Eminent domain in Lebanon?

[Beiruti]

Eminent domain


Definition for those who don't know what this is:

(From Wikipedia)

Eminent domain (US), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Republic of Ireland), compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (Canada, South Africa) in common law legal systems is the lawful power of the state to expropriate private property without the owner's consent, either for its own use or on behalf of a third party.

Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale. In many jurisdictions the power of eminent domain is tempered with a right that just compensation be made for the appropriation.

___________________________________________________________


This is an extremely controversial topic so lets please keep this civil and objective...


I truly feel that eminent domain is a necessity in Lebanon for many reasons, although it will change many people's lives forever, it will still benefit the greater good and give Lebanon, primarily Beirut, a major modern facelift.

Basically, the government of Lebanon would have the full power to take over a building to either replace it with a modern safer building, widen roads and build highways, or even create public parks in its place. Of course, the government would pay compensation for the owners being kicked out.

If Lebanon had the policy of eminent domain, the ghettos of south Beirut would have been cleared and replaced with modern housing projects for the people that live there...this would have allowed the government to continue its highway (near the airport) through Ouzai. Also, many of you complained of the shanty-town houses on the coast surrounding the airport, the government would be able to bulldoze those and exercise its right to improve the city without having to deal with the protest of the people who live there.

I know, it isn't easy kicking people out of their homes....but they will be compensated and it is for the greater good of all Lebanese and the economy.


what do you all think?

[shugs]

Altho I'm not Lebanese... so my opinion isnt really valid on this thread id like to say... its not a good thing

The last of my maternal ancestrial land was siezed a few years ago for the reasons that the owners are abroad and the community needs a football ground Load of 'orse shit, thankfully my mother has managed to get her piece of the 100,000 metres2 back, but the pieces my 2 uncles have is still in the hands of the Iranian government. End of the day its not a fair policy but occaisonally I cant see the harm in it. It depends on if it ever effects you personally or not.

[Hassoun]

100% with it

[Beiruti]

Originally Posted by shugs

Altho I'm not Lebanese... so my opinion isnt really valid on this thread id like to say... its not a good thing

The last of my maternal ancestrial land was siezed a few years ago for the reasons that the owners are abroad and the community needs a football ground Load of 'orse shit, thankfully my mother has managed to get her piece of the 100,000 metres2 back, but the pieces my 2 uncles have is still in the hands of the Iranian government. End of the day its not a fair policy but occaisonally I cant see the harm in it. It depends on if it ever effects you personally or not.

You make a valid point and Im sorry that you had land taken... like I said, this isnt an easy topic to discuss but it is really important. In the case of Lebanon there really inst much unoccupied land left and so every square meter is valuable and must be used wisely. Coming out of a devastating war, Lebanon needs this policy to be able to develop modern roads and public spaces.

[Beiruti]

Also, of course Lebanon is different from Iran, and in Lebanon not only would the people be compensated for their land but each acquisition would be debated in Parliament as well.

[lebgurl]

I'm for it .. but then again i dont know wat its like to work my butt off to buy a home and raise a family in it only to have it b taken away. in the case of the ouzai ghetto, none of them bought the land ... and most of the houses were illegally taken over or built during the war. so yes they should b torn down since its ILLEGAL without even having to worry about eminemt domain on the government's part.

[Beiruti]

I totally agree with you, but unfortunately when the government decided to actually go ahead with bulldozing the Ouzai ghetto to make way for the highway, Hizballah rallied against it with a demonstration and succeeded in halting the plans and "saving" the slums. If the government had eminent domain they would have a legal right to pursue their plans and not have to bow to pressure from illegal residents.

[Jayme]

get rid of the slums they make the place ugly looking

[Jayme]

Ouzai ghetto is that near the airport

[Beiruti]

yup...

[Jayme]

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww get rid of it i was scard shitless when i was driving though that from the airport bull doze it i say and build some wounder homes and parks and make the footground stuidum look much better and clean the place and fix the roads

[Jayme]

is the goverment thinking of doing this

[Jayme]

Hizibbollo love the slums they in it

[Maximus0056]

Emminent domain sounds good on the surface, but with our type of governmemt it will be abused to its maximum.

There must be another way to improove the chanty town area. You just need to spend alot of money, and believe me people will sell their property without thinking twice.

[NorthPole]

Originally Posted by Beirut!

[...]
If the government had eminent domain they would have a legal right to pursue their plans and not have to bow to pressure from illegal residents.

