Tuesday, February 15, 2005
The following have been published on websites over the past few months, but I thought them worthy of display here to reiterate the problems being suffered by families due to the Valencian land laws.
Will your Spanish villa become a target?
Every Sunday, ex-RAF squadron leader Mr L and his wife leave their modest holiday bungalow in the Costa Blanca resort of Moraira for a spin in the country. Three miles down the road, on the outskirts of the bustling town of Benissa, they negotiate a new traffic island. The manoeuvre is a deeply emotional experience. The roundabout is where their swimming pool used to be.
On one corner there is now a glitzy bathroom showroom and a bar. That's where their home, a 130-year-old picturesque farmhouse, Casa Torre Luisa, stood before the developers moved in. Two years ago their contented retirement was destroyed when they fell victims to infamous Spanish ' landgrab' laws and were forced out - without compensation.
'We have gone through the pain barrier so many times as we drive past. But it still hurts,' says Mr L , 67. 'We have lost about £200,000.'
Last month, the laws were condemned by a delegation of the European Parliament as a 'serious abuse of the most elementary rights of many thousands of European citizens'. Pressure is now being put on Madrid by the EU to end the laws being used by unscrupulous local authorities and developers to plunder - mainly foreign - homeowners.
Spanish politicians and developers fear that if something is not done they risk slaying the golden goose of the multimillion-pound holiday home industry, which will see one million British homeowners on the Costa del Sol by 2008.
Mr and Mrs L´s experiences stand as a terrible warning of how your dream in the sun can go badly wrong. In 1994, at the same time they bought and converted their farmhouse for £100,000, the Valencian provincial government introduced a new law, the Ley Reguladora de la Actividad Urbanistica (LRAU).
It meant nothing to Mr and Mrs L, but the full impact hit them with a vengeance in 2001 when Benissa town council said it would be taking part of their land and home for a new industrial estate.
'We owned 1,650 sq m. They claimed all but about 500 sq m, including part of our house. We were given a token £4,500 for the inconvenience and about 400 sqm of nearby scrubland, which was of no use,' Mr L says.
'We went away for three weeks. When we got back the end of our home had vanished,' says Mrs L. 'They had demolished our kitchen, a bedroom and bricked up entrances. Then we received a bill for £13,000 they said was our share of the cost of building a new road, sewerage and street lighting for the estate.'
The couple had no choice but to pay up or risk courts and fines. Lawyers told them they didn't have a leg to stand on. They lived in the gutted shell for six months. 'Eventually we managed to sell out for £90,000,' says Mrs sL. 'It was the best deal we could get. We were lucky.'
Unable to afford to return to the UK or buy a substantial house to replace the one they lost, Mr and Mrs L bought a modest holiday bungalow near the coast for £100,000.
Thousands of families - British, German, Dutch and, increasingly, Spanish - who moved to the Costa Blanca to find their own place in the sun are today living under the shadow of a similar fate.
Originally, Valencian legislators introduced the LRAU to thwart speculators who paid very little for huge holdings of scrub countryside and cashed in, selling it off for urban development. The law decreed that if a rural area was rezoned for building, the authorities could demand up to 70 per cent of the land free - or, in some cases, paying only a tiny percentage of the market value.
All any town hall had to do was proclaim the land was needed for 'public or social benefit'. There was no appeal. It worked well, outfoxing speculators who owned land needed for new airports, industrial development, schools or hospitals.
But then it dawned on enterprising developers in cahoots with local councils that the same criteria could be applied to more modest, privately owned plots. About four years ago they began taking over properties at far below normal market value.
Since the scandal first broke, 10,000 home owners - British, Dutch, German and even Spanish - have banded together to form Abusos Urbanisticos - NO! They have a formidable champion in Charles Svoboda, 63, former head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the equivalent of MI5. He is personally involved, fighting demands for his villa and land in Benimaro that will cost him about £700,000 if he loses.
'This law is totally unjust and destroys people's lives,' says Charles, who recently confronted Valencia's Development Minister Rafael Blasco. 'I told him they had turned woolly pieces of legislation into an art form for extracting money and land from hapless property owners. It is dastardly. But I did not get much of a response.'
Valencia's head of urban planning, Manuel Latorre Hernandez accepts that many homeowners have suffered. But, he contends: 'This does not mean the law is bad, even if it turns out on occasion not to have been applied well by some town halls.' Overall, the law has helped improve Valencia's infrastructure, he says.
