Previous Story
Differing definitions of ‘fair’
|
Posted on Oct 19 2004
In the article regarding land compensation that came out in the Oct. 19 edition of the Saipan Tribune, it was mentioned that there is concern about landowners not being compensated equally for the value of property that was acquired by the government due to the fact that property value was higher in 1990s than it is currently. Is that to say that a person who sells a house when the market is good is supposed to get reappraised when the value goes down and give a refund to the buyer? I don’t think so. The agreement to the amount, after the appraisal in the 1990s, was stated and signed by an authorized government official and property owner.
It seems to me that when the government wants to pay a lower amount they use the excuse of what’s “fair.” What is “fair” is paying the amount that was originally agreed upon according to the appraisal taken at the time, instead of coming up with a new one because it will be cheaper. If there is property that had been used but not appraised at the time when it was taken, and will be receiving a lower amount because of it, this should not be a reason to penalize the owner of the property that were appraised during the 1990s.
Also, regarding which owners should get paid first, like everything else, it only makes sense to go by the dates when the agreements were signed. In other words, in chronological order. The deal was made and the property was taken by the government—it doesn’t matter what the property was used for.
The government promising to pay for private land that was taken has been going on for over a decade. The landowners have been very patient and should not have to wait any longer to be compensated. There has been a lot of talk, and eventually, even a loan was taken out to compensate the owners, but there has not been much action taken to pay the landowners. I would like to know when this is all going to be over or if it will ever be. Thank you.
C. Self
E-mail
