# Amendment to Article 27



## zamu65 (Sep 26, 2012)

Things are looking good for an amendment to Article 27 which will allow foreigners to own beachfront property outright in Mexico. The bill is sponsored by powerful legislator Manlo Fabio Beltrones of Sonora and it passed the lower house today! What do you guys think?


----------



## kino (Sep 13, 2011)

Yes, it is looking good so far.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

zamu65 said:


> Things are looking good for an amendment to Article 27 which will allow foreigners to own beachfront property outright in Mexico. The bill is sponsored by powerful legislator Manlo Fabio Beltrones of Sonora and it passed the lower house today! What do you guys think?


It seems like it would be good for Mexico. The Article is a hangover from the days when it might have provided protection from a foreign invasion by land from the coasts or borders. Those days are long gone. It might encourage more investment by foreigners and bring more income into Mexico's economy. The losers would be the banks that handle the fideocomisos.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

zamu65 said:


> Things are looking good for an amendment to Article 27 which will allow foreigners to own beachfront property outright in Mexico. The bill is sponsored by powerful legislator Manlo Fabio Beltrones of Sonora and it passed the lower house today! What do you guys think?


Interesting. But I don't think the chances look good for the proposal. I'd like to be wrong about that.

Here's a link to a news report about today's development: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/looser-rules-proposed-foreign-owners-mexico-19025142


----------



## zamu65 (Sep 26, 2012)

I read several articles today on the subject including the one you linked...nothing in any of them indicate that the chances for this amendment to pass are not good.


----------



## kino (Sep 13, 2011)

I read that the Chamber of deputies voted 356 for and 119 against the proposition, a 3 to 1 margin seems positive to me. I will keep hope that one day there will be no more yearly trust fees.


----------



## elsonador (Feb 16, 2011)

Honestly, I truly hope this change to 'articulo 27' does not happen. The real issue here is allowing foreign investors free reign. The beaches should stay Mexican...sorry folks pay your yearly fees.


----------



## Rolynn (Feb 27, 2013)

elsonador said:


> Honestly, I truly hope this change to 'articulo 27' does not happen. The real issue here is allowing foreign investors free reign. The beaches should stay Mexican...sorry folks pay your yearly fees.


I have no problem paying my yearly fees if the money went to the town where my property is, instead it enriches the banks, keeps the Notaries in business and impedes development. Think it's a lot to hold a piece of paper in a drawer. My Bank Santandar could not provide me with a list of my payments through the years , and since they moved to DF there isn't one person that speaks English handling these accounts. I never receive a bill and have to chase them down each year to give them my money. Pure BS, just get rid of it. Hopefully the powers that be will see the folly of their ways and vote to get rid of it. Originally whenNAFTA went through this was supposed to be a part of it. Somehow it got lost along the wayside.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

elsonador said:


> Honestly, I truly hope this change to 'articulo 27' does not happen. The real issue here is allowing foreign investors free reign. The beaches should stay Mexican...sorry folks pay your yearly fees.


Maybe I've overlooked it, but I don't think the requirement to receive government approval to purchase property along the coasts/borders will change with this legislation. Just the trust requirement. Someone tell me if I'm wrong on that.

Mexican law regarding beach access will not change, either. This proposal has nothing to do with that. It's irrelevant to the discussion. 

I hope the constitutional change takes place and I don't see a wave of foreigners arriving in Mexico to snatch real estate from the grips of Mexicans. Mexico needs to end discrimination and to treat all people fairly. Foriegners ... an even Mexicans  If foreign interests wanted to control Mexico's coastline those intrests could easily have done that now or previously. 

:clap2:


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Here's a link to a new article which provides some additional background about this issue:

MEXICO CITY: Mexico, to attract U.S. retirees, may ease limits on landownership | World | ADN.com


----------



## Rolynn (Feb 27, 2013)

Any idea of when the Senate might vote on this?


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Rolynn said:


> Any idea of when the Senate might vote on this?


I haven't seen mention of when the Senate will consider this, in the articles I've been reading about it. If the Senate approves it it then moves to the states which would have to ratify it. I don't recall how many states are needed for the change to take effect ... if it's all or just a super-majority.


----------



## Caribbean Cat (May 2, 2013)

My husband and I are on the verge of getting our title and setting up a trust. We are looking to do this in November of this year. If all goes well, this bill will pass and our Title fee's will be cut in half! C'mon President Enrique Pena Nieto!


