Could the Government Seize Property

....... · 11-09-2017 3:53pm

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd · 11-09-2017 3:59pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Back to the LAs distraction.

If the first part is true, why the worry? Or, to put it differently, why was it seemingly possible to identify 21 properties as part of a trial run that were all converted into rentals as a result of the CPO being issued?

....... · 11-09-2017 4:32pm

This post has been deleted.

The_Conductor · 11-09-2017 5:11pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's not 'seizing', and our constitution does have language around the fact that private property rights are not absolute. Introducing an effective 'use it or sell it' caveat to private property rights during a housing crisis is only a good thing for our society.

Where do you stop?
We're not a communist country- where its fine to appropriate property for the common good. Honestly- it sounds like there is a small but very vocal contingent of socialists who seem to think that its totally fine to expropriate property (and whatever else)- perhaps not quite at a whim, but certainly, without giving it much thought?

AlmightyCushion · 11-09-2017 5:17pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Where do you stop?
We're not a communist country- where its fine to appropriate property for the common good. Honestly- it sounds like there is a small but very vocal contingent of socialists who seem to think that its totally fine to expropriate property (and whatever else)- perhaps not quite at a whim, but certainly, without giving it much thought?

How is this only a problem for you know. The state has CPOd plenty of land in the past. Did you consider this a communist country when the state was CPOing land to build a motorway?

Colonel Claptrap · 11-09-2017 5:41pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How is this only a problem for you know. The state has CPOd plenty of land in the past. Did you consider this a communist country when the state was CPOing land to build a motorway?

Expropriating 1 field from a farmer enables thousands of citizens to travel on that stretch of motorway every day.

Expropriating 1 building enables 1 family to live in that building.

Both involve considerable cost, not just buying the land, but developing them for habitation / transport.

What is the opportunity cost? A motorway can be redirected, but still requires a CPO. There is no way around this unless all farmers on a direct line from Dublin to Galway decide to put their property up for sale at the exact same time, and the government happens to be the highest bidder for each parcel. A single social house can be built anywhere.

In essence, the only way to build a direct motorway which benefits society is through CPO.

The only way to provide a social house is most certainly not a CPO.

11-09-2017 6:16pm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Where do you stop?
We're not a communist country- where its fine to appropriate property for the common good. Honestly- it sounds like there is a small but very vocal contingent of socialists who seem to think that its totally fine to expropriate property (and whatever else)- perhaps not quite at a whim, but certainly, without giving it much thought?

Derelict buildings would be a good place to start IMO.

The_Conductor · 11-09-2017 7:34pm

ronoc wrote: »

Derelict buildings would be a good place to start IMO.

Pretty much all of the derelict buildings in Dublin city and county- belong to the local authorities already- and they have 13,000 units ready to go nationally........

People- including pretty much all the homeless from most places in Ireland- want to live in Dublin. With the possible exception of a few vacant homes- whose former residents are in nursing home- there isn't the supply in Dublin- where people want to live.

Hell- there is a lady with 3 kids living outside the graveyard her late husband is buried in- in North Cork- rather than accept a HAP offer in Co. Clare.

People are not interested in living outside their comfort zones- someone seriously needs to hammer this home to the Minister.

These schemes are all an effort to be seen to be doing something- however, they're a complete and utter waste of time.

We need supply, of a reasonable size and quality- where people want to live- not in the arse-end of Donegal/Limerick/Clare/Leitrim (take your pick from the top-10 counties in the Minister's statement).

We need supply- where people want to live. These hairbrained schemes of offering people accommodation in Ballyboffey- I'm sorry- who the hell thought that was a good idea?

robp · 12-09-2017 8:04am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Graham wrote: »

Unsurprisingly there's a large proportion of the population (not just home owners) that have quite strong opinions about government seizing private property.

It's not 'seizing', and our constitution does have language around the fact that private property rights are not absolute. Introducing an effective 'use it or sell it' caveat to private property rights during a housing crisis is only a good thing for our society.