That's little comfort to homeowners who now face a retirement in penury. They are pinning their hopes on the European Parliament, which, after a mass petition, sent a delegation of MEPs to investigate land law abuses earlier this year. Two weeks ago it issued its damning 160-page report, which includes detailed case histories exposing bribery, corruption and malpractice.
'They have had their homes and their land expropriated and had to pay for the experience, finding themselves in a surrealistic legal environment without any proper recourse to real justice,' the report says.
And it condemns some developers as 'unscrupulous beneficiaries of the law's application'. There are also rumours of political corruption and links between developers and local authorities.
'The delegation heard first-hand accounts of attempts at bribery and corruption on local councils,' reads the report. 'Many Spanish citizens expressed their shame at the level of corruption. Others complained of being intimidated by local politicians and several received clear threats. As a result, some were afraid to meet with the delegations to give evidence.'
The report to the European Parliament is causing deep embarrassment in Madrid. In some cases the central government has ordered compensation to be made at fair market value for confiscated land.
The European Commission is likely to order the controversial issues to be thrashed out in the courts, with proceedings beginning in the New Year.
'At last we're getting results,' says Charles. 'The European Parliament's intervention has scared the hell out of some of the mayors who now realise they can no longer slip these contracts to their friends.'
Charles retired to Spain in 1999 with his wife Lisa with enough money for a comfortable retirement. 'But if we lose this place we are in serious trouble. Had we known we were going to hit a problem like this then we would not have moved here.'
Three years after seeing their home wrecked, Mr and Mrs L are less optimistic, though demands for retrospective compensation are being prepared. 'We live in hope, but I think it's too late,' Danny says. 'Maybe it will stop other lives being ruined.'
This story first appeared in Daily Mail. For more great stories, buy this week's Mail on Sunday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British ambassador challenges 'abusive' Spanish land-grabBy Peter Upton in Valencia(Filed: 31/10/2004)
Britain's ambassador to Spain is taking part in an unprecedented protest against laws that are forcing homeowners in a tourist region to sell "surplus" land at a fraction of its market value.
In the worst cases, British expatriates and people with second homes in Spain have had to sell their gardens at less than one tenth of their true value and then pay fees of around £200,000 for infrastructure work.
In the first joint protest of its kind, 17 EU ambassadors have written to Jose Luis Zapatero, Spain's prime minister, urging him to put a stop to the "apparent abuse of legality" by the Valencia regional government, which they warn is damaging the country's reputation.
Despite pleas to the Valencian government, the ambassadors - including Stephen Wright, Britain's representative - say: "The law is still in force, with the result that a large number of residents in the Valencia region find themselves under threat of expropriation of their homes, or of exorbitant financial demands from urban developers."
Their protest reflects growing anger among homeowners in a 150-mile stretch of Spain's Costa Blanca coastline, which includes Benidorm and Alicante. A 10-year-old regional law, Ley Reguladora de la Actividad Urbanista (LRAU) - intended to prevent landowners from standing in the way of development - is being exploited by construction companies, with the backing of corrupt local politicians.
In one town after another, they have been granted the right to seize land around foreign-owned homes, pay paltry sums in compensation and demand cash from the sellers to pay for new roads, drainage and other services.
They have used the law to expropriate homes from those unable or unwilling to pay, or simply to bulldoze houses without warning.
Earlier this year, a European Parliament committee investigated the law after receiving an avalanche of complaints. Its report condemned the law and criticised apparent corruption among developers, officials and lawyers, but its call for a halt to the practice was ignored.
Mr Wright said that EU ambassadors first approached the Valencian government over the protection of property rights two years ago, but were rebuffed. "There are human rights interests, and I have been focusing on finding a useful way for the British Embassy and Government to help," he said.
In their letter, sent earlier this month, the ambassadors warn: "The apparent abuse of legality is under scrutiny by members of the European Parliament and the media in numerous member states. This could have negative consequences on the reputation of Spain in general, and of Valencia in particular, as a risk-free place to invest in property."
Neither the prime minister's office nor the Valencian government returned calls from The Telegraph last week, although Mr Zapatero is said to have "taken note" of the ambassadors' concern.
A spokesman for Miguel Angel Moratinos, the foreign minister, to whom the ambassadors also wrote, said he would speak with the Valencian government to seek ways of ensuring that property owners' rights were fully protected.
Charles Svoboda, a former director of Canada's intelligence service who leads a group of 20,000 protesting against the land law, said the Spanish prime minister was not committing himself to anything. "It has got to be a huge embarrassment," he said. "If the Madrid government does not take action then we are ready to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights."
