Intel versus farmer. Rte1 now

Cattlepen

Lissoy wrote: »

He won his case as the land was not needed by Intel at that time, although the law has subsequently changed in relation to this. In reality Intel will not likely need that land in the next 10 years and they may never need it as the current factory under construction at the site will meet the demand from the Ireland site for many years.
If there is a definite need for his land and all other options have been exhausted I agree with a CPO but in this case it's just the IDA hedging it's bets.

Reid has objected to the new development at intel. Whether his objection will be successful remains to be seen but he is trying to impede progress albeit his democratic right

Jupiter Mulligan

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Would you be happy with it beside you? Or even a bit of fracking?

Not quite sure what that has to do with anything. I'm not the arbiter of where industries requiring deep-water berthing facilities are located. But that's why the IDA CPO'd the lands mentioned by the other poster.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

If they can't wave their magic wand and force industry to the area WTF were they doing CPO'ing large amounts of land with no plan in mind?

Thanks for asking that question, delighted to explain, although I'm amazed that you don't know the answer.

The IDA's policy back in the 1970's was to have parcels of serviced zoned sites (and advance factories) available all over the country, to tempt industrialists from overseas to locate their businesses somewhere in Ireland.

Sometimes the sites/factories on offer were taken up, other times they weren't. But the strategy was to have them available and ready to go so the industries could get things running as quickly as possible. Very successful it was too, although obviously there were some failures.

Cattlepen

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Cattlepen wrote: »

You are only partially quoting my response to someone else’s question. Would be better if you quoted the whole lot and people would see I never assumed people born on a farm have no intuition or work ethic. Sure I was born on one myself. I was having a go at the attitude towards family land. It’s not a religion. It’s not a vital organ. You CAN live without it.

But that is the thing. It's different strokes for different folks. You may not have a deep affiliation to the land you farm, but that does not mean that everyone else should have the similar thoughts towards their land - especially the 'home' farm. Outlying land bought to supplement the homestead will probably have weaker tugs on the heart, but the home farm will always mean a lot more to many farmers.

If you read my posts I have had this done to me twice. Yes, it was difficult during the whole process BUT in the end I just got on with things and life improved .Now there are loads of jobs in wyeths and people can travel Dublin to Galway with ease. My life is not over. The process is fairly fair and transparent. I know well of Reid’s situation but it’s not for me to bring up anything personal about it. And by the way, any land that was CPO’d on me wasn’t in my family for 100 years. My grandfather was born in the liberties in Dublin the son of a poor labourer. Anything he had was got through graft and intuition not by inheritance. Back to this bull**** nostalgia The land, The land The land !!! Flipping arrogance if you ask me.

Sorry there, where did I say people born on farms havnt intuition or work ethic? Waiting for answer about that

Lissoy

Cattlepen wrote: »

Reid has objected to the new development at intel. Whether his objection will be successful remains to be seen but he is trying to impede progress albeit his democratic right

That objection is separate from the CPO stuff and his lands.
His current objection is unlikely to succeed as the site works are already well under way and the foundations are in progress. Although after the Apple case in Athenry you never know.

Gael23

Why did he shoot a cow near the end of the show?

Bullocks

"Pamela Ewing, she'd be a sister of Cliff Barnes". FFS Did the flutes making a documentary need to put that kinda stuff on it.

Jupiter Mulligan

Gael23 wrote: »

Why did he shoot a cow near the end of the show?

A veiled warning to the IDA/Intel anti-Christs who are conspiring to take his land?

Irishphotodesk

Cattlepen wrote: »

I careless about what info google or amazon harvest from me. U insinuate that money was all I wanted. I never said that’s all I wanted but I dealt with the situation at hand and Harbour no resentment towards the people and organizations I had to deal with. And no I would not have given the land away. That’s a stupid question. Nobody was asking Reid to give away his land either. I was given what was going at the time and made the best I could out of it. Made plenty of mistakes also but that’s my problem.
Again back to my point about what Reid said in the film, that he could end up with €10million and still own his land because of an ongoing action? He’s not letting it go

Apologies if I implied money was your motivation in your CPO experiences, my point was simple, you are saying his land should be CPO’d “for the greater good” and I was making the comparison to your own CPO experience, would you have been willing to let the land go “for the greater good” , and you answered no.