----------



## patriciomx (May 14, 2013)

*access to beaches.*

Don't get too happy folks, it will still have to pass 32 state legislatures to become law. When I arrived in Mexico 23 years ago I married into a Mexican family. To this day I am saddened and sometimes maddened when I realize my friends have an ever diminishing access to THEIR beautiful beaches. Lets be honest, years ago we virtually stole over 75% of their country and now we affluent gabachos want the rest. I say if you want to own beachfront, like any Mexican, you can have the same rights as they do by becoming an INMIGRADO (under the new law PERMANENT RESIDENT). The vast sums of money we spend here never reach the everyday Mexican family. Live here, love it but please stop trying to own it and turn it into the U.S. or wherever! Mexico for the Mexicans.


----------



## patriciomx (May 14, 2013)

*senate and state*



Longford said:


> I haven't seen mention of when the Senate will consider this, in the articles I've been reading about it. If the Senate approves it it then moves to the states which would have to ratify it. I don't recall how many states are needed for the change to take effect ... if it's all or just a super-majority.


You're right it will have to pass the senate and then 32 state legislature. Don't hold your breath. As anyone can see by the changes in the immigration law, Mexico is not anxious to give away any more of their territory for the American dollar.


----------



## Guategringo (Nov 9, 2012)

patriciomx said:


> Don't get too happy folks, it will still have to pass 32 state legislatures to become law. When I arrived in Mexico 23 years ago I married into a Mexican family. To this day I am saddened and sometimes maddened when I realize my friends have an ever diminishing access to THEIR beautiful beaches. Lets be honest, years ago we virtually stole over 75% of their country and now we affluent gabachos want the rest. I say if you want to own beachfront, like any Mexican, you can have the same rights as they do by becoming an INMIGRADO (under the new law PERMANENT RESIDENT). The vast sums of money we spend here never reach the everyday Mexican family. Live here, love it but please stop trying to own it and turn it into the U.S. or wherever! Mexico for the Mexicans.


Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. 

Millions of Mexicans can buy land if the law changes as could others. If Mexico did not want this to happen, would the senate approve it and pass it on to the states to vote? Sounds to me like you and your extended family cannot afford such expensive over pricesd beachfront property and do not want anyone else to own it. 

It will probably be a mute point anyway since I do not see it passing at the state level.


----------



## cscscs007 (Jan 8, 2011)

What is Mexico's law as to beaches? I was under the assumption these areas were accessible to everyone. I was basing this off of Tenacatita and the big issue surrounding it. Someone with more knowledge on this subject can clarify this. I personally have no desire to own oceanfront property, so I was only interested in beaches being accessible, and so I wouldn't get into trouble trespassing.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

cscscs007 said:


> What is Mexico's law as to beaches? I was under the assumption these areas were accessible to everyone. I was basing this off of Tenacatita and the big issue surrounding it. Someone with more knowledge on this subject can clarify this. I personally have no desire to own oceanfront property, so I was only interested in beaches being accessible, and so I wouldn't get into trouble trespassing.



Supposedly according to the Constitution, all beaches are Federal property and are required to have open access to the public. I don't know what the width of the open beach is supposed to be ... but I've read many documents saying this is so. I've also read many reports of incidents where some beaches have been closed to the public by various resorts or influential property owners. Regarding Tenacatita ... land sales there have been questionable for a long time. An expat who was selling land there was up and down the Mexico forums in the www peddling the area and the "deals" stunk to high heaven. The problem, challenge, in Mexico is obtaining clear title, finding someone to guarantee title, finding an honest notario publico and then locating oneself in a part of the country with less corruption than others.


----------



## gwizzzzz (Apr 21, 2013)

I am sure the banks will have serious input as they could stand to lose a lot of trust money


----------



## michmex (Jul 15, 2012)

Longford said:


> I haven't seen mention of when the Senate will consider this, in the articles I've been reading about it. If the Senate approves it it then moves to the states which would have to ratify it. I don't recall how many states are needed for the change to take effect ... if it's all or just a super-majority.


To clarify matters regarding the number of Mexican states necessary to enact an amendment to its Constitution: A Majority of the States is Necessary


Mexican Constitution

Title 8 Constitutional reforms

Article 135

"Additions and amendments may be done to this Constitution, but to become a part of it, such additions and amendments must be agreed by the Congress of the Union, by the vote of two-thirds of the members present, and must be approved by the majority of the state legislatures.

The Congress of the Union or the Permanent Committee, as appropriate, shall count the votes of the legislatures and shall announce those additions or amendments that have been approved."