Mr Svoboda's own property at Benimarco is under threat from land-grabbers, who have drawn a new boundary line through his swimming pool.
"The Valencia region is heading for an economic brick wall," he said. "It is deeply in debt and now totally reliant on a construction mono-culture in which almost every town has plans for thousands more dwellings so they can become the new El Dorado - on the backs of some mythical hordes of northern European retirees."
Among the 400 British families represented by Mr Svoboda's action group are the retired engineer Leonard Deacon, 75, and his wife Tessa, 60, who own a villa near Benidorm and are fighting a demand for £200,000 for nearby development costs. Mrs Deacon said: "No one should have to go through what we have been through for the past two years. We have both been made ill by it."
The catalogue of stories has had a sharp impact on the region's economy, with property buyers shunning the area.
Janet Ferrer, an estate agent with Villas Ferrer, one of the oldest companies on the Costa Blanca, said: "Foreigners have stopped buying here. Only the Spaniards are buying, and they only go for apartments where there is no risk from the Valencian land law."
Some case summaries:
taken from the Report by visiting members of the European Parliament
The delegation was inundated with individual case studies and examples of expropriation
during its short visit. Several local associations have formed to better organise the defence of individual cases. The following examples therefore only constitute a sample of a very large number of grievances. Behind every grievance there are real people, many of whom have been traumatised by their experience.
Mrs C. is a widow. In 1974 she and her husband legally bought 2,600 sq.meters of land, the deeds of which were formally registered. Housing permits were obtained, taxes paid and a house built in 1974. In 1997 she learned from neighbours that the area on which her property was situated was to be urbanised. In 1999, she paid all death duties on her husband's estate, including the house and land; he had died several years earlier. In May 1999 she was informed that 40 meters of her land had been given to a neighbour and a roundabout was to be built over the site of her kitchen and garden. With her daughter she tried to fight the case but was obstructed at every move. It was only in July 2002 that she received the legal papers from her husband's estate showing that instead of 2,600 sq. meters she know legally owned 1,505sq. meters. She had never been informed by the land registry, nor the local authority nor anybody else. She has effectively lost 43% of her land to property developers. Mrs K-W bought a 150-year-old farmhouse in 1996 which was equipped with all amenities. All permits and taxes were paid and the deeds registered. She writes: "It is not written in this deed that half of our property would be taken away from us...even part of our terrace will be demolished and the drive to our garage, or that we would have to pay €43,869,89 to the developer...There is foreseen to build a set of private three story houses and a carpark inside our garden...The diggers are already standing in front of our house...I do not have more words to write because we are so sad and defenceless against this LRAU."
In Denia, El Poblets, Mr and Mrs M. had 38% of their property expropriated and paid
€52,000 towards the cost of local infrastructure projects consisting of a new road and sewer. On their expropriated land, which was in fact a large part of their garden, two luxury villas have been built by the 'urbanisator' and sold for more than €300,000 each.
Mr and Mrs B. bought a small bungalow on 2,625 sq. meters of land in Benissa in 2001.
They have now been given an ultimatum by the 'urbanisator' and the town council to cede
1000 sq. meters of land and pay €42,500 to pay for new infrastructure which they do not need but which will benefit a new development adjacent to their property. They were given no information directly concerning the plan itself.
"My husband and I spent all our savings on what we considered to be our home in paradise. We have spent eleven years making an old empty house and overgrown area of land into a home and garden. We could lose it all soon to greedy developers" writes Mrs S, also from Benissa. Writing on behalf of six affected homeowners in the same street she says that they are expected to give up 70% of their land and pay towards the infrastructure costs of the new development. The only notification given for the development was through a web-site about which owners of land learned by chance.
Mr and Mrs D. only bought their home in El Charco Villajoyosa in 2003. They have been
given a choice by the town council and local developer (depending on which plan is finally that they can either demolish their home in favour of a green area and a road, with
minimal compensation, or keep their home and half their land and pay €50,000 to
infrastructure development costs. They have been told they will be informed when a decision is taken.
Mr and Mrs W-S left Germany four years ago to live in a house they had bought on 3000 sq. meters of land on the outskirts of Denia. They invested everything in the property and its improvement. They learned by chance that an urbanisation project to build 18000 dwellings had been agreed , that 60% of their land would be expropriated, a road would be built between their small house and their pool, and a roundabout would be built where the end of their garden now lies, but not on waste land a little further away. To add insult to injury the property developer is claiming €150,000 for infrastructure costs in advance. They fear that instead of being able to live out their retirement they will be obliged to return to Germany and live off social security.
