"Governments proposal for new tools to promote "place-based
sustainable urban communities" poses a serious threat to the notion
that our family home is our castle" said Owen McShane, Director of
the Centre for Resource Management Studies, today, explaining that
the Government has released for comment, a discussion document
titled "Building Sustainable Urban Communities – a document
exploring place-based approaches to sustainable urban development in
New Zealand."
Mr McShane said "The Centre hopes that, given all the other
distractions, no one has underestimated the significance of the news
reports in the New Zealand Herald and elsewhere which explain that
local authorities or agencies may be given the right to seize
people’s homes for whatever higher-density housing redevelopment, or
other large scale developed is favoured by local planners.
"The idea that this will address the problem of unaffordable housing
is laughable, were it not so tragic. These powers of 'imminent
domain', as they are known in the United States, are part and parcel
of Smart Growth theory which has caused the problem in the first
place.
"During my several attendances at international housing conferences
in the US I have witnessed at first hand how these "revitalisation"
projects operate, where they are frequently used to clear out Black
and Hispanic neighbourhoods so that councils' Redevelopment Agencies
(who purchase the property) can then sell at a cheap price to their
developer colleagues – replacing the poor neighbourhoods with
housing for the "creative class" or comprehensively planned "vibrant
urban communities".
"I assured my overseas friends that this could never happen here
because our legislation and conventions allow such takings of
private home only for the purposed of "public works'. The US Supreme
Court has interpreted the constitutional reference to "the public
purpose" to allow takings of private property for a wider range of
benefits including urban revitalisation or increasing the tax base
and providing employment.
"This Discussion Document suggests that we change our legislation to
enable homes to be taken to enable local authorities to promote
these wider public purposes. So I have to eat my words.
"This sword hanging over our heads will be just another reason for
our best and brightest to go to Australia! Why would any sensible
person chose to live in a city where you can get a letter in the
mail declaring your neighbourhood "blighted" and which offers to
negotiate to buy you out, but on the understanding that if you
refuse to deal, your house will be taken anyway.
"The process begins by declaring the neighbourhood "blighted" and
hence requiring compulsory acquisition. (We used to call this Urban
Renewal). Of course this is a self-fulfilling prophecy because banks
stop lending and owners cease all maintenance and improvements and
the properties become unsaleable on the market. (This is just what
happened to Freeman's Bay until we removed the blighting urban
renewal designation in the early sixties.)
"After a few years the Redevelopment Agency buys the property at a
greatly reduced price. Many owners can see what is coming, so they
negotiate immediately rather than lose the value of their asset.
"The NZ Government Discussion Document then claims that one of the
benefits of this "land readjustment" process (I am not making this
up. This is what they call it.) is that it:
* creates certainty for developers, knowing that the community is a
partner in the outcome.
"Yeah – right! I do so enjoy my partnership with the IRD.
"The corruption around these schemes in the US is immense and
inevitable.
America's Castle Coalition fights these "eminent domain" cases as
they're called in the States, and their site documents the abuse and
corruption which soon develops around these transfers of private
property from homeowers to major developers. Anyone who thinks this
proposal is a good idea should read this page and its case studies.
Donald Trump used this means of corruption to put up a carpark at
one of his casinos. For more such cases just google "Susette Kelo."
or go here to learn about this woman's fight.
"Here is Wikipedia's summary of that famous case:
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1], was a case
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use
of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another
to further economic development. The case arose from the
condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real
property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive
redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the
general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified
such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the
general public. Many members of the general public viewed the
outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a
misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which
would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual
homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession
construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the
interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the
broad moral principles of the general outcome.[2]
In her dissenting opinion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said:
“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to
prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton,
any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."
The opening pages of the Discussion Document end with a quote from
Katherine Mansfield, which in its original context was no doubt
thought provoking, but in this document is plain creepy. It reads:
"Could we change our attitude, we should not only see life
differently, but life itself would be different."
"They are determined to change our attitudes to our rights, the
quiet enjoyment of our property and our basic freedoms. So I suppose
life itself will be profoundly different should we get caught in
their web. I am so glad I left Auckland, and am out of range of such
social engineering.
"And don't think "they will never come after me!" I toured a
"blighted neighbourhood" At San José I toured while informed by an
excellent commentary from a local lawyer whose own house had been
subject to a "takings notice." The neighbourhood looked better than
most of Remuera. She explained that her home had been declared
"blighted" because a drive-by inspector decided there were too many
leaves on her tennis court. She has replaced the tennis court with a
swimming pool and is naturally fighting the Agency through the courts.
"I wish I could show the two Maori Ministers who have signed off the
document how these policies have devastated Black and Hispanic
communities in Portland and Minneapolis.
"Given the current distractions, and all the policies being
presented in the lead up to the Election, the Centre does wonder how
much attention will be paid to thdiscussion document.
"The proposed Emmisions Trading Scheme is a major and radical change
to our economic structure and tax regime. This proposal to introduce
takings for the "public purpose" is a radical change to private
property rights in New Zealand, and promotes a whole new raft of
development levies, subsidies and transfers.
"Is this really the appropriate time to call for public discussion
of such a major and radical invasion of our rights? We can now
understand why there was little enthusiasm for Gordon Copeland's NZ
Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill.
"Someone must have known what was waiting in the wings," concluded
Mr McShane.
|
