SURVEY: Is it time to let foreigners own land?

[Scott]

There has been some discussion of the possibility of loosening the restrictions on land ownership.   In your opinion, do you think it is time for foreigners to be allowed to own land?   Feel free to post your ideas, including conditions and restrictions you think should apply.

 

For further reading:

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1220094-easing-restrictions-on-foreign-property-ownership-in-thailand-a-good-idea-says-leading-industry-figure/

 

 

 

[Misty]

Within limits, yes.  The concept of reciprocity is worth considering too. 

[djayz]

If living here legally, then yes. 

 

At the very, very least, if you buy a house, you should also be allowed to own the land it's built on. 

 

[RotBenz8888]

9 hours ago, Scott said:

There has been some discussion

It'll never happen. 

[fusion58]

I can see it now: “Welcome to South China (formerly known as ‘Thailand.’”)

[EricTh]

Most countries allow foreigners to own land, why not Thailand?

 

Of course , there must be some conditions attached, like above a certain selling price.

[EricTh]

8 minutes ago, fusion58 said:

I can see it now: “Welcome to South China (formerly known as ‘Thailand.’”)

Which includes Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar.

[Misty]

1 minute ago, EricTh said:

Which includes Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar.

 

Not to mention Cambodia

 

[Myran]

Yes, but we should be restricted to one fairly small piece of land to build a house on. 

[worgeordie]

Why not.. you cannot take it with you when you leave, it's always

going to be Thailand, ....I don't complain when wealthy Thai's

buy very expensive property in my country, they can buy anything.

 

Most Foreigners  here  would be happy  with a small plot that they

could legally own, build a home with their Thai family and feel secure,

it's the rich that own most of the big areas of land here, they don't want

competition , putting fear in the population that Farangs will buy up all

the land, when it's them that actually own it , and find all ways to take

more land from poorer people.

 

regards Worgeordie

 

 

[4MyEgo]

They could probably learn from Australia's mistakes.

 

Country by country, the UK is the biggest foreign investor in Australian farmland, owning 10.2 million hectares, followed by China with 9.2 million and then, each owning two or more million hectares, the US, the Netherlands, the Bahamas and Canada.May 27, 2563 BE

 

China holds the biggest interests registered, closely followed by the US, and then the UK and Canada. All up, the proportion of total water entitlement on issue in the Murray-Darling Basin with a level of foreign ownership is 9.4%.

[Mr Meeseeks]

21 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Country by country, the UK is the biggest foreign investor in Australian farmland, owning 10.2 million hectares, followed by China with 9.2 million and then, each owning two or more million hectares, the US, the Netherlands, the Bahamas and Canada.

Moot point really as the Crown owns all the land there anyway. 

[Surelynot]

Interesting......in English law (at least), there is no such thing as "ownership" of land.......you only have certain rights conferred through freehold and leasehold laws.....back to bed.

[BritManToo]

I don't believe letting foreigners own land is in the best interests of any country.

[Ralf001]

Its a yes from me, would love to own a house in my name.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

I don't believe letting foreigners own land is in the best interests of any country.

I agree.....some half way house (pun?) is needed allowing limited rights.........price inflation could easily destroy the locals opportunity live in their own country.....look at London....and what is happening now in Cornwall....albeit Brits buying in their own country...it illustrates the distortions that can take place.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Its a yes from me, would love to own a house in my name.

I think you can own the house....just not the land it sits on.....you just need a chairlift and pulley system to get to the house.

[Ralf001]

10 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Moot point really as the Crown owns all the land there anyway. 

 

Yep, ya screwed if there is a coal seam gas company wants to come dig holes in your backyard !!

[Ralf001]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

I think you can own the house....just not the land it sits on.....you just need a chairlift and pulley system to get to the house.

 

House is not much good to me if it is not planted on a block of land.

 

I'd be happy with a 99-year Crown lease though.

[Surelynot]

Just now, Ralf001 said:

 

House is not much good to me if it is not planted on a block of land.

 

I'd be happy with a 99-year Crown lease though.

I agree there are ways forward...........if it is to be considered at all........I think ownership will, somehow, become restricted  Chinese only.

[cclub75]

For once, I think the thai laws... are natural, efficient, and coherent with the human history, psyché and behavior.

 

And as a westerner, I would add : it's us who have lost the... plot (No pun intended)

 

It's our ideology of "openborders", of "a country is a hotel", of "globalism" that destroys everything.

 

To welcome a foreigner is good. And it's practised since the dawn of times. But... he should remain a foreigner. A guest.

 

The land can not be shared. You can only invite foreigners onto your land.

 

This idea is not racist, nor bigotery.

 

On the contrary, it is deeply modern.

 

[LennyW]

Just hope it never becomes like Sianoukville!

 

[Jingthing]

Residential housing, yes.

But only one per foreigner and limits on land area of the lots. 

You could go further and require that the foreigner actually live in the house, but that's too draconian as people's situations do change.

[4MyEgo]

20 minutes ago, Mr Meeseeks said:

Moot point really as the Crown owns all the land there anyway. 

Meaning ?

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

But only one per foreigner

Multi-millionaire Chinese......puts up total strangers as buyers.......buys 20 plots in different names......so many loop holes.

[The Cipher]

Bangkok, and other global cities, should think about adopting a dual-structure housing regulation similar to Singapore. One class of housing that is restricted to citizens only and trades on supply and demand from local wages - and is therefore always affordable to locals, and another class that trades freely as assets accessible to global capital.

 

Housing costs are a much-overlooked, but root cause, of a lot of the issues plaguing Western societies today. Hopefully Thailand works out a system that will open up some ownership possibility in a way that does not cause a complete detachment in land prices from local wages.

[TooBigToFit]

First, buying land and full rights should be for people who are established here, not based on wealth or investments. The restrictions should be that the foreigner has lived in Thailand for five years and is married, or 10 years unmarried on year-long work visas doing work in Thailand and show strong connections to being establish here. At that point, the foreigner should be treated equally under the law given rights equal to a Thai, outside of voting. Permanent residency should be much easier to attain than it is now after 10 years here and a foreigner should have no laws against him preventing him from doing any legal business that a local does to support a Thai family. With this, Thailand should be a lot stricter on foreigners breaking laws in Thailand such as working illegally up to that 10 year mark.

 

Well, it would be better but face the facts: Thailand has corruption and police who don't enforce laws.  Actually, what ever they come up with will probably be just another joke. I just wish they would do something fair and humane to make living here taking care of a Thai family responsibly an easier thing to do. Not every foreigner is rich and many who have spent their lives here end up as poor as most Thais without many options for work. The laws now don't put Thailand in a good light, not because they don't let the rich in, but because they screw over endless working class Thai-expat families. Sadly, my decades here have only made me distrust Thailand and resent it for its xenophobia. I wish it weren't so.

[youreavinalaff]

Probably would benefit single people.

 

Those that are married already have a say on the land purchased when married with "Sin Som Rot".

 

If anything goes wrong with the relationship the law is there to protect.

[Ralf001]

6 minutes ago, TooBigToFit said:

 10 years unmarried on year-long work visas doing work in Thailand

 

 

no such thing.

[TooBigToFit]

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

 

no such thing.

I'm suggesting that single people who aren't married to Thais who have lived and worked in Thailand for 10 years should have the right to the privilege of owning land and having equal rights as a local. It's just a suggestion. A person married to a Thai who has been living in Thailand for five years should also get those same rights/privileges.