In Mestrets - Borriolenc local people who own modest properties have formed an association to defend their rights having been faced with an urbanisation plan that rides roughshod over all of their homes, and will deprive them with up to 75% of their land, all of which is owned legally. They have been offered only minimal compensation, far below the real value of their properties where they have, for the most part, lived all their lives. They name the beneficiaries of this land-grab who are the same persons as had taken the decision to develop the land in the first place, though they own none of it. Proposals made by the association to change the plan to protect their existing properties was refused.
Ms B. & Mr S. own a property in El Aljibe, near Tibi which they bought in 1996. By chance, they heard in March 2003 that the area in which they lived was the subject of a new development plan although the town hall at that time repeatedly refused to confirm any details. Some time later a consortium, whose membership included the municipality's legal adviser, published a plan. New roads and a 1,696 house estate were proposed which carved up existing properties and destroyed much of the natural environment. No consideration was given directly to water supplies which are already scarce in the region and which would be required by the new development. The mayor was subsequently defeated in the municipal elections, yet two days before the official hand-over of authority he signed two development projects, including the one for El Aljibe. The new mayor suspended the projects and sacked the municipal architect and the lawyer. The developers of the project.
The salt flats 'Las Salinas' at Calpe was visited by the delegation and was also the subject of a previous petition 964/2001 by Mrs S. The European Commission washed its hands of the matter on the basis of a response from the Spanish authorities which must now be considered extremely misleading regarding the environmental impact of what is not just a 'reparcelisation' but a huge urban development project which manifestly will destroy a species of wild birds including the greater flamingo and the black-winged stilt and other fauna and flora, and desecrate an area of some historical interest. The coastal area had been protected by law since 1988, yet it was omitted from the EU Natura 2000 site because of the impending urban development, not because of any objective assessment of its ecological structure. The delegation saw the demolition of several small houses that had been part of the scenery for more than a hundred years and stood in the shadows of the huge residential blocks, already built on the other side of the road. Speaking to local residents we were also informed about the dramatic rise in crime locally as many dwellings, houses and apartments alike, have been burgled while their owners are away. Severe water shortages are common, and once again, no consideration seems to have been given to anything except providing benefits for the property developers at the expense of local citizens and their individual rights.
Mr & Mrs W. bought their land in Teulada in 1993 and established their family home there. However, unknown to them at the time, in 1999 a development plan was submitted and approved. The project, as often happens for public procurement reasons, was divided into two phases and without warning phase one started and a slice of their land was shaved off without notice. No response was received from the town hall for the complaint which was lodged and no compensation even mentioned. The second phase of the project envisages the following: 1.600 sq. meters of their land is designated for a green zone, 600 sq. meters for a new road in front of the house, the remaining land is designated for building and 10% is to be given up for nothing. In addition €225,000 is required by the urbanisator from the land owners for infrastructure costs. The owners were presented with an alternative; that they sell their land for €20 per sq. meter which is less that 10% of the objective market value. The whole area which was visited by the delegation is to become a huge building site where once there were farms and forests and a clear view to the sea. An invalid neighbour had half her house bulldozed and a road now runs ajacent to the rear wall of the building. A road, a pavement and street lights have been built which nobody asked for and nobody needs in such a rural setting.
In El Balco, Oropesa del Mar, residents are opposing a development which, like all the others, will destroy their environment without any environmental impact assessment. Near Benidorm,
Mr L. a retired Belgian, had his land expropriated in 1997 to build an entertainment park by Sociedad Parque Tematico de Alicante SA. He was given less than €3 per sq. meter and the land was then valued at nearly €20 per sq. meter by the property developer who had benefited from the deal. In la Nucia, near Alicante local homeowners have formed an association to fight the impending expropriation of their land under the LRAU.
In San Miguel de Salinas near Alicante, another association protests at expropriation and an unprecedented number of developments. Mr & Mrs C in Javea are having to find an urbanisation fee of €43,000 and give up part of their land to the property developers 'Desarrollo Comercial Cansalades SA'.
The association SOS Moraira has catalogued the planned destruction of the coastal
environment and the expropriation of small landowners near Teulada.There are many many more examples of such systematic abuse of natural justice, not to mention European law and national legislation.
Observations.
What is so striking about all of these examples is that none of the people concerned have
managed to obtain any satisfaction through the courts, or through lawyers because what has happened to them is considered as being quite legal. In practice, the incredible loopholes in the law (which was originally drafted to confront a specific problem of urban development) have enabled unscrupulous politicians and businessmen to obtain huge financial profit on the backs of many vulnerable and unsuspecting persons.
