The Commies Are Coming…

in oslo •  11 months ago

This little parcel of land in Gyldenløwes gate 15 was just “bought” (or stolen) by Oslo municipality for 60000 NOK ($7600), in a process called expropriation.

The action was justified by the environment commissioner Lan Marie Nguyen Berg stating that green areas are important to create a better city, and this apparently is a “secret” park.

The owner of the property Erik Bøhler wanted 70 million NOK ($8800000) for it, so I guess he is not so pleased with less than a Bitcoin as payment.

As you can it is a cozy little plot of land, with some flowers and a blood beech, but it is far too small to be used as a public park. Also, Norway's biggest park, Frogerparken, lies almost just around the corner. It is also close to a lot of other parks within a ​short walking distance (e.g. The Palace Park). In my opinion, private property rights should not be violated, except for in extreme circumstances, and then the owner should be fully compensated.

When the politicians now see that they can basically steal your property and get away with it: Guess what? They are going to continue doing just that.


On the bright side, the Summer is coming too...

Here are some nubile flowers from the Palace Park:


Photos taken by @janusface on April 7 2018 with a Huawei Honor 5X (no editing)

Thank you for your time and attention. Steem on!

Follow me: @janusface

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Found it referenced here (Norwegian article):

If I understand the article correctly, they have not "bought" the property for 60 kNOK, what has happened is that the municipality has made a decition to do the expropriation thing. There will for sure be a court case, both to establish the value and to establish if the municipality has legal rights to do expropriation here.

As far as I can understand, the land has already been regulated as "friområde" for a longer time, meaning that the public already today is legally free to visit this garden - and the property owner has already accepted this.

The article says nothing about the historic reasons for the regulation, but such regulation plans are typically made like this: a property developer buys a larger piece of land with the purpose to build houses and sell to the public for a profit.

The property developer do take some risk when buying the land, the property owner needs to negotiate with the municipality before they can start building. A regulation plan is typically made, a detailed plan stating where the property owner can build, with lots of strings attached - there should be made shortcuts for pedestrians, there should be made sufficient parking places, and there should be some "free" areas for the commons. The property owner accepts the plan and starts building. After all the houses have been built and sold, the property owner then typically still owns small patches of "unusable" land that is regulated for the use of the commons. Those patches of land are essentially worthless, unless the regulation plan is changed. Of course the property owners often wants to exploit the last piece of land as well, but that's not entirely fair.

One of the worst case I've heard about was in Tromsø, lots of apartment buildings were built, and sold - when selling it, it was explicitly advertised that the land in front of the building was regulated to the commons, hence they would never risk to lose the view of the sea. As soon as all the buildings were sold, and even before the area was re-regulated, the development company started selling prospects for the next round of apartment blocks they were intending to build - on the land that was supposed to be for the commons. Obviously the development company had planned this for a long time, and had the right friends in the municipality, so they knew in advance that they would be permitted to build more buildings on the area regulated for the commons.

(giving myself a modest 1% upvote for increased visibility)


With this background, I would agree that it looks like inappropriate theft of private land, with the actual expropriation being the "final blow".

  • From the 1900s this property was the garden area of the neighbour property. They could have kept using it as a garden, and probably there wouldn't have been any problems.
  • At some point prior to 2006, this property was split out and sold ... perhaps to the current owner, a property development company. That's also fair game, the owner of the neighbour property decided they needed money more than they needed a big garden. The risk seemed small for the development company, the land was regulated for residential purposes.
  • In 2006 the municipality decided to protect this garden, forbidding the owner to build anything on it, either because they decided it was too little green areas in the neighbourhood or because they considered the old trees in the garden to be worth to protect. Uh-oh, that's a major blow to the development company. Such a regulation seriously reduces the value of the property. This is already to be considered theft. I'm not sure what kind of rights a property owner has in such a situation.
  • In 2010 the regulation plan was changed to reflect that the area was protected - not sure if it had any implications, but it for sure didn't make it easier for the development company to utilize the property. If I understand it correctly, the new regulation still didn't grant the commons access to the garden.
  • In 2015 the development company presented some building plans for the municipality. The old trees would still be protected and the public would be allowed access to a small piece of the land. Seems like a fair compromise, but apparently the municipality nix'ed it and decided that it should be a public park. One of the reason was that the buildings would be too close to the protected trees, the other that the total amount of green areas in this neighbourhood would be too small.
  • The recommendation given by the bureaucrats to the politicians was to regulate the area as a park, If I understand it correctly, the regulation was changed, and by now the public has rights to do a pique-nique there if they wish. At the other hand it's neither maintained as a park nor a garden, and it's also fenced in, hence in practice the public has no access.
  • To actually realize the "park"-idea, the municipality has been trying to buy the land - according to the article the gap is more than 1000x between what the developers wants for the land and what the municipality is willing to give for it. That sounds rather bizarre. When the municipality goes for expropriation, I believe it's up to the courts to decide what the municipality will have to pay for it.

We had local elections in late 2011 and late 2015, and even if it's the "green" party that announces the expropriation, it was actually the "blue" parties paving the road for it.

(in my opinion, we need public spaces, green areas, walkways, parks and forests accessible for the commons, but this is not the way to do it. I have no specific opinions on this particular area, I don't know this area much)

Communists doing what communists do :)



soon it will be re purpose for a breeding building to speed up the white genocide... I could almost bet.

@janusface All my life Govt. has never done anything POSITIVE for me........ One day I hope that all Govts. just implode...............


Let's hope so! But, until then keep your gold, silver and cryptos safe from the State mob.


If you can only remain with your property while the government allows it, then it is not your property. We can't confuse license with liberty. It seems that the commies are not coming, but they arrived a while ago and began to govern before we realized it.

Btw, while summer arrives in the north, winter arrives in the south. It has rained 5 times so far this month, exceptional.


Yes. They probably think they own everything already, but of course, they have to raise the property tax slowly and not expropriate​ too fast as not to create any resistance. Communism mascarade​d as an environmental​ party is also a smart move. You do not like us, perhaps you want rampant global warming and deforestation? I have only been to Albir and the Canaries in Spain, but it never rained except for one time in Tenerife when it rained sand from the Sahara​. Crazy!

Seems like a pretty nice place to get holds on ;)

While the flowers are as well very pretty and awesome !

Thank you for your continued support of SteemSilverGold

Wonderful Flowers ♡

so fentastic and great looking flower
its really awesome ,gorheous

no dout these are coming soon

which are so marvelous looking
thanks for share

There should be a rule, that, the owner of the property can do whatever he wants with the property, as long as the majority of the people in a certain radius agree with your plans. I like that rule, simple and easy to understand. And government can't own any property unless its okay with the taxpayers. But that's another idea that is more complicated.

no doubt
those flower are looking so charming
really great wounderfull
its so finicky

@janusface - Sir like Summer comes after the Winter, I wish the world will free from bad politics & politicians... Beautiful photography Sir...


let's talk about the beauty of the nature. politics is a sick. fantastic photography @janusface

reteemed & upvoted

When the politicians now see that they can basically steal your property and get away with it: Guess what? They are going to continue doing just that.

the only solution is to execute legally those who approved it. only their lives can repay this thievery.

thanks for relinking it @scandinavianlife

Property owners need to take out a little bit of regulator insurance, Smith & Wesson style.