Could the Government Seize Property

utmbuilder

Could the Government seize landlord's property's due to the rental crisis?

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (using the "Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917") issued an executive order to Seize people's Gold.

Could this be done under law in Ireland? Would you put it past this Government?

If a landlord owned less than 10% of equity in a property

could compulsory purchase orders be used or some new quango?

Lumen

utmbuilder wrote: »

Could the Government seize landlord's property's due to the rental crisis?

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (using the "Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917") issued an executive order to Seize people's Gold.

Could this be done under law in Ireland?

Maybe if the landlords were renting to nazis. :pac:

But then if they were rented, they wouldn't be purchased.

It's a toughie alright.

Theres not a hope of government CPO'ing houses without a fight.

Homelessness has gone to crazy levels and the rental market is nuts. Its loud in the media/social media but it just doesnt affect a huge chunk of the population who own their own houses.

This wont get off the ground, if the goverment make a move on a vacant house as i see it 2 things will happen.
Someone will move in for a short time, the owner, a relation, anyone. Also I suspect that many of the vacant houses need huge money invested to bring them up to standard for people to live in.

Xterminator

They already can and do use CPO to acquire property. it doesn't even require new legislation. every council can do it, as can state bodies like the IDA.

here is a lit of some of louth cc's recent cpo's.
https://www.louthcoco.ie/en/Louth_County_Council/General_Notices/

the problem with CPO is its costly and take a long time. Its actually quicker to build a new house.

Question for those with a problem here, you already know they government can and do CPO properties to build roads, industrial parks, and runways. your not out protesting about this.

But you have a problem when the government tries to aid homeless families using CPO? To me homeless families would take priority over a wider road, or a new runway.

punisher5112

Simple fix.... Use council owned(public land) and set up a proper housing standards office to actually oversee new builds are up to code and correct.

Planning made easier and quicker.

henryporter

punisher5112 wrote: »

Simple fix.... Use council owned(public land) and set up a proper housing standards office to actually oversee new builds are up to code and correct.

Planning made easier and quicker.

Only problem with this simple, cough, quick fix is that there's 183,000 vacant homes in varying degrees of dilapidation around the country - enough for the approximate 8,000 homeless to have 22 homes each. There is no need to build new homes until the existing stock has been evaluated, repaired, retrofitted and most importantly rehabilitated - what's the point of global climate change agreements if we're just going to generate more carbon building more houses instead of reusing them.

awec

henryporter wrote: »

Only problem with this simple, cough, quick fix is that there's 183,000 vacant homes in varying degrees of dilapidation around the country - enough for the approximate 8,000 homeless to have 22 homes each. There is no need to build new homes until the existing stock has been evaluated, repaired, retrofitted and most importantly rehabilitated - what's the point of global climate change agreements if we're just going to generate more carbon building more houses instead of reusing them.

Isn't the problem that most of these vacant houses are in the wrong areas?

Gatling

henryporter wrote: »

Only problem with this simple, cough, quick fix is that there's 183,000 vacant homes in varying degrees of dilapidation around the country - enough for the approximate 8,000 homeless to have 22 homes each.

Another way of looking at it ,120,000-130,000 sitting on housing lists across the country ,
Take the over the properties and charge more than current differential rents but less than the current market rents ,
Freeing up at least 80,000 properties currently getting rent allowance and easing the rental market.

Use the public lands for affordable and properly managed developments

seamus

As regards the question in the OP, no the government couldn't seize people's property. It would be unconstitutional to confiscate lawfully held property without compensation or good reason.

However, expanded use of the CPO system might be a possibility. In realistic terms though issuing CPOs for individual vacant properties is likely a very poor use of resources. By the time you've gone through the legal and fixed costs of the CPO, and then renovated the property, you'll have spent far more than the cost of simply building a new house.

In this context, use of the CPO system would be more efficient for taking ownership of larger tracts of undeveloped land, or vacant single properties sitting on large sites. The government is not going to be CPOing your vacant terraced house in the middle of town, but might be interested in your old cottage sitting on 2 acres just outside the M50.

For the one-off vacant stuff most likely they will develop a simplified CPO-like scheme where they approach the owners of vacant properties with "take it or leave it" cash offers for their property.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Carrot and stick approach. If you want to keep the property you'll be incentivised to rent it out. If you insist on keeping it vacant then you'll pay additional levies and penalties.

Or if you don't want the hassle of renting it and don't like paying penalties, you can accept the government's offer.

