In search of compromise
It is not an easy shore to reach as legislators have found time and again over the past decade when trying to resolve the issue of property restitution.
Legislators and former property owners are once again on this seemingly never-ending quest. The danger is that, as has happened so many times before, the quest will turn into a search for the holy grail as competing interests prefer to wait for perfection rather than practice the politics of the possible.
In the latest leg of this journey, the government has proposed a draft property restitution law that would compensate those who lost property through nationalization at 50% of the worth of the asset. Although the proposal has been spurred by international pressure, it is a start.
Not, though, to some property owners. They see the draft as a non-starter. The 50% level is unjust, argues an association of pre-war owners of real estate, and would add insult to the injury they have already suffered. In a perfect world, they would be right. The nation should live up to its responsibility to redress the wrongs perpetrated by the communists. By giving full restitution, either through actual hand-overs of assets or cash compensation, the government would close a chapter on a painful past. But this is far from a perfect world and the nation's finances too are far from ideal. The sad reality is that the government cannot afford full restitution. To attempt such a move could either bankrupt the country or saddle future generations and their economic prosperity with an untenable debt burden.
It is important to remember that killing the future is not a viable way to atone for the sins of the past.
Whether 50% is a doable level fiscally and whether it is just is a matter open to negotiation. But it should not be rejected out of hand. To do so would be to again doom a restitution law to failure. On both sides, such a failure could hold some allure. Former property owners and their heirs may figure it is worth it to wait for a better price. The government too could figure that it can allow such efforts to flounder for decades to come. Failure also holds dangers for both sides, though. On the property owner's side, there is a great chance that this may be the best deal available. To postpone it further could mean forgoing restitution forever. The government, though, may not be able to eternally escape this bill. And pushing it off to the future could result in an even larger bill down the road. If the issue had been dealt with in 1990, when property values and expectations were far lower, restitution would have been much less of a problem.
Clearly, negotiation and compromise is the only solution that will make sense. And all sides should see that it needs to make sense now.
Legislators and former property owners are once again on this seemingly never-ending quest. The danger is that, as has happened so many times before, the quest will turn into a search for the holy grail as competing interests prefer to wait for perfection rather than practice the politics of the possible.
In the latest leg of this journey, the government has proposed a draft property restitution law that would compensate those who lost property through nationalization at 50% of the worth of the asset. Although the proposal has been spurred by international pressure, it is a start.
Not, though, to some property owners. They see the draft as a non-starter. The 50% level is unjust, argues an association of pre-war owners of real estate, and would add insult to the injury they have already suffered. In a perfect world, they would be right. The nation should live up to its responsibility to redress the wrongs perpetrated by the communists. By giving full restitution, either through actual hand-overs of assets or cash compensation, the government would close a chapter on a painful past. But this is far from a perfect world and the nation's finances too are far from ideal. The sad reality is that the government cannot afford full restitution. To attempt such a move could either bankrupt the country or saddle future generations and their economic prosperity with an untenable debt burden.
It is important to remember that killing the future is not a viable way to atone for the sins of the past.
Whether 50% is a doable level fiscally and whether it is just is a matter open to negotiation. But it should not be rejected out of hand. To do so would be to again doom a restitution law to failure. On both sides, such a failure could hold some allure. Former property owners and their heirs may figure it is worth it to wait for a better price. The government too could figure that it can allow such efforts to flounder for decades to come. Failure also holds dangers for both sides, though. On the property owner's side, there is a great chance that this may be the best deal available. To postpone it further could mean forgoing restitution forever. The government, though, may not be able to eternally escape this bill. And pushing it off to the future could result in an even larger bill down the road. If the issue had been dealt with in 1990, when property values and expectations were far lower, restitution would have been much less of a problem.
Clearly, negotiation and compromise is the only solution that will make sense. And all sides should see that it needs to make sense now.
