Full Version: On Katrina Anniversary Homes to be Seized and Bulldozed
There is a very under-the-radar story I ran across over at CounterPunch today.
It seems that on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina a little know city ordinance will go into effect in New Orleans giving the city the right to seize and bulldoze property that has not been repaired.
It seems to me that the bulldozing part is probably necessary for structural and public health reasons, but the Seizing part seems over the line. There also seem to be some due process issues here.
Questions for debate:
1. Should the city of New Orleans have the right to seize property that has not been repaired or should homeowners retain ownership of the land?
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
It seems that on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina a little know city ordinance will go into effect in New Orleans giving the city the right to seize and bulldoze property that has not been repaired.
QUOTE
Mayor Ray Nagin, and the New Orleans City Council callously plan to make August 29th not a time to remember but a the time to begin bulldozing what little hope remains by excluding displaced families from the city's future. Through passing City Ordinance #26031 unanimously in May, the Council decided that those who have not been able to make the necessary repairs to their battered homes by August 29th risk having their property seized and bulldozed by the city.
Many working class families cannot return to New Orleans to prevent their homes from being seized. Most are still waiting to receive payment from insurance claims and can not pay the roughly $10,000 charged by contractors to gut their home nor can they afford to take time off to gut their homes themselves. Low income families in New Orleans could now lose their homes before receiving a dime from the federal government's $7.5 billion "Road Home" home repair grant program for Louisiana's homeowners, as those vitally needed funds continue to sit in limbo.
~snip~
Getting information is very difficult for the over 200,000 former residents of New Orleans, mostly working class African American families, who are still spread across 44 different states. Most have no way to know the current state of their homes and neighborhoods-things like whether the water and electricity are running, or whether their local schools are open. The overwhelming majority of relevant government decisions like this ordinance do not make it into the national news reports or local broadcasts in their new communities.
Oblivious to the strangulating lack of information in this crisis, the City still believes it does not need to directly contact homeowners as part of due process, required by the U.S. Constitution, before it can begin seizing property. After being sued for previously attempting to bulldoze homes in the Lower 9th Ward in December, the City of New Orleans settled with local groups by pledging to post seizure information on its City website and in New Orleans' daily newspaper, The Times Picayune, to fulfill due process requirements. Never mind that most affected displaced people live outside of the Times Picayune's distribution area and may not have an internet connection. Displaced families, without actually being notified, will remain completely in the dark as they lose their homes.
Many working class families cannot return to New Orleans to prevent their homes from being seized. Most are still waiting to receive payment from insurance claims and can not pay the roughly $10,000 charged by contractors to gut their home nor can they afford to take time off to gut their homes themselves. Low income families in New Orleans could now lose their homes before receiving a dime from the federal government's $7.5 billion "Road Home" home repair grant program for Louisiana's homeowners, as those vitally needed funds continue to sit in limbo.
~snip~
Getting information is very difficult for the over 200,000 former residents of New Orleans, mostly working class African American families, who are still spread across 44 different states. Most have no way to know the current state of their homes and neighborhoods-things like whether the water and electricity are running, or whether their local schools are open. The overwhelming majority of relevant government decisions like this ordinance do not make it into the national news reports or local broadcasts in their new communities.
Oblivious to the strangulating lack of information in this crisis, the City still believes it does not need to directly contact homeowners as part of due process, required by the U.S. Constitution, before it can begin seizing property. After being sued for previously attempting to bulldoze homes in the Lower 9th Ward in December, the City of New Orleans settled with local groups by pledging to post seizure information on its City website and in New Orleans' daily newspaper, The Times Picayune, to fulfill due process requirements. Never mind that most affected displaced people live outside of the Times Picayune's distribution area and may not have an internet connection. Displaced families, without actually being notified, will remain completely in the dark as they lose their homes.
It seems to me that the bulldozing part is probably necessary for structural and public health reasons, but the Seizing part seems over the line. There also seem to be some due process issues here.