Will your Spanish villa become a target?
Every Sunday, ex-RAF squadron leader Mr L and his wife leave their modest holiday bungalow in the Costa Blanca resort of Moraira for a spin in the country. Three miles down the road, on the outskirts of the bustling town of Benissa, they negotiate a new traffic island. The manoeuvre is a deeply emotional experience. The roundabout is where their swimming pool used to be.
On one corner there is now a glitzy bathroom showroom and a bar. That's where their home, a 130-year-old picturesque farmhouse, Casa Torre Luisa, stood before the developers moved in. Two years ago their contented retirement was destroyed when they fell victims to infamous Spanish ' landgrab' laws and were forced out - without compensation.
'We have gone through the pain barrier so many times as we drive past. But it still hurts,' says Mr L , 67. 'We have lost about £200,000.'
Last month, the laws were condemned by a delegation of the European Parliament as a 'serious abuse of the most elementary rights of many thousands of European citizens'. Pressure is now being put on Madrid by the EU to end the laws being used by unscrupulous local authorities and developers to plunder - mainly foreign - homeowners.
Spanish politicians and developers fear that if something is not done they risk slaying the golden goose of the multimillion-pound holiday home industry, which will see one million British homeowners on the Costa del Sol by 2008.
Mr and Mrs L´s experiences stand as a terrible warning of how your dream in the sun can go badly wrong. In 1994, at the same time they bought and converted their farmhouse for £100,000, the Valencian provincial government introduced a new law, the Ley Reguladora de la Actividad Urbanistica (LRAU).
It meant nothing to Mr and Mrs L, but the full impact hit them with a vengeance in 2001 when Benissa town council said it would be taking part of their land and home for a new industrial estate.
'We owned 1,650 sq m. They claimed all but about 500 sq m, including part of our house. We were given a token £4,500 for the inconvenience and about 400 sqm of nearby scrubland, which was of no use,' Mr L says.
'We went away for three weeks. When we got back the end of our home had vanished,' says Mrs L. 'They had demolished our kitchen, a bedroom and bricked up entrances. Then we received a bill for £13,000 they said was our share of the cost of building a new road, sewerage and street lighting for the estate.'
The couple had no choice but to pay up or risk courts and fines. Lawyers told them they didn't have a leg to stand on. They lived in the gutted shell for six months. 'Eventually we managed to sell out for £90,000,' says Mrs sL. 'It was the best deal we could get. We were lucky.'
Unable to afford to return to the UK or buy a substantial house to replace the one they lost, Mr and Mrs L bought a modest holiday bungalow near the coast for £100,000.
Thousands of families - British, German, Dutch and, increasingly, Spanish - who moved to the Costa Blanca to find their own place in the sun are today living under the shadow of a similar fate.
Originally, Valencian legislators introduced the LRAU to thwart speculators who paid very little for huge holdings of scrub countryside and cashed in, selling it off for urban development. The law decreed that if a rural area was rezoned for building, the authorities could demand up to 70 per cent of the land free - or, in some cases, paying only a tiny percentage of the market value.
All any town hall had to do was proclaim the land was needed for 'public or social benefit'. There was no appeal. It worked well, outfoxing speculators who owned land needed for new airports, industrial development, schools or hospitals.
But then it dawned on enterprising developers in cahoots with local councils that the same criteria could be applied to more modest, privately owned plots. About four years ago they began taking over properties at far below normal market value.
Since the scandal first broke, 10,000 home owners - British, Dutch, German and even Spanish - have banded together to form Abusos Urbanisticos - NO! They have a formidable champion in Charles Svoboda, 63, former head of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the equivalent of MI5. He is personally involved, fighting demands for his villa and land in Benimaro that will cost him about £700,000 if he loses.
'This law is totally unjust and destroys people's lives,' says Charles, who recently confronted Valencia's Development Minister Rafael Blasco. 'I told him they had turned woolly pieces of legislation into an art form for extracting money and land from hapless property owners. It is dastardly. But I did not get much of a response.'
Valencia's head of urban planning, Manuel Latorre Hernandez accepts that many homeowners have suffered. But, he contends: 'This does not mean the law is bad, even if it turns out on occasion not to have been applied well by some town halls.' Overall, the law has helped improve Valencia's infrastructure, he says.
That's little comfort to homeowners who now face a retirement in penury. They are pinning their hopes on the European Parliament, which, after a mass petition, sent a delegation of MEPs to investigate land law abuses earlier this year. Two weeks ago it issued its damning 160-page report, which includes detailed case histories exposing bribery, corruption and malpractice.
