blog: madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The two forms, ed. Amazon
Paris, Wednesday, December 5th, 2018
REFLECTION ON THE CAPACITIES OF THE STATE TO INDEMNIFY THE OWNERS, NATURAL RISKS WITHOUT SPOLIERING THE PUBLIC TREASURE (Continuation of reflection No. 20 of October 15, 2018. see: madic50)
1) - The compensatory duality
A televised report on the decline of the coast of New Aquitaine due to the rise of the oceans raises, among other things, the issue of compensation for the owners of evacuated homes.
The shoreline evolution was too fast for the legislator and nobody was prepared for this situation; neither the State nor the owners.
The evacuation of the Signal building in Soulac-sur-mer publicly exposes the double difficulty that the authorities and the populations are facing.
This is due to both:
a- A current lack of legal rules.
b- The terms of the compensation which is spoliator of the Public Treasury.
2) - The case of Le Signal
a- In 1964, when it was built, it is 200m from the ocean.
b- In 2014, it is a few meters. He risks collapse.
c- The prefect orders his evacuation.
2- The owners agree that no compensation scheme has been provided for cases like this.
In 2014, the Prefect expropriated 78 owners. They are given the charity of 20 000 euros of compensation per housing.
It is unlikely that this compensation will allow these people to find a home in Soulac-sur-mer where real estate prices rise by 8% per year.
2- They argue that there is a compensation procedure that covers the entire acquisition of the property threatened; the Barnier Fund.
3- the administrative and judicial authorities give them wrong
a- DDTM (Departmental Direction of Territories and Sea) denies them access.
b- In February 2016, the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux considers that the conditions for the implementation of these provisions are not met.
4- They bring the case to the Council of State
a- In December 2016, the Council breaks the decision of the court of Bordeaux.
b- It could classify dune erosion in the list of natural risks covered by the fund, in the same way as floods or earthquakes, recognizing its irresistible character.
5- I do not know what the Conseil d'Etat decided in this case.
3) - Forms of compensation
Even if the Council of State inscribes the owners of the building at Fond Barnier, and thus allows them to be compensated at the right price of their property, this does not solve the second aspect of the question; at least for other applicants.
In fact, if the authorities seem so stingy, it is primarily because they are accountable for public money.
The compensation to which the owners can claim is indeed spoliator of the Public Treasury.
At present, public authorities, and particularly magistrates, do not have the capacity to integrate the diversity of compensation into the overall management of these "natural risks" without considering having the State Treasury disburse sums that it does not have.
On these occasions, the right is in fact subordinated to the choice to weaken the public treasury or to hurt individuals.
This duality therefore organizes an undue confrontation of public authorities and inhabitants.
4) - Conclusion
It is inferred from this that only a mode of non-predatory compensation of the public money can give the authorities the means to manage the compensation of these new "natural risks".
However, as these people do not seem to respect the current codes and do not invoke their suffering to destroy public buildings and burn policemen, the public experience teaches us that there is consequently little chance that the slightest reflection is open on this subject.