To wonder if property developers sometimes really do this?

[MrsTawdry]

You know...like intimidate land owners or home owners into selling to them?

Or is that just the stuff of Hollywod and Scooby Doo?

Look I know it's a boring question and it's Friday...but please tell me! :D

No. They don't need to do that because if they are a big enough company they'll make a deal with the local authority and get the LA to force people out of their homes instead. this is rare but true and happens when the LA has a larger city plan focused on developing a particular area

I'm pretty sure they regularly dress up as ghosts and scare people away. They'd get away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids!

Name change cos of outage..

I'd say it's possible, though strategic land is a pretty well thought out plan these days. Dh works for a large developer and they don't have to go out to look for sites as land owners usually come to them.
They recently featured in a newspaper being lambasted about land buying (as most developers are) and couldn't keep up for a week after with all the offers of land. It's true what they say, all publicity is good.

For the most part land is owned by retired farmers and the like who realise that if they can get planning for homes they could be quids in. With the rewards being potentially millions I suspect there is little threatening that goes on.

The developers on the other hand are threatened every time they visit sites by locals.

What about city properties? Old places no longer functioning etc? Don't they sometimes get hassle?

Winter How can an LA force an owner out though?

There was a news item just before Christmas - A fire on land next to Tottenham Football club - turns out that this was the last factory which refused to get out after years of battling so THFC could build their new stadium ......

Compulsory purchase orders. I was being a bit flippant but if a LA decides an area is to be regenerated or gentrified which is what they really mean then the LA will approach the people who currently live there and offer to buy their homes. If they refuse then the LA can move to compulsory purchase orders. Once the LA has taken ownership, it gives the contract to a private development company to build whatever it is that the LA deems better for that area whether it be new housing; offices or industrial units. So, in theory the demand comes from the LA but the individual home owner loses out and the chosen property developer benefits.

It's not commonplace but it does happen.

Winter Gah! Really! That sounds so Sheriff of Nottingham it's ridiculous!

How can an LA force an owner out though?

like this

At the meeting, tensions were running high. The homeowners were especially angry. The Conservative council is offering £130,000 for two-bedroom flats and £90,000 for one-bedrooms. Residents heckled the surveyor: ‘You’re lying to us.’ Adam Langleben, a Labour councillor, told the meeting: ‘It appears to be theft and that’s how it comes across.’ The agent acting for the homeowners told me afterwards that the valuations were very low. He said he had found only one flat within 15 miles of the estate going for under £90,000. With the money the council says it will pay them for their flats, the homeowners on the West Hendon Estate will be unlikely to be able to afford anywhere on the new development, or elsewhere in London

Oh! And I always thought ownership was safe!

Those were actually homeowners!

In my example above Barnet Council GAVE the land to Barrett Homes to regenerate the estate sorry off topic a bit!

Hee is it like this...the council still owned the land when the tenants bought their houses? I live in a council flat and if I bought it I would have no ownership of the land. Is it the same thing?

No, MrsTawdry LA can buy your house/flat/business even if you own it outright if they have an overarching plan for the area or a greater good argument. Aargh! I could give actual examples but it would out me . . .

Let's say that London is hosting the Olympics and decides it needs to build 2 new stadiums, a bus park and houses for the athletes. They have to be in a certain area and it just so happens that there are already houses and businesses in that area. Because the govt and the LA have decided hosting the Olympics is a very good thing, they decide everyone who is already there, has to move.

Their first step would be to send a letter; open negotiations and try to buy the houses and businesses. At this stage, most accept what is offered even if it is below market value (as in Hee 's example) because they know they are not going to be allowed to stay. Some will refuse to sell saying they can't buy an equivalent property with the money the LA is offering. Then the LA will say if you don't sell we will compulsory purchase your property as the benefits of the Olympics outweigh your right to stay in your home. The LA gets a court order. If you still refuse to move, they can evict you from your own home.

At the same time as this is happening the LA will have been negotiating with private development companies to see who gets to build on the land that the LA is in the process of buying stealing from the people who currently live and work there.

Yes most homeowner's are leaseholders not freeholders - it would depend on your property and whether the option to buy the freehold was available.

Even so, if you own the freehold if the LA want your land they will get it, somehow!

The developer usually offers some incentive to the LA, such as a community center or improvements to the road network in the area they are building.

Added to this if they are building homes then the developer has to include affordable homes in the plan as well and often some social housing. This means e LA gets some benefit from the application approval.

I can't believe it! I mean I can...but...it's shocking. People must feel just dreadful.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-31138687 same here, home owners :(

YY I think it's fair to say that the people do feel dreadful. Another impact is that it splits communities as only occasionally will there be the option for home-owners to buy properties beside each other so eg if you had bought your house and its land; and you'd lived happily there for 20 years with a good selection of neighbours, proximity to schools, doctors, etc. You can lose all of that. It can decimate communities

If Heathrow get the go ahead for another runway, lots of people in nearby towns (Harrington) will be given compulsory purchase orders to make for it

I know of a situation where a County Council decided that they needed something... so they did a big site search with certain criteria required for their site... picked a site (that didn't belong to them and wasn't for sale) and granted themselves planning consent for what they wanted. They then issued a compulsory purchase order which sought to buy the site for a measly sum. The CPO was (very unusually) refused because it turned out that they didn't need what they decided they needed, and their search criteria were proved to have not been necessary which allowed a whole lot of other, more appropriate sites to be considered.

I've heard of perfectly normal neighbours intimidating older neighbours into selling to them, or selling rights over their land to them. Most developers buy big blocks of land from farmers next to towns and villages and sit on it waiting for it to be zoned for housing. Often in return for offering bribes incentives such as a "sports centre" without a swimming pool or running track, which wouldn't otherwise be needed but for the new homes. Amazing when you think of an individual who eventually might get planning for replacing an older building with a new build will probably have to put in all sorts of landscaping measures.

Some would say what City of Edinburgh Council is doing with its compulsory repairs scheme is about as close to intimidation of property owners as you can get.