Vatican still hasn't approved Charity pull out from maternity hospital site

Balf

https://www.thejournal.ie/maternity-hospital-3-4885665-Nov2019/

Probably time to remind ourselves that this hospital was built with taxpayers money.

Is it time to consider if a Constitutional Amendment could be framed to reclaim public assets under religious control?

Because its a bit much to have to ask the Pope if we can have a maternity hospital.

I take it the issue is you'd expect abortions to be a regular feature of the service, once NMH moves. While Vincents has a legal obligation to perform lawful abortions, I doubt the need has actually arisen in any practical sense.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Sure I thought the Catholic Church was against pulling out?

Odhinn

Dr Turk Turkelton wrote: »

Sure I thought the Catholic Church was against pulling out?

...and putting in a lot of the time as well.

Montage of Feck

There's a depressing trend of building hospitals in stupid places.

Snow Garden

The Vatican has never cared for the women and children of Ireland.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Probably time to remind ourselves that this hospital was built with taxpayers money.

Probably time to remind yourself that it isn't built yet.

Eric Cartman

Montage of Feck wrote: »

There's a depressing trend of building hospitals in stupid places.

That childrens hospital is the greatest example of votes overcoming common sense in a long time. Every private hospital bar the mater is motorway ejacent for a very good reason, building it anywhere except just off the M50 is clearly nothing more than a vote getting stunt

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Probably time to remind yourself that it isn't built yet.

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

The existing Vincents Hospital was built at taxpayer expense. The services are largely paid for by the taxpayer.

Yet, apparently, we've to ask the Pope if we want to co-locate a maternity hospital that also offers abortion services.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

The existing Vincents Hospital was built at taxpayer expense. The services are largely paid for by the taxpayer.

Yet, apparently, we've to ask the Pope if we want to co-locate a maternity hospital that also offers abortion services.

They ("the Pope") own the land.

If you want to build something down on Doonbeg Golf Course ya gotta ask DTs permission to buy it first baby. You can try for a CPO but you need to be sure that there are no other available sites and that you absolutely have to have it on that golfcourse. If you want to fire ahead and build anyway, then don't blame the owner if you are thick enough to invest building something on land that you don't control.

Unless you want to weaken constitutional property rights? Maybe you do, but you'd better be careful of what you wish for there. Because it would have consequences far beyond whatever shortsighted agenda you might currently have.

Varik

Add this to the long list of reasons they should build it somewhere else, and no law or Irish constitutional change is getting the government a free site.

Balf

Balf wrote: »

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

The existing Vincents Hospital was built at taxpayer expense. The services are largely paid for by the taxpayer.

Yet, apparently, we've to ask the Pope if we want to co-locate a maternity hospital that also offers abortion services.

True. Diarmaid Ferriter wrote a very enlightening article about all the state funding poured into St Vincent's. Between 1931 and 1969 £5.2 million was given to St Vincents from the Sweepstakes, and in 1934 the nuns paid a relatively paltry £24,000 to buy the current St Vincent's site in Merrion (In 1931, for instance Vincent's received just under £21,000 from the same source).

Diarmaid Ferriter: St Vincent's was built with public money

It never seems to have occurred to anybody in cash-strapped Ireland that there was, and remains, a huge negligence in the state givings billions of euro to develop all these hospitals (and schools) on land which the Irish state doesn't even own. The sheer stupidity. A handful of nuns in 1934 outsmarted the senior civil servants and politicians by buying that land.


The mystery here is why the Vatican would hand over this hugely valuable site to a foreign state, Ireland, without charging for it. By law they own that site, and by convention in our capitalist system they are entitled to a return on their £24,000 investment in that land in 1934. Same goes for all the other hospitals and schools in Ireland which are owned by the RCC. In short, the Irish state fúcked the Irish people over by not prioritising ownership of all that land before they built on it. The RCC was smarter.

BDI

[Deleted User] wrote: »

True. Diarmaid Ferriter wrote a very enlightening article about all the state funding poured into St Vincent's. Between 1931 and 1969 £5.2 million was given to St Vincents from the Sweepstakes, and in 1934 the nuns paid a relatively paltry £24,000 to buy the current St Vincent's site in Merrion (In 1931, for instance Vincent's received just under £21,000 from the same source).

Diarmaid Ferriter: St Vincent's was built with public money

It never seems to have occurred to anybody in cash-strapped Ireland that there was, and remains, a huge negligence in the state givings billions of euro to develop all these hospitals (and schools) on land which the Irish state doesn't even own. The sheer stupidity. A handful of nuns in 1934 outsmarted the senior civil servants and politicians by buying that land.