'They have had their homes and their land expropriated and had to pay for the experience, finding themselves in a surrealistic legal environment without any proper recourse to real justice,' the report says.
And it condemns some developers as 'unscrupulous beneficiaries of the law's application'. There are also rumours of political corruption and links between developers and local authorities.
'The delegation heard first-hand accounts of attempts at bribery and corruption on local councils,' reads the report. 'Many Spanish citizens expressed their shame at the level of corruption. Others complained of being intimidated by local politicians and several received clear threats. As a result, some were afraid to meet with the delegations to give evidence.'
The report to the European Parliament is causing deep embarrassment in Madrid. In some cases the central government has ordered compensation to be made at fair market value for confiscated land.
The European Commission is likely to order the controversial issues to be thrashed out in the courts, with proceedings beginning in the New Year.
'At last we're getting results,' says Charles. 'The European Parliament's intervention has scared the hell out of some of the mayors who now realise they can no longer slip these contracts to their friends.'
Charles retired to Spain in 1999 with his wife Lisa with enough money for a comfortable retirement. 'But if we lose this place we are in serious trouble. Had we known we were going to hit a problem like this then we would not have moved here.'
Three years after seeing their home wrecked, Mr and Mrs L are less optimistic, though demands for retrospective compensation are being prepared. 'We live in hope, but I think it's too late,' Danny says. 'Maybe it will stop other lives being ruined.'
This story first appeared in Daily Mail. For more great stories, buy this week's Mail on Sunday.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
British ambassador challenges 'abusive' Spanish land-grabBy Peter Upton in Valencia(Filed: 31/10/2004)
Britain's ambassador to Spain is taking part in an unprecedented protest against laws that are forcing homeowners in a tourist region to sell "surplus" land at a fraction of its market value.
In the worst cases, British expatriates and people with second homes in Spain have had to sell their gardens at less than one tenth of their true value and then pay fees of around £200,000 for infrastructure work.
In the first joint protest of its kind, 17 EU ambassadors have written to Jose Luis Zapatero, Spain's prime minister, urging him to put a stop to the "apparent abuse of legality" by the Valencia regional government, which they warn is damaging the country's reputation.
Despite pleas to the Valencian government, the ambassadors - including Stephen Wright, Britain's representative - say: "The law is still in force, with the result that a large number of residents in the Valencia region find themselves under threat of expropriation of their homes, or of exorbitant financial demands from urban developers."
Their protest reflects growing anger among homeowners in a 150-mile stretch of Spain's Costa Blanca coastline, which includes Benidorm and Alicante. A 10-year-old regional law, Ley Reguladora de la Actividad Urbanista (LRAU) - intended to prevent landowners from standing in the way of development - is being exploited by construction companies, with the backing of corrupt local politicians.
In one town after another, they have been granted the right to seize land around foreign-owned homes, pay paltry sums in compensation and demand cash from the sellers to pay for new roads, drainage and other services.
They have used the law to expropriate homes from those unable or unwilling to pay, or simply to bulldoze houses without warning.
Earlier this year, a European Parliament committee investigated the law after receiving an avalanche of complaints. Its report condemned the law and criticised apparent corruption among developers, officials and lawyers, but its call for a halt to the practice was ignored.
Mr Wright said that EU ambassadors first approached the Valencian government over the protection of property rights two years ago, but were rebuffed. "There are human rights interests, and I have been focusing on finding a useful way for the British Embassy and Government to help," he said.
In their letter, sent earlier this month, the ambassadors warn: "The apparent abuse of legality is under scrutiny by members of the European Parliament and the media in numerous member states. This could have negative consequences on the reputation of Spain in general, and of Valencia in particular, as a risk-free place to invest in property."
Neither the prime minister's office nor the Valencian government returned calls from The Telegraph last week, although Mr Zapatero is said to have "taken note" of the ambassadors' concern.
A spokesman for Miguel Angel Moratinos, the foreign minister, to whom the ambassadors also wrote, said he would speak with the Valencian government to seek ways of ensuring that property owners' rights were fully protected.
Charles Svoboda, a former director of Canada's intelligence service who leads a group of 20,000 protesting against the land law, said the Spanish prime minister was not committing himself to anything. "It has got to be a huge embarrassment," he said. "If the Madrid government does not take action then we are ready to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights."
Mr Svoboda's own property at Benimarco is under threat from land-grabbers, who have drawn a new boundary line through his swimming pool.
