Clear rules are needed to acquire private lands or to repossess public land leases

Oct 05, 2016 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

The PPPC was also guilty of compulsory acquisition of private property for public uses. The PPP had no compunction about acquiring the property of Toolsie Persaud on Water Street and giving it to the Georgetown City Council for use by pavement vendors.
The PPPC, to its credit, had just prior to this acquisition amended the Constitution to provide for compensation at market rates of any property so acquired. The problem was that the PPP’s idea of market values was far less than what the owners of the land estimated its worth. As such, a legal battle ensued and the Court was forced to increase the award substantially. The PPPC said.
To the PPPC’s credit, the lands that it repossessed were done in order to give larger numbers of farmers and vendors a means of livelihood. It even acquired land from one of the advisors to the government. All the lands that were compulsory repossessed were lands which were once public lands and had been controversially handed out to private individuals at prices which the PPPC said were give-away prices.
All of the lands also, were not being gainfully utilized at the time they were taken back. There was therefore a clear basis on which the lands were acquired and the uses to which they were put after acquisition. The PPP offered land swaps in some cases, including to one of its advisors.
The PPPC is now in opposition. It is doing a fine job as an opposition party. It is soundly criticizing the government and exposing its wrongdoings.  The PPPC’s grilling of the government in the National Assembly over a deal for the rental of bond for the storage of pharmaceuticals has permanently tainted the ruling coalition.
The PPPC has always offered, since becoming the main opposition party in the country, strong arguments in whatever matter it is offering an opinion on. You do not always have to agree with what the PPC says. But you can understand why it says it and why it has to say it – it has to behave like an opposition party.
It is not only criticizing but it is offering alternatives.
The PPPC has come out swinging in relation to the recent decision of the government to compulsory acquire for public purposes an empty lot, in the city, on which a house once stood. The issue, for the PPP, is not so much the specific property to be acquired but the ideological aspects of this acquisition and the absence of reasons why the property is being acquired and for what purposes it is being acquired against the wishes of its owners.
The PPP has raised the issue of compensation. It has noted, through its former Attorney General, that the government can offer compensation that bears no reflection to true market rates since the government market rates are determined by its chief valuation officer. This is what is frightening and is spreading fear throughout Guyana and in North America where overseas-based Guyanese are worried that their lands which they own in Guyana, and which are not being used or are being rented out, can be acquired for public purposes and the compensation for those rates will be determined by the government itself through its Chief Valuation Officer.
Guyanese based in North America are worried that their properties will be taken away and given to supporters of the government since the government has said that there are not sufficient lands for people wanting to build homes.
No government is going to give up its right to compulsorily acquire private property for public purposes. This will curtail major developmental works because there is always some private property standing in the way of major public works.
Whenever the government decides to go ahead with its plan to build a new bridge across the Demerara River, it will have to acquire some properties at market rate to facilitate the access to and from the new bridge. When the PPPC was building the Essequibo Road, it had to do the same. The right to compulsory acquisition will not be forfeited by any government. It is impractical to do so.
But what can happen is that the government can set clear and transparent rules under which it will exercise such powers. It can state, for example, that it will not acquire property to extend or build new government ministries or expand the bureaucracy.
It can indicate that it will only acquire private property in respect to lands which are above a certain size. It can indicate that it will have an independent valuation of the market value of any land before that land is acquired for public purposes. It can indicate that it will consider the circumstances of the owners and the difficulties that any acquisition can have on them.
People are worried when they see a small plot of land owned by a private citizen being taken over purportedly to provide office space for a government ministry. People are worried when, in an area with thousands of acres of utilized land, the government is repossessing 65 acres which was given to an investor, without stating the reason why the land is being repossessed.
There is nothing that is frightening than people losing what is theirs.

---

---