I wasn’t asking if you would give the land away, if you were faced with a CPO where you were not getting paid or not getting what you think was a fair price, would you fight it .... if your answer is yes, then you are no different to mr reid, his belief is that whatever money they are offering....it isn’t a fair price.

Do you believe the government/IDA etc should be able to compulsory purchase any plot of land ?

STB.

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

The IDA's policy back in the 1970's was to have parcels of serviced zoned sites (and advance factories) available all over the country, to tempt industrialists from overseas to locate their businesses somewhere in Ireland.

Sometimes the sites/factories on offer were taken up, other times they weren't. But the strategy was to have them available and ready to go so the industries could get things running as quickly as possible. Very successful it was too, although obviously there were some failures.

Yes and its a mechanism that is surely flawed Jupiter.

64% of their properties lie vacant.

The IDA are reportedly sitting on 2700 acres of a land bank that they have purchased with tax payers money at a time when we have a housing crisis.

Jupiter Mulligan

STB. wrote: »

Yes and its a mechanism that is surely flawed Jupiter.

64% of their properties lie vacant.

The IDA are reportedly sitting on 2700 acres of a land bank that they have purchased with tax payers money at a time when we have a housing crisis.

I wasn't defending it, but simply answering the question that was asked. I suspect - but don't know - that much of its land bank isn't zoned for housing or isn't located in suitable locations to meet housing needs.

I'm not at all happy with the IDA's land bank, but I accept that the Organisation was merely acting in obedience to the directions and half-baked policies of its many political masters.

I regularly drive past a dilapidated shabby IDA 'advance factory' cluster that has never had a single tenant since it was built over twenty years ago. But it probably won the government of the day a vital by-election. And quite possibly the landowner involved was well connected politically.

To me it's an Irish version of Ozymandias.

funkey_monkey

Gael23 wrote: »

Why did he shoot a cow near the end of the show?

Was it not to show that his land and stock was being affected by the Intel factory?

Box09

Looks like he has no scheme payments according to cap beneficiaries database

Call me Al

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Was it not to show that his land and stock was being affected by the Intel factory?

He implied at the start that all the deaths of animals on his property started in the 80s when the plant arrived. He even showed us that rabbit that was dead and said it had been poisoned and he knew that because no other animals were scavenging it. Yes it might have been poisoned. But that could be done by anyone, including (and highly likely) other farmers. And there would be official Dept of Agriculture records for abnormal ly high rates of farm animal deaths in the area if it was as he claimed. But then I have a feeling he thinks it's all a cover-up. And the Dept of Agriculture are in on it too.

Donald Trump

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

So when should a CPO be applied?

For roads - motorways, bad corners, etc... Everyone benefits here, so is this acceptable? Same for trains or any public transport...
For housing - housing crisis in Dublin apparently, should some disused lots or brownfield sites be CPO’d for social housing?

Personally - I don’t think the IDA or any public body should be able to CPO land at the drop of a hat. But - I also think there should be some way to CPO land, be that through An Bord Planala or whoever...

If a private corporation would like to purchase some property, then there is one ancient obscure mechanism by which they can do so. There is this thing called money. Some people like it. They can approach the owner of the property and say "hey dude, do you like money? How about you swap me your property and I give you all this money?". If aforementioned dude (or dudess) says "ah no, your grand. You keep your money and I'll keep my property" then the private corporation can take its money and instead offer it to their next preferential choice.


If I want a new laptop and I don't want to pay the full price for it and its expensive Intel Inside® CPU chip, I don't expect the government to force them to sell it to me at a lower price.

Jupiter Mulligan

Donald Trump wrote: »

If I want a new laptop and I don't want to pay the full price for it and its expensive Intel Inside® CPU chip, I don't expect the government to force them to sell it to me at a lower price.

