I only spent a year out east, so I'm a little iffy on the local history, but wasn't there once a neighbourhood in Halifax called Africville?

[Ed.: (voiced as Ronnie Reagan) <i>Well...</i>]<p>It maybe but I don't thinok so. The difference would be in a general sense that Africville in the 60s was likely deemed a public purpose in the sense that a public thing (wise or not) would occur on that site. That is not the case in the US as a private purpose is being put in place in this situtation.

the tiger is right.

Well, I know he is right as he at Harvard. But (and this is my only point) was the expropriation of Africville done to pass the property to a private firm as is being done now in the US as in New London Connecticut and now above in Florida? I think it was not as the bridge and the City park now sit at the site. I am not suggesting that it was wiser or less wise because it was a public policy - just that it was available in Canadian law because a public purpose was claimed.

I was being slightly sarcastic -- I do know the history of Africville, quite well at that.

The clearing of Africville would have been illegal in the States because the compensation was set so low. The latest developments down here -- courtesy of <i>Kelo v. New London</i> -- are worse in the sense that private firms are involved, but property rights are better protected (to the extent that they are) in that they are enshrined in the constitution.

It's because of decisions like <i>Kelo</i> that I was so anxious to see another intellectually-grounded justice on the SCOTUS with an originalist bent -- and that's why I'm so upset with President Bush right now.

You'll be back under the red flag soon enough, comrade, as they are enshrined only to the extent of due process and just compensation in Article V...which is what expropriation provides in Canada except that minimal necessity of the intrusion and underlying public purpose are also protected up here if only by statute. What the originals did was foresshadow what the new originalists would make of it by leaving out those two extra steps.

Hey Sharma, what's up.

Alan, I'd be interested to hear why you think that the situation in Florida would not be allowed to happen in Canada. Certainly it would raise a big political stink, but as long as whichever government involved has the constitutional power (e.g. provinces have power over property and civil rights; the feds could use its various powers to take land for building airports etc.) then it would probably be legal in a strict sense. Expropriation in Canada really comes down to the wording of whatever statute allows it, and what constitutional power enables a given government to enact that statute. But nothing says a govt can't enact a statute saying they can take away your house and kick you in the ass while they're at it, then give it to Mickey Mouse.

While the results seem to often be the same, for example the SCC has set out a presumption of fair market compensation for expropriations, the two systems are very different because of the constitutionalization of property rights in the US. Incidentally, Canada had a chance to constitutionalize property rights in the early '80s in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Due to pressure from the provinces, property rights was taken out of the earlier draft of s. 7 and the final version just has "life, liberty, and security of the person".

One last note to this way-too-long post: the real travesty and tragedy of Africville is that racism was the underlying issue. If it was a community of white folks, not only would it not have become a slum in the first place because the city would have developed more infrastructure there, but there would have been better compensation for those whose homes were taken, if they would have been taken at all.

In Canada you have to prove public necessity for each inch of the land taken. The arguement debated in an expropriation hearing is not a broad argument like it seems to be in the States in these matters. The issue of necessity comes before the compensation so it does not matter that a lot of money is on the table. The taking has to be justified for each portion of land. So there could be a taking of your house but the reason we have not seen it in large scale (other than Africville which was as you say imbued with racial overtones as well as likely a good deal of interfering dogooderism as well) is because that necessity includes a balancing of interests. So while there is not a consitutional protection (for what it is worth) there is a practical one.<p>That all being said, I am not a strong swimmer on expropriations law and would be happily corrected.