The mystery here is why the Vatican would hand over this hugely valuable site to a foreign state, Ireland, without charging for it. By law they own that site, and by convention in our capitalist system they are entitled to a return on their £24,000 investment in that land in 1934. Same goes for all the other hospitals and schools in Ireland which are owned by the RCC. In short, the Irish state fúcked the Irish people over by not prioritising ownership of all that land before they built on it. The RCC was smarter.

In fairness the Roman Catholic Church has been around since the days of the New Testament. They have been accumulating billions in land deals and art collection.

They have teams of accountants and solicitors walking around in frocks with nothing to do with their time except work. The nuns and soft faces camp priests you see are just the front of the organization. Behind that is a huge conglomerate filled with sharks.

Take priests not being allowed marry for example, who does the unmarried priest leave his house and savings to?

Not his wife anyway.


Ireland at the time was a pretty new state, the government made up mostly of B specials, agitators, part time poets and school teachers didn’t stand much of a chance.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Unless you want to weaken constitutional property rights? Maybe you do, but you'd better be careful of what you wish for there. Because it would have consequences far beyond whatever shortsighted agenda you might currently have.

I think its one of those discussions where words like "shortsighted" look like attempts to avoid the point.

It would be "shortsighted" to consider this issue, as if the Government wanted to build something in a random field that just happened to be owned by the Sisters of Charity, or the Widow Murphy. The reason schools and many hospitals are owned by religious orders and office holders was precisely to make sure of religious control of what goes on there.

So when we should just be deciding to relocate a large maternity unit to one of our major publicly funded teaching hospitals, we find we need Papal authority to do so. Its like something an opponent of Home Rule would have predicted as the outcome of independence.

Absolutely, changing the Constitution would involve a wider debate over whether the concept of private property, as currently framed, is working in the public interest. For example, the housing market works to the benefit of anyone who can sit on development land until prices get critical. Many bad consequences ensue from that, that can only be definitively resolved by an Amendment.

Previously, such an Amendment would not pass. When Irish people overwhelmingly owned their own homes (and went to Mass), they would have been "shortsighted" and voted against anything that reduced religious control of State funded institutions - even if it was unlikely to have any real impact on their individual home ownership.

Maybe a generation that lives in rented accommodation might see things differently.

is_that_so

Deleted User wrote: »

True. Diarmaid Ferriter wrote a very enlightening article about all the state funding poured into St Vincent's. Between 1931 and 1969 £5.2 million was given to St Vincents from the Sweepstakes, and in 1934 the nuns paid a relatively paltry £24,000 to buy the current St Vincent's site in Merrion (In 1931, for instance Vincent's received just under £21,000 from the same source).

Diarmaid Ferriter: St Vincent's was built with public money

It never seems to have occurred to anybody in cash-strapped Ireland that there was, and remains, a huge negligence in the state givings billions of euro to develop all these hospitals (and schools) on land which the Irish state doesn't even own. The sheer stupidity. A handful of nuns in 1934 outsmarted the senior civil servants and politicians by buying that land.


The mystery here is why the Vatican would hand over this hugely valuable site to a foreign state, Ireland, without charging for it. By law they own that site, and by convention in our capitalist system they are entitled to a return on their £24,000 investment in that land in 1934. Same goes for all the other hospitals and schools in Ireland which are owned by the RCC. In short, the Irish state fúcked the Irish people over by not prioritising ownership of all that land before they built on it. The RCC was smarter.

This is called rewriting history and inventing completely untenable critiques. Really can't apply 21st century PC and "insight" to a time when we were barely functioning as a state and where religion fully permeated every aspect of life.

is_that_so

Balf wrote: »

I think its one of those discussions where words like "shortsighted" look like attempts to avoid the point.

It would be "shortsighted" to consider this issue, as if the Government wanted to build something in a random field that just happened to be owned by the Sisters of Charity, or the Widow Murphy. The reason schools and many hospitals are owned by religious orders and office holders was precisely to make sure of religious control of what goes on there.

So when we should just be deciding to relocate a large maternity unit to one of our major publicly funded teaching hospitals, we find we need Papal authority to do so. Its like something an opponent of Home Rule would have predicted as the outcome of independence.

Absolutely, changing the Constitution would involve a wider debate over whether the concept of private property, as currently framed, is working in the public interest. For example, the housing market works to the benefit of anyone who can sit on development land until prices get critical. Many bad consequences ensue from that, that can only be definitively resolved by an Amendment.

