Sisters wanting sites

Alrigghtythen

lefthooker wrote: »

I'd love to agree with you but,
Two queens can't live in the one hive.

The parents can move to the village/town. Bus services, doctors etc within walking distance.

lefthooker

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

The parents can move to the village/town. Bus services, doctors etc within walking distance.

Why should parents be made move out of their home?
Sure why not send them to Auschwitz:rolleyes:

beauf

lefthooker wrote: »

I'd love to agree with you but,
Two queens can't live in the one hive.

Used to be three generations of Queens lived in the same house.

These days if people don't get on we aren't stuck with each other though.

Just be aware of the costs of nursing homes and even care at home. If they choose to go in the fair deal it gets backdated to 5yr prior to when they need it.

Alrigghtythen

lefthooker wrote: »

Why should parents be made move out of their home?
Sure why not send them to Auschwitz:rolleyes:

They wouldn't have to move out. They could all stay there. Unless the child they have just gifted a sizable amount of assets to can't stick them.


It would make sense, Elderly people living on their own, with their son 24/7 farming and the daughters banished from the area, are vulnerable rattling around in large houses. If they moved to towns public health nurse etc wouldn't have to travel as far, an post would have to stop less etc.

J.O. Farmer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They wouldn't have to move out. They could all stay there. Unless the child they have just gifted a sizable amount of assets to can't stick them.


It would make sense, Elderly people living on their own, with their son 24/7 farming and the daughters banished from the area, are vulnerable rattling around in large houses. If they moved to towns public health nurse etc wouldn't have to travel as far, an post would have to stop less etc.

That's going to be an uncomfortable situation for everyone. These days retiring parents can be in good shape leading active lives. They need their space as much as the next generation and don't necessarily need the grandkids around 24/7.

There needs to be 2 houses for the farm. One the parents own house which they should have their day in. After that it's their decision what happens it. It may go to the 3rd generation or maybe not. There should be a second house for the successor and their family.

After that it's up to each family to decide on further houses.

flatty

lefthooker wrote: »

I like the OP's husband have 3 sisters, all younger, college educated, currently abroad and never expressed an interest in farming.

I was farming at home for 10 years when my parents decided to transfer everything to me, including household bills and sizable farm debt. It was discreet with only the solicitor, my parents and I knowing. I'll admit I was initially overwhelmed with the thoughts of what was going to happen but the only sticking point was my parents (mainly my dads) desire to gift 3 sites to my sisters. Not that I disagreed with my sisters getting sites, more with the timing and location.

The sites were literally going to be in the milking parlour and at the time none of them were prepared or wanted to live at home, and the thoughts of them selling a site or house to a total outsider really rankled me. So the compromise I offered was if in years to come when hopefully I'd made a good go of this farming lark and my sisters came looking for a site to build on and live in I'd look after them.(They've also been accounted for in our parents wills).Thankfully the solicitor and my parents agreed with the proposal.

Now as I write this, I'm happy with my lot, engaged and building my own house. I know that there's a good chance they all won't return home and luckily I can say we all get on with our siblings partners so I think a site for my sisters shouldn't be a problem. A relationship with my sisters is more valuable than what would keep a few cows.

My parting shot, while I can see why the OP's husband might be raging, in my case and with his, land is not the most valuable commodity. It's good old fashioned common sense.

Why would either of ye be "raging"?
It's frankly bizarre behaviour.
I can't get my head around it.
Genuine question.

Alrigghtythen

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

That's going to be an uncomfortable situation for everyone. These days retiring parents can be in good shape leading active lives. They need their space as much as the next generation and don't necessarily need the grandkids around 24/7.

There needs to be 2 houses for the farm. One the parents own house which they should have their day in. After that it's their decision what happens it. It may go to the 3rd generation or maybe not. There should be a second house for the successor and their family.

After that it's up to each family to decide on further houses.

They can be in good shape but time ticks on and eventually one will die before the other. Family living close with leave them less vulnerable in many ways. Instead they must live isolated to please the farmer because he wouldn't be happy with 197 acres instead of 200.

If the family home is left between the other siblings it will more than likely be sold to strangers. Better leave it to the farmer too.

patsy_mccabe

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

lefthooker

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They wouldn't have to move out. They could all stay there. Unless the child they have just gifted a sizable amount of assets to can't stick them.

