Usually I’m right in there with the idea that my stuff is my stuff. Nobody has the right to take it from me. At least not without a fight – or some other more appropriate consequence.
But I’m also the first to acknowledge that there are exceptions to the rule.
If someone was waving a gun at Portage and Main, or flashing one on Maryland, I don’t care if it’s personally owned or even licensed. I would hope that government would protect our right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness over that idiot’s right to his weapon. They should take his gun.
If someone turned their Rottweiler loose in a playground or in an unfenced front yard, I would hope that bylaws regulating care and control of animals would supercede the owner’s desire to have their dog run free. The city should take that dog.
Police have secured the right to confiscate the vehicles of men who are prowling through our neighbourhood, looking to pick up prostitutes. When their possession is used in the process of committing a criminal offense, they forfeit the rights to that possession.
When home-owners don’t make payments, the bank takes the home from them. This is not an act of theft. It’s not an act of communism, but rather an intrinsic part of a capitalist transaction. It’s a last ditch attempt to redress a financially untenable situation and abate the risk to the lender.
Children are way beyond a personal possession, they are flesh and blood of their parents. Yet when parents abuse kids, Child and Family Services assumes the right to take custody of those children and put them in the hands of someone who can better care for them.
The ownership of guns, dogs, vehicles and the care of children implies certain responsibilities. Rights of possession can’t be divorced from responsibilities.
That’s what the city is proposing with perpetually derelict residential and commercial properties.
The growing success of revitalization efforts has attracted some speculators. They buy derelict properties, but have no plan for renovation. They don’t fix anything. They don’t cut weeds. They just wait.
They know that the value of their property will increase as individuals and groups renovate the buildings around their derelict building. Years later, they can sell their property for double or triple the value without having invested a penny enhancing the value themselves.
Speculators don’t give a rip about the rest of the community. All they want is big bucks for no work.
In the meantime, they diminish the investment of others in the community. It’s frustrating to work hard renovating houses and convincing people that revitalization is continuing when some of these derelict buildings have sat unchanged for years. These buildings often attract squatters and become showcases for arson and vandalism. As I see it, many of these speculators have slid past greed to criminal neglect.
That’s why I got ticked off with some folks from the Real Estate Board who showed up at city hall to oppose the new by-law.
They suggested, “This is confiscation without compensation.” I figure the city would have no business offering compensation for exploitation of our hard work. We would have to be nuts to offer compensation to those guilty of neglect and abandonment. Do we compensate the gun owner and dog owner mentioned above?
Another commented, “This will pass a bad message to potential investors. Why would someone invest in a city that might confiscate their property?”
I’ve got no problem scaring away a few greedy speculators. I figure this new by-law will filter out speculators from investors. Legitimate investors will actually be attracted by the fact that the city will protect their hard work and investments from depreciation and damage caused by speculators.
Several realtors suggested mediation. But we’ve been talking with some of these people for years. Some are polite and some are rude, but the end result is the same. They ignore us and leave the property derelict. Mediation without motivation is meaningless. There’s no better motivation to take care of something than to know you might lose it if you abuse it.
Then they suggested that, “This legislation could be open to legal challenge.” These days even clear convictions for murder seem open for legal challenge. The potential of a challenge shouldn’t deter us from doing the right thing.
They suggested that they applaud the intent, but oppose the consequence. That’s like someone saying they want to support my need to eat, and then stealing my teeth.
I was surprised that the Real Estate Board seemed willing to protect the greedy part of their clientele at the expense of more legitimate investors and even some of their own good renovation work.
The City is doing the right thing. Property rights are accompanied by property responsibilities
Rev. Harry Lehotsky
514 Maryland Street
Winnipeg, Mb R3G 1M5
(204) 775-4929
lehotsky@escape.ca