Previously, such an Amendment would not pass. When Irish people overwhelmingly owned their own homes (and went to Mass), they would have been "shortsighted" and voted against anything that reduced religious control of State funded institutions - even if it was unlikely to have any real impact on their individual home ownership.

Maybe a generation that lives in rented accommodation might see things differently.

You seem to be confusing two things here, the Constitution and laws that come from it. We do have legislation that penalises sitting on commercial sites, it's just not applied aggressively enough.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/planning_and_development_in_ireland/vacant_sites.html

cnocbui

Donald Trump wrote: »

They ("the Pope") own the land.

If you want to build something down on Doonbeg Golf Course ya gotta ask DTs permission to buy it first baby. You can try for a CPO but you need to be sure that there are no other available sites and that you absolutely have to have it on that golfcourse. If you want to fire ahead and build anyway, then don't blame the owner if you are thick enough to invest building something on land that you don't control.

Unless you want to weaken constitutional property rights? Maybe you do, but you'd better be careful of what you wish for there. Because it would have consequences far beyond whatever shortsighted agenda you might currently have.

Has the church paid the €226 million it owes the state? If not, just seize the asset, as you would with any other defaulting debtor. No need to bring up the constitution in your defense of the Church.

Balf

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to be confusing two things here, the Constitution and laws that come from it. We do have legislation that penalises sitting on commercial sites, it's just not applied aggressively enough.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/environment/planning_and_development_in_ireland/vacant_sites.html

All of those measures need to be framed in the context of a constitutional protection for private property that works in favour of land horders.

The issue has been known for decades

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/building-a-better-future-with-some-old-ideas-from-the-kenny-report-911787.html

In its opening chapter, the committee noted that in the period 1963 to 1971, the average price of “serviced” land (ie undeveloped land which has the main services of water, sewerage and drainage close to it) in county Dublin increased by a staggering 530% compared to a rise of 64% in the consumer price index.

When the committee reported in March 1973, the Majority Report recommended that local authorities be given the right to acquire undeveloped lands at existing use value plus 25 per cent by adopting Designated Area Schemes. ......

However, regulating the price of building land was considered by many, including the two Minority Report members, to be an infringement of private property rights which are protected under the Constitution, notably Article 43.1.2.

Unfortunately, we tend to look at this issues in a shortsighted way, and forget that the very same problems keep coming up decade after decade.

And various kinds of vacant site levies have been tried since the 1960s, to no effect.

is_that_so

Balf wrote: »

All of those measures need to be framed in the context of a constitutional protection for private property that works in favour of land horders.

The issue has been known for decadesUnfortunately, we tend to look at this issues in a shortsighted way, and forget that the very same problems keep coming up decade after decade.

And various kinds of vacant site levies have been tried since the 1960s, to no effect.

You will not get a constitutional amendment through that messes with property ownership no matter what you call it. Newer vacancy site tax has more teeth, but values are set too low and in its application it's far too timid at present. Hoarding can be addressed by better planning, through the use of sites within urban boundaries and through the use of brown field sites.

Balf

is_that_so wrote: »

You will not get a constitutional amendment through that messes with property ownership no matter what you call it. Newer vacancy site tax has more teeth, but values are set too low and in its application it's far too timid at present. Hoarding can be addressed by better planning, through the use of sites within urban boundaries and through the use of brown field sites.

If you increase the levy to a level that it actually means something, compared to the speculative gains that land holders expect, you start getting into trouble with the Constitution.

Like I said, a generation that doesn't own substantial assets - and has no prospect of acquiring meaningful assets - should see things differently.

I think the discussion needs to commence. Again.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

I think its one of those discussions where words like "shortsighted" look like attempts to avoid the point.

It would be "shortsighted" to consider this issue, as if the Government wanted to build something in a random field that just happened to be owned by the Sisters of Charity, or the Widow Murphy. The reason schools and many hospitals are owned by religious orders and office holders was precisely to make sure of religious control of what goes on there.

So when we should just be deciding to relocate a large maternity unit to one of our major publicly funded teaching hospitals, we find we need Papal authority to do so. Its like something an opponent of Home Rule would have predicted as the outcome of independence.

Absolutely, changing the Constitution would involve a wider debate over whether the concept of private property, as currently framed, is working in the public interest. For example, the housing market works to the benefit of anyone who can sit on development land until prices get critical. Many bad consequences ensue from that, that can only be definitively resolved by an Amendment.