Its not about "sticking them" its about being comfortable in your own place, living by your own rules and not having to tip toe around someone else's house.
All the above leads to resentment

J.O. Farmer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They can be in good shape but time ticks on and eventually one will die before the other. Family living close with leave them less vulnerable in many ways. Instead they must live isolated to please the farmer because he wouldn't be happy with 197 acres instead of 200.

If the family home is left between the other siblings it will more than likely be sold to strangers. Better leave it to the farmer too.

They can live close without being under the same roof. A seperate house on the same farm is close enough. If there's more than 1 child close all the better.

It's up to the parents who to leave the house to. It may even be to the farmers son or daughter, aka someone who doesn't already have a house.

Alrigghtythen

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

Would more than one child make a living off the farm, or would they both/3/4 farm part time and have other professions? Or would one be full time, and the others contribute their time for free?

Have they all being asked their opinion on the tough decisions?

K.G.

Ginger83 wrote: »

Ah land.......the biggest cause of all feuds.

I met my wife 15yrs ago. She wanted to build on the family land so we asked her parents for a site. They said no. We offered to buy it. They said no. The land is being kept for the oldest son. My wife was very upset over it.

We moved to another county and don't speak to them. Its been 7yrs now with no contact, we're married now and they were not invited, we have kids they've never met and a beautiful home they've never set foot in. I was diagnosed with a terminal illness a few yrs ago, they are not involved and will be informed on the day of my funeral that they are not welcome at it.

They have their land, i hope it keeps them happy. It cost them a daughter, son in law and grandkids.

OP if your husbands decides to let greed get the better of him, one day he'll stand in a lonely field and realise....it was a poxy bit of grass.

that story casts you and your wife in a poorer light than her parents

bfa1509

bfa1509 wrote: »

I really felt for you until I got to the 3rd paragraph where you started putting all of the blame on your in-laws. It is completely up to the parents to decide who should or should not inherit a plot of land. Your in-laws likely hold a more traditional approach where the son or daughter who intends on looking after the farm, gets the farm. Sounds like you excommunicated yourselves from your wife's family as you couldn't bring yourself to respect their decision.

I feel for you, but you are wrong to lay all of the blame on the parents. The previous generation will always be more stubborn than the next, you should account for this.

The parents decided that one child was more important than the others, one child should get everything & the others nothing.
I would walk away from them too.
I actually don't believe that children deserve to inherit from their parents, if the parents worked all their life, it's their decision what to do with their estate.
Sell it all if they wish, however singling out one child to inherit everything & not even give a site to another! Not even sell a site to another! Wrong..

J.O. Farmer

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Would more than one child make a living off the farm, or would they both/3/4 farm part time and have other professions? Or would one be full time, and the others contribute their time for free?

Have they all being asked their opinion on the tough decisions?

I didn't say they should all be farming it. In reality often times only 1 really has an interest but it depends on the farm and family how it's divided. Also in a lot of cases 1 will farm and have a full time job. 200 acres is far from the norm.

That's different to get to building a house on a half acre and helping out their parents.

alps

27 FEB 2018
The French law provides that the children of the deceased person are protected by what is called the hereditary reserve. Children are assured to receive a fraction of their parent’s inheritance, the proportion of which varies according to the number of children of the deceased person. If the deceased person has two children, the hereditary reserve is two-thirds of the patrimony. This means that the deceased person can dispose of a third of his wealth as he wishes and can assign it to the person of his choice. He can donate it to an association, to his wife, to a mistress …

All children are placed on the same equal footing, regardless of the nature of parentage. So, regardless of the case of stepfamilies, the children of a “first bed” are treated on the same level as children of the “second bed“.

If this minimum quota is not respected, the injured heirs may act to restore the share of the reserve which is legally due to them.



Do donations help to avoid this reservation?
If previous donations have been made, they are “reincorporated”. We will simply add them to the deceased’s patrimony on the day of his death to determine the amount of this hereditary reserve.

For example, imagine the case of a father of two children who gives his mistress house worth 800,000 euros and who dies a few years later then having a net worth of 100,000 euros. The calculation of the reserve will be on 100,000 euros (net assets of the deceased person on the day of the death) + 800,000 euros (value of the house given on the day of the death – considering that its value has not changed) = 900,000 euros. The reserve is therefore 2/3, or 600,000 euros. If the present property at the day of death is not sufficient to fill the children of their reserve, the mistress must therefore compensate them to keep the given house

robindch

littelady wrote: »

My hubby is in the process of taking over the family farm. Now three of his sisters are looking for sites with intent to start building as soon as possible. My hubby is raging to the point he doesn't want to talk about it. How would you feel.

