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.
MARC SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire