Compulsory acquisition of a

two year old house at below market value. Why? Do other people really need to walk just a few metres from the door of their house (not being compulsorily acquired) to get in their car and go to work? Do they really need to do this as the only occupant of the car? Do they really need to do it just a day a week? Is saving a few minutes on the journey so important?

I was talking to someone at the library yesterday. He knows I need to move too and he had stopped to ask me if I was interested in getting rid of something. (Sorry mate I am keeping that sofa because it doubles as a bed.) He told me of the family he is trying to help. 

The family is currently living in what can only be described as very, very cramped accommodation. They had scrimped and saved and built a house, much of the work done by the father while he was also working full time. They had all the necessary permissions - in writing. At no time was any mention made of "compulsory acquisition" for a new road through their property and several other properties.  It is actually very unlikely that anyone knew because the plans were apparently changed elsewhere at a very late stage. 

But, plans are plans it seems. Once plans are signed off then things like compulsory acquisition can take place. Yes, you are supposed to get "market value" for such acquisitions - but market value can slump well below even the cost price if the area's value changes because of a road built to benefit others. 

There is no way this family can find other accommodation of a similar standard in the same area for the price they are being offered. Indeed they probably won't find any accommodation of that standard anywhere for the price they are being offered. The man telling me all of this is knowledgeable about such matters and, by his reckoning, the family will lose around $300-350,000 at least. That does not take into account the stress and cost of actually moving somewhere else and the children needing to go to new schools.

This will happen of course. Building a road so that some people can spend five more minutes at home is more important than housing a family. The work the family has put in is less important than the votes of people who travel along that route. 

"They have been told they are lucky the offer is as high as it is and, if they don't accept it, the next offer will be even lower," I was told. 

It was all a bit too close to home for me. We are currently battling with the executors of the Senior Cat's estate. They have not shown what is known as "due diligence" in many matters. There is a long and complex paper trail which shows this. We are now being told they have the right to make choices which could potentially disadvantage us still further...and that they almost certainly will make those choices "because that is the way we do things". 

Perhaps it is time to bring these people to account - but I am not holding my breath over it happening.