2 hours ago, Chris Lawrence said:

Look at history. I was a registered Real Estate Valuer with an interest in the past. 9/10 its the off shore buyer that buys develops and sells in their property in hard times. That's when opportunity comes the local way. My first boss was worth about $10 million; 10 years later he was worth $250 million. I have met a few like that. 

Are you talking about Skase after the Japanese had bought all that waterfront property in Queensland and went bust in 1989. The same can happen with the Chinese.

Just now, 4MyEgo said:

 

I do believe you can create something where she can will it to you, but you have I believe 12 or 24 months to sell it, otherwise I believe if I read it correctly the government or family would get it, so might be worth while looking into if that is what you want.

Her will was prepared by the Amphur when we bought the property. They hold the original document.

It would be a pointless exercise - they would simply reverse the law if or when it suited them.

They will be inundated with Chinese buying up homes/land instead of condos. Mini cities of Chinese.

 

The inability to own land and therefore in essence, a home has been the source of problems for many married couples.  I believe that at the very least, those married to a Thai national and/or those who have Thai children should be given that privilege.  There could be conditions/restrictions but it would set foreigners mind's at rest and give them the confidence to invest - which can only be a good thing for their children's future.

 

The Thai authorities have always claimed the law as its stands is to prevent foreign competition driving up prices beyond that which Thai people could afford.  I don't believe that for one moment - house prices are beyond what the majority of working class Thai's can afford already. 

 

I would suggest the law is in place to keep the majority of the income from housing developments in Thai hands and also because of basic nationalistic reasons.

 

I note that many rich Thais have no problem dabbling in foreign property markets though.

6 hours ago, fusion58 said:

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

Precisely why I voted No.

Limits are very important; it would not be good for foreigners to own large parts of the country.  The 
UK allows that and it's not going well.

IMO, allow a foreigner to own one dwelling, that has to be their main residence, and one business premises (bar, shop, factory, etc.), and no more.

This could only happen with huge pressure from foreign governments but there are very few that care about this issue.  There used to be 13 countries with treaties that allowed their nationals to own land in Thailand on a reciprocal basis but all allowed to the treaties to lapse after the US renewed its treaty in the late 60s or early 70s with the clause about land deleted.  Western countries just rolled over and let Thais own land in their countries without getting anything in return from the Thai government. Nowadays this is even less likely to happen because major new players in the region don't allow private freehold land ownership period, viz China and Vietnam. 

 

It would require an amendment to the Land Code which is a big thing requiring big government support against the opposition and against the opposition from its own parties.  There are just no convincing arguments that this would be a big win for the Thai people.  Last this happened in 1999 on the justification that foreigners would help the real estate market recover after the Tom Yam Kung crisis, the original bill was so watered down in parliament that not a single plot of land has been purchased by foreigners in the 21 years since it became law.  Right now the government is facing problems getting its budget bill passed, which might force it to dissolve parliament and is under huge pressue of the failure of its vaccination policy.  This is simply not going to come close to happening.  

 

Yes but with restrictions. Otherwise the Chinese will buy the lot like in Australia!

 

Time for Thailand to move out of the 18th century with regards to house/land ownership and working to support ones family. A basic human rights issue.

16 hours ago, Scott said:

In your opinion, do you think it is time for foreigners to be allowed to own land?

Until Thailand is level with USA, Europe, UK financially NO. 

7 hours ago, RotBenz8888 said:

It'll never happen. 

Never say never.  It's a long time!

8 hours ago, djayz said:

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. 

 

I agree 200%

Yes 100% for a small amount perhaps 5 rai max I’d like to have rights to our land and house if the old lady kicks the bucket first I doubt it will ever happen though 

Absolutely. At least up to 100 rai of land. It seems fair. There are countless countries that allow it, and many countries actually use the purchase as a credit toward citizenship. It is not a demerit. It is a plus for Thai society. And one does not have to worry about us jacking up the prices. First of all the Thai people have already done a great job with that. And second, there are not enough of us buying homes and land for it to make a big difference.

 

Let's be reasonable and let's be fair. And let's do away with the fake nationalism, the false pride and the paranoia. 

Yes, It s time, now, if you are the first, you win.

9 hours ago, Myran said:

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

 

Yes , but we should not be restricted on our ,

       limited financial circumstances .. 

        So sad . I love my wife .  I love Thailand ..

     

As far as the chances of any significant change happening, I think that is snowball in hell territory. But we can all dream. Yes their should be restrictions - one property, a couple of rai of land, and you have to live here. if you leave you should have 5 years to return or sell (one or two is not long enough). Yes, the issue of Chinese buying up even more needs to be controlled.