That's a shockingly poor analogy. Write out "I must try harder" 1,000 times.

Dinzee Conlee

Donald Trump wrote: »

If a private corporation would like to purchase some property, then there is one ancient obscure mechanism by which they can do so. There is this thing called money. Some people like it. They can approach the owner of the property and say "hey dude, do you like money? How about you swap me your property and I give you all this money?". If aforementioned dude (or dudess) says "ah no, your grand. You keep your money and I'll keep my property" then the private corporation can take its money and instead offer it to their next preferential choice.


If I want a new laptop and I don't want to pay the full price for it and its expensive Intel Inside® CPU chip, I don't expect the government to force them to sell it to me at a lower price.

That’s a purchase, not a CPO - which doesn’t directly answer the first line of my post “So when should a CPO be applied?”

Maybe you mean a CPO should never be used if there is any private company involved, which is fair enough...

Not sure how that works with toll roads, given they are some public/private partnership? Is it the gov owns the motorway, but the toll company leases it off them so to speak, and we then pay the toll company?

Donald Trump

Cattlepen wrote: »

The “they” I refer to is the IDA. Like I said in an earlier post, i’ve Been through 2 CPO’s. One became a toll toll road which is a business and the other was by Dublin corporation. They then built Wyeth factory on it. I’ve no problem with either. We got well paid for it the same way Reid was getting well paid.

"toll road" is technically still a public road. It is usually constructed as a public-private partnership where the private sector puts up the capital to build the road (or bridge) and in return can collect a toll on its usage for X years. After which time it reverts fully back to the State. It is a capital raising mechanism. It is not the same thing as CPO'ing that land to hand over to the business.





If you are happy to have land siezed under CPO, then surely you would logically be at least equally as happy to have been offered the same money directly and privately.

Jupiter Mulligan

People have problems with the concept of a CPO when private property is involved, yet every day landlords are forced by government to accept HAP tenants into their privately owned property whether or not they want to.

Go figure!

Donald Trump

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

That’s a purchase, not a CPO - which doesn’t directly answer the first line of my post “So when should a CPO be applied?”

Maybe you mean a CPO should never be used if there is any private company involved, which is fair enough...

Not sure how that works with toll roads, given they are some public/private partnership? Is it the gov owns the motorway, but the toll company leases it off them so to speak, and we then pay the toll company?

Yes, my point is that a private company can purchase it if they want it. Why are these fellas so quick to try to sieze family land from a poor oul' eejit but yet there are landbanks sitting unused and in private developers hands all around greater Dublin area. Never mind sieze them, the government won't even tax them for not putting them to use.



Only time a CPO should be used is if it is genuinely for public use and is needed - as in building a motorway etc.



I hadn't seen your post about the tolls when I gave response above. But having a toll is just a capital raising mechanism. The private sector is putting up the money and taking "risk" so that the state does not have to.


Speaking of tolls, the government paid those guys (NTR?) hundreds of millions of for the M50 toll when it was in the conditions of the toll that the toll station was not to impede or slow traffic. Which it obviously did. So the state could have just enforced it's legally contracted agreement there. But they wouldn't take them on. Yet they'll happily jump onto the little fella and take the bit he has.

Dinzee Conlee

Donald Trump wrote: »

"toll road" is technically still a public road. It is usually constructed as a public-private partnership where the private sector puts up the capital to build the road (or bridge) and in return can collect a toll on its usage for X years. After which time it reverts fully back to the State. It is a capital raising mechanism. It is not the same thing as CPO'ing that land to hand over to the business.

If you are happy to have land siezed under CPO, then surely you would logically be at least equally as happy to have been offered the same money directly and privately.

But isn’t the point of the CPO, the compulsory part?
It’s not just a purchase, it’s a compulsory one...

I imagine lads who lost land to motorways may not have chosen to have their farms halved or whatever, but that’s where the compulsory part comes in...

