DEAR EDITOR: The HDC recently sent to some, if not all owners of commercial property in the South Quay area, its terms of negotiation for buying their properties.
There are different classes of commercial owners and, of course, there is a class or two of residential owners who are not so wealthy. Short-term tenants are not being compensated.
It is not clear if the terms are uniform terms offered across all categories. Many questions, which, I think, should be made known for the benefit of everyone involved. Among them:
- Does the Government have a compulsory acquisition case against everyone? – Would that necessarily mean that that can be incorporated under/into the Slum Act – can it admit compensation for “business” losses but limit them by reference to an indeterminable compulsory acquisition process?
- Does a “State enterprise” have such authority? Can it elect if and when to choose between using the Slum Act and compulsory acquisition – can not a Government cause sufficient prejudice that way that would result in further heads of compensation in damages etc and/or estoppel on compulsory acquisition?
- – Can the Government or the HDC under the Slum Act, rule out compensation for short-term tenants, “purchase price” of relocation and other “business” losses. Irrespective of compulsory acquisition? – Is the Act not meant to have its own consequences and should they not be better?
Claims for “business” losses should include not only compensation for loss of rent on leases during remaining periods, but
a) loss of income during the period until income is restored,
b) loss of income that is the difference between the new and old income streams,
c) “purchase price” of re-locations costs whether ownership or lease and
d) similar reliefs for loss of trade by those who do not have vested interest in land.
Land-owners are being made to forego future capital gains in a most promising area while having to buy replacement locations during a period of inflated real estate prices, and /or pay rent where before that did not have to.
Business owners should be compensated for loss of trade irrespective of land interest. People who pay rent may have to pay more. Unarguably, the common good would be served greatest by enriching those who need more, i.e., the less wealthy.
Should any Government be miserly at the very time when it can afford to share national income liberally? Or is “State enterprise” and other legalism meant to limit sharing as well as conceal wealth? Are the rest of us supposed to pretend we do not notice because we are not poor? How would that be patriotic?
On the other hand, if the HDC has offered compensation for “purchase price” relocations costs and wider “business “ compensations to some but not all sectors, then secret or not, that would not be patriotic or fair.
Elias Galy, Frederick St, Port of Spain |