The Cases Of Olga Tellis V. Bombay Municipal Corporation And Republic Of South Africa

City of New London ruled on an infamous eminent domain issue redefining “public use” as including government economic development measures. The City of New London approved a development project that would destroy hundreds of homes in the name of monetary gain and, what the state would call, economic development. The state interests are creating 1,000 plus jobs, increase tax revenue, and revitalizing the city’s economy as a response to the Federal Government’s condemnation of a Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which employed a majority of the city’s jobs. One resident filed suit claiming the city’s actions violated the Fifth Amendment’s scope “public use.” The city’s plans went beyond condemning property for a general use that was actually open to the public, but instead condemned private land to sell to another private individual developer. The Court ruled that because the city had a carefully drawn plan and the precedent defining “public use” is broad, the city may deprive one citizen of property rights for a more productive reason of another

The government is the best audience for the modification of the housing first program because it has the power and resources to make changes for the good of the citizen by the use of the law that is set to protect people’s rights and freedoms. It is an individual’s right to have access to a safe, secure home and habitable home.

This dilemma prompted the federal government to seek new alternatives to help aid low-income families. “Federal support for housing since, skimpy as it is, has largely been in the form of “Section 8” vouchers and dispersed, low-density, mixed housing. The actual number of public housing units has shrunk in recent decades” (Massey & Kanaiaupuni, 1993). According to the article, “it was a response to the post-war housing shortage and too many social scientists’ view at the time that poor housing itself – crowded, dilapidated quarters contributed to social dysfunction” (Massey & Kanaiaupuni, 1993). The immediate need to accommodate the needy seemed to do more harm than good during the early stages of development. Politician’s immediate reaction was to fix the problem by housing multiple families and individuals in already impoverished locations and massive projects only seem to created new

The government also promises to the poor, better schools and hospitals. Balram’s father died because there was improper medical care in their home town, and the life expectancy in India is only 66.8 years. There are nearly 1,189,172,906 people in India and only 61% of the people living in India are literate. In New Delhi, though, the government does fulfill its promises to the rich. They live unaware and uncaring of the slums surrounding their middle class lives. The government makes promises of better livelihoods to its people that are never fulfilled; causing India’s poor to remain in the slums and the government to have little understanding of the problems poor people face.

Twenty years into democracy, the high poverty rates of the post-Apartheid government is an indication of the high income inequality and also a clear view that improper policy formulations or planning. The ANC at some point forgot to create policies which could be consider or uplift ordinary citizens instead of benefiting those who are already better off, and to add up, the current situations encountered by the current leadership is an indication that they have not advanced to narrow down the income or economic inequality gap between the rich and the poor. However, let’s give them credit that at least there are few rich black people than before even though there still remain the dominance of white people on the economic platform of getting

Social injustice from colonisation can be viewed as the silencing of the First People’s rights to high standards of available healthcare and

While the government is active in providing subsidized housing and funding to programs to help homeless citizens, the majority of governments have utilized legislation in terms of public space regulation, rather than ameliorating the underlying causes of homelessness. Published in the Columbia Human Rights Law Review, “Many communities across the country continue to pass ordinances criminally punishing homeless persons for engaging in necessary, life-sustaining activities such as sleeping in public places in the absence of an indoor alternative (Tars, Johnson, Bauman, & Foscarinis, 2014, pp. 740). The consensus of the authors is that homelessness continues due to “selective enforcement of public space restrictions such as loitering laws, park closure rules, and open container ordinances. Driven by business interests or not-in-my-backyard attitudes, the ultimate goal of such measures is often to remove the visible effects of homelessness and poverty from downtowns, tourist destinations, residential areas, and even entire communities” (Tars et al., 2014, pp. 740). Matching the constitutionality notion of Siebert, here the publication has asserted “Advocates have successfully argued that it is cruel and unusual punishment to penalize people for involuntary conduct, that is, engaging in necessary, life-sustaining conduct in public places when shelter or housing is unavailable, and that prohibiting a “necessity of life,” such as a place to sleep, impedes homeless persons’ freedom of travel or movement” (Tars et. al., 2014, pp. 740). However, even the authors agree that these actions do not help to end homelessness, rather just managing of the present problem (Tars et. al., 2014, pp.