"The Valencia region is heading for an economic brick wall," he said. "It is deeply in debt and now totally reliant on a construction mono-culture in which almost every town has plans for thousands more dwellings so they can become the new El Dorado - on the backs of some mythical hordes of northern European retirees."
Among the 400 British families represented by Mr Svoboda's action group are the retired engineer Leonard Deacon, 75, and his wife Tessa, 60, who own a villa near Benidorm and are fighting a demand for £200,000 for nearby development costs. Mrs Deacon said: "No one should have to go through what we have been through for the past two years. We have both been made ill by it."
The catalogue of stories has had a sharp impact on the region's economy, with property buyers shunning the area.
Janet Ferrer, an estate agent with Villas Ferrer, one of the oldest companies on the Costa Blanca, said: "Foreigners have stopped buying here. Only the Spaniards are buying, and they only go for apartments where there is no risk from the Valencian land law."
Some case summaries:
taken from the Report by visiting members of the European Parliament
The delegation was inundated with individual case studies and examples of expropriation
during its short visit. Several local associations have formed to better organise the defence of individual cases. The following examples therefore only constitute a sample of a very large number of grievances. Behind every grievance there are real people, many of whom have been traumatised by their experience.
Mrs C. is a widow. In 1974 she and her husband legally bought 2,600 sq.meters of land, the deeds of which were formally registered. Housing permits were obtained, taxes paid and a house built in 1974. In 1997 she learned from neighbours that the area on which her property was situated was to be urbanised. In 1999, she paid all death duties on her husband's estate, including the house and land; he had died several years earlier. In May 1999 she was informed that 40 meters of her land had been given to a neighbour and a roundabout was to be built over the site of her kitchen and garden. With her daughter she tried to fight the case but was obstructed at every move. It was only in July 2002 that she received the legal papers from her husband's estate showing that instead of 2,600 sq. meters she know legally owned 1,505sq. meters. She had never been informed by the land registry, nor the local authority nor anybody else. She has effectively lost 43% of her land to property developers. Mrs K-W bought a 150-year-old farmhouse in 1996 which was equipped with all amenities. All permits and taxes were paid and the deeds registered. She writes: "It is not written in this deed that half of our property would be taken away from us...even part of our terrace will be demolished and the drive to our garage, or that we would have to pay €43,869,89 to the developer...There is foreseen to build a set of private three story houses and a carpark inside our garden...The diggers are already standing in front of our house...I do not have more words to write because we are so sad and defenceless against this LRAU."
In Denia, El Poblets, Mr and Mrs M. had 38% of their property expropriated and paid
€52,000 towards the cost of local infrastructure projects consisting of a new road and sewer. On their expropriated land, which was in fact a large part of their garden, two luxury villas have been built by the 'urbanisator' and sold for more than €300,000 each.
Mr and Mrs B. bought a small bungalow on 2,625 sq. meters of land in Benissa in 2001.
They have now been given an ultimatum by the 'urbanisator' and the town council to cede
1000 sq. meters of land and pay €42,500 to pay for new infrastructure which they do not need but which will benefit a new development adjacent to their property. They were given no information directly concerning the plan itself.
"My husband and I spent all our savings on what we considered to be our home in paradise. We have spent eleven years making an old empty house and overgrown area of land into a home and garden. We could lose it all soon to greedy developers" writes Mrs S, also from Benissa. Writing on behalf of six affected homeowners in the same street she says that they are expected to give up 70% of their land and pay towards the infrastructure costs of the new development. The only notification given for the development was through a web-site about which owners of land learned by chance.
Mr and Mrs D. only bought their home in El Charco Villajoyosa in 2003. They have been
given a choice by the town council and local developer (depending on which plan is finally that they can either demolish their home in favour of a green area and a road, with
minimal compensation, or keep their home and half their land and pay €50,000 to
infrastructure development costs. They have been told they will be informed when a decision is taken.
Mr and Mrs W-S left Germany four years ago to live in a house they had bought on 3000 sq. meters of land on the outskirts of Denia. They invested everything in the property and its improvement. They learned by chance that an urbanisation project to build 18000 dwellings had been agreed , that 60% of their land would be expropriated, a road would be built between their small house and their pool, and a roundabout would be built where the end of their garden now lies, but not on waste land a little further away. To add insult to injury the property developer is claiming €150,000 for infrastructure costs in advance. They fear that instead of being able to live out their retirement they will be obliged to return to Germany and live off social security.
