Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 09:02:18 -0500
Reply-To: mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject: Re: Mexico - big problem update
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikSFLkDE-nh8xd77GuZz523feWyOY3wFjpSAreV@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
---- Loren Busch <starwagen@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Schwaia <vw.doka@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > As for "right or wrong", I didn't support the right to take property, I
> > only
> > stated that the methods are very different between Mexico and the USA.
> >
>
> How are the methods different? In both a judge declares the property can be
> taken. In both armed representatives show up on your doorstep. Oh, I see
> the difference: One says "Please leave" and then shoves a gun in your face
> if you don't. The other just shoves the gun in your face and forgets to say
> Please. Action and result are the same. Putting a fancy face on the
> process doesn't change it a bit.
Well, in the one case, the judge isn't even consulted until a long process of negotiation has taken place, with the property owner treated like any other citizen, and in most jurisdictions with respect. It is only after a protracted negotiation in which the two sides failed to find common ground that the condemnation procedure occurs. The property owner knows it is coming, has ample time to arrange for vacating the property, and will lose no personal property in the process unless he or she fails to make provision for it. He or she will be paid what has been determined to be a fair market price for the property (usually would have gotten more through cooperation, as the fair market determination almost always ends up being less than the final negotiated offer), thus can replace the real property with like property elsewhere. Of course, any sentimental value attached is a problem -- as in "Lost our home of 45 years, where we raised our children and grandchildren." But in the vast majority of cases, people are treated decently, when the community has determined that the property acquisition in essential to the public needs.
That's the general story. Overreaching by government entities does occur -- like in Stillwater, Oklahoma, where Oklahoma State University displaced hundreds of property owners to build a sports complex that seemingly was unwanted by the community. Several small homeowners suffered. But guess what -- those who complained the most, and tried to stop the condemnation, were slum lords exploiting student renters for exorbitant rents. A blighted part of town was improved. The few actual homeowners involved ended up able to buy better property in a better part of town. But, it was hard on them to move. No one hit any of them in the head with a baton, or brandished a gun in their faces. The slum lords pocketed more than they deserved for their poorly maintained properties.
--
David McNeely
| 
