Sir, - It is difficult to know where to start responding to Tom Parlon's article in your edition of July 5th about the compulsory purchase of farmland, but your readers might be interested in the following points.
Clearly, the State, if it is to provide infrastructure, must acquire lands and could not rely on buying only those lands farmers are willing to sell. The latter approach would put farmers into a position where they could hold the State to ransom. The willing seller principle in the compensation rules eliminates this from the assessment of land valuation. The fact that farmers are unwilling sellers is taken into account and is reflected in compensation paid for disturbance, injurious affection, etc. Obviously this would not be part of a transaction involving a willing seller. Mr Parlon's approach appears to try and justify compensation being paid on the double.
Second, the origins of the CPO code lie in the procedures developed in the 19th century to acquire land for railways and canals. The land came largely from the aristocracy, who at that time carried significant influence in government. A code with that background is unlikely to be unfair to those who own land. The considerable body of case law that resulted was consolidated in the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act of 1919. This in turn has been much modified by legislation since then. Indeed, the origins of the code, the fact that it has been consolidated into long-standing legislation which has been amended subsequently, and the fact that the principles have been tested many times in the courts, are strengths which contribute to the rigour and fairness of the system.
Third, the point about the compulsory purchase of building materials is complete nonsense. But taking his analogy, the equivalent would be a system where these materials are acquired at the market price and in addition compensation is paid for the costs of selling these products. I am sure IBEC members would welcome this approach.
Fourth, far from deciding unilaterally, the property arbitrator receives submissions from both the acquiring authority and the landowner and if there is a difference decides between the parties based solely on the merits of these submissions. Arbitration is widely regarded as being fair and is extensively used in commercial transactions.
Fifth, on the point about windfall profits to farmers from infrastructural development, it is wrong to declare that there is no windfall for farmers whose lands are taken for roads. This might be true in some cases but certainly not in all. Indeed, some farmers benefit hugely from the State servicing their lands and rendering them capable of development, thus increasing their value massively without any effort by the farmer to add to this value.
While no system is perfect, the CPO system has served this State well and has considerable strengths. There are some inadequacies, most of which result from procedures and delays and not from the basis of property valuation or the assessment of compensation for disturbance or injurious affection. Reform, however, should serve the interests of all, including the State representing people in general, residential householders and businesses, as well as farmers. Reform should not be contrived solely to divert money from the general taxpayer to particular interests. - Yours, etc.,
Tom Dunne, School of Real Estate and Construction Economics, Dublin Institute of Technology, Bolton Street, Dublin 1.