I don’t know enough about the intel case to say much...

I just think we need to think about when CPO should be used...
As I said before, I am ok with them, as long as it’s a proper, fair, transparent process...

I see CPOs are being used in Kerry for a new greenway - which in a way, should be similar to what happened for motorways in other places. But they are being viewed differently in this case - why I don’t know... (maybe the land access or crossing ability in the greenway is lessened vs a motorway?)

Dinzee Conlee

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes, my point is that a private company can purchase it if they want it. Why are these fellas so quick to try to sieze family land from a poor oul' eejit but yet there are landbanks sitting unused and in private developers hands all around greater Dublin area. Never mind sieze them, the government won't even tax them for not putting them to use.



Only time a CPO should be used is if it is genuinely for public use and is needed - as in building a motorway etc.



I hadn't seen your post about the tolls when I gave response above. But having a toll is just a capital raising mechanism. The private sector is putting up the money and taking "risk" so that the state does not have to.


Speaking of tolls, the government paid those guys (NTR?) hundreds of millions of for the M50 toll when it was in the conditions of the toll that the toll station was not to impede or slow traffic. Which it obviously did. So the state could have just enforced it's legally contracted agreement there. But they wouldn't take them on. Yet they'll happily jump onto the little fella and take the bit he has.

What about housing?

Should CPOs be used to get land to build on, not for private developers - but for social housing. So, at least initially owned by councils / corporations?

Donald Trump

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

But isn’t the point of the CPO, the compulsory part?
It’s not just a purchase, it’s a compulsory one...

I imagine lads who lost land to motorways may not have chosen to have their farms halved or whatever, but that’s where the compulsory part comes in...

I don’t know enough about the intel case to say much...

I just think we need to think about when CPO should be used...
As I said before, I am ok with them, as long as it’s a proper, fair, transparent process...

I see CPOs are being used in Kerry for a new greenway - which in a way, should be similar to what happened for motorways in other places. But they are being viewed differently in this case - why I don’t know... (maybe the land access or crossing ability in the greenway is lessened vs a motorway?)

Of course there is need for a CPO process. But it should be for those things that are genuinely needed and for the public.



From what I read about your man Reid's case, the IDA just coincidentally decided to try to CPO his land for some vague justifications. Intel was never mentioned. But everyone knew that this was the case.


Go back to my Healy Rae example. Healy Rae wants your family farm field on the outside of the village for his new business venture. You tell him you don't want to sell. Two weeks later Kerry County Council decide to CPO that field for "the public good". No other field in the area is CPO'd. The dogs in the street know they want to take that field off you to give it to Healy Rae. You confront them on this and they say "ah, no. we just need this for , eh, em, county council purposes. Who is this Healy Rae individual you mention. We never heard of him". There is a fundamental difference.



What they tried to do to that Reid man was wrong, both legally and morally.

Donald Trump

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

What about housing?

Should CPOs be used to get land to build on, not for private developers - but for social housing. So, at least initially owned by councils / corporations?

Has been massively used in the past. All of Ballyfermot etc. in Dublin was built on CPO'd land taken from farmers back in the 1950's or whenever.



State could CPO land from the developers landbanks too. Problem is that they won't take them on. The easy option would be to put some kind of vacant site levy on them - but they won't even do that. Yet they try to sneakily seize some poor fellas family farm under false pretences.

Donald Trump

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

That's a shockingly poor analogy. Write out "I must try harder" 1,000 times.

Don't worry dude. If your reading speed matches your logical ability, I wouldn't want to do that to you - you'd be a week trying to finishing reading those 1000 lines.


Property is property. If you are in favour of the state infringing on its citizens constitutional property rights at the behest of, and for the benefit of, a foreign company, while still insisting that it protect that foreign company IP rights etc. then it's probably the case that you don't understand the seriousness of what you are talking about.

the_syco

Lissoy wrote: »

That objection is separate from the CPO stuff and his lands.
His current objection is unlikely to succeed as the site works are already well under way and the foundations are in progress. Although after the Apple case in Athenry you never know.

