Selling school lands to private developers: should the state be forced to buy them?

I suspect at least some of you saw Prime Time last night, or heard Drivetime this evening. In essence because of the higher price of property the religious orders are choosing to sell off what most of us regard as public schools (i.e. non fee-charging schools which are entirely state-funded). Prime Time focused on three schools (Clonkeen College in Blackrock & Our Lady's Grove, Clonskeagh) but I know of at least one other (Oatlands College) in the same area which has also recently sold off school lands to a developer.

The part which annoyed everybody is that it was done in secret. In Clonkeen, the Christian Brothers (who also own Oatlands) signed contracts before informing the school/parents/local community. Had the Christian Brothers made their intentions public it is quite clear what would have happened: the state would have been successfully pressurised to purchase the lands from the CB, and these schools would therefore keep their sports etc facilities. But this did not happen and instead the CB did the dishonourable backroom deal with a property developer rather than ensure the "public" school keeps its lands. The irony that the Christian Brothers claim this stunt was necessary to compensate victims of their previous treatment of students is clearly lost on them. Their other justification was that the students could use local public parks for training and didn't need school land for sports.

It is all yet another reason why there should be no place in this state for state-funded schools which are owned by private corporations/entities. That all of these privately owned schools (c. 85% of all schools in this state) receive hundreds of millions of euro of taxpayers' money for development and then can sell off school lands without any impediment after that state investment is extraordinary (. If the state funds them, the state should own the property that it funds. At the current rate of selling off, school lands in Dublin and other cities are going to be greatly reduced for future generations.

So while I would have no time for the sly underhand way the religious order sold school lands, there's no doubt that the state bears most responsibility for this by financing and supporting the current system/refusing to buy out these religious-owned school properties. Until the state gets off the fence, this selling of school lands is only going to get much, much worse.

Do you think the state should prioritise buying out all the religious orders who own c. 85% of the publicly funded schools in Ireland in 2017? (the VEC/ETB schools, which are 100% owned by the state, are the only publicly owned schools in Ireland - as shocking as that sounds.)



1. Prime Time, 29 June 2017 (click on 'Land Lost')

2. Drivetime, 30 June 2017 (starts at 40:20)

Rumpy Pumpy

tl;dr

CIARAN_BOYLE

State informed the schools that they didn't wish to buy the lands.

Honestly I believe that nbig chunks of lands should be handed to the state and that the state should assume responsibility for compensation.

The orders should not have their hands tied and be unable to realise value on their assets while at the same time be responsible for making payments.

CIARAN_BOYLE

No

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

State informed the schools that they didn't wish to buy the lands.

Honestly I believe that nbig chunks of lands should be handed to the state and that the state should assume responsibility for compensation.

The orders should not have their hands tied and be unable to realise value on their assets while at the same time be responsible for making payments.

Of course the state would say no in private to owning school property, just as it has been saying no since the foundation of the state. However, the religious order could easily have publicised their dilemma and the state would have been forced through political pressure to intervene and buy the school lands. Instead, the religious order did its deal behind closed doors - the lands weren't even publicly advertised.

lazybones32

Group who owes money sells asset shocker.

The reality is that the State has successfully fudged its obligations re: funding school buildings for decades.

It was understandable at the foundation of the State, when funds were simply not available.

That the State is still failing to provide adequate educational infrastructure is just not acceptable.

Finding the necessary funds for new builds, or the purchase of existing buildings, however, is quite a challenge!

Gatling

I personally don't see the big issue , private lands sold in private ,
No need to inform parents of students really ,

On one hand I keep hearing about the homeless crisis and why isnt something being done.

But on the other the land is being sold to build houses and everybody is up in arms!

Absolam

If the religious orders made a public fuss wouldn't they just be accused of trying to drive the price up and extorting the State?

KyussBeeshop

In probably the majority of cases, the state is responsible for selling specially zoned land to these religious institutions decades ago, and then - under intense lobbying from the politically influential church - gradually rezoning the land to allow residential development, so that the church can sell it off for enormous amounts of money.

The entire corrupt process (lasting decades) is coming to a head right now, with the last step being the private developers who have purchased the land, getting planning permission from the state (through intense/harassing/legal-threats type lobbying efforts) in order to build residential properties on the land - including in places such as St. Annes park - i.e. taking a massive chunk of greenspace out of the second biggest park in Dublin.

For the most part, the public is entirely ignorant of this process going on as well - only a very small set of local community members are resisting these efforts - and pretty soon they are about to become overpowered by legislative changes that the state are making, to temporarily remove local authority power over planning (through a new 'fast track' process).


