Private Property?
In the Constitution of Republic of Bulgaria it is written that private property is sacred. This claim was often used recently with reference to the proposed by the Council of Ministers modifications in the Bill of State Property. It came about that the rulers stand firmly behind the idea of sacredness. Simply from time to time the property would become sacred for the owner himself.
Actually, "the public outcry" came about that the bill proposes that the state could expropriate forcefully private property using a fast track procedure not only for public but for private infrastructural projects. That could be done in the "presence of state need, which could not be satisfied by any other way". One formulation catches the attention that "regardless of their ownership the national infrastructural projects are with equal public importance – they are intended to satisfy needs of the entire society or some of its groups". The understanding, that as the state projects, the private projects are important for society and the people is normal and logical. This however, does not mean that someone has the right to expropriate anything.
What actually means state or public need? According to some, for example, along the Black Sea coast there should be only beaches and we all should be happy with the wild nature, in other words regardless who is the owner of a particular land, he should not start any project. According to others, it is necessary to invest there, to build hotels and to develop all kinds of tourism. According to some others, there should be build pipelines which will turn the country into an economic tiger and important geopolitical centre. The contrast of opinions is present for every one question or project and has only one solution. It is not important who have what opinion on the subject. It is important who has the right to undertake the action. Only the owner of the land could decide what to do with it. It is not possible to have "state need" which abolishes this right. The state itself has no needs. Only the separate individuals have needs and the idea of violating the right of some for the good of others is rather old idea. Such an approach has always had a negative effect on the behavior of the various economic agents and at least leads to a large number of misuses and sense of lack of equal rights and justice.
The contradictions in the idea about expropriating someone else's private property are fully apparent when this is done for a private infrastructural project. In the discussions in the media to some extend it was mentioned correctly that in reality the state becomes the intermediary in a deal between two private persons, which is not beneficial to one of them. Yes, however the state is not only going to be an intermediary but will directly initiate it without the agreement of the other side. Such practice will certainly cause enormous discontent, tension and naturally corruption.
It is interesting to note that all discussions about expropriating private property are based on the understanding that sometimes this is the only way to achieve certain objective. This however most likely is not the case. One could always find other solutions without the need to violate the Constitution. Naturally the easiest solution is simply to buy the property in question. At the end of the day those who invest in such projects must be ready for something like that. Even in case of a very problematic case (refusal to sell regardless of the price) there are probably mechanisms through which to reach a compromise. At the end of the day personal interest prevails, not just to oppose the state. We should not overlook the fact that all types of projects could be implemented in other places and using different routs.