No one has presented any evidence that Dublin has higher than average vacant houses. All cities have vacant houses. CPO is not a solution.

....... · 12-09-2017 9:17am

This post has been deleted.

Xterminator · 12-09-2017 12:42pm

I agree CPO derelict housing is not the answer to the crisis, because of the scale of the problem.

But its a good policy that makes sense, and dont forget the human aspect to the housing crisis. each family that gets housed like the 60 or so in louth CC in the last 18 months is a family that has been helped.

Its a worthy thing to do in its own right. home owners have rights and responsibilities.

Graham · 12-09-2017 2:16pm

Xterminator wrote: »

Its a worthy thing to do in its own right. home owners have rights and responsibilities.

Homeowners have responsibilities that stretch to housing random families by surrendering their property to the state?

That's new.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 12-09-2017 2:21pm

You need to do it for the motherland comrade.

LuckyLloyd · 12-09-2017 2:32pm

Graham wrote: »

Homeowners have responsibilities that stretch to housing random families by surrendering their property to the state?

That's new.

It is not in the interest of the state for residential property to lie vacant. I don't think anyone in here would suggest that this is the only measure require to alleviate the current housing situation. However, it is a perfectly valid measure in its own right that will help.

To posit an extreme example: were every owner of residential property in Dublin to decide to leave their home idle and empty (unrented or unsold) over the course of a half decade the economy would be paralysed. In that way you can see that private property rights cannot be absolute and the needs of society at certain times must enforce caveats to those rights.

In this case, the government are leaning towards 'use it or receive a fee for it'. There is no doubt in my mind that valid scenarios where the property cannot be used will be accepted. But if there are viable properties just sitting there, it's time to put them into the mix. We need it.

....... · 12-09-2017 3:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Colonel Claptrap · 12-09-2017 3:19pm

Vacant properties are vacant for a reason.

LuckyLloyd · 12-09-2017 3:22pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/louth-council-acquires-35-vacant-houses-by-compulsory-purchase-1.3216231

Louth Council Council has acquired 35 vacant houses by compulsory purchase over the past 15 months, has a further 30 in the pipeline,
and uses powers contained in the Housing Act 1996 to acquire non-derelict homes that are vacant, as part of the local authority’s obligation to provide housing.
Appeals go to An Bord Pleanala which usually holds a hearing within 6 weeks and gives a decision within a month. To date there have been 3 appeals, 2 of which have been won by the Council.

There are 56 examples of successful CPOs in two different jurisdictions on a trial basis, and the council batting rate to ABP appeals is off to a good start.

....... · 12-09-2017 3:36pm

This post has been deleted.

LuckyLloyd · 12-09-2017 3:44pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No - one is saying it will in of itself. But, again, just because it needs to be one of many measures doesn't invalidate it as something to be done.

....... · 12-09-2017 4:07pm

This post has been deleted.

Graham · 12-09-2017 4:48pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In truth most of the population would feel the same.

People become much more civic minded is when it looks like it's someone else's property on offer.

antoinolachtnai · 12-09-2017 5:19pm

Well, no one would be saying that they have to sell them. The owner could just rent the property out and the local authority would be happy enough and forget about the whole idea of CPO'ing that particular property. The owner would then have an income stream to maintain or upgrade the property (or whatever), and the local authority would be happy that they had added extra accommodation.

In a lot of cases, there is a problem with title, and a CPO could well benefit the owner because the CPO would 'clean' the title and make the property worth more.

Colonel Claptrap · 12-09-2017 5:50pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, no one would be saying that they have to sell them. The owner could just rent the property out and the local authority would be happy enough and forget about the whole idea of CPO'ing that particular property. The owner would then have an income stream to maintain or upgrade the property (or whatever), and the local authority would be happy that they had added extra accommodation.

I could rent the 'Vacant' property from my brother for 1euro.

Fred Swanson · 12-09-2017 5:54pm

This post has been deleted.

antoinolachtnai · 12-09-2017 5:55pm

And that is great, if you actually lived in it.