The property market and land/property in general, has long been the most corrupted industry in our country - and it still is today, just in a slightly different form than in the past - if people choose to continue ignoring all of this, and don't force the state to undo the corrupt rezoning of these lands (by modifying the zoning category they are in, to completely prohibit residential development) - then don't bother complaining when you are further fúcked over by continuing state inaction in the face of a grossly distorted property market.

Until people actually put enough braincells together to see that this is deliberate (even if unofficial) government policy, following almost the same pattern of property-market-based corruption that goes back more than half a century - and then force the state to act to stop the cash grab that is going on - then we're not even going to begin any kind of earnest effort to rid our political/business landscape of corruption.

It's happening right there in our face, it's fairly obvious when you spend even a minimal amount of time reading up on what is going on - and yet people are nearly completely ignorant of it, despite the harm to them collectively - bloody frustrating...

Donald Trump

People moan and whinge about religious orders founding, building and running schools.

Then when the religious orders try to sell some of the property that they own, people are suddenly upset.... Maybe they suddenly appreciate what they were being given for free?

If you don't want religious orders to run schools, get together as a community and buy the property. Put your money where your mouth is. Or else shut up and thank them for providing the service in the first place.

myshirt

Where did they get this vast wealth in the first place? How was it accumulated?

padd b1975

myshirt wrote: »

Where did they get this vast wealth in the first place? How was it accumulated?

By selling snow globes of the Virgin Mary herself.

myshirt

myshirt wrote: »

Where did they get this vast wealth in the first place? How was it accumulated?

I'd say huge amounts poured in after Catholic Emancipation and the famine, and the decades just before and after the turn of the 20th century. That's when lots of land was acquired and churches were built anyway, and people were starting to donate to the Church as existence became less "hand to mouth".

riffmongous

No

Refresh my memory, how much money did the religious orders cough up to the survivors of their abuse?

Varik

riffmongous wrote: »

Refresh my memory, how much money did the religious orders cough up to the survivors of their abuse?

You know how stupid that comment was right?

The threads about them selling land to among other things pay their share.

riffmongous

No

Varik wrote: »

You know how stupid you that comment was right?

The threads about them selling land to among other things pay their share.

Why don't you give the answer eh? Remind us what 'their share' was

Donald Trump

riffmongous wrote: »

Why don't you give the answer eh? Remind us what 'their share' was

I don't know what "their share" was, nor what it should have been. It shouldn't be a point scoring exercise

But I will say that the state also failed in it's responsibilities to those victims. Therefore the state is also partly liable. Under that assumption, the religious orders would not be 100% liable (as regards the issue of compensation). Of course the perpetrators are individually criminally 100% liable.

Whether the states liability is 1% or 10% or 99% I don't know. But it should not be zero.

As you appear to be upset at the proportion that was agreed, can you tell us what you think it should be?

riffmongous

No

Donald Trump wrote: »

I don't know what "their share" was, nor what it should have been. It shouldn't be a point scoring exercise

But I will say that the state also failed in it's responsibilities to those victims. Therefore the state is also partly liable. Under that assumption, the religious orders would not be 100% liable (as regards the issue of compensation). Of course the perpetrators are individually criminally 100% liable.

Whether the states liability is 1% or 10% or 99% I don't know. But it should not be zero.

As you appear to be upset at the proportion that was agreed, can you tell us what you think it should be?

Have a read http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/religious-orders-have-paid-just-13-of-bill-for-child-abuse-inquiry-watchdog-35516219.html

Donald Trump

riffmongous wrote: »

Have a read http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/religious-orders-have-paid-just-13-of-bill-for-child-abuse-inquiry-watchdog-35516219.html

I asked what you think it should be.

That article states that government policy was to aim for 50:50

What percentage of liability do you think lies with the state?

riffmongous

No

Donald Trump wrote: »

I asked what you think it should be.

That article states that government policy was to aim for 50:50

What percentage of liability do you think lies with the state?

50:50 would be a good place to start, depending on how much is actually paid out, we can go from there. I certainly think 20% or whatever has been paid out so far is an absolute disgrace and that their current tactic for raising the cash is pretty low handed

Donald Trump

riffmongous wrote: »

50:50 would be a good place to start, depending on how much is actually paid out, we can go from there. I certainly think 20% or whatever has been paid out so far is an absolute disgrace and that their current tactic for raising the cash is pretty low handed

So if you agree with 50:50 then you are ok with that split. The responsibility is now with the state bodies to follow up on that.


What is "low handed"? Selling their assets to try to maximize their ability to pay their debts?

They've agreed to hand over whatever assets or cash. I don't know the details of these deals. But let them raise it however they want. That's their prerogative. If they don't fulfill their commitment then go after them for the remainder. If they need to sell a school to raise the money then the state can have the opportunity to buy it from them. An asset is only worth what someone else will pay for it. If a piece of property is only worth say 10m to the state and it is worth 20m to a developer, then sell it to the developer. The state can't seize it and only knock 10m off the bill. That's stealing. If it takes it and knocks 20m off the bill then it's just a waste of money for citizens as you are paying 20m for something that's only worth 10m to you.

