Case studies highlight difficulties associated with compulsory purchase orders, writes Tim O'Brien
One of the case histories submitted to the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which is considering changes in the law on compulsory purchase, was that of Mr Barbato Borza.
Mr Borza bought a shop in the Tallaght town centre in early 1988, for about €47,000 (£36,000). As it was unit one on the Greenhills Road entrance to the centre, Mr Borza paid a little over the odds for the good trading pitch.
In 1997, a compulsory purchase order was placed on the property by South Dublin County Council.
A valuer estimated it to be worth about €127,000 (£99,000). Mr Borza told the Oireachtas committee that "on the date of the vesting order, May 30th, 1997, and on August 19th when I made my claim for compensation, my shop had a proper shop front protected by metal shutters with a lock".
The council took possession of the unit and, after some time, "the council permitted/allowed people with caravans to move without disturbance into the centre and live while the centre was held under their [the council's\] responsibility," said Mr Borza.
Within this period, the shop front and the metal shutters were removed. Eventually, following pressure from the Bancroft Road Residents Association, the entrance was blocked and the area cleared up.
Mr Borza told the committee the council then demolished the centre and used part of the site for road widening. It sold on the remainder of the site to a property developer, he insists, at a "profit of millions".
In August 2001, Mr Borza received a letter from the council, under the Derelict Sites Act (1990), making him an "unconditional offer" of €6,348 (£5,000). He refused and, to this date, has received nothing for his shop.
A second case brought before the Oireachtas committee last week concerned Mr John McGrath of Kilboy House, Kilbride, Co Wicklow.
Mr McGrath was told by Wicklow County Council that his 100-year-old farmhouse home would have to be acquired and demolished as part of an improvement scheme for the N11.
Although he said he was "heartbroken" at the news, Mr McGrath said: "I believe that as individuals we must be prepared to make sacrifices for the greater social good."
He said the council officials were both "sympathetic and professional" and urged him to locate an alternative property which the council would buy for him.
In March 2002, Mr McGrath approached the council with the news that a similar property had been found. However, he was told that the National Roads Authority had simply provided enough funds for an environmental impact statement.
Later, it emerged that work on the design of the scheme had been suspended indefinitely - due to a shortage of cash. The road would go ahead, but not yet, he was told.
In the meantime, Mr McGrath could not sell his home on the open market because few would pay a market value for a property known to be required for road building. Nor could he reasonably apply for planning permission to extend or improve as he had planned. He told the Oireachtas committee that he did not have the resources to fund a second property and simply close the door on his current home.
"I am trapped in this property and my choices are severely limited," said Mr McGrath. He could not pursue employment opportunities abroad and the uncertainty of having his home subject to demolition at any time was causing his health to suffer.
Why, he asked, did anyone feel the State should have additional powers to acquire homes, when it was already able to destroy the value of property at will?