But what is the point in all this subterfuge? He would be better allowing it be CPO'd and getting the money, surely? No legal fees, no agents, just a cheque in the post. Seems more attractive than giving you an almost-free house.

I do think some sort of tax on properties in rent pressure zones that aren't adequately utilised could be the way to go. Maybe a tax on the rent the property would get if it were rented.

My suggestion is that this would include holiday homes in rent pressure zones, but not elsewhere.

Colonel Claptrap · 12-09-2017 6:17pm

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

But what is the point in all this subterfuge? He would be better allowing it be CPO'd and getting the money, surely? No legal fees, no agents, just a cheque in the post. Seems more attractive than giving you an almost-free house.

He could be deep in negative equity, paying interest only and barely making ends meet at home.

My point is, not all vacant properties are the same. And there are dozens of loopholes and ways to hide that your property is in fact vacant.

There are a lot of asset rich, cash poor individuals who can't afford to bring a property up to RTB standards. Have you seen how difficult, costly, risky and time consuming it is to be a landlord nowadays?

Mrs Shuttleworth · 12-09-2017 10:09pm

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

He could be deep in negative equity, paying interest only and barely making ends meet at home.

My point is, not all vacant properties are the same. And there are dozens of loopholes and ways to hide that your property is in fact vacant.

There are a lot of asset rich, cash poor individuals who can't afford to bring a property up to RTB standards. Have you seen how difficult, costly, risky and time consuming it is to be a landlord nowadays?

What happens in the case where an owner is meeting the mortgage each month but deep in negative equity. The property is vacant. The Council applies for a CPO.

Given that only the market rate and associated costs are paid, I can envisage the Bank's legal team assisting the owner to defend the proceedings on the grounds that the Government is seeking to appropriate the Bank's charged asset, leaving the owner with a lump sum shortfall that he cannot discharge.

antoinolachtnai · 12-09-2017 10:41pm

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

What happens in the case where an owner is meeting the mortgage each month but deep in negative equity. The property is vacant. The Council applies for a CPO.

Given that only the market rate and associated costs are paid, I can envisage the Bank's legal team assisting the owner to defend the proceedings on the grounds that the Government is seeking to appropriate the Bank's charged asset, leaving the owner with a lump sum shortfall that he cannot discharge.

We are talking about a property that is not generating any income because it is not rented, not occupied.

The bank would not have anything to worry about. The borrower's income would not be reduced at all as a result of not owning the property anymore.

But realistically, nobody leaves a residential property with a mortgage vacant in a rent pressure zone, particularly not if they are in negative equity.

antoinolachtnai · 12-09-2017 10:44pm

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

He could be deep in negative equity, paying interest only and barely making ends meet at home.

My point is, not all vacant properties are the same. And there are dozens of loopholes and ways to hide that your property is in fact vacant.

There are a lot of asset rich, cash poor individuals who can't afford to bring a property up to RTB standards. Have you seen how difficult, costly, risky and time consuming it is to be a landlord nowadays?

If the owner is in negative equiity and does not have the skills and knowhow to rent, he really needs to sell up and resolve the situation with the bank. Or more likely, the bank will foreclose.

If he is asset-rich, he needs to get a loan and start to generate some cash. Otherwise is makes more sense to sell the property.

Mrs Shuttleworth · 13-09-2017 1:28am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The bank would not have anything to worry about. The borrower's income would not be reduced at all as a result of not owning the property anymore.

But realistically, nobody leaves a residential property with a mortgage vacant in a rent pressure zone, particularly not if they are in negative equity.

That is not correct. There is a distinct difference between a secured and unsecured liability. The security for the loan is gone in the event of a CPO. The bank could pursue the mortgagor for instalments etc but it's not worth the paper it's written on in terms of enforcement.

As I've said before watch bank lending for property sharply contract in the event of CPOs being pursued.

And nobody wants to rent their property in a rent pressure zone at the moment. They don't want to get locked in to the legislation combined with overreaching pro tenant determinations. It's unworkable and they are making other arrangements.

Could the Government Seize Property

Comments