The Catholic Church Downsizing Thread

Hotblack Desiato

I think this now warrants a thread of its own outside the Decline of Religion thread. It's not so much about the decline of the religion, but what happens to its vast assets.

Plenty of stories recently about the RCC seeking to rezone lands. They own an astonishing amount of unused and underused land in and around towns and ciites, in Dublin in particular this land is potentially worth a fortune.

You may not be able to read some of these without a subscription but you get the gist just from the headlines.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/move-by-sisters-of-charity-to-rezone-merrion-road-land-would-boost-its-value-to-50m-1.4808527

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/has-the-time-come-to-reduce-the-number-of-catholic-dioceses-in-ireland-1.4801322

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/many-dublin-churches-built-in-mcquaid-s-time-may-be-demolished-1.4805588

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/church-keen-to-secure-value-of-its-lands-for-future-sale-1.4804589

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dublin-archdiocese-urges-rezoning-church-sites-to-allow-homebuilding-1.4804591

Demolition and downsizing has already begun - the massive 3,500 capacity church in Finglas West was demolished last year and will be replaced with one with a capacity of 300. But the new Archibishop Farrell of Dublin has stated that outright church closures and parish amalgamations are inevitable. The diocese has now submitted a list of 33 church sites in the Dublin city council area they would like to see rezoned for development.

Under the current zonings they can't immediately be sold as development land. It's not clear though what sort of "community" alternative usage is envisaged by DCC or how that would come about, or why the RCC would facilitate that when it's very much in its financial interest not to.

Then there's what happens to all the money this will realise. Will it be used for the benefit of the Irish people from whence it came? Victim compensation paid finally? or will it just be shovelled back to the Vatican?

With a rapidly shrinking and ageing clergy, who is going to manage these assets in the coming decades? Orders of nuns in Ireland are already all but extinct and have hived their assets off into obscure trusts and "charity" holding companies (such as at St. Vincent's) and the Christian Brothers did similar with ownership of schools divested into ERST (although, not certain school playing fields which have been lucratively sold off, to the great detriment of the schools concerned).

The Church of Ireland has faced serious decline for years now and on a relatively larger scale - although some small churches nominally still in use see only a handful of services a year, many others have been sold off. Former churches are now apartments, offices, even pubs. One or two are mosques. Could or would the RCC allow churches to be repurposed in similar ways or will many of them just be demolished? What about the listed status of some churches?

Farrell seems very much of the view that inaction and wishful thinking have gone on for far too long and that realistically the church in Ireland has to prepare for a very different future. It's going to be very interesting how all of this pans out, and given the longstanding housing crisis, urban land ownership and how it's used should be a concern of everyone not just churchgoers.

ohnonotgmail

They've already demolished the church I was baptised in. I was only in it a couple of years ago for a funeral.

Hotblack Desiato

Is that the Cappagh / Finglas one or somewhere else (unless you'd prefer not to say of course)

Peregrinus

In paragraph 3 you ask:

Then there's what happens to all the money this will realise. Will it be used for the benefit of the Irish people from whence it came? Victim compensation paid finally? or will it just be shovelled back to the Vatican?

In paragraph 4, you suggest an answer to your own question:

Orders of nuns in Ireland are already all but extinct and have hived their assets off into obscure trusts and "charity" holding companies (such as at St. Vincent's) and the Christian Brothers did similar with ownership of schools divested into ERST (although, not certain school playing fields which have been lucratively sold off, to the great detriment of the schools concerned).

So, assets currently employed to operates schools, hospitals, etc, continue to be employed to operate schools, hospitals, etc. You seem to regard this as suspicious or disreputable; others might think that it's at the better end of the range of possible outcomes.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118676081#Comment_118676081

Finglas.

Hotblack Desiato

@Peregrinus I was clearly referring to the question of what happens to the cash money realised from selling assets. Assets transferred into trusts have not been sold.

What's disreputable is the transfer of assets into trusts like ERST when the parent organisations owe vast sums of money to the State in abuse compensation. Ownership of these assets should have been transferred to the state as part of a settlement. The sale of school pitches by the CBs is also reprehensible, and what's happening to that money?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118676909#Comment_118676909

Thanks, so afaik that's still the only church in the country which has been demolished and that's probably down to its defective design as much as its excessive size.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118677945#Comment_118677945

Didnt realise its design was defective. How so?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2022/0220/1281973-dublin-planning/

Dublin City Council is set to insist on a restrictive zoning for Catholic Church lands.