 

The UK did get it wrong. it is a crowded country and is overbuilt. 50 years ago, you could buy a house easily without crippling debt (I bought my first at age 23). The idea of a house owning democracy (aka Thatcher) didn't work - it resulted in thousands of new private landlords only interested in making as much money as they can, followed by mass immigration to provide a cheap workforce (population was fairly stable until 25 years ago) which meant another 10 million to house and precious little land to do it. Result of both - raging house inflation. Me a house owner at 23, my son at 29 (earning more than i did when i retired) struggles to pay his rent and says it will take another 10 years to get a deposit. I am all for protecting land rights for local workers.

Four pages so far of arbitrary conditions for foreigners to own Thai land. Are you Thai making up silly and nonsense conditions? If you have the money you can buy it, just like in my home country. 

13 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

Her will was prepared by the Amphur when we bought the property. They hold the original document.

 

I am not up to date with Thai law when it comes to wills or property, e.g. either way, whether I pass or in the event of a divorce, the wife will get to keep the property, my gift to her if you like.

 

That said, I do think something has to be put on the title like a caveat, I believe it's called an Usfruct or something like that, there has been much discussion and advice about it on TVF, maybe someone can tell you about it of they pick this up or you search for the previous topic/s.

No way sorry...I know many foreigners support Thai wives/families etc as do I but we can in a sense own now

Yes not the land & that is as it should be

 

In a place like Thailand if the option opened for foreigners to own prices would skyrocket for land pricing Thai farmers/citizens out

Beautiful shorelines would be blocked with "public access" only in small strips

 

Just look at Hawaii as an example....The King Of Hawaii made the mistake of letting foreigners own land...Next thing after those foreigners were entrenched they asked their governments to protect their investments...Not to mention Pearl Harbor was a prize

 

Next thing you know the US govt overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy

Later the people of Hawaii were allowed to vote on

1- Do you want to be a US State

or

2 Do you want to be a US territory

 

They were never asked would you like us to leave & give you back your Hawaii?

 

To add insult to injury they let the foreigners vote & they let foreigners flood in to Hawaii to vote

 

Anyway sorry for the sidetrack but that is what awaits Thailand if they allow foreigners to own land

See prices in Hawaii now? See how many Hawaiians will never own land except thru OHA leasing for having Hawaiian blood & that is a long process that many never get a shot at

 

So no....Thailand should not allow foreigners to buy/own land IMO

 

 

 

 

19 hours 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.

A detachable foundation would be a good idea. Maybe we can give it a name, something like mobihome, or Temphouse.

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I am not up to date with Thai law when it comes to wills or property, e.g. either way, whether I pass or in the event of a divorce, the wife will get to keep the property, my gift to her if you like.

 

That said, I do think something has to be put on the title like a caveat, I believe it's called an Usfruct or something like that, there has been much discussion and advice about it on TVF, maybe someone can tell you about it of they pick this up or you search for the previous topic/s.

I know what side remedies there are in the land law but they are of no practical use to me. If my wife dies first, and there were problems with her will, I would not be staying in the area as I do not speak Thai and there are very few people here that speak English. There would be no point in staying, so I will just trust that her will is in order should it happen.

I voted no because the risk is too high for big-spending organizations to come in and buy up huge amounts of land is too great.

 

the thais in the rural areas  wont really have an idea of what their land is really worth, and then will get priced out as the bidding levels keep going up and up.

 

I didn't vote for yes with restrictions because due to the rampant corruption in the government, any supposed limitations would be easily worked around with an appropriately stuffed brown envelope

No land ownership works for me.  Got house on pre-nup, and a renewable land lease.

I dont see an isssue here. It can be controlled quite easily. 

Reciprocity,... simple as that

2 hours ago, GreasyFingers said:

There would be no point in staying, so I will just trust that her will is in order should it happen.

 

You could always get a lawyer to go over a copy to check it out and see if anything needs adjusting, money well worth spent in my opinion, trust is one thing, but when someone is gone, well, it's another ball game if things aren't what you thought they were and you won't be able to reverse whatever is in the will.

 

Each to their own of course, I always cross my T's and dot my i's, it's my way of saying I did a back up and saved all of my data just in case things go haywire.

22 hours ago, ThomasThBKK said:

Rubbish.

It's happening in many countries, there is no reason to suppose Thailand would be any different.

On 6/13/2021 at 11:50 AM, EricTh said:

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

 

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

"Most" countries in SEA certainly do not allow foreigners to own land.