He has objected to all planning permission that Intel put in.

As for the Apple case; pretty sure the guy who objected didn't even live near there!

darragh o meara

the_syco wrote: »

He has objected to all planning permission that Intel put in.

As for the Apple case; pretty sure the guy who objected didn't even live near there!

Wicklow chap if I remember right, he wanted them to build on his own site.

mickdw

I don't believe any non state enterprise should be able to CPO anything.
Jobs or not.
If a business needs land, let them make an offer that nobody will refuse or look elsewhere.

STB.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Property is property. If you are in favour of the state infringing on its citizens constitutional property rights at the behest of, and for the benefit of, a foreign company, while still insisting that it protect that foreign company IP rights etc. then it's probably the case that you don't understand the seriousness of what you are talking about.

......all whilst doing so under the guise of FDI, so for the Jobs Minister of the day can say good news, look at me, amn't I brilliant.


Two thirds of the time they are wrong, everytime, if their vacant property portfolio is anything to go by.

NiCe.

Donald Trump

STB. wrote: »

......all whilst doing so under the guise of FDI, so for the Jobs Minister of the day can say good news, look at me, amn't I brilliant.


Two thirds of the time they are wrong, everytime, if their vacant property portfolio is anything to go by.

NiCe.

I actually think it is far more sinister to CPO land for a specific company without even admitting it.


If they CPO land for say a new tech industry centre somewhere and it's a flop, that's incompetence, but at least it's not "stealing to order"


i am sure Intel could well afford to purchase another block of land a few miles away.

Cattlepen

I would fight it within the cpo process as best I could. I wouldn’t go to arbitration. The prices is not as bad as you think

Cattlepen

Sorry, my phone isn’t working right. That last post was a response to someone’s question. The quotation facility doesn’t seem to be working

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

i am sure Intel could well afford to purchase another block of land a few miles away.

Funnily enough on this the Intel operation is similar to farming.

Land beside them is far more valuable than a place a few miles away. The manufacturing plant runs best if its all in one block.

Irishphotodesk

Cattlepen wrote: »

I would fight it within the cpo process as best I could. I wouldn’t go to arbitration. The prices is notm as bad as you think

I’m going to assume it was a response to me,

And you saying you would fight the CPO process as best as you can is exactly what Thomas reid did, he decided the value he placed on the land is more than what was offered, he didn’t deem it a fair price....so he fought them in the courts...and won.

I understand the pay from a CPO is decent, but it’s aim is to compensate and pay for the land, so it rightly should be above market value.... some people like mr reid, have a stronger opinion and some people are simply stubborn and refuse to look beyond what’s in front of them (.i.e. if the movie is to be believed to be accurate the IDA people involved should have gotten training in tactile negotiations, an old saying that I have been told is that “you catch more bees with honey than vinegar”.)

Glass fused light

Dinzee Conlee wrote: »

What about housing?

Should CPOs be used to get land to build on, not for private developers - but for social housing. So, at least initially owned by councils / corporations?

Fingal did give it a try somewhere near the airport during the early tiger years. From memory. They were CPOing land for "piping for sewage works". They brought 2 "little old ladies" to court. Turned out the land did not belong to the ladies and the "sewage works" had been officially cancelled a number of years prior to the CPO being started. However turns out one of the private developers needed the land to develop their landbank into expensive houses. Public money was spent on trying to buy land that the council did not need and had no intention of using.

the_syco

mickdw wrote: »

If a business needs land, let them make an offer that nobody will refuse or look elsewhere.

They did. He did. I think one of the reasons why the CPO failed is because Intel tried to by the land beforehand?

Donald Trump wrote: »

i am sure Intel could well afford to purchase another block of land a few miles away.

There isn't anyone nearby the current plot to complain about how it looks.

AFAIK, they bought the houses behind it that could view it. To one side was only a train station, and to the other side there is a farm. And a sports complex to the other side.