The Archdiocese has complained that a redefinition of zoning will all but rule out housing on so-called community lands. Theirs is one of 3,300 submissions on the draft plan.

Lands held by the Archdiocese, as well as those held by religious orders, have a Z15 zoning defined as 'community'.

What RTE and some of the newspapers seem to forget though is that most of Dublin isn't within the DCC area. What is the position of the other councils?

She said councillors wanted to prevent a reoccurrence of what happened at Holy Cross in Drumcondra, where permission has been granted on former church lands for nearly 1,600 build-to-rent units in blocks up to 18 storeys high.

Ummm, why? Under the current zoning the height is immaterial, it all but precludes housing development at all and DCC should be callled upon to justify that.

smacl

Ummm, why? Under the current zoning the height is immaterial, it all but precludes housing development at all and DCC should be callled upon to justify that.

Allowing high density development in existing busy suburbs can bring a lot of problems unless it is preceded by extensive supporting infrastructure. Also tends to be very unpopular at a local level, particularly if it is largely going to be a mix of buy to rent and social housing.

Hotblack Desiato

We're not going to solve the housing crisis by constantly pandering to NIMBYs.

Anyway that development must have been approved by ABP.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118677953#Comment_118677953

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/final-mass-in-one-of-ireland-s-largest-catholic-churches-to-take-place-in-dublin-1.3653183

The Church of the Annunciation had been falling into disrepair for many years and upkeep of the enormous building was proving impossible for the parish to sustain.

A posting on the church’s Facebook page last April stated that “having experienced the cold of this winter, it is important that we don’t experience another winter in this church”. During “the Beast from the East” storm last spring church events there had to be moved to a local primary school.

Heard there were leaks too and obviously they could never heat the place. A lot of these 60s concrete wonders were never right.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118680698#Comment_118680698

Not sure I would describe that as a design fault. if you dont maintain any building properly there will be issues. As the article says that church was regularly more than full, even if that was a long time ago now.

Hotblack Desiato

From last June but just came across it now:

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2022/06/04/the-catholic-churchs-billion-euro-land-sale-and-its-just-getting-started/

In a recent submission to Fingal County Council in Dublin, planning consultants acting for the Vincentian religious order asked for two plots of land at Castleknock College to be rezoned for housing.

The order has been educating pupils at the site since the 1830s, in the early days of Catholic emancipation, and plans to continue. But it has lands “surplus to the requirements for the efficient running of the school” and has identified plots on the northwestern and northeastern peripheries of the 28.65-hectare campus as having potential for housing “without upsetting” school activities.

The paper for the Vincentians by planning consultant Simon Clear does not quantify the area of the plots in question, which appear from maps in the submission to comprise a minor portion the campus and possibly less than an eighth of the ground. Still, one property valuer said the order could expect to receive between €8 million and €10 million per hectare if the land had planning permission for housing in the affluent west Dublin suburb. Seeking zoning “for residential development” is but the first step in a process that could yet realise a big sum of money if ever the plots are sold.

Many religious property sales took place in the boom years of the Celtic Tiger, at a time when church bodies were under pressure to make a bigger contribution to the 2002 public redress scheme for former residents of religious-run institutions who suffered abuse. The costs of the child abuse inquiry and redress were estimated at €1.5 billion in 2017 by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In the 2002 redress deal with Bertie Ahern’s government, heavily criticised then and since, Catholic institutions entered a binding agreement in 2002 to pay €128 million to the State for redress. So far €125 million has been received in cash, property and counselling services, according to the Department of Education.

Figures on church land sales from 1999 on were provided to the government in 2009 by 16 of the 18 congregations that were in talks at that time to increase religious contributions after the 2002 scheme. Some €111.5 million in cash and €7.4 million in property has since been received under a 2009 voluntary agreement to provide a further €353 million, a target later cut to €226 million. Two further property transfers and one further cash contribution are outstanding.

That data suggests the congregations had realised more than €600 million between them on property sales in the 10 years to 2009. The figures included some €170 million realised by the Sisters of Mercy in more than 260 separate sales, some for nominal amounts and many described as below market value; €105 million realised by the Oblate Fathers from the 2004 sale of Belcamp College and surrounding farmlands at Balgriffin in north Co Dublin; €80.23 million realised by the Christian Brothers in that period; and €66.3 million realised by the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity.