In my extended family, there's one set of parents and their kids. The parents have some cash and some property - not a massive amount but enough to cause trouble if it weren't dealt with fairly. Previous ancestors on both sides had fallen out over property (and politics and religion) to the extent of not speaking with each other, not going to funerals, avoiding family gatherings and in one splendid instance, two siblings showing up on the day of the funeral of a third sibling to hear the will, then scoot off before their siblings funeral service to raid the dead women's house for furniture.

Anyway, one of the kids concerned saw the previous generation's mess, then sought legal and financial advice, persuaded the parents to transfer the property into the kids' names - via the usual legal and tax-compliant route which cost some tax but not too much - then created a parallel co-ownership agreement with the siblings to cover the terms and conditions of access to, control of, maintenance of, funding etc for the parents' property.

The main thing here was that everybody agreed up front what the principles of the transfer were (fairness firstly), then during negotiations was fully informed about all aspects of the transfer, all aspects of the co-ownership agreement, the tax, the legal requirements, all took part in genuine negotiations respecting their wishes and this produced a solid, mutually respectful, legally-enforceable contract between all of them. It wasn't easy to do and took about two years, but - whatever else happens - that part of the family shouldn't ever fall out over their property.

As to what I feel about your hubby? Well, if he's getting 200 acres and his siblings are getting nothing, then I can quite understand why the siblings might be hopping mad and can't understand why your husband might be annoyed. Not talking about it will solve nothing and will almost certainly make things worse. I would recommend that the parents seek constructive legal and financial advice as soon as possible and that everybody sits down, firstly in small groups, then as a family, to sort out the problem as this is the kind of thing which could lead to court and the destruction of the entire estate.

Ginger83

K.G. wrote: »

that story casts you and your wife in a poorer light than her parents

I suppose they should have had 1 kid.

Ginger83

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

85k offered for 0.5 acres, easy money for who?

sasta le

Jesus people desperate for even a small home and people in backwards Ireland fighting over sites and money

Lady Haywire

sasta le wrote: »

Jesus people desperate for even a small home and people in backwards Ireland fighting over sites and money

They're not that desperate if they won't move to 'backwards' Ireland :rolleyes:

sasta le

Lady Haywire wrote: »

They're not that desperate if they won't move to 'backwards' Ireland :rolleyes:

But will want a cut ?

Joe Daly

Lady Haywire wrote: »

They're not that desperate if they won't move to 'backwards' Ireland :rolleyes:

Define backwards Ireland.

Bo dearg

littelady wrote: »

My hubby is in the process of taking over the family farm. Now three of his sisters are looking for sites with intent to start building as soon as possible. My hubby is raging to the point he doesn't want to talk about it. How would you feel.

I feel after reading some of this discussion that sexed semen is the way for some of ye to go!@!

UsBus

The amount of times I've seen 'entitled' or expecting on this thread.........
What is wrong with people...?
I've no idea of the detail of my parents assets....and I don't want to know
They belong to them. I don't expect anything of them, I don't ask them for any support, if they decide to give me anything, that is their choice & I wouldn't influence or pressure them in any way..

Expecting or claiming a right to an asset is strange.........

Kevwoody

patsy_mccabe wrote:

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I wasn't aware the Farming forum was an exclusive club.

Pete_Cavan

This thread has descended into an episode of Jeremy Kyle with all the emotive comments on family relationships and fairness.

You can see here why farming has no future. Too many people see a family farm as an opportunity to build a house (usually ridiculously big and incredibly ugly) and will use previous generations farming as a reason why they should get planning permission. They are looking to benefit from farming while having absolutely no interest in participating in it. All the talk of sites, these are fields, nothing more.

You can already see how the current generation of young people (under 30) who grew up in an isolated country house have no interest in subjecting their children to that. They want to live in urban areas where they have shops, cafés, etc. nearby and not having to get in the car every time they leave the house. In another generation, people will have no interest in living in these isolated houses (the idea of living in the countryside will no longer exist as all these houses turn the entire country into a giant suburb) but they will have already destroyed any productive farms

whelan2

Just wondering even if golden balls number 1 son had no intention of ever farming the farm would he still get it rather than give it to a woman?

fergus1001

whelan2 wrote: »

Just wondering even if golden balls number 1 son had no intention of ever farming the farm would he still get it rather than give it to a woman?

