Sir, – It has been argued that, unlike land required for roads, bridges, etc, justifying a compulsory purchase order (CPO) of a particular field for building housing or other urban infrastructure, rather than any other field, is problematic (Letters, November 22nd).
In order to develop a particular area in a logical and planned way, which is desirable and to the common good, especially as the population is projected to grow massively with inward migration, it is necessary to have availability of the required land at a particular time in the development of an area to ensure rational expansion.
What worked 50 years ago is no longer fit for purpose.
Currently, the only form of “planning” that we have is to rezone far and wide, in the hope that a landowner somewhere within that expansive land rezone will be persuaded to sell some land to a builder or developer, normally at great expense above the price of agricultural land.
Ukraine fears nuclear plants are in Russia’s sights as missile strikes bring winter blackouts
‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor case
Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin: A Life in Music: Stellar capture of irrepressible force of nature
Brendan Mullin: the case of a ‘bank for the rich’ and the mystery €500,000
So we get pocket development over wider areas, with negative consequences for provision of public services (shops, medical facilities, schools, public transport, etc), rather than structured and logical concentrated development of a district.
By being able to buy a particular field or fields at a particular time, proper planning and structured development, which is desirable and to the common good, can be achieved.
A change from widespread rezoning to targeted designation of lands is desirable.
The planners can then plan for the proper and full development of a particular area, allowing from the beginning for the provision of necessary public services. Landowners would know in advance when their land is likely to be purchased by State CPO, but that land would only be purchased as and when required, not hoarded by the State in large land banks, lying idle.
The State would only retrieve the costs it incurred when releasing land for building or development.
The State would retain ownership of the land until the development is sold to the final purchaser, cutting out cost-increasing speculation, and only recoup such costs as it has incurred, making it cost-neutral for the taxpayer and helping to reduce housing costs for citizens, which is desirable both for the individual and for the economy and, therefore, to the common good.
A change from the current system of land rezoning and cost increasing speculation, to one of land designation and CPO, would negatively affect only a very small portion of the population, but by bringing down the cost of building land, providing for proper development of urban areas with services and making housing more affordable, with knock-on beneficial effects for reduced wage demand and thus the wider economy, would benefit many more.
Such a change is absolutely in line with section 2 of Article 43 of the Constitution, which places the common good over and above that of section 1, which talks of the right to privately own, bequeath or transfer property, but which is subservient to section 2.
Of course vested interests will fight tooth and claw to protect their interests (perhaps having overpaid for land or having an unwarranted expectation of obtaining a high price for said land), but it is the purpose of Government to act for the common good.
Yes, there will be court cases or threats of legal action, but it is the duty of the Government to act for the common good, to take on those cases, and if necessary, seek a referendum, to strengthen the rights of the common good, which are already quite strong, if the Government chose to act on the existing provisions, rather than ignoring them. – Yours, etc,
DAVID DORAN,
Bagenalstown,
Co Carlow.