In Mestrets - Borriolenc local people who own modest properties have formed an association to defend their rights having been faced with an urbanisation plan that rides roughshod over all of their homes, and will deprive them with up to 75% of their land, all of which is owned legally. They have been offered only minimal compensation, far below the real value of their properties where they have, for the most part, lived all their lives. They name the beneficiaries of this land-grab who are the same persons as had taken the decision to develop the land in the first place, though they own none of it. Proposals made by the association to change the plan to protect their existing properties was refused.
Ms B. & Mr S. own a property in El Aljibe, near Tibi which they bought in 1996. By chance, they heard in March 2003 that the area in which they lived was the subject of a new development plan although the town hall at that time repeatedly refused to confirm any details. Some time later a consortium, whose membership included the municipality's legal adviser, published a plan. New roads and a 1,696 house estate were proposed which carved up existing properties and destroyed much of the natural environment. No consideration was given directly to water supplies which are already scarce in the region and which would be required by the new development. The mayor was subsequently defeated in the municipal elections, yet two days before the official hand-over of authority he signed two development projects, including the one for El Aljibe. The new mayor suspended the projects and sacked the municipal architect and the lawyer. The developers of the project.
The salt flats 'Las Salinas' at Calpe was visited by the delegation and was also the subject of a previous petition 964/2001 by Mrs S. The European Commission washed its hands of the matter on the basis of a response from the Spanish authorities which must now be considered extremely misleading regarding the environmental impact of what is not just a 'reparcelisation' but a huge urban development project which manifestly will destroy a species of wild birds including the greater flamingo and the black-winged stilt and other fauna and flora, and desecrate an area of some historical interest. The coastal area had been protected by law since 1988, yet it was omitted from the EU Natura 2000 site because of the impending urban development, not because of any objective assessment of its ecological structure. The delegation saw the demolition of several small houses that had been part of the scenery for more than a hundred years and stood in the shadows of the huge residential blocks, already built on the other side of the road. Speaking to local residents we were also informed about the dramatic rise in crime locally as many dwellings, houses and apartments alike, have been burgled while their owners are away. Severe water shortages are common, and once again, no consideration seems to have been given to anything except providing benefits for the property developers at the expense of local citizens and their individual rights.
Mr & Mrs W. bought their land in Teulada in 1993 and established their family home there. However, unknown to them at the time, in 1999 a development plan was submitted and approved. The project, as often happens for public procurement reasons, was divided into two phases and without warning phase one started and a slice of their land was shaved off without notice. No response was received from the town hall for the complaint which was lodged and no compensation even mentioned. The second phase of the project envisages the following: 1.600 sq. meters of their land is designated for a green zone, 600 sq. meters for a new road in front of the house, the remaining land is designated for building and 10% is to be given up for nothing. In addition €225,000 is required by the urbanisator from the land owners for infrastructure costs. The owners were presented with an alternative; that they sell their land for €20 per sq. meter which is less that 10% of the objective market value. The whole area which was visited by the delegation is to become a huge building site where once there were farms and forests and a clear view to the sea. An invalid neighbour had half her house bulldozed and a road now runs ajacent to the rear wall of the building. A road, a pavement and street lights have been built which nobody asked for and nobody needs in such a rural setting.
In El Balco, Oropesa del Mar, residents are opposing a development which, like all the others, will destroy their environment without any environmental impact assessment. Near Benidorm,
Mr L. a retired Belgian, had his land expropriated in 1997 to build an entertainment park by Sociedad Parque Tematico de Alicante SA. He was given less than €3 per sq. meter and the land was then valued at nearly €20 per sq. meter by the property developer who had benefited from the deal. In la Nucia, near Alicante local homeowners have formed an association to fight the impending expropriation of their land under the LRAU.
In San Miguel de Salinas near Alicante, another association protests at expropriation and an unprecedented number of developments. Mr & Mrs C in Javea are having to find an urbanisation fee of €43,000 and give up part of their land to the property developers 'Desarrollo Comercial Cansalades SA'.
The association SOS Moraira has catalogued the planned destruction of the coastal
environment and the expropriation of small landowners near Teulada.There are many many more examples of such systematic abuse of natural justice, not to mention European law and national legislation.
Observations.
What is so striking about all of these examples is that none of the people concerned have
managed to obtain any satisfaction through the courts, or through lawyers because what has happened to them is considered as being quite legal. In practice, the incredible loopholes in the law (which was originally drafted to confront a specific problem of urban development) have enabled unscrupulous politicians and businessmen to obtain huge financial profit on the backs of many vulnerable and unsuspecting persons.
Comments:
Post a Comment
