Panama Canal interesting fact

CanuckBob wrote:Do people that own property in the restricted areas in Mexico (on a bank trust) actually own it? All the people I know talk like they do. Is one of those bank trusts much different than a lease other than having equity in the property?

It's my understanding that they have a very long term lease on those properties. I don't think they can "sell" it as one would in a usual real estate sale, but can, with the bank's permission, transfer the balance remaining on the lease.
Please enlighten me if I have that wrong.

CanuckBob wrote:Do people that own property in the restricted areas in Mexico (on a bank trust) actually own it? All the people I know talk like they do. Is one of those bank trusts much different than a lease other than having equity in the property?

i believe they have a trust lease for 66 years which can be willed.

Interesting point: since China leases the canal, can China sell the canal to another country?

gringal wrote:

CanuckBob wrote:Do people that own property in the restricted areas in Mexico (on a bank trust) actually own it? All the people I know talk like they do. Is one of those bank trusts much different than a lease other than having equity in the property?

It's my understanding that they have a very long term lease on those properties.  I don't think they can "sell" it as one would in a usual real estate sale, but can, with the bank's permission, transfer the balance remaining on the lease.
Please enlighten me if I have that wrong.

No!  If the beneficiary(foreigner) of a fideicomiso sells his "rights" of same to another foreigner, then the "seller's" trust is cancelled and the "buyer" secures a new fideicomiso.
A fideicomiso doesn't resemble a lease in any way, legally or otherwise.  In most cases, a lessee can not even transfer/sublease to another party. A lessee can not transfer the rights/responsibilities of a fideicomisario in any manner.
The fideicomiso was invented strictly as "workaround" for foreigners to "own" property in Mexico.

You mean own property in the "restricted zones" in Mexico........

the "workaround" more closely resembles a lease than ownership.
people that have a cabin in algonquin park have a 66 year lease only.
seems very similar.

It's a much more powerful form of ownership than lease, more like strata title. Banks freely accept it as security and issue mortgages against it - can't do that with a lease. Fideicomiso properties sell for exactly the same price as the same Mexican owned properties do. They were not invented as a "workaround", they were invented to protect Mexican borders and oceanfront from cannon fire. They were the distance of the longest cannon fire of the day, with a generous allowance to the future. It is an archaic law, which is costing Mexico millions of lost real estate sales. The inland states are trying to bully the ocean and border states with "What's in it for us?"

WOW! Who woulda' thunk it was about cannon fire. Thanks.

gringal wrote:WOW!  Who woulda' thunk it was about cannon fire.  Thanks.

It wasn't. Now let's hear chillin explain why cannons at the border could fire up to 100 kilometers but only 50 along the coasts??!!

And the part about states bullying other states is just as mystifying.

Deleted by poster.

Okay..........would someone with the "facts", just the facts, speak up and cite references. About time, eh?

It depends on whose "facts" they are and who is being offered as the source. The OP offered an interesting "fact" about the Panama Canal--that it was "owned" by China. That turned out to not be exactly a fact by most people´s standards.

As global warming opens new route.

"The Northwest Passage is more than 1,000 nautical miles shorter than the traditional shipping route through the Panama Canal and will save time, fuel and reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but even more importantly increase the amount of cargo per transit 25 percent," it said.

Nordic Bulk Carriers, the Danish operator of the ship, estimated that the route saved around $80,000 worth of fuel.

The Arctic route also enabled the Nordic Orion to carry its full capacity, adding 15,000 tons of coal that it would not have transported via the Panama Canal, where the depth limits the size of ships and cargo, the marine operator added."

CHILLIN wrote: They were not invented as a "workaround", they were invented to protect Mexican borders and oceanfront from cannon fire. They were the distance of the longest cannon fire of the day, with a generous allowance to the future.

All this malarkey about cannon fire aside, if it wasn't a "workaround", then explain why, until about 20 years ago, ALL foreigners, anywhere in Mexico, had to purchase real property through a fideicomiso. That's when many foreign owners changed their escrituras from fideicomisos (bank trusts) to direct deeds, to avoid anualidades to the banks for doing nothing.
Cannons in the "old days" must have had a far greater range.    

CanuckBob wrote:You mean own property in the "restricted zones" in Mexico........

A few years back, all of Mexico, was a "restricted zone" for foreigners, hence the fideicomisos.
Leases can be terminated, broken, conditions not adhered to, etc., etc., etc.
I never heard of a fideicomiso being terminated for cause other than the "sale" of the property.  People who didn't pay their annual trust fee were just allowed to let the fees accumulate, sometimes for 20 years. Try not paying your rent on a lease for 20 years and see how "similar" they are.

Fideicomisos in the restricted zone: Inhibiting aid and comfort to invading enemies for 20 years

Here - fill your socks. Article 27, Mexican Constitution, 1917.
2014 - amendments rejected.

http://www.paradiseproperty.com/FAQs__BUYERS/page_2398091.html

CHILLIN wrote:Here - fill your socks. Article 27, Mexican Constitution, 1917.
2014 - amendments rejected.

http://www.paradiseproperty.com/FAQs__BUYERS/page_2398091.html

because a guy from century 21 real estate says so,it must be so?-SNORK!

CHILLIN wrote:Here - fill your socks. Article 27, Mexican Constitution, 1917.
2014 - amendments rejected.

http://www.paradiseproperty.com/FAQs__BUYERS/page_2398091.html

Explanation of the notorious Article 27 written by a Century 21 real estate agent...."I have heard it called the cannon ball theory".  
It might fit, but I put it right up there with the chupacabra stories.
It probably had more similarity to the Crimea situation where it was filled with Russians and then they voted to secede.
BTW...off topic, but I read 17,000 Alaskans have signed a petition to rejoin Russia.  Must be all the homophobes.

CHILLIN wrote:Here - fill your socks. Article 27, Mexican Constitution, 1917.
2014 - amendments rejected.

http://www.paradiseproperty.com/FAQs__BUYERS/page_2398091.html

"from a ship a cannon ball could reach perhaps 50 km.inland...",in that highly unlikely case why not let foreigners own property in that zone?
What are you trying to do,chillin,take over sundown's position as the least credible member of the forum?

viajero wrote:
What are you trying to do,chillin,take over sundown's position as the least credible member of the forum?

He still has a ways to go....contender, yes....champion, no.

Don't you wise guys ever use google? They were worried that foreign countries would establish strongholds, easily defended by cannon fire, key geographical locations. Did you know there are still lawmakers today who believe that this is still a possibility. A Federal Deputy from the PRD, from Guadalajara, voted against it for exactly this reason. Others are just very nationalistic because they don't think foreign property owners (non-commercial) should be allowed to own any land on Mexican beaches - period.

http://www.thenews.com.mx/index.php/mexico-articulos/14700-congress-to-allow-beach-ownership

It would be like the U.S.A. passing a law that Mexicans cannot purchase multi-family buildings because they might used to conceal or assist illegal immigrants.

he became his equal long ago. actually on other forums even before this existed

Says the barely literate man with his head up a rooster's a$$.!!

Filling shoes? How about bunny slippers?

CHILLIN wrote:Don't you wise guys ever use google? They were worried that foreign countries would establish strongholds, easily defended by cannon fire, key geographical locations. Did you know there are still lawmakers today who believe that this is still a possibility. A Federal Deputy from the PRD, from Guadalajara, voted against it for exactly this reason. Others are just very nationalistic because they don't think foreign property owners (non-commercial) should be allowed to own any land on Mexican beaches - period.

I speak only for myself but will assume others would also enjoy seeing cites for some of this. Otherwise it is just a bunch of nonsense you seem to pull out of your butt.