I know of one such case the girl worked on the farm all her life and the son has not one iota of an intention to farm but the parents are adamant that the son gets the farm

patsy_mccabe

Kevwoody wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I wasn't aware the Farming forum was an exclusive club.

Yes, we're all entitled to our opinions, but it's safe to say 90% of the contributors on this thread have never posted on the Farming forum before. Why? Because they know very little about farming.

People outside of farming have no idea how asset rich and income poor farms actually are. The person, be it son or daughter, have well earned the farm by the time they inherit it. They've probably worked hard, for little or no pay for long before they get their name on the deeds.

Stratvs

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

People outside of farming have no idea how asset rich and income poor farms actually are. The person, be it son or daughter, have well werned the farm by the time they inherit it. They've probably worked hard, for little or no pay for long before they get their name on the deeds.

The same could be said of many family non-farming businesses, especially those serving small towns. They may have a large property worth millions ( on paper anyway) but where the hours are long and earnings are not large. However having experienced this personally there doesn't seem to be the same sense of entitlement on the childrens' parts or the expectation by the parent that only a certain child gets the business.

Lady Haywire

Joe Daly wrote: »

Define backwards Ireland.

It wasn't me that brought it up first, I was only referring to what someone else termed it.

qwerty ui op

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Yes, we're all entitled to our opinions, but it's safe to say 90% of the contributors on this thread have never posted on the Farming forum before. Why? Because they know very little about farming.

People outside of farming have no idea how asset rich and income poor farms actually are. The person, be it son or daughter, have well werned the farm by the time they inherit it. They've probably worked hard, for little or no pay for long before they get their name on the deeds.

Maybe i'm the odd one but just because you don't post here regularly doesn't mean your not farming.

For me it's farming and g.a.a, morning, noon and night and I'm fine with that, but the odd time I go on boards I've no interest in talking about either.

pleas advice

Pete_Cavan wrote:

(the idea of living in the countryside will no longer exist as all these houses turn the entire country into a giant suburb) but they will have already destroyed any productive farms

A few half acre sites from a couple hundred acres destroying productivity?

crossman47

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This thread reminds me of family farming in general. Usually for the day to day work, the hard labour, the tough decision making there's one family member that does it all. But by God, when there's easy money to be dished out, people crawl out of the woodwork. Animated opinions on this and that.

I wonder how many of the new posters will be here again tomorrow, when real farming advice is needed.

I'm one of the posters you refer to. I joined in just to point out all the problems caused for the rest of us by this supposed right to build one off houses in the countryside. But of course most farmers don't give a damn about this. Its a real I'm all right, Jack situation.

Alrigghtythen

pleas advice wrote: »

A few half acre sites from a couple hundred acres destroying productivity?

pleas advice wrote: »

A few half acre sites from a couple hundred acres destroying productivity?

Ruining the industry it is! Below cost selling and securing workers has nothing got to do with it. It's those pesky siblings wanting to live near their parents in the area they grew up in. Damm them and their half an acre. What good is 197 acres to the land barron if they had to conceded 1.5 acres to siblings and don't get to dictate who lives in the area?

TrixIrl

Well I hope OP has no aversion to providing intimate personal care to her in laws when the time comes.

With an attitude like this you can be assured they wont be going down the Fair Deal route and will be too stingy to pay for a private NH.

All those sisters will come in handy when your mother in law is doubly incontinent and has dementia. But if you've driven them away over this???

I grew up next door to a farm which went to the son- his sister worked as hard as he did on the farm as a kid/teenager until she went to college. But shes the one minding the mother now 24/7 while he continues to work on the farm - she might not have "earned" her site milking cows but she's earned it all the same.

joe35

Tell the parents to sell 100 acres(1million euro). Buy 3 houses with the money. In a village away from the farm but close enough to it. Rent theese out for another income to suplement the farming(prob more income too). After a couple of years make a will. The 3 sisters can get a house each. Your husband then gets 100 acre farm left to him and the home house. He is still getting alot more than his siblings and would be getting 'all' of the farm. He could even have first refusal on buying the half from his parents.