If they were to buy a plot of land elsewhere, I'm sure there'd a heap of rules that they'd need to follow.

Donald Trump

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Funnily enough on this the Intel operation is similar to farming.

Land beside them is far more valuable than a place a few miles away. The manufacturing plant runs best if its all in one block.

There are so many activities on that site from research to fabs. Some of the research is experimental which needs clean room tech and some is more "pen and paper" where they are doing say machine learning etc. It would be easy to off-site plenty of those. The major inconvenience is just a bit of logistics for staff services.

While it would be nice for me to expand across my neighbours fields, if I wanted to buy land it might be a few miles away. Everybody, and every business, would prefer to have everything together. That isn't a justification for seizing the mans land to give it to them

The fabs themselves would have raw components coming in from all over the world. Once they get into the facility then they are in. They're not loading partly made chips onto a pallet truck and wheeling them across the yard for the next stage in their manufacture

Cattlepen

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Cattlepen wrote: »

I would fight it within the cpo process as best I could. I wouldn’t go to arbitration. The prices is notm as bad as you think

I’m going to assume it was a response to me,

And you saying you would fight the CPO process as best as you can is exactly what Thomas reid did, he decided the value he placed on the land is more than what was offered, he didn’t deem it a fair price....so he fought them in the courts...and won.

I understand the pay from a CPO is decent, but it’s aim is to compensate and pay for the land, so it rightly should be above market value.... some people like mr reid, have a stronger opinion and some people are simply stubborn and refuse to look beyond what’s in front of them (.i.e. if the movie is to be believed to be accurate the IDA people involved should have gotten training in tactile negotiations, an old saying that I have been told is that “you catch more bees with honey than vinegar”.)

The cpo process is made up of a number of elements. First is the market value of land in the area on the date the notice to treat is issued. Then there is injurious effection. This is basically disturbance money. Every case will be different as everyone situation is unique. This is what you fight and make the best case you can. There was €5k an acre “hello” money the Ifa fought for but i’m Not sure if that still exists or if it’s particular to NRA projects. The option after that is arbitration. I personally would never go this far because very few people win this.
Reid has probably 50-60 acres there. €10million ????€200k an acre. It would sound like a very good deal to me. And please don’t come back telling me money isn’t for everyone blah blah. He was getting more than compensated and because of the benefits for the wider community the expansion of intel and the likes bring I think they should have the power to get the land

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

There are so many activities on that site from research to fabs. Some of the research is experimental which needs clean room tech and some is more "pen and paper" where they are doing say machine learning etc. It would be easy to off-site plenty of those. The major inconvenience is just a bit of logistics for staff services.

Not really. 90% of the operation is manufacturing fab or facility / support services to the manufacturing fab.

darragh o meara

Often wondered why they didn’t extend across the road, fine sized site there sitting idle.

Watched the documentary last night and was surprised to see that he’s only in his early 50’s. I pass his house every day in the way to work and have seen him numerous times over the last few years but always assumed he was a lot older. He could be a thorn in Intels side for a long time yet.

the_syco

darragh o meara wrote: »

Often wondered why they didn’t extend across the road, fine sized site there sitting idle.

Which side? Are you referring to their carpark?

screamer

the_syco wrote: »

Which side? Are you referring to their carpark?

I’ve no idea of the layout but if they have a massive car park they could relocate that and run shuttle buses or build a multistory to free up space.

Donald Trump

Cattlepen wrote: »

The cpo process is made up of a number of elements. First is the market value of land in the area on the date the notice to treat is issued. Then there is injurious effection. This is basically disturbance money. Every case will be different as everyone situation is unique. This is what you fight and make the best case you can. There was €5k an acre “hello” money the Ifa fought for but i’m Not sure if that still exists or if it’s particular to NRA projects. The option after that is arbitration. I personally would never go this far because very few people win this.
Reid has probably 50-60 acres there. €10million ????€200k an acre. It would sound like a very good deal to me. And please don’t come back telling me money isn’t for everyone blah blah. He was getting more than compensated and because of the benefits for the wider community the expansion of intel and the likes bring I think they should have the power to get the land

Extremely unlikely to get offered 200k an acre under a CPO unless they had it zoned commercial before getting the CPO.


