Saint Thomas Aquinas was a smart guy and all but our extremely strong property rights are now holding back infrastructure development for telecommunication, roads, railways, waste disposal and housing.

In the context of technological advances, globalised competition and environmental disintegration, is it time we thought about loosening our grip on the land for the greater good?

In what way ?

Do you mean that it is annoying that the government has to pay for land ? Land can be obtained using compulsory purchase.

Another option is that you mean things like planning permission. Planning permission is actually the opposite of property rights. You need permission from society as a whole (or at least your neighbours) before you can build on what is your land.

It is very slow and the State has to pay full whack at all times.
That is not the case in Great Britain or in other European countries.

Yeah, it's a shame that such visionaries as Noel Dempsey, Bertie Ahern and Brian Cowen have their grand plans for us frustrated by that pesky thing called private property! If only we could streamline the process by which they could confiscate our property for our own good!

If it was your land,would you be so generous? see http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t= ... highlight=

I probably wouldn't be so generous. I'd wouldn't trust the Local Authorites and I would want full value. However, I think we need a middle ground where we can deal with infrastructure deficits and environmental needs quickly. I think that most of the public would play ball too as most of them are urbanized. It would be some referendum campaign!!

You haven't addressed the arguments in the link: http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t= ... highlight=

For example, the landowner is typically a small farmer with a modest income. Of course,his land may have become very valuable if it is near a growing population,thanks to the economic boom.

But thanks to the economic boom, so has the land underneath most Dublin houses,which land accounts for two thirds or more of the value of the house. And the top half of home owners in Dublin make higher incomes than the farmer. So let's confiscate Dublin houses at the "residential use value"* of a similar house in a rural area,paying the same price as in Tipperary,say, €250,000, for a €800,000 Dublin middle class house. The funds could be used for infrastructural development. Or how about confiscating the Dublin 4 mansions and subdividing the capacious lawns for social housing. Let the Red Revolution come!

*a play on the wannabe confiscators' phrase "agricultural use value"

The problem is not property rights. We would need a Constitutional amendment to interfere with them anyway. I believe people are entitled to market value for their property in a CPO situation.

If we were to go down the constitutional route to increase effiencecy for major infrastructural projects we could limit the person's property rights so they don't own the land under and over their property. We could also limit people's rights to seek Judicial Reviews of decsions of gevernement, planners and the likes of the NRA. We could set up a new Judicial body to deal with all planning matters from inception to completion in a speedy manner. Too many projects are held up time and time again by technical issues

__________________
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedies." —Groucho Marx

What about this:

Each piece of land is assumed to have the same value as was indicated the last time the land changed hands (i.e. the amount that was used as the basis for stamp duty) + 5% per year.

The landowner can increase the current price by paying 5% of the difference between the current price and the new price he wants it registered at. Any 'land increase payments' could be used to offset stamp duty at a later date.

The government can then CPO at that price 'instantly'.

This does mean that if you built a house on your land, you would have to pay 5% of the increase in value of your property to the government. If you don't there is a risk that the government would CPO the property.

This allows the government to buy up all the land that a road will run through just by looking at the prices for each piece along the various alternative routes. It saves individual negotiation.

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