Getting Expropriated Becomes Easier, the Rules Have Just Changed

The images still send shivers down the spine. Who doesn't remember the pile of rubble that suddenly formed in the heart of Marseille after a building collapsed on Rue d'Aubagne, a stone's throw from the Vieux Port? This tragedy—eight people died—was a symbol of the dangers of dilapidated buildings, still inhabited, rented by slum landlords who have little (or no) regard for the upkeep of the premises.
Despite several danger orders—now called "safety orders"—families were still housed. This was due to a legislative bias that has recently been changed. From now on, it is possible to expropriate a property in a maximum of ten years, and no longer take up to twenty years to complete the procedure. The new rules have just come into effect.

The goal is simple: to make it easier for residents to be safe, to more easily evict "slum landlords" who do not maintain their properties, and to speed up the renovation of dangerous buildings.
Until now, for an expropriation to be pronounced, the building had to be subject to a permanent occupancy ban or a demolition order. These decisions were only taken after a complex procedure that delayed matters and, above all, presented a security risk since residents could still reside in the building as long as the permanent occupancy ban or demolition order had not been pronounced.
From now on, if, over the last ten years, the building has been the subject of two safety orders (danger order) or unsanitary treatment orders, and the owner has not carried out adequate work to make the premises safe, an expropriation may then be ordered. A community (town hall, urban area, State, etc.) may then become the owner of the premises - in return for financial compensation to the owner - and carry out the work more simply.
With this new law, the residents of the two buildings that collapsed in Marseille could have been expropriated and rehoused elsewhere. This might have the merit of preventing further tragedies.
L'Internaute