Sitting on vacant properties for the purposes of speculation has to be stamped out. It's anti-social and costs the public and the state money.

Uriel.

Why does it suddenly need to escalate to CPO though? If the vacant properties are of such interest to the government why don't they (via the Councils) approach owners to buy such properties in a negotiated way? They could offer market value + x% as a sweetener - with a sweetener it might encourage people to sell and it would still be more cost effective than going down the CPO route

Uriel.

seamus wrote: »

Carrot and stick approach. If you want to keep the property you'll be incentivised to rent it out. If you insist on keeping it vacant then you'll pay additional levies and penalties.

Or if you don't want the hassle of renting it and don't like paying penalties, you can accept the government's offer.

Sitting on vacant properties for the purposes of speculation has to be stamped out. It's anti-social and costs the public and the state money.

Why not address some of the issues facing landlords in the first instance? Why not move to reduce tax on rental income or allow additional costs to be offset against tax liabilities (eg 100% of mortgage interest), rebalanced LL and tenant rights?

Dravokivich

Uriel. wrote: »

Why does it suddenly need to escalate to CPO though? If the vacant properties are of such interest to the government why don't they (via the Councils) approach owners to buy such properties in a negotiated way? They could offer market value + x% as a sweetener - with a sweetener it might encourage people to sell and it would still be more cost effective than going down the CPO route

So just as the various welfare contributions have reportedly inflated the cost of the rental market, you'd now be looking at a CPO bonus to inflate the cost of purchasing a house?

Uriel.

Dravokivich wrote: »

So just as the various welfare contributions have reportedly inflated the cost of the rental market, you'd now be looking at a CPO bonus to inflate the cost of purchasing a house?

It's not a CPO bonus. Read what I wrote. Instead of going to through the expensive CPO process offer market value plus an additional %. It could be cheaper to the State than the costs (and time) associated with CPO.

Also, it would be (like it is with CPO) the government choosing the property it wants rather than applying across the market.

Dravokivich

Uriel. wrote: »

It's not a CPO bonus. Read what I wrote. Instead of going to through the expensive CPO process offer market value plus an additional %. It could be cheaper to the State than the costs (and time) associated with CPO.

Also, it would be (like it is with CPO) the government choosing the property it wants rather than applying across the market.

You can call it whatever you want. Doesn't change the potential outcome on the market, that is already pointed to the government with what happened with the rental market.

Uriel.

Dravokivich wrote: »

You can call it whatever you want. Doesn't change the potential outcome on the market, that is already pointed to the government with what happened with the rental market.

Either way, my point is, if the Government is considering or decides to consider the CPO route I think there are less expensive and draconian options available (in the same bracket) worth trying first.

dashoonage

Or they could just make it worthwhile being a landlord again....

emeldc

Dravokivich wrote: »

So just as the various welfare contributions have reportedly inflated the cost of the rental market, you'd now be looking at a CPO bonus to inflate the cost of purchasing a house?

But for a lot of LL's (myself inc) that MV price plus say, a 10% bonus would still leave me about €60k short of what I paid. I'm not saying I'd definitely sell but I'd consider it.

Riskymove

Uriel. wrote: »

Either way, my point is, if the Government is considering or decides to consider the CPO route I think there are less expensive and draconian options available (in the same bracket) worth trying first.

Councils can already purchase property...without needing any bonus....as mentioned any extra on to market value will simply raise prices across the board

the issue raised is homes left vacant, not necessarily those on the market.

Owners should be encouraged to do something with vacant homes - ether rent or sell or face a tax or charge etc otherwise they simple hoard it until peak prices

Uriel.

Riskymove wrote: »

Councils can already purchase property...without needing any bonus....as mentioned any extra on to market value will simply raise prices across the board

the issue raised is homes left vacant, not necessarily those on the market.

Owners should be encouraged to do something with vacant homes - ether rent or sell or face a tax or charge etc otherwise they simple hoard it until peak prices

Again I'm not talking about "homes on the market", I'm not even advocating that the government go on a spending spree. Rather, I'm saying IF the government is considering the CPO of houses they feel worth buying (such as, for example vacant properties identified via the new website), they should perhaps try a negotiated purchase of those houses first rather than going from zero to CPO. CPO is an expensive and drawn out process that creates nothing but bad feeling. As it stands CPOs already commonly include goodwill and or disturbance payments in the prices offered on top of market value. IF the government wants to purchase these identified houses they could try the negotiated route first before going CPO. That's all om saying.