Pete_Cavan

pleas advice wrote: »

A few half acre sites from a couple hundred acres destroying productivity?

Again, these are not sites, they are a portion of a field. The majority of farmers have less than 100 acres, never mind a couple of hundred, so losing a few of acres while getting nothing in return will affect productivity. Particularly as the chosen location for any houses will tend to be on the better land (flat, dry, accessible, etc.). Every bit lost is another nail in the farming coffin.

facehugger99

UsBus wrote: »

The amount of times I've seen 'entitled' or expecting on this thread.........
What is wrong with people...?
I've no idea of the detail of my parents assets....and I don't want to know
They belong to them. I don't expect anything of them, I don't ask them for any support, if they decide to give me anything, that is their choice & I wouldn't influence or pressure them in any way..

Expecting or claiming a right to an asset is strange.........

I fully agree. My parents provided me with the education and upbringing to make my own way in the world. The amount of people who think, as fully grown adults, they are 'entitled' to sites from their parents is beyond bizarre.

What assets ones' parents have and what they decide to do with them is entirely a matter for them.

Buford T. Justice XIX

pleas advice wrote: »

A few half acre sites from a couple hundred acres destroying productivity?

It does effect the value of the land and the use it can be put to.



I know I would avoid renting land with a house sitting on it. You have to constant risk of lawn cuttings being thrown over the wall and being left to cattle and sheep with the risk of neospora and listeriosis from the cuttings. Then you have the risk of dogs not being secured and chasing cattle and sheep with the losses and stresses to both farmer and animal and the risks of animals breaking out onto a road with the danger to traffic of collision. And that's only the dangers while family members are living there, it gets much worse with strangers there.


Then you are restricted from spreading slurry or dung in the field from a nuisance perspective, even though that land may be the area most in need of those fertilisers. No keeping bulls in the fields either in case a child goes in after a football one day. Then you have complaints from cutting silage or harvesting cereals when those days might be the only days where this is possible.


And they're only the few I've had experience from in the last few years, plenty more can give many, many more of their experiences of similar.

Gravelly

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It does effect the value of the land and the use it can be put to.



I know I would avoid renting land with a house sitting on it. You have to constant risk of lawn cuttings being thrown over the wall and being left to cattle and sheep with the risk of neospora and listeriosis from the cuttings. Then you have the risk of dogs not being secured and chasing cattle and sheep with the losses and stresses to both farmer and animal and the risks of animals breaking out onto a road with the danger to traffic of collision. And that's only the dangers while family members are living there, it gets much worse with strangers there.


Then you are restricted from spreading slurry or dung in the field from a nuisance perspective, even though that land may be the area most in need of those fertilisers. No keeping bulls in the fields either in case a child goes in after a football one day. Then you have complaints from cutting silage or harvesting cereals when those days might be the only days where this is possible.


And they're only the few I've had experience from in the last few years, plenty more can give many, many more of their experiences of similar.

Can't be many farms in Ireland now that don't border onto a house surely? Thinking of my own area, I can't think of any farm without a house bordering it somewhere (not counting the farmers own house obviously). Unless it's a townie that buys the house, you are unlikely to have any of the problems above (other than the bull, and if you think like that, you couldn't keep a bull at all, as anyone could wander into any field anytime, regardless of whether there's a house beside it or not).

Ginger83

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It does effect the value of the land and the use it can be put to.



I know I would avoid renting land with a house sitting on it. You have to constant risk of lawn cuttings being thrown over the wall and being left to cattle and sheep with the risk of neospora and listeriosis from the cuttings. Then you have the risk of dogs not being secured and chasing cattle and sheep with the losses and stresses to both farmer and animal and the risks of animals breaking out onto a road with the danger to traffic of collision. And that's only the dangers while family members are living there, it gets much worse with strangers there.


Then you are restricted from spreading slurry or dung in the field from a nuisance perspective, even though that land may be the area most in need of those fertilisers. No keeping bulls in the fields either in case a child goes in after a football one day. Then you have complaints from cutting silage or harvesting cereals when those days might be the only days where this is possible.


And they're only the few I've had experience from in the last few years, plenty more can give many, many more of their experiences of similar.

We have many farms around us and never complain about noise, smells, machines working late into the night.