Questions for debate:
1. Should the city of New Orleans have the right to seize property that has not been repaired or should homeowners retain ownership of the land?
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
1. Should the city of New Orleans have the right to seize property that has not been repaired or should homeowners retain ownership of the land?
The bulldozing I can see, for safety purposes. But to actually take the land away from the property owners doesn't seem right. I can't see the excuse for it at all.
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
By the bare legal standards of due process, I think it does qualify. Due process doesn't mean government has to make things convenient for people. It just means that it can't act arbitrarily. It doesn't seem to be in this instance. That's not to say I fully endorse this plan, but that particular objection I don't think holds water.
The bulldozing I can see, for safety purposes. But to actually take the land away from the property owners doesn't seem right. I can't see the excuse for it at all.
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
By the bare legal standards of due process, I think it does qualify. Due process doesn't mean government has to make things convenient for people. It just means that it can't act arbitrarily. It doesn't seem to be in this instance. That's not to say I fully endorse this plan, but that particular objection I don't think holds water.
1. Should the city of New Orleans have the right to seize property that has not been repaired or should homeowners retain ownership of the land?
The Louisiana website for the recovery has a link to this requirement and the ordinance on its frontpage: www.louisianarebuilds.info
Link to ordinance
I do not think these properties should be seized, but they must be subject to being condemned. These vacant buildings are not only a public health issue, but a blight on people that are rebuilding.
It has been a year--do you know where your property is?
The law says nothing about seizure--just repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal. Which is as it should be.
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
Unfortunately, it does. This is actually the Constitutionally approved way of "notifying" people when they cannot be found. They have a website and the newspaper. How else will they find everyone? The government is not under any obligation to pursue extraordinary measures. The ordinance does mention exceptions for hardship, however.
And to be fair to Nagin, he didn't sign this bill. It went unsigned and passed into law.
The Louisiana website for the recovery has a link to this requirement and the ordinance on its frontpage: www.louisianarebuilds.info
Link to ordinance
I do not think these properties should be seized, but they must be subject to being condemned. These vacant buildings are not only a public health issue, but a blight on people that are rebuilding.
It has been a year--do you know where your property is?
QUOTE
All dwellings and dwelling units which, after inspection, are found not to comply with the 18
requirements of this section are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by 19
repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
requirements of this section are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by 19
repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal in accordance with the provisions of this Article.
The law says nothing about seizure--just repair, rehabilitation, demolition or removal. Which is as it should be.
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
Unfortunately, it does. This is actually the Constitutionally approved way of "notifying" people when they cannot be found. They have a website and the newspaper. How else will they find everyone? The government is not under any obligation to pursue extraordinary measures. The ordinance does mention exceptions for hardship, however.
And to be fair to Nagin, he didn't sign this bill. It went unsigned and passed into law.
1. Should the city of New Orleans have the right to seize property that has not been repaired or should homeowners retain ownership of the land?
It sound harsh, but the city does need to move forward to clearing out the damages homes and building.
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
Yes it does. Most all cities have libraries that have access to computers to get on the internet for free.
It sound harsh, but the city does need to move forward to clearing out the damages homes and building.
2. Does posting seizure information in the local paper constitute adequate due process given the circumstances here? (i.e. lots of people displaced at great distances, possibly without internet access)
Yes it does. Most all cities have libraries that have access to computers to get on the internet for free.
I believe that the seizure must be conducted according to law, and to some extent fairness. Nevertheless, I believe that the seizure should only be temporary in order to carry out necessary tasks related to public health, safety and limiting further property damage. This does not include affecting land ownership. Katrina is a special case and the city council should treat it as such. Is the public good served by property seizure? That depends on whether you consider native taxpayers as contributors to the public good. Some responsibility does fall on the property owners to contact the city, and who can argue that a phone call is impossible?
As far as giving fair notice, I agree with the others.
As far as giving fair notice, I agree with the others.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.