The chasm between the law and, the law as applied in practice is vast. The law provides funding for homeless people, but this often leads to discrimination because it is so difficult to gain access to these funds. Roscoe Pound, one of the most cited legal scholars of the 20th century,  points out how the “laws on the street” too often  differ from the “laws on the books” and result in discrimination. Homeless people suffer from government bureaucracy that makes it  almost impossible for a homeless person to successfully receive  aid without help from others. The application process for applying for aid is both  strenuous and difficult, that  requires a level of literacy skills and legal expertise that would likely preclude an otherwise healthy person from becoming homeless in the first place. In order to fix this injustice, experiments in the field of healthcare and government-policy, must be applied to help the homeless in our community in D.C.. To solve the homelessness epidemic, we need to expand collaborations between institutions that already exist in D.C.to help the homeless and create a “housing first” plan that  provides both rapid  housing for the temporarily homeless  and  permanent supportive  housing for those who are chronically homeless. This policy change  may seem intuitive “give homeless people housing”, however detractors argue that it is a naive approach to a complex issue  that also costs too much.

This funding was aimed towards poorer districts but end being declared unconstitutional and the jury and legislator had a lot of confusion on if the financing was going to be evenly distributed between the richer and poorer

There are scarcely any public to advocate for new laws to help the deprived and there are virtually none to compel the government along with the legislature to amend the laws to protect the weak and the poor. Even after so many years of independence, no sincere efforts have been made

Many of the contemporary issues in South Africa can easily be associated with the apartheid laws which devastated the country. The people of South Africa struggle day by day to reverse “the most cruel, yet well-crafted,” horrific tactic “of social engineering.” The concept behind apartheid emerged in 1948 when the nationalist party took over government, and the all-white government enforced “racial segregation under a system of legislation” . The central issues stem from 50 years of apartheid include poverty, income inequality, land ownership rates and many other long term affects that still plague the brunt of the South African population while the small white minority still enjoy much of the wealth, most of the land and opportunities

South Africa endured one of the worst colonialisation any country could have went through, whereby the Apartheid regime objectively disregarded the economic participation of the black over to those of the white population. However, the new democratic government would thereby be challenged with effectively having to deal with the challenges in which the past government had left behind. Therefore, in effectively trying to deal with the issues, alternative approaches have to be implemented in order to deliver on the challenges of the public. On the contrary, this essay will critically compare and discuss the liberal and free market, as well as the state interventionist approach as alternative solutions in dealing with current issues of social security, the health and school systems. Which would be able to transform current developmental challenges facing South Africa. In summary, the essay will thereby state which approach can transform South Africa in effectively dealing with developmental challenges currently facing South Africa.

Before 1994 South Africa was a country based on Apartheid rules and regulations. The Parliament was the highest legislative body and it interpreted laws as it pleased, mostly in favour of ‘white Christians’. Any other race or religion was treated in an unfair and sometimes inhumane way. These laws were mainly based on Roman-Dutch law and influenced by English law.

Judicial Activism has opened up new dimensions for the judicial process and in the administration of justice and has given a hope of the justice to the million starving people. The Fundamentals Rights enshrined in the Constitution have no meaning for the large masses of people who are leading a life a poverty and destitution, unless a socio-economic structure in which these rights become meaningful for them is created. The concept of Public Interest Litigation intended to bring justice within the reach of poor masses and to people who are not in a position to have access to Courts. It was initiated for the benefit of a class of people, who had been denied their constitutional and legal rights as they could not have access to the Courts on account of their socio-economic disabilities. Public Interest Litigation or PIL is understood and treated as the citizens’ invocation and the use of the delivery of legal services in aid of and as a tool of administration of justice.