Previously, such an Amendment would not pass. When Irish people overwhelmingly owned their own homes (and went to Mass), they would have been "shortsighted" and voted against anything that reduced religious control of State funded institutions - even if it was unlikely to have any real impact on their individual home ownership.

Maybe a generation that lives in rented accommodation might see things differently.

It appears that you only have a very shallow understanding of some concepts, and the implications of doing what you think you understand.

Strong property rights are very important to society. Sometimes it can be "inconvenient" for agendas of particular people. But if you would like to advocate for a weakening of those rights so that the government can arbitrarily take property then don't come back here whinging if you get your wish and then it affects you or someone close to you. There is no point deluding yourself that the current civil servants or politicians will of course take decisions that are in the best interests of the country rather than in their own personal interests or the interests of a body with a powerful influence - if you naively believe that then go and talk to a man called Thomas Reid


You appear to be incensed that it is the Catholic Church that owns those lands. Is that the issue? Is it just some kind of bigotry towards anything Catholic? An excuse to rant and moan about them? Would you still have the same outrage if the local management based in a building that Microsoft owned in Dublin, thought they should sell that building to the government and move, but that they had to ask HQ back in Seattle to sign off on it first?

If you really give a shite about the issue at hand then complain about those in the state that made bad decisions.

Donald Trump

cnocbui wrote: »

Has the church paid the €226 million it owes the state? If not, just seize the asset, as you would with any other defaulting debtor. No need to bring up the constitution in your defense of the Church.

I'm just defending the concept of property rights dude. If you want to extinguish said rights because you have a particular hatred or intolerance to specific people who own something then that is on your own back.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

But if you would like to advocate for a weakening of those rights so that the government can arbitrarily take property then don't come back here whinging if you get your wish and then it affects you or someone close to you.

Nobody is making a case for arbitrary State action. All that's being pointed to is where existing rights are unbalanced in favour of profiteers and undemocratic bodies.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You appear to be incensed that it is the Catholic Church that owncs those lands.

You seem to have a shallow understanding of history, if you think the Church acquired formal ownership of state institutions through happenstance.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Nobody is making a case for arbitrary State action. All that's being pointed to is where existing rights are unbalanced in favour of profiteers and undemocratic bodies.

Then what are you apparently ranting about. You support property rights then too? And they own it? So we are agreed that they can make decisions as to what to do with it - which includes if and when they can divest of it?

Balf wrote: »

You seem to have a shallow understanding of history, if you think the Church acquired formal ownership of state institutions through happenstance.

And? What is your point? Do they own them legally? Yes. Are you jealous/annoyed/whatever that they do? - get over it if you are. Feel free to regale us with stories of how the evil church illegally acquired those lands.

There is nothing more to this thread. Either wait for the Church to decide whether or not to hand it over or go and get another site. While you are waiting then attack the well-paid eejitsin the state who make stupid decisions

cnocbui

Donald Trump wrote: »

I'm just defending the concept of property rights dude. If you want to extinguish said rights because you have a particular hatred or intolerance to specific people who own something then that is on your own back.

In what way is seizing assets to pay off debt - in this case land - non constitutional? Why does my suggesting this make you spout off about intolerance and hatred? Triggered much?

Donald Trump

cnocbui wrote: »

In what way is seizing assets to pay off debt - in this case land - non constitutional? Why does my suggesting this make you spout off about intolerance and hatred? Triggered much?

Lol. Triggered yourself dude. You cannot just take someone else's property because they owe you money - "yeah your honour - I did steal his car but he owed me a few quid and I liked that particular car so I can't be done for it".

cnocbui

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lol. Triggered yourself dude. You cannot just take someone else's property because they owe you money - "yeah your honour - I did steal his car but he owed me a few quid and I liked that particular car so I can't be done for it".

Look up judgment mortgage.

Donald Trump

cnocbui wrote: »

Look up judgment mortgage.

Look it up yourself there dude. What has it got to do with the OP which was that the constitution should be changed. The OP never mentioned debt - he just implied that the state should be allowed to seize land if it owned by the Catholic Church for no reasons other than they wanted it and the current owner was the Church.

Regardless, seeing as how you seem to be using the thread as an attempt for a different angle/agenda, If you think that one person can unilaterally decide to appropriate another property at their own whim to settle a debt, or even that they should be allowed to do so, then you are sorely mistaken.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

You support property rights then too? And they own it? So we are agreed that they can make decisions as to what to do with it - which includes if and when they can divest of it?

This is too simplistic a view.