The more recent wave of sales includes three former seminaries, as sharp a reflection as any of the lack of young men seeking to join the priesthood. The Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin realised €95 million in 2019 from the sale of Holy Cross college in the north city, once Dublin’s major training college. That same year the Jesuit order received some €65 million for the Milltown Park site of its former theologate in Ranelagh, Dublin 6. In 2015 the Redemptorist order received €42 million for the Marianella seminary, church and grounds in Rathgar, also in Dublin 6. The list of other sales goes on and on, with the value of known large transactions in Dublin since the crash exceeding €400 million.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/dublin/2022/12/29/council-to-target-dublin-church-sites-in-land-buying-programme/

Under the land-purchase programme, the council would focus on acquiring well-located sites, which were not currently zoned for housing to avoid paying a premium for residentially zoned lands. City councillors would then be asked to rezone the lands.

Two years ago, the council acquired the Church of the Annunciation in Finglas, one of Dublin’s largest churches, from the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. The 1960s church was subsequently demolished and last June more than 100 social homes were approved for the site.

Wonder if the RCC will object to this going forward? They recently tried to get about 30 Dublin sites rezoned as residential and were refused. Obvious conflict of interest here as DCC wants to buy such sites cheaply without residential zoning and then rezone them.

We have a direct conflict between the public interest - developing social and affordable housing without paying excessive land costs - and the financial interests of the RCC. Maybe, just maybe, the latter will do the right thing for the good of the Irish public who, after all, gifted or funded these church lands in the first place.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120044461#Comment_120044461

There's a wider issue here that has nothing to do with the church. It's obviously problematic, to put it no higher, for a local authority to use its zoning powers to drive down the price of land so that it can acquire the land cheaply, and then rezone it. I don't think this changes just because the land is currently owned by a church (and if local authorities are doing or are allowed to do this, I don't for a minute imagine that they will do it only in relation to church-owned land).

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120058390#Comment_120058390

They are not driving down the price of the land. they are refusing to artificially inflate it by granting planning permission for change of use to the RCC.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120058764#Comment_120058764

If you think the land should be used for housing, but refuse to zone it for housing and maintain a zoning of, say, community purposes with a view to keeping the price low so that you can acquire it more cheaply and then rezone it for housing, you are absolutely using your zoning powers to drive down the price of land so that you can acquire it more cheaply. And that is corrupt; that is not the purpose for which zoning powers are given to local authorities.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062985#Comment_120062985

The reverse is equally valid. If the church is selling land that has not previously been zoned for housing it is questionable that they should be given a price based on rezoning until it actually happens. One feels that as church lands have ultimately been paid for by the community and the church is part of the community, disposal of church assets should serve that community.

There is a long and dubious history in this country of speculating and land acquisition based on future rezoning. Lot of brown paper envelopes changed hands at one point from memory.

Hotblack Desiato

One feels that as church lands have ultimately been paid for by the community and the church is part of the community, disposal of church assets should serve that community.

Unfortunately that isn't what's been happening for well over 20 years now, in south Dublin in particular the RCC have been making out like bandits and ultimately of course it is homeowners and renters who end up paying for the church's massive tax-free windfall gains.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120063222#Comment_120063222

The thing is, once you have a zoning system at all then obviously zoning decisions are going to affect land values — affect them bigly, as Donald Trump would say. And that, of course, creates the perfect incentives for land speculation, the exertion of political influence and the leaving of brown envelopes under the bootscraper at the back door.

Which is not to say that you shouldn't have zoning - orderly planning and development requires it. But you should recognise the tendency to corruption that zoning produces, and think about how you're going to deal with it.

So. You have an expanding town, in need of more housing, and some nice greenfield sites at the edge of the town already served by roads and convenient to existing water and sewage services. From a planning point of view, they're a good place to build the housing that the town requires. Obviously, they should be zoned for housing.

My point is that, if all these factors are present, there is no reason to delay rezoning. In particular, delaying rezoning so that you can compulsorily acquire the land at a reduced value is just as corrupt as making a zoning decision in exchange for cash. In both cases, you're exercising your zoning powers for the purpose of generating financial advantage. That is not the purpose for which zoning powers are given. This is precisely the kind of corruption that we need to guard against, not that we want to encourage.