So let them dispose of their assets however they wish. Then make sure they fulfill their obligations. It's fairly straightforward

riffmongous

No

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is "low handed"? Selling their assets to try to maximize their ability to pay their debts?

They've agreed to hand over whatever assets or cash. I don't know the details of these deals. But let them raise it however they want. That's their prerogative. If they don't fulfill their commitment then go after them for the remainder. If they need to sell a school to raise the money then the state can have the opportunity to buy it from them. An asset is only worth what someone else will pay for it. If a piece of property is only worth say 10m to the state and it is worth 20m to a developer, then sell it to the developer. The state can't seize it and only knock 10m off the bill. That's stealing. If it takes it and knocks 20m off the bill then it's just a waste of money for citizens as you are paying 20m for something that's only worth 10m to you.

So let them dispose of their assets however they wish. Then make sure they fulfill their obligations. It's fairly straightforward

Stealing? We should be worried about stealing from a group who committed mass child abuse and conspired to cover it up? These groups are lucky they weren't all nationalised and banned from having any presence in the country after what they did.

The problem with your analogy and the reason for this thread is they are raising the funds by selling off land that is being used by the State and the State is funding, so even if the land is worth more to the developer the State will still have to provide extra funding to make up for the lost land, that's why it's underhanded and just another **** you to the people from so-called religious groups without a shred of decency.

Property rights are set out in the Constitution. It even applies to people and institutions that behave terribly. They can do whatever they like with any land unless and until it is subjected to a judgement mortgage. It can't just be seized, unless it was acquired with the proceeds of crime. That's the stuff of Stalin's USSR etc.

riffmongous

No

Deleted User wrote: »

Property rights are set out in the Constitution. It even applies to people and institutions that behave terribly. They can do whatever they like with any land unless and until it is subjected to a judgement mortgage. It can't just be seized, unless it was acquired with the proceeds of crime. That's the stuff of Stalin's USSR etc.

They could have been 'forced' to sell it to literally pay for their crimes, instead they got off incredibly lightly and they are still barely paying anything.

A few quotes to expand on that

In its latest bulletin, the redress board said the highest award so far had been €300,000. It has paid out €148.5m in legal costs .

Of the 14,667 applications it received, 11 were rejected and 814 were withdrawn, refused or given no award.
In a breakdown of awards the bulletin said that 29 were between €200,000 and €300,000; 209 ranged between €150,000 and €200,000 and 1,717 of the payouts were between €100,00 to €150,000.

Nearly half -- 6,407 -- of the awards were between €50,000 to €100,000. Another 4,567 awards were under €50,000.

However, the level of the awards was severely criticised by abuse survivor and 'God Squad' author Paddy Doyle, who yesterday said they fell far short of the sums granted in the courts. He said the court awards were nearer €350,000 and victims had been rushed into accepting the redress board.

The_Captain

Personally I think the state should own the land of schools used for educating Irish children.

However, the reality is that the government has allowed a situation where religious orders own all the land that schools are on. It shouldn't have happened, and it's a situation I disagree with.

But we simply can't interfere with their right to sell land and property without changing the law, which will then impact on every property owner in the country. I'd rather a scenario where the Irish government can't force you to sell property and take the proceeds from the sale.

And as much as I'd like the government to buy out all the schools in the country, we could never afford it.

elperello

Proper planning would ensure that we have enough open space to allow all school students to have access to playgrounds, playing fields etc.

Not necessary that each school owns it's playing field, sharing could be arranged in some cases.

Unfortunately what we have now is a free for all and future generations will suffer.

end of the road

Varik wrote: »

You know how stupid that comment was right?

The threads about them selling land to among other things pay their share.

they can well afford to pay their compensation without selling land. the catholic church and it's orders are one of, if not the wealthiest organisation in the world.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

they can well afford to pay their compensation without selling land. the catholic church and it's orders are one of, if not the wealthiest organisation in the world.

How much of that wealth is tied up in assets, though?

It would be interesting to find out.

KyussBeeshop

It's actually piss easy to solve this one guys - the land that the churches own, has a special zoning category which was explicitly created for the churches - later on this zoning type was given the go ahead for a limited subset of residential development, which was later expanded down the years.

So for a very large number of these cases, you just have to fix the definition of the zoning category these lands are on - to prohibit residential development (which was how it was supposed to be in the first place...).

This will almost exclusively impact what was church land.

the_syco

Simple really. The church owes the State money. How about the church gives the land to the State?