The right to property is never absolute. As folk have pointed out, we already have (ineffective) measures to incentivise use of development land.

Its not a rant to say the Church retained ownership as a way of exercising control. It just what happened. And, again, its naive and simplistic to talk as if that was not the situation.

Yes, they are using the State's own protections to screw the public. It doesn't have to be that way; we can reframe the right to property in a way that better supports the public good.

is_that_so

cnocbui wrote: »

Look up judgment mortgage.

That would only work if you can get a lien attached in the first place. Doubt it would work here as it is not transactional debt, it's just not fulfilling an agreement with the government more promptly. I believe some of these propertes are still occupied.

Varik

People are vastly underestimating how much land costs. Another thread has people going on about how RTE should sell up in Montrose (it's a good idea), they did sell off a 8,64 acres piece for €107.5m recently enough. Before the crash the hospital was offered 20m per acre of it's ~24 acre site, even if today the value was half that .


Same as when the Christian Brothers sold off those sports grounds, the government doesn't have the money to buy it and the debts aren't high enough. The government would rather the debt go unpayed and keep using the land.

Balf

Varik wrote: »

People are vastly underestimating how much land costs. Another thread has people going on about how RTE should sell up in Montrose (it's a good idea), they did sell off a 8,64 acres piece for €107.5m recently enough. Before the crash the hospital was offered 20m per acre of it's ~24 acre site, even if today the value was half that.

I don't see where people are underestimating the prices that land currently achieves. I think the division is between people who think that's fine, and people who want to explore what can be done about it.

If we regard €10 million as a reasonable price for an acre of development land, we're saying its reasonable to envisage the site cost of a new home to be at least €100,000 or of that order.

Go back to the Kenny report idea that local authorities should be able to CPO land for 25% more than the agricultural land value. That's €20,000 in the Dublin area. If development land could be purchased for €25,000 an acre, the individual site cost would be €250. That would have an obviously large beneficial impact on housing supply, at the expense of land speculators.

While I'm playing fast and loose with figures, the benefits are of that order. Well worth considering.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

I don't see where people are underestimating the prices that land currently achieves. I think the division is between people who think that's fine, and people who want to explore what can be done about it.

If we regard €10 million as a reasonable price for an acre of development land, we're saying its reasonable to envisage the site cost of a new home to be at least €100,000 or of that order.

Go back to the Kenny report idea that local authorities should be able to CPO land for 25% more than the agricultural land value. That's €20,000 in the Dublin area. If development land could be purchased for €25,000 an acre, the individual site cost would be €250. That would have an obviously large beneficial impact on housing supply, at the expense of land speculators.

While I'm playing fast and loose with figures, the benefits are of that order. Well worth considering.

You are misunderstanding and ending up at a frankly retarded conclusion. This land in question is clearly not agricultural land. The report you are quoting obviously refers to CPO'ing currently agricultural land. Even then its recommendations would (rightfully) not stand up in court. Or else you'd have an immediate cliff-edge drop in inward investment to the country.

How would you like it if a registered letter landed in your letterbox telling you that your local reps decided to demolish your houses and build some public facilities. But it would be ok, because your property covers 4% of an acre, you'd be getting a grand...."but but but I didn't mean me..... Just other people should be allowed to have their property taken like that...not me".
Would it happen to you? unlikely but you never know. 1300 people in Dublin are in line for an average 25k payoff for taking tiny strips off their gardens for widening roads for bus lanes....they're giving out about it as it is even with the floated 25k comp....wonder how they'd like it if your plan was implemented and they were handed a tenner each. lol

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

You are misunderstanding and ending up at a frankly retarded conclusion. This land in question is clearly not agricultural land. The report you are quoting obviously refers to CPO'ing currently agricultural land. Even then its recommendations would (rightfully) not stand up in court

Tbh, you are not following the thread of discussion.

Yes, it would be a change requiring a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would require checks and balances. Yes, it would mean some folk would not get the speculative gains they want.

Yes, it would chiefly appeal to people who don't currently own assets. Yes, the vested interests who would lose can be expected to attempt to frighten the Widow Murphy into thinking this means she'll be evicted from her home.

Would it impact on FDI? Hardly, as they're not here to make a living from speculative land gambles. We're talking about changing the balance of rights so they cannot continue to be abused, and not suggesting that we seize Intel's IP.

All that's said on this thread, if you only read and comprehended it.