Overall, the reality is if government wants to encourage people into the renal market then it needs to address the reason why landlords are leaving the market or else decide to move Ireland towards large scale landlordism by creating that market place (if that is what it wants).

um7y1h83ge06nx

No way would they try and seize property. Whatever about urban areas it would create serious civil unrest in rural areas. It would take a very brave person to seize land or property from a farmer!

But I have noticed a creeping attitude change towards property owners by politicians in recent times. Now we have the comments of the last few days. Before that we John Halligan "If I could bring in legislation to goddamn jail landlords, I would jail the bastards" http://www.thejournal.ie/john-halligan-interview-2801068-Jun2016/.

I'm very surprised that FG would be caught saying anything that may even be construed as wanting to seize property, would go against a lot of their supporters I would have thought.

Riskymove

Uriel. wrote: »

ARather, I'm saying IF the government is considering the CPO of houses they feel worth buying (such as, for example vacant properties identified via the new website), they should perhaps try a negotiated purchase of those houses first rather than going from zero to CPO.

and I am saying they should simply impose sanctions on vacant homes in order to encourage owners sell or rent at market rates

no drawn out expensive process or significant cost to State

Riskymove

Ivory Grumpy Yardage wrote: »

No way would they try and seize property. Whatever about urban areas it would create serious civil unrest in rural areas. It would take a very brave person to seize land or property from a farmer!

the State has CPO'd lots of rural land and dwellings over the years for Motorways etc

Uriel.

Riskymove wrote: »

and I am saying they should simply impose sanctions on vacant homes in order to encourage owners sell or rent at market rates

no drawn out expensive process or significant cost to State

Which they may well try to do.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Impose sanctions on vacant property because it is vacant? Wow, the government can go a sh*te.

If you own a property, you should be allowed to do whatever you want with the property. Live in it, rent it, or leave it vacant. Most people who own property have already paid enough in taxes. Why should they be further penalized to help fix a situation caused by our government?

This is the blame game again.

punisher5112

As I've mentioned before we had housing in Dublin and many other counties but are bright spark fools in power decided ah sure sell it off to private foreign investors at a complete loss and give them a tax break of paying no tax whatsoever....

Seriously we need these fools out.

henryporter

punisher5112 wrote: »

As I've mentioned before we had housing in Dublin and many other counties but are bright spark fools in power decided ah sure sell it off to private foreign investors at a complete loss and give them a tax break of paying no tax whatsoever....

Seriously we need these fools out.

To be replaced with... more fools?

the_syco

awec wrote: »

Isn't the problem that most of these vacant houses are in the wrong areas?

The problem is that the vacant houses are not where the homeless want to live.

If you paying for a house, you buy where you can afford. If you're homeless, seemingly you can wait until you get a house in a nice area.

robp

punisher5112 wrote: »

As I've mentioned before we had housing in Dublin and many other counties but are bright spark fools in power decided ah sure sell it off to private foreign investors at a complete loss and give them a tax break of paying no tax whatsoever....

Seriously we need these fools out.

The so called vulture funds would have to demolish buildings in Dublin to make the situation worse. They arent making it worse.

awec

the_syco wrote: »

The problem is that the vacant houses are not where the homeless want to live.

If you paying for a house, you buy where you can afford. If you're homeless, seemingly you can wait until you get a house in a nice area.

Well I am not sure it's that simple in all cases.

Certainly, someone from Dublin for example should be given a house anywhere within Dublin or the commuter belt and they shouldn't be able to pick and choose a specific place if there is nothing available there.

But plenty of these vacant houses are down the country and it seems counter intuitive to send a lot of people to places where they have no chance of getting employed and therefore no chance of getting themselves back on their feet and off the state's dime.

the_syco

awec wrote: »

Well I am not sure it's that simple in all cases.

Certainly, someone from Dublin for example should be given a house anywhere within Dublin or the commuter belt and they shouldn't be able to pick and choose a specific place if there is nothing available there.

But they do, and I'd wonder how much this contributes towards the number of homelessness?

awec wrote: »

But plenty of these vacant houses are down the country and it seems counter intuitive to send a lot of people to places where they have no chance of getting employed and therefore no chance of getting themselves back on their feet and off the state's dime.

For the long term unemployed of 10/20/more years, why not?

Uriel.

the_syco wrote: »

But they do, and I'd wonder how much this contributes towards the number of homelessness?


For the long term unemployed of 10/20/more years, why not?

