and debated openly on a much wider scale. Secondly, the writer (or anyone who shares his views) should NOT be smeared as an anti-Semite (or as anti-Jewish, since Rivage-Seul correctly points out that the Palestinians are also Semitic). Anyone should be free to examine and criticize the history and/or policies of the state of Israel and the policies of the U.S. toward Israel without that kind of unfair attack. Freedom of speech still counts, doesn’t it? If the many facts and dates cited in the article are in error, let the critics of the article correct them, rather than complain that the entire article should never have been allowed to see the light of day. 

Henry Vermillion 

Editor, 

Mr. Rivage-Seul has a very strange way of promoting global peace and justice. Labeling an entire people as terrorists and focusing on their ethnicity and religious background rather than on a country’s policies doesn’t encourage those same people (or many others) to understand and embrace the point of view he is promoting. 

I would think that a representative of the Center for Global Justice would be reporting on ways to move people closer together and not seeking to drive them apart. The inflammatory language used in the Palestinian article on August 25, 2006, more likely convinced each side that it is right and helped keep people more firmly entrenched in their beliefs. 

It takes great skill, compassion, and patience to listen to both sides and present a balanced view of a very sensitive issue. Sadly, like most of us, Mr. Rivage-Seul was not able to do so.

Kathy Frankel

Editor, 

Well, it’s happened to me twice now since March, and I hold the people and town of San Miguel de Allende collectively and directly responsible! That’s why I’m writing, because you just can’t imagine how grateful and appreciative I am.

Where else can somebody absent mindedly and stupidly leave something valuable behind in a public place—and it’s still there, delivered by the finder to the counter, to be reclaimed hours or even a day later? This pays high tribute not only to the “finders,” but also to the “holders” as well.

In March, I left my new digital camera at the internet café on Correo near the Plaza Principal. Hours later, I discovered there was no camera in the camera bag. I sighed, sagged and thought, “Well, kiss that camera goodbye.” But I went back anyway, and it was there at the counter waiting for me to reclaim it. That was delightfully overwhelming!

On 1 September, I was at a number of places, including La Conexión on Aldama. Got back to my casita, reached for my black and gold MontBlanc Meisterstuk pen, and it wasn’t in my pocket. To cut to the chase, I called every other place first because I was absolutely certain I didn’t use it at La Conexión. 

Finally, my last call was to them. I talked with Kathy at the desk, and sure enough: someone found it in the back internet room and turned it in.

To me, this is just another reason why San Miguel is such a great place to live. My heartfelt thanks!

George Sickler

Editor,

Having attended his UU presentation earlier this summer, I read Mike Rivage-Seul's article and the resulting barrage of letters with interest. Like Gregory Diamant, I'm a Jewish member of the Center for Global Justice. Between 1968 and the early 1990s, I made several official visits to Israel and to occupied Syria, Jordan and Egypt, often as a member of binational university research teams and as a representative of international NGOs of indigenous peoples, often traveling by myself.

Like Gregory, I've long been critical of Israeli foreign and domestic policy; in this, I've found more kindred spirits inside Israel than out. Much in Mike's piece invites comment, but, beyond acknowledging the carnage and the tragic load borne largely by the poor and innocent of both Lebanon and Israel, I'll keep to just two points.

First, the Rivage-Seul article repeatedly refers to “Jewish Israelis” as if all Jewish Israelis were equal and equally supportive of governmental action and policy, not unlike assuming that all Norteamericanos solidly support George Bush. In Israel there are Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews; secular and religious Jews; white, brown and black Jews; right-wing, centrist, and left-wing Jews. Further, parallel to the clear schism between “empowered” Israeli Jews and “powerless" Israeli Palestinians is an almost equally clear divide between the status of “advanced” European Ashkenazis and that of "backward" Sephardim (often called “Oriental Jews”) from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Nor are Israeli Jews of one mind: ten Jews mean eleven opinions, as the saying goes. In 2004, almost 80% of Israelis backed withdrawal from Gaza. 

In this, there is room for hope: when the Israeli left rallied international support behind the case of Dr.Ghazi Falah, Professor of Geography at the University of Akron, an Israeli Palestinian (now a Canadian citizen) who, while visiting Israel this past summer, was arrested, imprisoned, and denied either legal counsel or family visits. Such action by the Israeli left, large numbers of "Jewish Israelis" who oppose the government and often act jointly with Israeli Palestinians, is typical rather than exceptional. 

Second, the impression left by both the article and the letters is that there are two sides to this issue. The larger picture reveals many sides, having to do with US political interests, globalization of energy resources, etc. Two excellent articles by.Seymour Hersh, “Last Stand: The Military Problem with the President's Iran policy” and “Wa tching Lebanon: Washington's Interests in Israel's War” (The New Yorker, July 10 & 17 and August 21, 2006), summarize the Middle Eastern and global contexts. Hersh underlines relations between the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the current “war” in Iraq and the forthcoming (October?) US “war” with Iran. A current quip catches the underlying motivation of Washington: “why is our oil under their sand?” There’s much more to be said, but, for a mere letter, I leave it at that.

David Stea