Quote Originally Posted by ZhouEnlai
I thought I would stir it up a bit. I wanted ot know what other more knowledgable people might think.

I am worried that our property rights will slow the roll out of next generation networks for communications. I am also worried they could slow the roll out of more public transport (extra bus lanes, cycle lanes).

I believe the State needs more power to route services through lands and quicker. I say quicker because our economy and the environmental challenges we face require that we should act quickly.
No problem, just pay what the owners want, if it is so important, then it is worth incurring national debt over. Any other option is basically asking the land owners involved to bear the cost of whatever scheme is being implemented.

If the scheme is for the national interest, then the nation should cover the costs. It is unfair to apply them to the property owners who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I do think that road routing should take into account property prices (not just market prices, but the actual prices that land owners are willing to
sell at).

It is not unreasonable to route a road around someone who doesn't want to sell. That is what land ownership is all about.

At the same time I believe people should have property rights and should be entitled to a fair compensation for their land. I don't think the current system guarantees this fair value as it is so slow.
What is fair ? Paying the landowner anything less than he is willing to agree to is stripping him of property rights. He has a piece of land worth say 500k and then suddenly it is only worth 150k because the government changed the law. This is not fair.

I don't think that the common good dictates that people should be paid 200 years wages for their land and so they migh thave to be given a bit less money so that projects can be achieved at a reasonable cost while still respecting the landowner.
What not share the cost ? Pay the owner what he wants and then have the tax payers cover it. Then everyone (or at least tax payers) would be equally required share the cost.

I think a bit of trampling might be required in this regard though I note the Kenny report could be implemented without constitutional challenge.

I aslo don't trust local authorities. I think if the land is not used by a state body on its own (not in public private partnership and not sold on) then the land should be returned and a penalty should be payable.
They are somewhat corrupt, but in fairness, land zoning decisions are by their nature corruptable.

I would favour clear guidelines been set for zoning, reduce discretion as much as possible.

In fact, I would favour removing zoning laws completely, but that is not a realistic proposal.

Apart from the Constitution the ECFHR (?) guarantees property rights. There is also european legislation guaranteeing rights of consultation and so forth. Ultimately EU laws may become the common tools of objectors, obstructions and delayers (the rascals).
This has nothing to do with property rights. This has to do with zoning rules and planning permission. If the government just had to convince the landowner, then things would happen alot faster. Remove the requirement to convince not just the landowner, but everyone within a 20 mile radius and things would move along much faster.