Should HS2 company evacuate residents with satisfying compensation?

Group 64

The HS2 is facing with the problems now: their planed railway needs to remove some families (around 270,000 families will be influenced by this project). For the public now, they must meet problem with lower compensation than open market price of their houses which. For the HS2 company they must consider the time, money cost and profit from this project, they may not only consider the surface phenomenon but also the deep influence.

HS2 Against: That would be right for the stakeholder.

To do megaproject should be listened to public opinion. In this case, HS2 has been starting the project 2B to build the high-speed train to connect major cities. This project cut through the resident house and evacuate them by giving a resident compensation as a purchase, but the compensation is lower than the actual market price. The resident cannot sell the house in the open market if they would like to do they should have permission from the HS2.

Over 270,000 residents will aware of HS2 affect their home. This aware tends to be the safety construction of the high-speed railway. For those whose property is on the construction way, they will receive the letter about serious demolition, and they will be able to claim the compensation for losing their homes. The maximum compensation around £22,500 and the lower around £7,500. Also, this compensation is based on the distance of the house to the railway. In fact, for the minimum compensation that HS2 should pay to the resident is around £20.5 bn and it worth half of the overall of HS2 construction price. Indeed, it not possible to make the compensation at the lower price then the company try to make it lower than the actual resident market price for making company has enough profit.

Every company prefer the maximum profit from doing a project, that should be fined if the making profit is based on the responsibility and ethical to the shareholder. In this case, it is a tricky action by law for the resident or the stakeholder to accept this agreement. The company should be considered about public opinion to discover a better approach.

Numerous residents directly affected by HS2 line and company has many tasks to do, for instance, to identify the individuals who accept the compensation and not. Also, release the document that has been done about the effect on a residential house and accepts the public opinion to improve company decision about this new line. When the company complete the investigation and make the stakeholder satisfy not only compensation but also public health issues. The company will start this project with confidence of shareholder. The issue of evacuation due to construction or while railway operates has rarely been addressed responsibility. Thus, the HS2 case, although undoubtedly unfortunate for the residents who have been forced to evacuate by law could provide valuable lessons for public opinion policymaking in future railway construction as well as valuable experience for thought for discussions of company responsibility and ethics.

Supporting HS2 company: satisfying compensation should not always be meted.

The company even government should not treat certain families differently. They plan railways for a long time and try to reduce the impact on the public. The families already mentioned are examples with their self-defined unfair treatment. The government has demolition policies and Law and they has a fair and moral problem-solving method for everyone. But the houseowner have not treated this problem correctly at the beginning and kept delaying their house selling problems for years. If the company compensates them now, it means that they and other Companies should meet everyone’s needs, but this is certainly not fair to other people and companies.

Money and special treatment will result in people’s greed growing. If their needs can be meted every time, they will keep asking more. This time just asking for compensation for the normal market price of the house, the next time the homeowner may even ask for the cost of renovation and others. Therefore, the company cannot satisfy their desires indefinitely, they just give a fair price for the house according to market price at present, but that obviously not enough for houseowners. Moreover, the homeowner did not complete the sale of the house according to the process that should have been done a few years ago, but it has been delayed for several years without results. If a person does not put in the due diligence to solve the problem, it is not worth getting the expect result.

Market value and desired value of the house have differences. Market value of a house will change rapidly, these families have different opinions about their house price, if they were finding the problem and solve it at that time, there will no longer exist such differences. The company for HS2 project has certain amount money and effort for dealing with house property problems, which should be understand. If people did not try to solve their problem quickly, the company have no responsibility to pay for the result of people’s hesitation. The HS2 project will benefit more people along the route, more people are waiting for gaining from the construction of this railway. It is easily to say the way they solving this problem is less morals, but it cannot be denying that HS2 is more morals and beneficial for more public. Therefore, the HS2 company should not meet every families satisfying compensation.

Initial Decision

Supporting public should get fair treatment and satisfying compensation.

1 thought on “Should HS2 company evacuate residents with satisfying compensation?

  1. A good topic. You should have defined what you mean by HS2; although I think we all know what it is, you still needed to state it at the start, just to remove any uncertainty.

    The compensation figure: is this for the demolition of houses as suggested in your article, or for the increased noise living near the railway as suggested by your reference?

    I can’t find the ethical support in favour or against the article’s topic.

Leave a Reply