Varik

Kenny report dealt with speculative buying of agricultural zoned land, it wasn't agricultural use value +25% it was existing value +25%. The land it dealt with had no concrete developmental potential or planned to be rezoned but property was being bought for the slight chance it would and some of them were bound to be right.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Tbh, you are not following the thread of discussion.

Yes, it would be a change requiring a constitutional amendment. Yes, it would require checks and balances. Yes, it would mean some folk would not get the speculative gains they want.

Yes, it would chiefly appeal to people who don't currently own assets. Yes, the vested interests who would lose can be expected to attempt to frighten the Widow Murphy into thinking this means she'll be evicted from her home.

Would it impact on FDI? Hardly, as they're not here to make a living from speculative land gambles. We're talking about changing the balance of rights so they cannot continue to be abused, and not suggesting that we seize Intel's IP.

All that's said on this thread, if you only read and comprehended it.

Lol dude. What is the St Vincent's site currently being used for? Are they planting spuds in it maybe or is it sheep farming or perhaps even a dairy?


Multinationals will not invest in a jurisdiction that does not have strong property rights. Why is that? - and seeing as how you mention Intel - suppose the government just goes around seizing property and paying 25k an acre for it. Grand, it happens today for St. Vincents. Maybe tomorrow they will seize the Intel campus at Leixlip. Maybe the pencil pusher who can decide on his whim to do so gets a nice little backhander from AMD for procuring them a nice site for the "Irish" company they just set up


Out of curiosity - what was your position on Thomas Reid case which I mentioned in passing earlier. What with your talk about checks and balances.

TheValeyard

Shouldn't be on Vincent's site in the first place. Plenty of room in Blanch hospital with easy access to M50/M4 and M3

is_that_so

TheValeyard wrote: »

Shouldn't be on Vincent's site in the first place. Plenty of room in Blanch hospital with easy access to M50/M4 and M3

That site must be the size of Dublin Airport with all the facilities that could allegedly be located there! The decision has been made so any speculation is moot. Vincent's makes sense given where the three maternity hospitals are based.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

What is the St Vincent's site currently being used for? Are they planting spuds in it maybe or is it sheep farming or perhaps even a dairy?

Again, you miss the point.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Multinationals will not invest in a jurisdiction that does not have strong property rights.

No-one is suggesting weak property rights. We're suggesting sensible property rights, not open to abuse,

Donald Trump wrote: »

Out of curiosity - what was your position on Thomas Reid case which I mentioned in passing earlier.

I can't see any reason why the State should CPO land from one private enterprise to give to another.

But, bear in mind, we had legislation to do just that precisely because of a desire to facilitate FDI. So I think you need to reflect on the case a little, because you aren't being entirely coherent.

TheValeyard

is_that_so wrote: »

That site must be the size of Dublin Airport with all the facilities that could allegedly be located there! The decision has been made so any speculation is moot. Vincent's makes sense given where the three maternity hospitals are based.

I know that decision had been made so speculation is moot. But I shall anyway. Still believe shenanigans were involved in agreement for that site. Blanch was much better, and yes huge amount of land out there.

Varik

TheValeyard wrote: »

Shouldn't be on Vincent's site in the first place. Plenty of room in Blanch hospital with easy access to M50/M4 and M3

So much space there that they could have built it without interfering with the existing operations.

Same for the childrens hospital, I previously worked on the Misa project and it was great for me as I was on and off the luas but don't know who else it was good for. You were already losing some parking and every space around rialto was taken, that on top of those going to the hospital itself and now there's more of it.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Again, you miss the point.No-one is suggesting weak property rights. We're suggesting sensible property rights, not open to abuse,I can't see any reason why the State should CPO land from one private enterprise to give to another.

But, bear in mind, we had legislation to do just that precisely because of a desire to facilitate FDI. So I think you need to reflect on the case a little, because you aren't being entirely coherent.

Look I'm fed up talking to you. You still apparently think that the government should be allowed to seize the Vincents site and pay compensation of 25k an acre.

Then you go on about having strong property rights. Load of waffle.

Thomas Reid won his case because the state body would not admit why they were trying to steal his land. Would Intel be bothered that the state was trying to appropriate the land of a small farmer by intimidating him - no, of course not. They would be confident that they would have the resources to fight any such attempt on their own property. Weaken the property rights in the constitution and then that falls away.


Give us your vision of how these new property rights would appear in the constitution? Because we already have a mechanism (CPO) to seize land when it can be shown to be necessary and for the greater good. So you must want something more than that.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Would Intel be bothered that the state was trying to appropriate the land of a small farmer by intimidating him - no, of course not.