Political Constitution of the United Mexican States | Tribunal Electoral del Poder Judicial de la Federación


----------



## cscscs007 (Jan 8, 2011)

I know from my discussions with Mexican neighbors and relatives many citizens of Mexico are still upset with the outcome of the Mexican-American War from 1846-1848. Those I have talked to say America stole their land by Santa Anna selling them out for 15 million dollars. The discussions can get pretty heated, they do not care that the US had invaded and captured Mexico City, they were still sold out by one of their own. I imagine this sore subject was a major influence when drawing up the new Constitution in 1917. 
I have never asked their opinion on American's owning land along the borders or coastline, I dared not to. I own property but it is inland, and my wife's name is included on the deed. Maybe that's why it is acceptable for me to own it.


----------



## TundraGreen (Jul 15, 2010)

cscscs007 said:


> I know from my discussions with Mexican neighbors and relatives many citizens of Mexico are still upset with the outcome of the Mexican-American War from 1846-1848. Those I have talked to say America stole their land by Santa Anna selling them out for 15 million dollars. The discussions can get pretty heated, they do not care that the US had invaded and captured Mexico City, they were still sold out by one of their own. I imagine this sore subject was a major influence when drawing up the new Constitution in 1917.
> I have never asked their opinion on American's owning land along the borders or coastline, I dared not to. I own property but it is inland, and my wife's name is included on the deed. Maybe that's why it is acceptable for me to own it.


I don't know how all Mexicans feel about it, but I think the family that I bought my house from was pretty happy to sell to a foreigner. The house had been for sale for more than two years when I bought it. I am not in any of the coastal or border zones.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

cscscs007 said:


> I know from my discussions with Mexican neighbors and relatives many citizens of Mexico are still upset with the outcome of the Mexican-American War from 1846-1848.


During more than 40 years of travel in Mexico, I've never, ever heard a Mexican even mention the Mexican-American War ... other than when I'd discuss the U.S. National Cemetary in Mexico City and the War dead buried there ... and then, the discussion was only of the cemetary, not the War.

The USA was the inferior force in that War, particularly so in Central Mexico ... including Mexico City and Veracruz. Winfield Scott was so popular with local residents that the USA could probably have taken all of Mexico for itself as a War prize ... if it wanted to. 



> Those I have talked to say America stole their land by Santa Anna selling them out for 15 million dollars.


And Mexico (and the Spaniards) stole the land from whom, before they started calling it "Mexico"?



> I have never asked their opinion on American's owning land along the borders or coastline, I dared not to. I own property but it is inland, and my wife's name is included on the deed. Maybe that's why it is acceptable for me to own it.


On this subject, also, though I've discussed it many times with Mexicans ... the only reaction has been envy that someone, anyone other than themselves ... had the money to buy a place along one of the coastlines. 

Though the trust requirement may be removed from the Constitution, I don't see mention that prior federal government approval, which I'm recalling is also required now, will be abandoned. I believe the government will retain that right as a measure of control.


----------



## cscscs007 (Jan 8, 2011)

Longford said:


> During more than 40 years of travel in Mexico, I've never, ever heard a Mexican even mention the Mexican-American War ... other than when I'd discuss the U.S. National Cemetary in Mexico City and the War dead buried there ... and then, the discussion was only of the cemetary, not the War.
> 
> Mexico has monuments and statues all over in remembrance of the Mexican-American War. The Chapultepec Castle has an impressive monument built close by in honor of Los Ninos Heroes, Guadalajara has a very nice memorial dedicated to them, as well as Mexico City, and streets, schools, and plazas are named in honor of them. the El Molino del Rey battlefield, the Cerro Gordo battlefield, and the La Angostura battlefield all have memorials placed at the sites. Septemer 12th every year there is a ceremony honoring the infamous San Patricio Battallion, and September 13th is recognized as a holiday honoring Los Ninos Heroes.
> 
> ...


Why would the trust requirement need to be removed? Why couldn't an additional option be added such as the private ownership stipulation? Persons that do not wish to go through the process of private ownership would have the option to do nothing and leave things as they are.


----------



## DennyDaddy (May 3, 2011)

I have a question about the price of a bank
trust. Has anyone gotten a trust after this
Jan 1st?

Was working on a trust and so was a friend at Rocky Point. We started last year, my friend was on it before me, at our
Office here at RP. 

He went he final signing last November,
and he was told that cost increased to $9500 00, up from $5500 bucks for his home valued at $65;000.

I don't know if this a new scam at RP, or is it this cost all over Mexico now.

I got mine on hold, till I get more info.

Has anyone got any input on this?

DD


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

This does not apply *all over Mexico* as other areas do not require a trust. It does look like the banks are trying to get all they can; in case they lose the golden egg.


----------