I take your point that church lands are held ultimately for the community, but if you compulsorily acquire the lands then the amount you pay for them will be held ultimately for the community, on exactly the same terms. I don't think it's a proper use of zoning powers, or a proper object of public policy, to divert resources from churches or other community non-profits into government coffers, on the rather thin basis that you are simply substituting one community agency for another. And it would be beyond bizarre to argue that that we should be able to do this to non-profits, but not to private individuals or commercial bodies.

You might perhaps argue for a law that, e.g., allows local government to acquire land at a price based on its current use value, ignoring its development potential, if it is going to use that land for public or affordable housing. That would avoid the problem of having to corruptly abuse zoning powers in order to achieve the same outcome, and it would be honest and explicit about what is going on. Of course, in a secular state, that law would have to apply to church land and non-church land alike.

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062985#Comment_120062985

except they arent driving the price down.

The price is still at its current price

the church can take it or leave it

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067415#Comment_120067415

The current price is the current price because the land is zoned in a way that prevents housing being built on it; the current price is the price driven down by that restriction.

If in fact you want housing built on it, but you maintain a zoning that prevents housing from being built on it, what is the reason for that?

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067429#Comment_120067429

You can keep repeating that claim all you want, it's still going to be false.

The price hasn't changed, it hasn't been driven down.

If it had been zoned for housing and changed so the council could then buy it you would have a point.

That you think it should be rezoned specifically to line the pockets of the church is laughable

The church is free to take it or leave it.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067558#Comment_120067558

I'm looking at a hypothetical in which the local authority considers that land should be used for housing, and wants to acquire it and use it for housing, but despite its view that the land should be used for housing won't zone it for housing so that it can acquire it more cheaply. That is absolutely using zoning powers to depress the market value of the land, and good luck arguing to the contrary in the inevitable High Court proceedings.

Note that the word "church" doesn't enter into this argument at all. It's irrelevant to the legal issues and economic reality of what's going on here that the current owner of the land is a church. So try and frame your response without using the word "church".

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067570#Comment_120067570

The church wants to sell land that isn't zoned for housing. They dont get the price for land that is.

Nothing is being depressed. Church or not. Hypothetical or not

There are no zoning powers being used, so good look bringing a court case on that.

You need to start using hypotheticals that have some grounding in reality.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067592#Comment_120067592

It's perhaps you that needs to be a bit more grounded in reality. The land already has a zoning; therefore, there are zoning powers being used. That zoning does limit the value of the land; if it didn't, the owners would not be interested in having the zoning changed.

The key issue is, why is the land not zoned for housing, if in fact the view of the local authority is that the land should be used for housing and they intend to develop it for housing? Why does the zoning not reflect their assessment of the socially optimal use of the land, and their intentions for how they themselves will use the land? In the High Court proceedings, the owners will contend that the council are maintaining the current zoning so that they themselves can acquire the land more cheaply. Legally speaking, that would unquestionably be an improper purpose. So, if the local authority are to succeed in the proceedings, they are going to have to point to some proper reason for maintaining a zoning which, on the face of it, is not the appropriate zoning.

uptherebels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120067610#Comment_120067610

Why would church land be zoned for housing? It was zoned for community use. That they don't change it to suit the church isn't an example of zoning powers be used.

You are grasping at straws that any land the council wishes to purchase has to be zoned for housing before they buy it.

Seeing as it is the church or one of their minions that would be bringing proceedings, they would have to show why the council have to rezone it before they can buy it.

Like I said, you need to deal with reality

smacl

You might perhaps argue for a law that, e.g., allows local government to acquire land at a price based on its current use value, ignoring its development potential, if it is going to use that land for public or affordable housing. That would avoid the problem of having to corruptly abuse zoning powers in order to achieve the same outcome, and it would be honest and explicit about what is going on. Of course, in a secular state, that law would have to apply to church land and non-church land alike.

Where I see legislation going is that underused and derelict property, in areas where there is high demand for housing, will attract punitive taxes where it is already zoned as residential or get CPOed at current value and rezoned in other cases. Re-zoning prior to CPO is not in the public interest in my opinion as it costs the public purse dearly and encourages speculative land acquisition with no intent to use that land. My assumption here is that the main goal is to provide affordable housing at reasonable cost to the state.