Seeing as how the lands were being acquired by IDA for Intel, I think you need to reflect on the coherence of what you are saying.

You need a deeper appreciation of the issues in play, because you're not really grasping whats at issue.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Seeing as how the lands were being acquired by IDA for Intel, I think you need to reflect on the coherence of what you are saying.

You need a deeper appreciation of the issues in play, because you're not really grasping whats at issue.

No dude. It is you that do not understand what you are proposing or the implications of same. You're waffling and rambling. Do you still really think that the government should be able to seize property in Dublin City and pay 25k an acre for it? Is that still your position? Is that the conclusion that you came to as a result of your own "deeper appreciation of the issues in play"?

FYI, and your own education, the main issue at hand with the Thomas Reid case was that the IDA tried to CPO his land without ever admitting it was for Intel. Now they were following your argument that you said that you were not talking about taking property from one private entity to give to another. They were ostensibly taking private land into public ownership. They thought that they could bully the little fella.
Could they bully Intel in the same manner - no - because of the constitutional protections on property rights meant that any challenge would likely ultimately succeed. Intel would have the means to fight them to bring it that far. The fact that the IDA tried (and failed) to bully Reid would not make Intel run to the hills because they know the state could not try to pull a fast one on them in the same manner. Do you understand the concept that some people might not have the contacts/experience/resources/will to fight something like that and be bullied into accepting something they should not be able to be forced into?

Here's an extreme example - https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/24/venezuela-asset-seizures-raise-concerns-for-other-sectors-gm.html. Maybe if you were around you could have explained to GM why they shouldn't pull out because "shure the government will be fair".
Could the Irish government seize assets like that? No, because of constitutional property protections. The very things you want to dilute. You still haven't given a good reason for wanting that, or how you would define it other than implying that you don't think "The Pope" should be allowed the same property rights as anyone else.

Look, I'm not wasting any more time replying to you. Your arguments are simplistic and short-sighted and amount to little more than "wah wah, it's not fair that they have something. We should be allowed to take it from them. But not my stuff. You can't touch my stuff". Laws have to be made that apply to all equally. If you want protections of your rights, you have to allow those protections to others too.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you still really think that the government should be able to seize property in Dublin City and pay 25k an acre for it?

I'd be comfortable with the State paying €25,000 an acre to CPO Vincents Hospital, given the level of State investment in the facility. I suspect Intel would not be alarmed by that, if they cared at all.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Could they bully Intel in the same manner - no - because of the constitutional protections on property rights meant that any challenge would likely ultimately succeed. Intel would have the means to fight them to bring it that far.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Laws have to be made that apply to all equally. If you want protections of your rights, you have to allow those protections to others too.

Like I said, you are not being coherent. You are saying the law doesn't equally protect all, and that Intel would only invest here if it did equally protect all.

And, behind it all, there's no absolute right to private property. The existing balance of rights could do with a change. In particular, there's no need to protect the scope to speculate and no need to facilitate continuing religious control in health and education.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

ILike I said, you are not being coherent. You are saying the law doesn't equally protect all, and that Intel would only invest here if it did equally protect all.

I don't know where you got that from. Where did I say anything about the law not equally protecting all? It currently does. Unequal access to the legal system is a separate issue to whether the underlying laws protect anyone. Thomas Reid went to the Supreme Court at huge financial risk to himself.

You're talking about "controls and checks" as if these instruments would never be abused. In the case of Thomas Reid they were. They were trying to seize his land to hand it over to Intel. But they could not admit to doing that. So they had to pretend that a state body needed the land (which happened to be located right beside the Intel campus...coincidentally like). Reid risked millions of his own money to fight the case. How many millions would you yourself be prepared to risk in the Supreme Court if the local Council decided to take a strip off the bottom of your garden so that they could add a parking space and you didn't want to sell it.....they say it's needed for the public good but the dogs on the street know that the County Manager's brother's shop is next door and he's losing customers because there is no parking outside his shop.......

Balf wrote: »

And, behind it all, there's no absolute right to private property. The existing balance of rights could do with a change. In particular, there's no need to protect the scope to speculate and no need to facilitate continuing religious control in health and education.

Ah, so the mask is slipping. And if we think that "The Jews" are controlling the media maybe we should be allowed to seize their businesses too? Or is it just Catholic properties you want to seize. You want to go back to the Penal laws maybe? Would that make you happy?

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Unequal access to the legal system is a separate issue to whether the underlying laws protect anyone.

But the same as saying they don't protect everyone - which is where your position lacks coherence.

