If he bought a house and then left it empty for 8 years when he moved to New Zealand then he has nobody to blame but himself - holiday homes left vacant for 11 months of the year can be a huge blight on a small community, but to leave it empty and unmaintained for 8 years when you move to the other side of the world and then be shocked and upset that it is no longer there is hard to believe.
You can do anything with your own house as long as it is legal and you pay your taxes each year. Even not visit your beach house for a while if you don't feel in the mood to do that or are working in a different place, or are being treated in an hospital.
If he has paid the taxes, and was paying insurance, and water and electricity bills each year, the house is not marooned.
The idea of my neighbors being allowed to burn my house, destroy my souvenirs, art and stuff, and use my property as a private parking and say that they can because I'm not here to stop they is returning to law-of-the-jungle. Is horrible and unaceptable.
If the building would be in danger of collapse or refuse to pay taxes the government should fine him first, ask for repairs and/or notify officially its demolition if necessary.
It's not about what is legal and right it's about what is expected. If you left $1000 dollars on top of your car in a parking lot you may have the law on your side but the money is going to disappear.
The destruction came awhile after the building was burnt down - look at the photo, if you owned a hotel, would you want burnt out rubble next door? would you spend time tracking down the owner you haven't seen in 6 years or would you get a friend to knock it down, so it wasn't an eyesore for the community?
Money in the street can't be linked to its owner. A house is regulated and is somebody's property.
> The destruction came awhile after the building was burnt down
If the house was burnt down, then it was an arson crime scenery. Crime scenes -must be- left, 'in its current state', until the investigation ends (or a jury allows to restore it again). Even if it takes some years.
To deliberately destroy proofs of a crime is obstruction of justice, a typified crime, and justice has always priority over touristic activities.
“Usucapio” is still part of the legal system in many countries. Someone who illegally occupies property can become the holder of property rights after a few years if they don’t get kicked out. So I’d say no, it’s usually not safe to leave a house completely unattended for years on end.
The Irish POV is that adverse possession takes 12 years and has other requirements. Being gone for 8 years is not a legal reason in Ireland to destroy someone else's property.
Seriously, WTF? Its his private property. There is legal system last time I checked, and citizens should abide by it. Some mob rules about 'blight on a small community' perfectly ignore that the same fucked up community a) let the house be destroyed by some arrogant a-hole neighbor; b) knew perfectly well who it was; c) lied him & police straight to face, including priest.
These were his childhood friends and 'friendly neighbors'. Because of sea view? That's one fucked up small community.
Defending such behavior takes some serious moral twisting or plain absence to make it look OK.
I'm not condoning the behaviour but neither is it a pathology of a 'fucked up small community'. Welsh nationalists burned down english-owned holiday homes in the 80's and 90's "in response to the housing crisis precipitated by large numbers of houses being bought by wealthy English people for use as holiday homes, pushing up house prices beyond the means of many locals". In total 220 properties were affected [1].
Thirty years later Wales has some coastal villages where more than 50% of the houses are exclusive holiday homes owned by outsiders. The new tactics to try to discourage this - a bit late - are punitive taxation and restrictive covenants on new builds.
I'm not saying that it was right - I'm saying that's what would be expected. Foreigners buying holiday homes have long been hated by small communities - particularly in Ireland and Wales and targets for arson. They can make property too expensive for locals and reduce demand for local businesses. A holiday home would be maintained but leaving a coastal property empty for 8 years it would likely it would also be an eyesore - this wasn't some farmhouse in the middle of nowhere it was 'downtown'.
As with a lot of comments on crime, there is a difference between "explaining" and "exculpating". I agree that "explaining" usually makes it look like the victim's fault.
Not everyone agrees with the system that designate some property as "belonging" to someone (after all, these systems are all artificial, as land transcends human ownership). After all, what gives the "legal system" the right to the land? How was that right established, and at whose consent?
