Compulsory Land Acqusitions !

Receiving notice that the government will acquire the land on which your home stands can be a crushing blow to any family, but any fair thinking person will concede that it is usually a necessity to provide the ever expanding need for services in a growing city like Sydney.

A property developer has just won a decision in the Supreme Court that throws the entire land acquisition matter into doubt and at the very least it may delay projects under way and cause the state a financial catastrophe.  If far advanced projects are subjected to delay the costs will increase and contractors will have to be compensated because completion delay costs them money.

Billions of dollars are involved and some of the projects under construction include the redevelopment of Prince of Wales hospital at Randwick, a road upgrade to the new airport at Badgerys Creek, The Parramatta light rail line and the  Sydney Metro - and there is even doubt about completion of the massive West Connex.

Eighty-six acquisitions have been thrown into doubt with double jeopardy. More than forty are in danger of lapsing because a completion date for the acquisition is fast approaching and if the matter is not concluded in time those notices will automatically void.

This Supreme  Court ruling is going to be appealed, but the appeal will take time and that completion date is hanging like the sword of Damocles over the head of many projects that are well advanced. It throws those that are not yet started back into the melting pot and it delays the property owners concerned from getting their money - and getting on with their lives.  It is a situation in which nobody wins.

The state will argue in its appeal that the judge in the Supreme court erred on five grounds and that the state government right to acquisition was not fundamentally impacted in its right to compulsorily acquire property.  This blockage will be eventually cleared, but at what cost to state projects ?

Land acquisition is a potentially explosive issue.  It is couched in politics and establishing a fair price will always be argumentative.   As a result, the courts are open to challenge and each individual acquisition can take time to wend its way through the courts.  Perhaps the government would have been wiser to fully acquire the land before letting tenders for each project, but the longer the delay the more the tender price seems to increase.

Perhaps the only alternative is a law change that prevents owners of acquired property from challenging that decision and leaves the price to be paid a matter for the courts.  If a hospital needs to be extended it is logical that land adjacent must be acquired for that purpose and nobody wants to live in a home surrounded on both sides by a busy state highway.  The needs of the state are imperative, it is only a matter of compensation that is usually the heart of the objection.