You've essentially said Intel are happy with a two-tier legal system, and then say no-one could be happy with a two-tier system. Incoherent.

Donald Trump wrote: »

You're talking about "controls and checks" as if these instruments would never be abused.

No, in fact you'd benefit from acquainting yourself with this book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_and_Crooked_Thinking

You've a particular tendency to present false dilemmas, but you'd gain from studying the other flaws in reasoning and argument.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ah, so the mask is slipping. And if we think that "The Jews" are controlling the media maybe we should be allowed to seize their businesses too? Or is it just Catholic properties you want to seize. You want to go back to the Penal laws maybe? Would that make you happy?

Speak of the devil. (DT's next post "So you're a Satanist")

You are consistently missing the point. I don't know whether that's deliberate, or whether you just genuinely don't follow the argument.

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

But the same as saying they don't protect everyone - which is where your position lacks coherence.

You've essentially said Intel are happy with a two-tier legal system, and then say no-one could be happy with a two-tier system. Incoherent.No, in fact you'd benefit from acquainting yourself with this book:

Please do point out where I stated any of the above. Unless you can take a screenshot of the inside of your head and link it here, I doubt we'll be seeing it.
The fact that people might not access financially to challenge infringements on their rights does not mean they do not exist. Thoma Reid took a chance. Many could not or would not. Is that too difficult a concept to understand? Really? Or are you under the impression that all Courts are free to access for everyone? Win or lose you will never have to pay a penny? Is that what you think?


Did you support or agree with Thomas Reid's challenge to fight against his land being seized by a public body (IDA). Yes or no? Because I definitely did.

You do understand that it was the constitution that saved him? You know that thing that you want to dilute (without having the cop-on to realise what you are proposing)

Dude, you think things are incoherent because you cannot understand them. There's not much I can do.

You still haven't given us your proposed constitutional amendment. Or even any indication of what exactly you want in it other than it would reduce the rights of Catholic organisations.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

Please do point out where I stated any of the above.

Sure, I've already done that. Several posts ago. You just haven't digested the implications of what you said.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Did you support or agree with Thomas Reid's challenge to fight against his land being seized by a public body (IDA). Yes or no? Because I definitely did.

I already did.

Balf wrote: »

I can't see any reason why the State should CPO land from one private enterprise to give to another.

Where's the ambiguity there?

Are you actually reading the thread before posting?

Donald Trump

Balf wrote: »

Sure, I've already done that. Several posts ago. You just haven't digested the implications of what you said.I already did.Where's the ambiguity there?

Are you actually reading the thread before posting?

Lol dude. You are all over the place. You say that a public body should be able to seize assets on their whim yet you (correctly IMO) support Thomas Reid. Which is it? The IDA wanted his land. THEY NEVER ADMITTED WHY THEY WANTED IT. They just said they needed it. Not that they wanted to give it to anyone else. If they had said "we want this for Intel" then they would have never gotten the CPO. So they could not admit to that.

Now, Thomas Reid fought them on the basis of the State's constitutional obligation to protect his property rights. As you say, those rights are not absolute but the conditions under which they can be extinguished could be heuristically explained as being for something that is absolutely necessary for the greater good and with no alternatives. He won. But he risked millions to do so. Many would not. Could he have lost - yes, the IDA position that they absolutely needed that specific land for the greater public good could have been believed. Then in 5-10 years they "realize" they don't need it and quietly sell it to Intel - or else lease it to them on a very long lease at favourable terms.

If you weaken the constitution then Thomas Reid doesn't get to appeal. Well he can appeal but he will have nothing to base it on. We understand you don't like the church. Call it whatever you will - intolerance/hatred/bigotry/whatever. But we cannot change the constitution based on that bigotry. The constitution is very important and any changes can have effects that you might not consider now. Think of the amendment that was made in the 1990's for the GFA. It wrote into the constitution that anyone born on the Ireland of Ireland was entitled to claim citizenship. Which meant visa trips for pregnant ladies to give birth here for a few years. That needed another referendum to remove it and relegate it back to the legislative level.

Balf

Donald Trump wrote: »

You say that a public body should be able to seize assets on their whim

Nope, you're just doing a strawman.

Donald Trump wrote: »

If you weaken the constitution then Thomas Reid doesn't get to appeal.

Entirely depends on what we do. He could actually end up in a stronger position, if we're clear that the substance of property rights are to be enjoyed.

Did anyone question the fact he's a farmer, with as much of a a right to carry on his business as any FDI company?