Not to mention numerous cattle / horses breaking in destroying our lawns, crow bangers, machines leaving roads in bits and covered in muck / ****.

Works both ways, manys a farmer was only too happy to sell sites during the boom for a quick buck.

qwerty ui op

UsBus wrote: »

The amount of times I've seen 'entitled' or expecting on this thread.........
What is wrong with people...?
I've no idea of the detail of my parents assets....and I don't want to know
They belong to them. I don't expect anything of them, I don't ask them for any support, if they decide to give me anything, that is their choice & I wouldn't influence or pressure them in any way..

Expecting or claiming a right to an asset is strange.........

facehugger99 wrote: »

I fully agree. My parents provided me with the education and upbringing to make my own way in the world. The amount of people who think, as fully grown adults, they are 'entitled' to sites from their parents is beyond bizarre.

What assets ones' parents have and what they decide to do with them is entirely a matter for them.

utter trash!!

It's terrible that some people cant approach a topic without instantaneously trying to create a narrative which makes them and theirs so much better than everyone else.

How about you deal with the reality of the situation from the perspective of the son/daughter or parent.


This goes for any business or asset, you can't take it with you, so you have to deal with it.
As a parent what would you do?

A/ give it all to church or some spiritual group
B/ charity, some group claiming to help the poor
C/ first goldigger that bats her eyelids at you

or

You could do what 99.99% of people in this situation do and try help out your children who you love dearly.

So to your point!! from the p.o.v of the son/daughter can you give a realistic approach they should have when it comes to this situation , knowing that x y z are going to happen- should they ignore it and bury their head in the sand?

Supposing a guy has successfully trained as a plumber and his father has a plumping business.... do you think it's wrong of him to expect a job from the oldman?

Cattlepen

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

To reduce one off housing, Farmers should be made to live in the current farmhouse.

That’s right........ and euthanase their parents. They have outlived their usefulness!!
Cop on. You can’t be “making” people do things for your agenda

Alrigghtythen

Cattlepen wrote: »

That’s right........ and euthanase their parents. They have outlived their usefulness!!
Cop on. You can’t be “making” people do things for your agenda

Who am I making do what?

flatty

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

Kevwoody wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I wasn't aware the Farming forum was an exclusive club.

Yes, we're all entitled to our opinions, but it's safe to say 90% of the contributors on this thread have never posted on the Farming forum before. Why? Because they know very little about farming.

People outside of farming have no idea how asset rich and income poor farms actually are. The person, be it son or daughter, have well earned the farm by the time they inherit it. They've probably worked hard, for little or no pay for long before they get their name on the deeds.

I rarely post, but read a lot. So what?

Cattlepen

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Who am I making do what?

You said farmers should be “made” live in the current farmhouse

Ginger83

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Again, these are not sites, they are a portion of a field. The majority of farmers have less than 100 acres, never mind a couple of hundred, so losing a few of acres while getting nothing in return will affect productivity. Particularly as the chosen location for any houses will tend to be on the better land (flat, dry, accessible, etc.). Every bit lost is another nail in the farming coffin.

The same miserable attitude of every farmer i've ever known.

"Tadhg, without the land we're nothing boy"

Lady Haywire

Ginger83 wrote: »

We have many farms around us and never complain about noise, smells, machines working late into the night.

Not to mention numerous cattle / horses breaking in destroying our lawns, crow bangers, machines leaving roads in bits and covered in muck / ****.

Works both ways, manys a farmer was only too happy to sell sites during the boom for a quick buck.

Oh how nice of you. i don't complain about this, this, this or this. But I could! You do realise that living in the country isn't like the quiet carriage of a train.
These things went on before you arrived & will go on after you go.

Ginger83 wrote: »

The same miserable attitude of every farmer i've ever known.

"Tadhg, without the land we're nothing boy"

I'm beginning to think it mightn't have been their daughter that your in-laws had a problem with.

Ginger83

Lady Haywire wrote: »

Oh how nice of you. i don't complain about this, this, this or this. But I could! You do realise that living in the country isn't like the quiet carriage of a train.
These things went on before you arrived & will go on after you go.



I'm beginning to think it mightn't have been their daughter that your in-laws had a problem with.

You could be right, farmers dont like sons/daughters marrying non farmers.

I was born and reared in the country my dear.

Check out the poll results.

Many could complain but you have to get on with your neighbours too, like putting a cow on the road back into a field.