TalkBaja.com » Baja Real Estate Advice / Discussion » Before you even think about buying property

Let's hope this gets more support going forward. The PRI are indeed doing what they said they would. This is biig deal for residential real estate development. New land buyers would get titles (where available) and existing owners could cut annual costs by hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Other member have posted the Banks and Lawyers won't be pleased. I wonder how this will go?

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/2...n-foreign.html

MEXICO CITY -- The lower house of Mexico's congress voted Tuesday to loosen longstanding restrictions on foreigners buying property along the coast and the nation's borders, a proposal that drew stiff criticism from some quarters.

The measure, which passed 356-119 in the Chamber of Deputies, still needs approval from the Senate and a majority of the country's 32 state legislatures to become law.

For decades, foreigners have had to use real-estate trusts or Mexican front companies to buy beachfront properties, because Article 27 of the constitution prohibits non-Mexicans from directly owning land within 31 miles (50 kilometers) of the coast and 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the nation's borders. The trusts and front companies have provided a lucrative income for banks, lawyers and notaries who are required to operate them, and the extensive paperwork has discouraged many foreigners from buying.

The change, sponsored by Congressman Manlio Fabio Beltrones of the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, would allow foreigners to directly buy ocean-front property for residential use, but not for commercial projects.

Such proposals have been made before, but not by figures as influential as Beltrones, the PRI's congressional leader.
"This is about eliminating the middlemen who, through trusts, corporations and front men, have made a living off the constitutional ban," Beltrones' office said when he submitted the bill earlier this month. "It is a question of encouraging tourism investment and creating local jobs."

The Union of Indians and the Farmers' Force, a farmworkers group, criticized the proposal Tuesday, saying it would "give free rein to foreigners to legally buy up the best land, and encourage robbery and financial and real estate speculation."

"This would result in the foreign colonization of the country," the groups said in a statement.

Those are strong sentiments in a country frequently invaded by foreign powers in the 19th and early 20th century. Mexico set up the restrictions to ensure national security and avoid the creation of foreign enclaves like the one that grew up in a former Mexican province known as Texas, where the foreigners eventually rebelled and split from Mexico.

"For historical reasons, it was considered risky to allow foreigners to establish themselves permanently on the coast and the borders," according to Beltrones' proposal, but it says "the conditions that led the Constitution to limit such purchases have been overcome."

Arguing for the change Tuesday, Beltrones said, "Apart from ensuring legal certainty over property rights, this would financially benefit the coastal town government, given that it would make tax payments, like property taxes, easier to collect."

Kevin Graham, a Texan who runs the Costa Maya Living real estate firm in the Caribbean beach town of Mahahual, said some potential buyers are put off by the prospect of not being able to hold direct title to beach properties. "I feel, with all the doubts they have, it's slowed the market down for foreign investment here," he said.

Federico Estevez, a political science professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico, also cited the benefits to foreign investment by simplifying ownership for foreigners.

"This is to bring the law up to date, because basically it's going on anyway, but with all these foul distortions of having to pay people off," he said.

Noting that Mexico has been seeking more foreign investors, Estevez added: "You want their money, keep them here."

Thank you for posting this Wooosh.

For many foreign investors, Mexicos's ownership laws, when combined with the stories of homes lost to bad titles, has certainly impacted the number of people willing to consider investing there.

An interesting point that the Union of Indians and Farmers Force are raising objections. I wonder if they've really thought it through?

Most of the places we gringos are looking to buy are not in areas that are farmed, or would displace anyone already living there. We prefer those "useless" coastal zones, or hilltops, where no sensible farmer would ever want to live.

I remember beach front houses in SoCal begging for buyers and tenants because few wanted to live with the sand and humidity that first row homes fight with. Then the value due to scarcity rule kicked in and for the last 40 years mere mortals have been unable to afford California beach frontage. The beaches have been passed over by most Mexicans as potential home sites because, really, it's kind of a dumb place to try and build a home. (no offense to you Wooosh).

Not that most of us don't want to.............

I posted the following last night on the Punta Banda BB:
=====================================

This issue comes up about as regularly as does a Blue Moon and dies a
predictable death on the operating table.
The measure still has monumental hurdles to go over, Senate approval as well as
state approval.
These bodies of law makers have to answer to the public who have reason to
object, and their representitives will listen.

Mexico has national icons, the state owned oil monopoly, PEMEX, being one of
them. There's even a national holiday commemorating the reaquisition of this
asset from foreign ownership, Expropriation Day. It was important to the people
of Mexico that their country wasn't controlled by foreign interests who took the
profits and ran.

Another sensitive issue is foreign ownership of land, especially the perimeter,
and voices will rise if and when the possibility of losing these assets to
foreigners ever gets near being a reality.
These may in fact be "antiquated laws", but they're held together with national
pride. That won't be easily changed.

I'm one of probably very few expats who are apathetic about this. My fideicomiso is paid for, annual fees are low (currently $330 USD /year plus IVA), and my only hassle is paying at the trustee bank's office a five-minute drive away. My will is with the same notario who drew up my fideicomiso, so the documents are "on the same page", so to speak. If I were to change over to a standard title, I'd face the hassle and expense of dissolving the trust, having the escritura and will re-done, and so on. If the law passed, I'd probably do it, especially if I were considering selling, but otherwise it's pretty much all the same to me. Though there's a psychological advantage to having direct title, I don't feel that it's really any more secure than with a fideicomiso.

Originally Posted by Islander

The beaches have been passed over by most Mexicans as potential home sites because, really, it's kind of a dumb place to try and build a home. (no offense to you Wooosh). Not that most of us don't want to.............

Mexicans don't see the beach as a great place to live. They like to visit, but living there isn't an attraction for them. Not sure why, but it is more logical than fighting the salt air which rusts everything and makes house maintenance and gardening a challenge. Now for me- there is nothing like the sound of the waves, the ever-changing seascape and a sea alive with life to watch. It is an interesting observation, thanks.

During the discussion of this law I'm sure many Americans and Canadians will be surprised to see just how many Mexicans really don't want us here, let alone own coastal property outright.

Originally Posted by Woooosh

Mexicans don't see the beach as a great place to live. They like to visit, but living there isn't an attraction for them. Not sure why, but it is more logical than fighting the salt air which rusts everything and makes house maintenance and gardening a challenge. Now for me- there is nothing like the sound of the waves, the ever-changing seascape and a sea alive with life to watch. It is an interesting observation, thanks.

Years back, when there wasn't much development along the Baja coast, and the few houses there were homes of locals, they would build their "million dollar view" houses with the back side facing the water. The view, with it's attendant wind, were useless to them and looking at the water was only a reminder of the day's work in front of them.

Originally Posted by DENNIS

Years back, when there wasn't much development along the Baja coast, and the few houses there were homes of locals, they would build their "million dollar view" houses with the back side facing the water. The view, with it's attendant wind, were useless to them and looking at the water was only a reminder of the day's work in front of them.

now that's a tad depressing. I am constantly amazed at the people who put ocean-facing decks on the pacific-side homes. It makes sense in some coastal areas, but not this one. The constant on shore breeze makes using it almost impossible except when the Santa Ana's are blowing the other way. The glass never stays clean for more that a day either. The only time I open the ocean facing doors is for me to do my woooosh-clean... which blows all the dog hair out of the house into the back yard.

Pretty much the same story being picked up by the NOB media...

Mexico house OKs loosening foreign land ownership - Yahoo! News

.
Mexico house OKs loosening foreign land ownership

Mexico's lower house votes to loosen ban on foreigners owning land on coasts, borders
By Mark Stevenson, Associated Press | Associated Press – Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- The lower house of Mexico's congress voted Tuesday to loosen longstanding restrictions on foreigners buying property along the coast and the nation's borders, a proposal that drew stiff criticism from some quarters.

The measure, which passed 356-119 in the Chamber of Deputies, still needs approval from the Senate and a majority of the country's 32 state legislatures to become law.

For decades, foreigners have had to use real-estate trusts or Mexican front companies to buy beachfront properties, because Article 27 of the constitution prohibits non-Mexicans from directly owning land within 31 miles (50 kilometers) of the coast and 62 miles (100 kilometers) of the nation's borders. The trusts and front companies have provided a lucrative income for banks, lawyers and notaries who are required to operate them, and the extensive paperwork has discouraged many foreigners from buying.

The change, sponsored by Congressman Manlio Fabio Beltrones of the governing Institutional Revolutionary Party, would allow foreigners to directly buy ocean-front property for residential use, but not for commercial projects.

Such proposals have been made before, but not by figures as influential as Beltrones, the PRI's congressional leader.

"This is about eliminating the middlemen who, through trusts, corporations and front men, have made a living off the constitutional ban," Beltrones' office said when he submitted the bill earlier this month. "It is a question of encouraging tourism investment and creating local jobs."

The Union of Indians and the Farmers' Force, a farmworkers group, criticized the proposal Tuesday, saying it would "give free rein to foreigners to legally buy up the best land, and encourage robbery and financial and real estate speculation."

"This would result in the foreign colonization of the country," the groups said in a statement.

Those are strong sentiments in a country frequently invaded by foreign powers in the 19th and early 20th century. Mexico set up the restrictions to ensure national security and avoid the creation of foreign enclaves like the one that grew up in a former Mexican province known as Texas, where the foreigners eventually rebelled and split from Mexico.

"For historical reasons, it was considered risky to allow foreigners to establish themselves permanently on the coast and the borders," according to Beltrones' proposal, but it says "the conditions that led the Constitution to limit such purchases have been overcome."

Arguing for the change Tuesday, Beltrones said, "Apart from ensuring legal certainty over property rights, this would financially benefit the coastal town government, given that it would make tax payments, like property taxes, easier to collect."

Kevin Graham, a Texan who runs the Costa Maya Living real estate firm in the Caribbean beach town of Mahahual, said some potential buyers are put off by the prospect of not being able to hold direct title to beach properties.

"I feel, with all the doubts they have, it's slowed the market down for foreign investment here," he said.

Federico Estevez, a political science professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico, also cited the benefits to foreign investment by simplifying ownership for foreigners.

"This is to bring the law up to date, because basically it's going on anyway, but with all these foul distortions of having to pay people off," he said.

Noting that Mexico has been seeking more foreign investors, Estevez added: "You want their money, keep them here."

"You want their money, keep them here."

To bad this message can't find ear's within the "Cartels" ....

Can't image the down turn has not impacted their ligitement and the more traditional investments which generate income

But, things are looking up, Afganistan has once again increased their opium production

KABUL, Afghanistan — For the third year in a row, opium cultivation has increased across Afghanistan, erasing earlier drops stemming from a decade-long international and Afghan government effort to combat the drug trade, according to a United Nations report released on Monday.

Opium Production in Afghanistan Up for Third Year - NYTimes.com

Say maybe it's the "drones" being used by the locals in production ..... say, we sending any "farm implements"

Islander, I've lived in California for 60 years. About 50 years ago my uncle bought a tiny beach house on Balboa Island, maybe a 50' lot and it cost more than my family's home back then. After Prop 20 passed in 1972, the value of California Coastal property just hit the roof and my uncles tiny $20K beach house would be worth $2 mil.

Yes, us gringos are crazy placing such a high value on water front properties, and I'm one of them.