Constitutional Property Rights - time for a change

[Lichfield]

Now i may been confused here, but i thought the state owned all the land anyway, and we are merely holding it in tenure?

You're mistaken. People who hold freehold are said to hold the land in fee simple for their own absolute use. Historically there was an element of what you're saying where the King or Queen used to grant the land to the use of a person...but let's not get into a history of land law

[qtman]

Now i may been confused here, but i thought the state owned all the land anyway, and we are merely holding it in tenure?

You're mistaken. People who hold freehold are said to hold the land in fee simple for their own absolute use. Historically there was an element of what you're saying where the King or Queen used to grant the land to the use of a person...but let's not get into a history of land law

That principle isn't as removed as you suggest. The Land Registry is a live and significant hangover from the days of feudal title. Land in itself is never 'owned'; only the right to the enjoyment of land to the exclusion of others is actually owned.

More generally, the Constitution already provides for sacrifice of title in the interests of the public good. The problem is that this article conflicts with other articles, so its a matter of interpretation. What we need is clarity rather than radical reform.

[Cael]

Property is crime.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Well the constitution already subordinates the right to private-property to the "common good" and we already have Compulsory Purchase Orders anyway. What I would like to see though is a more streamlined planning-process so that a tiny number of vexatious objectors (sometimes as few as 1) are allowed to hold up important infrastructural projects. It isn't tolerable that these people are creating a context where it can take 5 yrs to build a new power-station because of some daft ideas going around like non-existent cancer-risks. Remember that row in Cork a few yrs ago?

[zakalwe]

cael,

so is murder and theft, even in the name of a united ireland.

and property is an asset/tool/resource. the crime is what is done or not done with it.

[patslatt]

Well the constitution already subordinates the right to private-property to the "common good" and we already have Compulsory Purchase Orders anyway. What I would like to see though is a more streamlined planning-process so that a tiny number of vexatious objectors (sometimes as few as 1) are allowed to hold up important infrastructural projects. It isn't tolerable that these people are creating a context where it can take 5 yrs to build a new power-station because of some daft ideas going around like non-existent cancer-risks. Remember that row in Cork a few yrs ago?

How do the vexatious objectors stall projects? Through vexatious appeals in the Irish courts? If so, what's stopping judges from speedily dismissing such objections-the legal custom of giving the objector his "day in court"-often years in reality?

Here's a market solution. A judge who suspects an objection is vexatious should require the objector to present a written legal argument for the objection prior to the court case. After considering the argument, if the judge still feels the objection is vexatious,he should say so and give the objector a month to consider withdrawing the objection. If the objector still proceeds to court and loses the case,the objector should have to pay double or treble the legal costs of the other party to the case.

[fergalr]

If the State is purchasing land it should have to pay market rates. When making a compulsory purchase, it's going to get the land either way so it strikes me that owners should be fairly recompensed.

[Cael]

If the State is purchasing land it should have to pay market rates. When making a compulsory purchase, it's going to get the land either way so it strikes me that owners should be fairly recompensed.

The Kenny Report, payed for by the taxpayer, found that a 25% mark up on agricultural prices was a fair compensation for development land. If this report had been adopted we would not have the ridiculous property bubble now.

[ivnryn]

You mean 25% markup on agricultural prices even if it was about to be developed (or I guess I mean even if it was about to be re-zoned) ?

Planning permission is a major transfer of ownership rights to the government.

[rockyracoon]

The more you neo-cons speak the more you sound like communists. Except you of having state ownership for the many, you want it for the elite few.