Fwd: NOLA's arcane legal scheme to acquire private property: usufruct

[Guest guest]

http://neworleans.indymedia.org/news/2005/10/6151_comment.php#6169

 

Official support is increasing for using the arcane legal doctrine of

" usufruct " to put private homes in government hands.

 

 

 

NOLA City Officials unveil scheme to " legally " acquire properties from

Homeowners

 

by Leenie Halbert

 

 

A recent LA Times article reported on the city's (and perhaps the

state's) working plan to deploy the concept of " usufruct " to gain

control over privately owned properties in the wake of Katrina

(originally written by Scott Gold on 10/23/05 and is posted at:

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-reclaim23oct23,0,5925433.story?coll=la-story-footer\

).

 

Residents and homeowners need to be aware of the implications of this,

as it appears the government's best strategy so far for acquiring

large parcels that could be prime land for redevelopment and

gentrification schemes.

 

Essentially, city housing officials are proposing a plan that would

persuade owners of " damaged " properties to sign over " controlling

rights " of the property to the government (most likely the city of New

Orleans, although the money for the program is likely to come from the

federal government). The government then would pay to " make the home

habitable again, " at which point it would be rented out to " essential

workers " for reduced, subsidized rents. Such workers are likely to

include police and contractors. Proponents of the plan believe that

there are as many as 100,000 homes in NOLA that are damaged

sufficiently to be part of this program.

 

Here is where the scheme gets particularly disturbing. Once property

owners have contractually agreed to give up control of the property to

the government for some specified time -- perhaps three to five years

-- the owner can only return and regain control over the property if

they can repay the government for the repairs made and expenses

incurred.

 

If the owner cannot pay back the government for years of

repairs/expenses, or chooses not to return after such a lengthy period

of time, the usufruct contract would give the government the right to

sell the property and share in the profits from the sale. Land

speculators and developers could thus acquire large blocks of land by

buying up these properties.

 

This scheme is a serious inversion of the actual concept of usufruct,

which historically gives the public rights of usage over private

properties. It has been retained in some European nations to allow,

for instance, travelers to camp briefly in a property owner's yard on

the theory that land still belongs to everyone even when an individual

secures legal title to it. It is not intended to allow the sort of

shift to government and developers' control that is being contemplated

here.

 

One housing official noted that " the entire redevelopment of New

Orleans rests on this issue. " This is understandable since, if the

city attempted to acquire properties through eminent domain

procedures, they would have to pay compensation to private owners

before taking the land. A widespread use of condemnation powers such

as eminent domain would set off a political backlash and could be too

expensive for the cash strapped Orleans Parish and Louisiana state

government.

 

Under the usufruct scheme, however, the state slowly acquires title to

properties with the promise of rebuilding, renovating, and sharing

profits with homeowners. When the " repair bill " becomes due in a few

years, the thought likely is that most homeowners will either have

moved on or will be unable to come up with the money to repay the

city, thus wresting title from the owner slowly and subtly over a

period of years and not in one fell swoop that is likely to set off

major concerns.

 

The whole key to this scheme is that if the owner enters into the

agreement voluntarily, then the contract will hold and the

entanglements of eminent domain will be avoided. A housing advisor

noted that " in some cases, if owners are uncooperative . . . then

perhaps a more forceful implementation of receivership or usufruct can

be established. This tool can be used for voluntary agreements with

owners or for involuntary control by the city. "

 

Property owners need to realize the implications of their decisions in

the long term as devious plans such as this are unveiled with the

promise of short term gains. The future of the city may well indeed

depend upon this process.

 

 

 

 

Leenie Halbert is an activist and resident of the 9th ward in New

Orleans. She is an active member of the Green Party of Louisiana,

Advocates for Louisiana Public Healthcare, and the New Orleans Food

Coop. She can be contacted at (504) 947-8899 or via email at

leenie