I agree entirely that this should apply equally to church and non-church land alike. I would also question whether high-density infill housing in our remaining urban green areas is good for society in the longer term. Given increasing demand and viability for remote working, I think society can get far more bang for its buck by rejuvenating and encouraging people to live in smaller towns.

Peregrinus

It's your views that are wholly unreal, uptherebel. Land isn't zoned according to who owns it; it's zoned in accordance with the desired use. If the local authority wants land to be developed for housing then literally the very first think you do is to zone it for housing (if it isn't already so zoned). You can't do anything to develop it for housing until this first step has been taken. You can't even get planning permission for future housing development. The only reason for not zoning land for housing is because you don't want it used for housing; you want it used for some other purpose.

I've asked you directly several time to say why the local authority wouldn't rezone the land and you have avoided answering. instead denying obvious truths like the effect of zoning on land values. You're not really that well-positioned to accuse others of grasping at straws.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120068462#Comment_120068462

Couple of issues here:

If you've got underused or derelict land, one of the reasons that it is underused or derelict may in fact be that it's wrongly zoned; the land can't be put to its optimal use because the zoning doesn't allow it. And, in fact, if the official response is to CPO the land (at a value based on the fact that it can't be optimally used) and then remove the restriction on use, that looks distinctly unfair; it's tantamount to admitting that the previous zoning was inappropriate.

If the local authority thinks that land should be developed for housing, and if the landowner is willing to develop it for housing, and if the only or main thing that stops this is the zoning, then the zoning should be changed. This looks like a no-brainer to me.

I get that we want to develop affordable housing (or, even better, public housing) and this objective isn't served by landowners developing their land as high-end executive townhouses. There are various measures you can adopt to do this - e.g. planning codes that require developments to have a mix of housing types. Giving the state power to (a) prevent the development of the land for housing; (b) aquire the land at a value depressed by that resiction and then (c) develop the land for housing itself is certainly one of these, but you'd have to question the fairness of it. And if your concern is preventing land speculation and corruption this is certainly not a measure you would adopt. It will matter hugely to landowners which of them has their land purchased at a restricted value for affordable/public housing and which of them is permitted to develop their land for private housing, and the brown envelopes exchanged in an attempt to influence these decisions will be prodigious in their fatness. No?

There are two connected decisions that our society needs to take. The first is to develop an adequate supply of affordable/public housing. The second is how the economic costs of this are to be born. A mechanism which, in effect, allocates a largish chunk of the cost to people who happen to own the particular plots of land that we decide to develop looks arbitrary, unfair and likely to engender corruption. A better system might be a general land tax, paid by all owners of undeveloped land and based on the value of the land, including development potential, the proceeds of which are then used to buy land for public/affordable housing. This allocates the cost not to the particular landowners whose land we choose to buy, but to all landowners equally regardless of whether their land is bought or not.

No doubt other, and better, proposals could be put forward. But I do think the idea of using inappropriate zoning as a tool for acquiring land cheaply and then rezoning it is highly objectionable.

smacl

No doubt other, and better, proposals could be put forward. But I do think the idea of using inappropriate zoning as a tool for acquiring land cheaply and then rezoning it is highly objectionable.

I disagree that this is objectionable, quite the opposite in fact. If someone owns a piece of land not zoned as residential which is rezoned post acquisition by the state there is a strong argument that they do not deserve a windfall based on rezoning. This is particularly true of lands bought on a speculative basis with no intention of use other than gambling on price increase rezoning, an activity that is damaging to both society and the public coffers.

I'm not sure why you consider this objectionable. Seeking a major windfall based on rezoning to meet the urgent needs of society at a significant cost to society is both greedy and harmful to society. This is a windfall as we're talking about a potential price that is greatly inflated from the current asset value. I for one don't believe that price is warranted nor should it be paid.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120068462#Comment_120068462

First para - that is basically the Kenny report from 1973 which of course successive governments have declined to implement.

http://www.publicpolicyarchive.ie/kenny-report-1973-four-decades-on-the-shelf/

Second para - agreed. Although if a site is zoned community or amenity then who is to argue that it is underutilised if it's being used for that purpose (even if other purposes would be a far better use of the site) ? We're back to zoning again.

Final para - Dublin is a low density and low-rise city with severe infrastructural deficits and high car dependency as a result. Refusing to build housing because of the infrastructural deficits, instead of fixing them, seems a very odd way indeed of going about things. Building more micro-Dublins all over the place with the same deficits and car dependency isn't the way to go either. Cities have efficiency of scale, even badly designed and built cities like Dublin, it's still the economic engine of the entire island. Despite everything and despite the high costs, lots of people still want to live there, lots of businesses of all types want to be there.

