The Constitution of Barbados guarantees the right of private property ownership, it further protects us from the deprivation of our property except in situations where there is an urgent public need and in such instances of compulsory acquisition the owner must be fairly compensated with a monetary settlement. Examples that readily come to mind for compulsory purchasing of land are for road improvements and road construction, the erection of public buildings and construction of schools or low income housing projects. Once acquired, if the property is no longer needed for the original public purpose it should be first offered to be returned to the original owner.
The concept of Eminent Domain or compulsory acquisition of private property is a long established right of sovereign governments to acquire private property without the owner’s consent where there is well recognized public need. Exercising the right of compulsory acquisition should not be taken lightly and should be for clear and transparent reasons for the public good.
Since biblical times, compulsory acquisition of private property has been exercised by monarchs and potentates, become part of English Common Law, codified in the Napoleonic Code and is part of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
From the earliest times the exercise of compulsory acquisition has been fraught with problems as individuals and assemblies defined public use with increasing elasticity or used its provisions for private gain. King Ahab of Samaria’s acquisition of Naboth’s vineyard next to his palace was an early example of how not to do things as Elija subsequently pointed out. In more recent years, American municipalities and states have moved the goal posts from public use to public benefit until the Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. The City of New London created such a public outcry, that legislators in most of the 50 states swiftly moved to strengthen private property laws and rein in the excesses of compulsory acquisition.
Closer to home we cannot forget the government’s acquisition of Graeme Hall Plantation to establish the Ministry of Agriculture and the subsequent divestment of much of the land to private developers who profited mightily from the subsequent sub-division. In more recent years Parson’s Pest Control Limited successfully challenged the government’s acquisition of a portion of its property and the Barbados Supreme Court case number 154 of 1999 on the Town Planning web site makes for interesting reading.
Finally we come to the news last Friday of a most remarkable plan by the government to compulsorily acquire a section of land from Secure Shred Inc. at Vaucluse in St. Thomas, with the intention of transferring that land to a competing private company engaged in the same business activities as the company that presently owns the land.
By what stretch of imagination could this be possibly deemed to be in the public interest? How on earth can this maneuver be described as environmental protection? What must corporate Barbados think about its property rights and the business environment that this precedent would create?
This proposed action by the Ministry of Housing and Lands is a monumental abuse of the powers of compulsory acquisition. It should be abandoned before the public purse is further impoverished through the inevitable litigation that will follow as well as the incalculable damage to the investment climate that would result from such an action.
There is now a clear need to improve the criteria, transparency and mechanisms of compulsory acquisition as well as the management of the inventory of property purchased in this manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment