TalkBaja.com » Baja Mexico Forums » General Discussion

Anyone know the status of the proposed legislation allowing foreign ownership of land in Baja? I thought it was to be voted on in late October by the Governors.

Congress has passed it BUT a majority of the States must approve it and that can take awhile IF it passes. The measure, which passed 356-119 in the Chamber of Deputies, still needs approval from the a majority of the country's 32 state legislatures to become law.

Warren

Thanks for the info.

SAN DIEGO - A Mexican court has ruled a liquefied natural gas plant owned by a Sempra Energy subsidiary is sitting on someone else's land.

It is the latest in a long string of court battles on both sides of the border wrestling over the property in Baja California where the massive plant is located.

The Argarian Tribunal of Baja California said the government wrongly issued the title to the land. The court said it belongs to rancher Ramon Sanchez Ritchie, who spoke to Team 10 in 2011 as the conflict unfolded.

Sempra disputes the rancher's claims, and they say he is a squatter. The company also said another court decision conflicts with this latest ruling.

Sempra argued the land in the court decision is adjacent to the permitted land for the terminal and is needed to keep the plant operating.

A Sempra spokesman issued this statement regarding the ruling:

In late November, Mexico's Agrarian Court in Ensenada issued a ruling that the Agrarian Reform erred in refusing to issue a title to property adjacent to the Energia Costa Azul (ECA) LNG terminal in Ensenada to Sanchez Ritchie, and closing the file on his application. Sanchez Ritchie initially made his application in 1993, and the file was closed in 2006 for inactivity. Both IEnova and the Agrarian Reform disagree with the ruling, and the Agrarian Reform has appealed it to the Agrarian appellate court, and ECA has challenged it in the Federal Circuit Court.

(Agrarian Courts are established by Article 27 of the Mexico Federal Constitution and they resolve matters pertaining to the Federal Agrarian Act).

Here's our perspective:

The property that is the subject of the Agrarian Court ruling is not required for any of Energia Costa Azul's (ECA) permits or for its operations.

After a five-year permitting and construction process, the Energia Costa Azul (ECA) LNG terminal was completed and commenced operations in 2008. ECA is built on land that was acquired by Sempra as required by the federal and state permits. After the permitting process was completed, Sempra also purchased adjacent land from the legal owner and after a thorough review of the title's history to create an environmental greenbelt as well as a security zone.

After the property was purchased in 2006, Sanchez Ritchie, a squatter, claimed to be the owner without property title or documentation and notwithstanding that Sempra is the registered titleholder. We disagree with the ruling by the Agrarian Court and have challenged it in the Federal Circuit Court. The Agrarian Reform also disagrees, and it has appealed the ruling.

The ruling does not invalidate ECA's title. That could only be done by the state Civil Court in Ensenada. Although Sanchez Ritchie has claimed he owns the property, he has never brought a legal challenge to the validity of ECA's title because he has never held a title. In contrast, ECA has filed two cases in the Civil Court to confirm the superiority of its ownership and possessory rights. The civil cases are still pending.

http://www.10news.com/news/investiga...rs-land-122313

I believe the disputed owners acquired that land by prescription and rumour has it that they paid the national land fees in Mexico City. They say that Sempra only has a colonial title in lieu of a national land title. If that is true, not even a hundred lawyers can help them with that mess.

If true they better be prepared to take out their checkbook (again)...

Wonder who conducted "due diligence" on the site ... just saying

Some time ago I spoke with one of the attornies representing the disputed property owner. He claims that Sempra came down and flashed a lot of money around. They found several willing takers who assured Sempra that they would make any land problems go away.

The problem is now the other party is in power and if indeed the disputed property owner is holding a national land title, Sempra is pretty much out of luck barring them being able to somehow prove that he obtained it through other than legal means.

The supreme court in Mexico has been very consistent in upholding national land titles in property disputes. I don't see anything different here that makes me believe otherwise.

If so, Sempra will either have to abandon the property and pay damages or pay the owner what he wants for the land. Either way they will have to pay and I suspect this will end via option 2.

Originally Posted by wessongroup

Wonder who conducted "due diligence" on the site ... just saying

Seriously . .. . If Sempra can get screwed like this, then what chance does a 'regular' person ever have of not getting screwed?

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

The problem is now the other party is in power and if indeed the disputed property owner is holding a national land title, Sempra is pretty much out of luck barring them being able to somehow prove that he obtained it through other than legal means.

Sempra started their investment back in the 1990's when the PRI was still in power, right? So I'm not sure what that has to do with it?

Originally Posted by bwall

Seriously . .. . If Sempra can get screwed like this, then what chance does a 'regular' person ever have of not getting screwed?

Originally Posted by bwall

Sempra started their investment back in the 1990's when the PRI was still in power, right? So I'm not sure what that has to do with it?

Partially true. Sempra began their initial venture back in the 1990's and looked at several venues for their plant, including at one time the Coronado Islands. It wasn't until the term of Fox (around 2002-2003) that Sempra finalized plans for the terminal at its current location and plans for the expansion into the disputed land area didn't happen until after Calderon had taken office. Mexico City indeed provided cover for Sempra during the later part of Calderon's administration when Ensenada began creating troubles for Sempra but now they have few to none, strong political allies remaining that can help them out of the the hole they have dug for themselves.

The Mexican courts have strongly demonstrated over the past several decades now that the property rights of "regular people" and corporate giants alike are protected by the constitution when they follow a simple rule: Understand that since the Mexican revolution, all land originates from the federal government and you need to make sure that the national land title fees were paid and documented in your escritura. Otherwise what you have is an old colonial title and you are open to such title problems such as what Sempra is now experiencing and what happened back at Punta Banda.

Stay tuned - a similar story is on the edge of becoming front page news in the San Quintin region very, very soon...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

Stay tuned - a similar story is on the edge of becoming front page news in the San Quintin region very, very soon...

It never ends, does it?

Originally Posted by Woooosh

It never ends, does it?

It does keep you on your toes down here...

Originally Posted by BajaGringo

It does keep you on your toes down here...

At least when I look down at my toes- I know they are still there and they are still mine.

Originally Posted by bwall

Sempra started their investment back in the 1990's when the PRI was still in power, right? So I'm not sure what that has to do with it?

And when the then President put his stamp of approval on the project,the opposing faction said go ahead We will never let it Stand.