What's draining the life out of smaller towns in this country is the cursed one-off housing and edge-of-town shopping centres. All completely car dependent of course.

Edit: the first paragraph was of course quoted by you, not written by you. Vanilla strikes again...

Hotblack Desiato

@Peregrinus Fairness? It's hard for me to see how it's fair (or in the public interest, or indeed moral) that a landowner can basically hold the taxpayer, (future) homeowners and (future) tenants to ransom and make massive unearned windfall gains simply because their land is well-located for housing. Especially as even privately developed housing cannot be built without the public investment of roads, sewers, water supply, electricity grid etc.

Doesn't matter if the landowner is the RCC, a land speculator, a farmer, the liquidators of a redundant factory, etc. etc.

It massively incentivises[*] the hoarding of land forcing up the price.

If the RCC sold its redundant holdings in Dublin for housing but at current use value it would massively aid in resolving the housing crisis and drive down the cost of development land generally. The amount of unused or practically unused land they are sitting on is incredible. They would still receive a massive amount of money, and still make large capital gains free of tax.

[*] Apparently the Oxford English Dictionary prefers 'incentivizes' but that just doesn't sit right with me somehow...

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120072667#Comment_120072667

You can put it the other way around. If land is suitable for housing and the public interest lies in having it developed for housing and the intention is in fact to develop it for housing, there is a strong argument that the owner of the land should not be penalised by having its value artificially depressed with an inappropriate zoning.

I take your point about lands bought on a speculative basis, but using zoning lands to acquire land cheaply does not capture value from speculators; it captures value from the owners of land that the local authority wished to acquire. There's only a coincidental overlap between those two groups. Plus, the speculators still luck out if their land is developed for private housing, which is the large bulk of housebuilding, so you haven't really removed the incentives for speculation.

If your concern is speculation, then maybe a swinging tax on the profits of speculation in land (the proceeds of which could be used to fund public housing) might be a more equitable and effective way of addressing it. Or maybe even a tax on gains resulting from the rezoning of land, regardless of whether the landowner acquired the land for speculative reasons or not.

(Problem with a tax on gains resulting from a favourable zoning; should you be able to claim a deduction if your land is devalued by a restrictive zoning? Think e.g. of urban land which is devalued because an intended road scheme is going to require demolition of one side of the street. If the state can capture the value resulting from its decision than enhance land prices, should it bear the loss from its decisions that depress land prices?)

Hotblack Desiato

In that case the local authority has to CPO at current use / zoning value does it not?

If you mean land adjacent to the CPO-ed property, it might make the value go up, it might make it go down, tough luck really - same as if an apartment block behind your house gets planning despite your objections but is offputting to potential housebuyers. Should people get compensation if a halting site is developed in their area...?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120085013#Comment_120085013

Sure. Currently if planning/zoning etc decisions devalue land, the landowner just has to suck up the loss. But if we levied tax on gains resulting from planning/zoning decisions then it would be hard to deny the case for also permitting deductions for losses resulting from planning/zoning decisions. If you do the one but not the other is seems obviously unjust. Plus, it still leaves in place incentives for the speculation and corruption that smacl is (rightly) concerned about.

We're getting quite radical now, but I think you can make a good case for a land tenure system which treats land as, first and foremost, a shared or common asset ("The land of Ireland for the people of Ireland!") over which a person (or a church) can be given particular rights or control when, and to the extent, that it's beneficial to the community to do so. But if you're taking that attitude, the corollary is that planning/zoning decisions which devalue land are detracting from the wealth of the community - i.e. the loss should be socialised, just as any gain would be socialised.

This shouldn't be the massively expensive policy that we might at first think because you have to expect that, on the whole, planning/zoning decisions should create more value than they destroy — why else make them? So (say) earmarking your property for demolition to make way for a metro station devalues your land, but it enhances the value of much adjacent land that will be served by the metro station. If both the gains and the losses are socialised, (a) the community gains more than it loses, and (b) as between the landowners, the treatment is fair and incentives for speculation/corruption are minimised.

Hotblack Desiato

Privatise the gains, socialise the losses, that's how it works in banking... 🤔