Mexico Connect
Forums  > General > Living, Working, Retiring


Aaron+

Feb 10, 2014, 7:00 PM

Post #1 of 5 (3666 views)

Shortcut

Stillborn: No freedom from fideicomisos for foreign acquisition of residential property in restricte

Can't Post | Private Reply
Still no permission for foreigners to own, directly, property within the restricted zones, along borders and coastlines. The Yucatan Times, an English-language online weekly "publication", reported Feb. 9 that there had been no timely follow up to implement the April 24, 2013 Chamber of Deputies vote to amend the Mexican constitution's Article 27, so the measure is stillborn. The proposal would have allowed foreign direct ownership for residences, not for commercial use. See:
http://www.theyucatantimes.com/...n-has-been-rejected/ and, for background, http://eleconomista.com.mx/...d-extranjeros-costas. Consequently, the fideicomiso (bank trust) remains the available route for acquiring property.

Neither Canada nor the United States impose any comparable restrictions on Mexican nationals owning property NOB.

The Yucatan Times article was vague on details, as is common with Mexican press articles, in that, for example, it does not make clear if the Mexican Senate had failed to approve the measure. While it seemed, as in July, that Senate approval was at hand, I find no report of of Senate action. My assumption then is that it died in the Senate, where other much more contentious matters, such as energy "reform", also faced opposition from the PRD. Had the measure been approved by the Senate, and signed by the President, it would then have gone for state ratificiation, where PRI and PAN state administrations could have cleared the way for the reform.

The measure faced a torrent of nationalistic opposition, as evidenced, for example, in the opinions that flooded the Mexico City El Universo. http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/columnas/65900.html Folks complained that foreigners would eradicate the little access that Mexican nationals maintained, as in Cancun. Such comments ignore the fact that wealthy Mexican nationals and their resorts also limit or deny the average Mexican access to the shores, again looking at Cancun. Logically, the issue is maintaining access to the shore line, irrespective of the nationality of the owners of land further from the federal beach area, which would require enforcement of laws already on the books.

As for residential properties within the restricted zone, for example, my home in Mérida, I can see no difference to the average Mexican whether I can directly own it, or whether I pay a bank (most of them foreign owned!) to "hold" it in trust.

(This post was edited by Aaron+ on Feb 10, 2014, 9:25 PM)



Bennie García

Feb 10, 2014, 7:20 PM

Post #2 of 5 (3655 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Aaron+] Stillborn: No freedom from fideicomisos for foreign acquisition of resicential property

Can't Post | Private Reply

In Reply To


Neither Canada nor the United States impose any comparable restrictions on Mexican nationals owning property NOB.



Actually, a number of States in the US have restrictive ownership laws for foreigners.

And if your point was you feel entitled to a little quid pro quo, both Canada and the US require Mexicans to have a visa to visit where they are subjected to an arbitrary application process where approval many times relies upon the mood of the person holding the interview.


chicois8

Feb 11, 2014, 4:55 AM

Post #3 of 5 (3600 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Aaron+] Stillborn: No freedom from fideicomisos for foreign acquisition of residential property

Can't Post | Private Reply
Thanks aaron, but it kind of old news, unless you just wanted to rant.......
Rincon de Guayabitos,Nayarit
San Mateo, California


Brian

Feb 11, 2014, 9:22 AM

Post #4 of 5 (3546 views)

Shortcut

Re: [chicois8] Stillborn: No freedom from fideicomisos for foreign acquisition of residential proper

Can't Post | Private Reply
Speaking of fideicomisos, there is one thing I don't understand. Unlike bank owned mortgages in the US, Mexican banks hold real estate in a form of trust for foreign buyers. For that service, a fee is assessed on an annual basis. In the case of a mortgage, the bank has the right to foreclose and dispose of the property. However, in the case of a fideicomiso, if annual payments aren't made, the bank doesn't seem to be able to do anything except let the balance accrue with interest. It seems like the bank cant get its money until an effort is made to sell the property and the notario discovers the existence of the trust. There are lots of foreign owned properties for instance in Baja California which have been abandoned and I'm sure the payments haven't been kept up to date. If the banks cant foreclose (and the government doesn't act on unpaid taxes), it seems that the places will just rot and drag down real estate values for those who choose to stay in the area.


richmx2


Feb 11, 2014, 12:38 PM

Post #5 of 5 (3509 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Bennie García] Stillborn: No freedom from fideicomisos for foreign acquisition of resicential p

Can't Post | Private Reply
We'd also have to point out that Canada and the United States did not have revolutions caused in good part by foreign control of property, nor foreigners openly seeking to overthrow their governments, nor foreigners demanding special rights and extraterritoriality for their business operations in their history. Nor, for that matter, occupying a huge chunk of their territory, declaring independence, and turning around and selling the territory to a neighboring country.

Nor, for that matter, was this ever a change supported by anyone other than a few developers along the coastal region. There never was any political support for the measure.


http://mexfiles.net
http://mexicobookpublishers.com
 
 
Search for (advanced search) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.4