nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

[Deleted User]

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.