The power of money – it seems that in the US, cities can now determine by themselves what property to seize for further development. And “adequate compensation” is – so I read on TelePolis – in the eye of the buyer, not the seller. ¹.
Some people try to raise some public awareness:
http://www.castlecoalition.org/
http://www.castlecoalition.org/top_10_abuses/top_10_report.pdf
With constant pressure on reducing the power of the state via tax reductions, and constant pressure to accomodate big business because it will provide the necessary funds that are now lacking, and constant pressure to outsource state responsibilities to private corps, I think we need to prepare ourselves here in Europe for similar developments.
#USA
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
I believe it’s called Nationalisation out here. It’s funny. If you get a land deed made, you have to pay a percentage of the price to the govt. and get a paper that has a stamp that says you did so. To avoid this, people make fake deeds that have only a fraction of the actual price on them but get the correct amount from the buyer anyway. Now, the govt. when it decides to steal the property pays an amount based on the deed so if you’re evaded the original tax, you’re in for it now.
Anyway, I think it’s theft. If they want to buy your land, they’ve got to behave exactly like an ordinary person buying it from you.
– NoufalIbrahim 2005-07-07 16:16 UTC
---
Well, I can understand it for some things (railways) and not for others (building a larger hotel), so clearly this is a fuzzy thing that should be discussed on a case by case basis. That’s exactly what politics should be for. So I think that nationalization is not the real problem. The real problem is corruption in the way the government works.
– Alex Schroeder 2005-07-07 16:36 UTC
---
I guess so too. The case by case basis is the only way to go. But I don’t know how practical that is. There’s always ways to justify the need for some kind of building or other from the national perspective. Also, in order to reduce load on the govt., a general law is often drafted and enforced. I still however think that if they want *your* land even if it’s for something like a railway line which is vital to the nations growth, they have to buy it from you as if they were another person. Anyway...
– NoufalIbrahim 2005-07-08 06:07 UTC
---
The questions is not about “buy it from you as if they were another person”. What if you don’t want to sell it?
The US Govt can now force you to sell your property in interest of some vague “public interest” even if the public interest cannot be shown to directly result from the sale.
– AadityaSood 2005-07-08 09:50 UTC
---
The problem with the government buying for a railroad is that if you are the last home owner preventing the building of the railroad, the value of your property in a free market suddenly soars – possibly up to the value of the railroad, if your property can prevent its building. This is why nationalization usually means that the *goverment* gets to decide what price it pays. There may be some regulations, but usally it is *not* the market price. This dilemma in turn fosters corruption, as some people buy low value land that blocks important infrastructure projects and get paid more than they deserver, whereas others value their property much more than the government will pay. All of this is “within reason” I think – unavoidable problems.
Thus, the US government and every other goverment on earth I believe was always able to force you to sell your property for public interest. The critical difference between “public interest” and “some vague public interest that cannot be shown to directly result from the sale” is the problem. Political institutions and processes are needed that 1. try to resolve these issues on a case-by-case basis, and 2. a democratic control of these institutions that ensures that they are not corrupted.
This is the real issue – people in the US must try to regain control of their institutions, and people abroad must be able to discern and speak up against similar developments in their own countries and municipalities.
– Alex Schroeder 2005-07-08 11:05 UTC