看美国人如何对待拆迁户

happylux

2009-10-24 09:49:44

近日读到国内因强行拆迁致使户主抗争杀人案，想起了美国人对待拆迁户截然不同的态度。

亲历美国拆迁之一例

2000年我在华盛顿做访问学者，常去中国城。那里有许多中餐馆与中国礼品店，主要服务于中国游客。其中的一家中国礼品店由两个中国男子经营。那是一栋三层小楼，楼主是一个犹太人，租给了这两个中国男子。

那年，该小楼所在的其它街区均被一家公司购买了，准备建一座大楼。这座小楼正位于该大楼的东北角处。如果该公司不能买下这座小楼，他们未来的大厦将是一个刀把形，不得不拐进去一个角，不但浪费极大的空间，而且极不美观。

于是，公司就与这个犹太人商谈，想买下这座小楼，以便修建一所象样的大厦。在这个世界上，犹太人经商的心眼儿怕是世界之最了。他想借此机会多赚一些，于是就提出了比市面上高得多的价钱，让这家公司无法接受。最后，谈判破裂，小楼仍留在原地，新建的大厦将是一个极不美观的刀把形。

犹太人在大厦修建的过程中，合理地提出了一些要求，其中包括不能让他的小楼有任何损伤。于是，我亲眼见到了这家公司是如何在掘地基时努力保护这座小破楼的。我与这家礼品店的两个中国男子认识，常去他们店玩，基本看到了上述全过程。

2006年，我去华盛顿出差，在中国城吃了中餐，特意过去看看那里的情形。只见新的刀把状大楼早已建成，山墙上印有一个大红十字的那个犹太人的小破楼仍在那里，仍被用做中国礼品店。大家可以从下图中看看，那种情形和谐吗？

  



上图：小楼山墙上印的大红十字是一个广告，小楼的用途是用中文写的店名“耀升旅游服务中心”。

私人财产神圣不可侵犯

图中的景象虽不和谐，但美国人的做法却给他们带来了和谐的社会。美国是一个私有制国家，在1787年制定的宪法就明确规定“私人财产神圣不可侵犯”。从那时起，美国就从来没有出现过由政府或政府支持的强行拆迁民居的例子。法律也规定人民有带枪保护自己生命财产的权利。当人民的生命财产受到来犯者的危胁时，如遇到非法闯入家门者，就可以正当防卫，由此产生的一切后果均由非法入侵者负责。小户主遇到大公司拆迁时，具有同等的商谈地位，因为小户主的房产与地皮均归本人所有，任何人不经户主允许，不能侵占。因此，如果小户主不同意，再大的就算是能通天的公司，也是徒劳，连总统也没有办法。于是，我们就看到了那个不和谐的刀把形新大楼与一个小破楼并立在美国首都市中心。除非是那个犹太人同意，谁也别想把那个小破楼拆掉。

中国，什么时候真能落实宪法上所讲的私人财产神圣不可侵犯，篇首的悲剧就不会重演了。那些野蛮拆迁者就不会有那个胆子了，因为他们怕被打死，还不尝命。所以，只有依法执法，才能切实保障人民的生命财产。

NZX

呵呵，以前等车的时候常去这家店买烟，还真不知道有这故事。不过也没觉得这小楼有多眨眼。

slowisfast

najup

hehe

SpringMountain

What's the background does that Jew have? Or just the developer did not think it's worth the hassle.



Eminent domain (United States), compulsory purchase (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland), resumption/compulsory acquisition (Australia) or expropriation (South Africa and Canada's common law systems) is the inherent power of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. The property is taken either for government use or by delegation to third parties who will devote it to public or civic use or, in some cases, economic development. The most common uses of property taken by eminent domain are for public utilities, highways, and railroads.[citation needed] Some jurisdictions require that the government body offer to purchase the property before resorting to the use of eminent domain. The legal doctrine of eminent domain, like the doctrine of seizure of contraband, allows expropriation of property within the existing system of law. Otherwise, expropriation may imply either a criminal or a revolutionary act.

The term "condemnation" is used to describe the formal act of the exercise of the power of eminent domain to transfer title to the property from its private owner to the government. This use of the word should not be confused with its sense of a declaration that real property, generally a building, has become so dilapidated as to be legally unfit for human habitation due to its physical defects. This type of condemnation of buildings (on grounds of health and safety hazards or gross zoning violation) usually does not deprive the owners of the title to the property condemned but requires them to rectify the offending situation or have the government do it for the owner at the latter's expense.

Condemnation via eminent domain indicates the government is taking ownership of the property or a lesser interest in it, such as an easement. In most cases the only thing that remains to be decided when a condemnation action is filed is the amount of just compensation, although in some cases the right to take may be challenged by the property owner on the grounds that the attempted taking is not for a public use, or has not been authorized by the legislature, or because the condemnor has not followed the proper procedure required by law.

The exercise of eminent domain is not limited to real property. Governments may also condemn personal property, such as supplies for the military in wartime or franchises. Governments can even condemn intangible property such as contract rights, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. Even football teams may be seized by eminent domain.

2001ht09

jackyzhang008