If it was zoned agricultural, they'd value it as agricultural plus a certain amount of "hope value".


Intel might have tried to offer him 200k an acre or something. Irrelevant for CPO. Especially if they offered it to him in the boom. Even then, we don't know what was offered.



The man was within his rights to resist and it is very important for the rest of us that there are people like him who will put manners on these idiots in their little public sector jobs who think they can play god with other peoples lives at their own whims.

Irishphotodesk

Cattlepen wrote: »

The cpo process is made up of a number of elements. First is the market value of land in the area on the date the notice to treat is issued. Then there is injurious effection. This is basically disturbance money. Every case will be different as everyone situation is unique. This is what you fight and make the best case you can. There was €5k an acre “hello” money the Ifa fought for but i’m Not sure if that still exists or if it’s particular to NRA projects. The option after that is arbitration. I personally would never go this far because very few people win this.
Reid has probably 50-60 acres there. €10million ????€200k an acre. It would sound like a very good deal to me. And please don’t come back telling me money isn’t for everyone blah blah. He was getting more than compensated and because of the benefits for the wider community the expansion of intel and the likes bring I think they should have the power to get the land

Again.... it sounds like a good deal to you ..and me, but mr reid had refused this simply because he didn’t want to sell at that price, or any price.

Some folk are like that, take the money element out of it... should land be taken off a person, so that companies can build/expand ?

Should land be taken off landowners by the IDA without any plan in place for land usage ?

Should land be taken from landowners to facilitate roads network (pretty confident I know your answer to this one)

In any of the cases above, would you consider it adequate to compensate the landowner by paying 2x the land value, 5x, 10x ...at what point is the payment sufficient to take land away from a land owner (let’s assume the land owner has no choice)

darragh o meara

the_syco wrote: »

Which side? Are you referring to their carpark?

Directly across the road, yes I believe there is an unused car park there at the moment, I’m not referring to the Intel carpark.

the_syco

darragh o meara wrote: »

Directly across the road, yes I believe there is an unused car park there at the moment, I’m not referring to the Intel carpark.

The part that says "here there be dragons" is being dug up for the past while. I think it's something to do with a green belt?

The house next to the "s" of dragons is very old, and won't be touched.

cute geoge

the_syco wrote: »

The part that says "here there be dragons" is being dug up for the past while. I think it's something to do with a green belt?

The house next to the "s" of dragons is very old, and won't be touched.

Where is thomas reids land in realation to the picture above .On the film when it showed an ariel shot ,there was a road and several fields between T.R house and intel factory .Were these T.R fields??

Rosahane

cute geoge wrote: »

Where is thomas reids land in realation to the picture above .On the film when it showed an ariel shot ,there was a road and several fields between T.R house and intel factory .Were these T.R fields??

You can just see the edge of his lands the top left corner of the photo. It’s to the west of the little road - Kelly’s Lane, that separates his land from the Intel campus.

Call me Al

cute geoge wrote: »

Where is thomas reids land in realation to the picture above .On the film when it showed an ariel shot ,there was a road and several fields between T.R house and intel factory .Were these T.R fields??

They're all his fields. That road at the edge of Intel's boundary there is the demarcation line. He's one side and Intel.are the other.

Sheep breeder

Call me Al wrote: »

They're all his fields. That road at the edge of Intel's boundary there is the demarcation line. He's one side and Intel.are the other.

What about the land in the top right hand side of the picture, is that not available and closer to intel.

Donald Trump

Sheep breeder wrote: »

What about the land in the top right hand side of the picture, is that not available and closer to intel.

The cynic in me might guess that it's owned by some developer.......who wouldn't be quite as easy a target to have their property nefariously seized as some poor ould simple farmer living on his generational family land.


Pure guess though. Could be completely wrong