Posted by Curious on October 31, 2000 at 09:53:29:
In Reply to: Yes and no.... posted by Curious on October 31, 2000 at 09:31:38:
|
I went looking and found the following from the LA Times, Friday October 27, 2000. The entire article can be found at: http://www.latimes.com/news/front/20001027/t000102653.html
In 1988, McCall bought a house in the ill-fated Punta Banda development as a retirement home for her father. She closed the deal through a fideicomiso, in which Bancomer, Mexico's Only later did McCall and other Punta Banda residents learn that the ejido that was leasing the land to the Punta Banda developer was itself involved in litigation with the owners from whom the land had been originally taken in 1973 to set up the ejido. Finally, in 1995, Mexican courts ruled the ejido's claim invalid, setting in motion the eviction notices that came down this week. McCall and 11 other property owners in the development sued Bancomer, which in 1998 agreed to a $1-million settlement. Sources say that barely covered legal fees and recovered only a fraction of their real estate losses. She remains bitter about the experience, a feeling exacerbated by the realization that the U.S. government is powerless to intervene." Two things strike me about this report: 1 - The concept of the "ejido", which is SO foreign to our US way of thinking. This is basically a local group of people to whom the land is given by the government - after the government takes it away from whorver owns it! 2 - WHY would they expect that the US Government could / would / should be involved? Should the Mexican government be expected to help my neighbor with HIS problems, just because he is Mexican??
|
|