Why though? Why can they pick? Are they not so bad off? If you need state support u should accept what's given to you (obviously providing it meets a minimum standard). There's been far too much molly coddlin for far too long. Take the basic and be happy with it or get yourself together at the first opportunity and strive for better.

davindub

Uriel. wrote: »

Why though? Why can they pick? Are they not so bad off? If you need state support u should except what's given to you (obviously providing it meets a minimum standard). There's been far too much molly coddlin for far too long. Take the basic and be happy with it or get yourself together at the first opportunity and strive for better.

Unfortunately some people are glad, others are entitled. I remember a girl on the radio before, she was living at home with her mother and her child, her comments were its not my mothers responsibility to house me, it is the councils.

the_syco

Uriel. wrote: »

Why though? Why can they pick?

Yes. They give their three area preferences, and if they don't like any of the houses, they goto the bottom of the housing list.

In the meantime, they may be in an hotel room. They'll play the game until they get a house near their parents, or some such.

The_Conductor

the_syco wrote: »

The problem is that the vacant houses are not where the homeless want to live.

If you paying for a house, you buy where you can afford. If you're homeless, seemingly you can wait until you get a house in a nice area.

This is it in a nutshell.
The vast preponderance of vacant properties (and I'd suggest a signficant proportion of them are not dilapidated by any means)- are simply in places that its damn hard to persuade people to live. I can think of whole blocks of apartments in the border counties- many of which are equipped to a high standard- which could be put to better use than some enterprising locals who use them to encourage stag/hen weekends (obviously Carrick-on-Shannon features high on this list- but its by no means on its own).

Local Authorities saw it as a badge of honor to have vast quantities of residential units built on their turf- and bent over backwards with planning and other regimes- to ensure as little impediment as possible was put in the path of any wanna-be developer.

The homeless issue- is predominantly a Dublin issue- over 90% of all homeless are in Dublin. Hell- a majority of homeless Cork and Galwegians- are in Dublin. I don't know why this is- but the homeless do seem to be attracted to Dublin, like a moth to a flame. This does not mean that Cork, Galway- even Laois, Carlow, Kilkenny and other non-traditional aeras- don't have a homeless issue/crisis- simply- that it is not on the same scale as it is in the capital.

The hard choices that politicians and others in Dublin need to sit down and crack heads over- such as residential dwelling densities and building height regulations- seem to be completely and utterly verbotten discussions/conversations.

The Dublin local authority areas- need to sit down together- and come up with a coordinated approach and sell it to central government.

Yes- we have 160,000 (or however many) vacant residential dwelling units around the country- however- the vast preponderance of them are quite simply where people don't want to live- this is the knux of the problem. Unlocking the 160,000 units- is all well and good- but unless the government decide to try and pull an Oliver Cromwell and declare the modern equivalent of 'To Hell or to Connaught'- its not a solution- its an inexperienced politician fumbling in the dark, latching onto a media headline- and running with it for everything its worth without any consideration for what the bigger picture actually is.

We need houses. Tick.
We need houses- where people want to and are willing to live.........
Just because you can tick the first box- does not mean the second issue magically goes away.
People are perfectly happy to make themselves homeless- rather than live outside their comfort zone- we have court cases about it pretty much every day of the week at this stage- increasingly the courts are backing the local authorities in the supports they are offering.

I'd love a nice 3 bed semi- in a reasonable area, with a nice garden for my kids, close by to schools and other facilities and amenities, and with my family supports (if I had them) and networks at close hand. So would anyone else. The bigger issue is an entitlement culture- where people who have to pay for things- compromise, and make a series of decisions based on rational choices. Those who don't have to pay- increasingly, assume that by kicking up a fuss- they don't have to compromise- they can get their forever home where they want it- and whatever else they want, handed to them on a platter.

We honestly need a coherent national debate. Personally- I think Gardaí, teachers and nurses- should be offered good standard council property in the areas they work in- over and above anyone else- and only when key frontline public sector personnel have been homed- should there be a push to offer accommodation in specific areas to other groups.

We have an obligation- both moral and legal- to house our homeless and take care of those worse off than us in society. It is not and should not be a security net though- to the extent that availing of it- becomes the all-encompassing aim of people- which is where we are at right here, right now.

The issue- as always- is supply. We need supply- but pointing at 160,000 units nationally- and imagining that presto- we bring them into habitable standard and our problems are solved- is myopic in the extreme.

Someone needs to sit down with the Minister- and slowly sketch out the bigger picture for him.

etselbbuns

DublinCityCouncil threatened to CPO 21 vacant units last year if they were not rented/sold, which resulted in all 21 being rented.