No, govenment doesn't need any eminent domain to tear down the illegal settlements, because they are illegal
In every country I know municipal government can just order demolishing the illegal buildings, and if landowner will not make it by his own, government can go with bulldozers and make it with landowner's cost
But what with the people living there then? They will not just disappear, but (after some fighting/rioting) move somewhere aside and settle illegally again, so the only result will be forcing ppl to start building in another place after destroying their homes. I'm not leftist, but some governmental/municipal programmes for social housing could attract many ppl to legally work and save money for their legal homes. People will care for their own houses more than for illegal ones

[Jayme]

or they can just have a MAJOR revovation to the south of Beirut repair the homes . roads schools and hosiptals if there are any and make the place more coluler full instde of grey way torn buildings and the Palastine camp also

[khayam]

Lebanon doesn't need "eminent domain", that is an anglosaxon concept. In the Lebanese law, the government uses the french code in terms of appropriating/taking away property for the public good, and these things have an extremely meticulous process.
In the Ouza`i case, it is a conflict between the concepts of "eminent domain" and that of an "established fact".
When a fact has been established for so long and people have settled and built homes, the social cost of changing this fact could be higher than the benefits, therefore a negotiation is in order. In addition to that, a law passed after the war gave legal rights to people who settled illegally in all parts of Lebanon, and sizeable compensations have been given to "squatters" in different areas of the country.

Many extremely stupid and classist things have been said in this thread, I don't expect brilliance and deep political statements from everyone on skyscrapercity, but it gets really too much.
Lebanon belongs to those living in it, not to tourists. poor people and their areas are not a blemish, they are part of society and society owes them, and those who live and buy property in Soldiere and Ras Beirut do not own the country, poor people have more of a stake in it than the rich.
No one likes to live in slums, it is extremely tasteless and insensitive to make fun of those and see them as a nuisance.
And I AM a leftist, and proud of it, it is the rest that need to be ashamed.

[Jayme]

yeah but for the pple who live in these slums isnt good for there healf ! living like this. they need help

[Lebanese Cedar]

Originally Posted by khayam

Many extremely stupid and classist things have been said in this thread, I don't expect brilliance and deep political statements from everyone on skyscrapercity, but it gets really too much.
Lebanon belongs to those living in it, not to tourists. poor people and their areas are not a blemish, they are part of society and society owes them, and those who live and buy property in Soldiere and Ras Beirut do not own the country, poor people have more of a stake in it than the rich.
No one likes to live in slums, it is extremely tasteless and insensitive to make fun of those and see them as a nuisance.
And I AM a leftist, and proud of it, it is the rest that need to be ashamed.

This is the best post in this entire thread. If we meet up one day, I'm buying you lunch.

[Beiruti]

Originally Posted by khayam

Lebanon doesn't need "eminent domain", that is an anglosaxon concept. In the Lebanese law, the government uses the french code in terms of appropriating/taking away property for the public good, and these things have an extremely meticulous process.
In the Ouza`i case, it is a conflict between the concepts of "eminent domain" and that of an "established fact".
When a fact has been established for so long and people have settled and built homes, the social cost of changing this fact could be higher than the benefits, therefore a negotiation is in order. In addition to that, a law passed after the war gave legal rights to people who settled illegally in all parts of Lebanon, and sizeable compensations have been given to "squatters" in different areas of the country.

Many extremely stupid and classist things have been said in this thread, I don't expect brilliance and deep political statements from everyone on skyscrapercity, but it gets really too much.
Lebanon belongs to those living in it, not to tourists. poor people and their areas are not a blemish, they are part of society and society owes them, and those who live and buy property in Soldiere and Ras Beirut do not own the country, poor people have more of a stake in it than the rich.
No one likes to live in slums, it is extremely tasteless and insensitive to make fun of those and see them as a nuisance.
And I AM a leftist, and proud of it, it is the rest that need to be ashamed.

I appreciate your thoughts on the issue, its always nice hearing your opinion even though we frequently disagree. Just to clear some things, I never said Lebanon was for tourists and that all this was for the interests of tourism. Improving roads and unsightly slums benefit all the Lebanese people and indirectly through the economic benefits... tourism is the primary industry right now, and so any effort to improve the physical appearance of the country should be welcomed.

Like I said before, its never an easy thing to remove people from their homes but sometimes it is necessary to move the country in a better direction. How do you think the great American cities like NYC became the way they are today? Of course it could have been handled better and the homes in the U.S. that were demolished to improve traffic were not slums...in the case of Lebanon, some of these places shouldn't even be considered homes because they violate every health and safety code I can think of. It is in the best interest of all to demolish these slums and build housing projects to give these people decent apartments.