Government has now given a green light to all 31 Councils to use the same legislation that is used to CPO land for transport to reuse the 180k vacant units in the State

Graham

etselbbuns wrote: »

DublinCityCouncil threatened to CPO 21 vacant units last year if they were not rented/sold, which resulted in all 21 being rented.

Government has now given a green light to all 31 Councils to use the same legislation that is used to CPO land for transport to reuse the 180k vacant units in the State

Any source estelbbuns, I'd be interested in looking at the background behind the units in Dublin and the encouragement from government to use CPO legislation.

um7y1h83ge06nx

The Sunday Independent has this as it's front page today, they reckon the government will move forward with CPOs.

This is a terrible erosion of property rights and evidence that FG is moving heavily to the left. We badly need a right wing party to balance the political climate in this country, otherwise it's merely a case of what shade of red you want to elect.

etselbbuns

Graham wrote: »

Any source estelbbuns, I'd be interested in looking at the background behind the units in Dublin and the encouragement from government to use CPO legislation.

Yep, the Sindo. It'll be online shortly

Arcade_Tryer

The_Conductor wrote: »

The issue- as always- is supply. We need supply- but pointing at 160,000 units nationally- and imagining that presto- we bring them into habitable standard and our problems are solved- is myopic in the extreme
.

We need to find some way of moving the Ghost estates down the country to Dublin. Surely with today's technology and engineering capabilities it could be accomplished.

Mrs Shuttleworth

There will be legal challenges to this. It's entirely feasible that someone may partially use property but it wouldn't be occupied permanently by someone bearing a PPS number as their PPR and I suspect this is what the Government is trying to force.

There are knock on effects that infringe on other personal rights beyond constitutional property rights.

These proposals will also markedly contract bank lending for all purchasers.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Hopefully the EU will get involved as it would interfere with free market economics. No Irish political party will speak out about this, it's suiting their left leaning ideals. Only possibility might be FF as this might impact mostly older people and they always have been smart to keep that demograph happy.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Ivory Grumpy Yardage wrote: »

Hopefully the EU will get involved as it would interfere with free market economics. No Irish political party will speak out about this, it's suiting their left leaning ideals. Only possibility might be FF as this might impact mostly older people and they always have been smart to keep that demograph happy.

Also what happens in the case where the mortgage is being met each month but the vacant property is in negative equity - if CPO proceedings are served and an order made and the market value paid presumably that leaves the owner in hoc to the bank or would the bank join in as a notice party and assist the owner in defending the proceedings? I can envisage 1000s of such scenarios.

Eric Cartman

awec wrote: »

Well I am not sure it's that simple in all cases.

Certainly, someone from Dublin for example should be given a house anywhere within Dublin or the commuter belt and they shouldn't be able to pick and choose a specific place if there is nothing available there.

But plenty of these vacant houses are down the country and it seems counter intuitive to send a lot of people to places where they have no chance of getting employed and therefore no chance of getting themselves back on their feet and off the state's dime.

People who work and need to be in dublin every day have had to move to haas, newbridge, ashbourne, sallins, drogheda etc… to afford a house.

Some of the 'homeless' in emergency accommodation aren't leaving until the government announce a plan to build thousands of detached 3 bed with garden front and back (big enough for a trampoline) that are 30 seconds from a school and an offo and also in dublin 2, 4, 6 or 6w.

Its never going to get fixed, theres just money to be made by the homeless industry and the hundreds of popup charities that have sprung into action in recent days.

When the crisis is all over and we're done with building houses again, there will still be empty houses, there will still be people sleeping on the streets and there will still be people turning down perfectly good social houses that already exist, in the vague hope that they can get something in a nice suburb with space for a trampoline.

byhookorbycrook

If you don't have a job, then you should go wherever the houses are, like the rest of those of us who work for a living.

Hollister11

Even if the Government could get 10,000 of the 18000 vacant house back into use a year for the next few years, that would really be a massive help.

AlmightyCushion

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Also what happens in the case where the mortgage is being met each month but the vacant property is in negative equity - if CPO proceedings are served and an order made and the market value paid presumably that leaves the owner in hoc to the bank or would the bank join in as a notice party and assist the owner in defending the proceedings? I can envisage 1000s of such scenarios.

In those cases, why wouldn't they be already renting out the house?

etselbbuns

The IrishTimes reports:

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.

The_Conductor

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

In those cases, why wouldn't they be already renting out the house?

Occasional self-usage and/or emotional attachment of one type or another (such as it being located on family property etc)?