In other cases the country is simply resistant under its layers of EEU formal robes. France for example was to be fully sewered by 2000 conditional in its EEU entry commitments but the house I bought in 1999 had a "mincerateur" then and still has one! The local sewage hasn't made it that extra 2Kms!. 

Those above are some of the wheels within wheels affecting concepts like land grabs. These matters are not unrepresented by events abroad which can show the way to deal with things. It was in living memory that Australian Governments were required not just to compensate but to JUSTLY compensate people for land, but it took a lot of effort to have this done in the wonderful land of equality!... OZ... The usual concept is that the equivalent of the crown, the local state controller holds ultimate rights to the land, or it may be the emperor or despot.

To shift that entity into making a lesser profit through providing compensation is a well resisted exercise. You are facing it now. There are points not clearly enunciated in the article which do need to be not just "realised" but enunciated. One has to discover first who has the ultimate right to the land and work on them. There is no point in spending resources fighting a mayor who is only rezoning if the ultimate target is elsewhere. Taking land without justification or at worst, adequate compensation, is an undeniable  breach of human rights and perhaps of the theory of freehold land ownership but,... hey what human rights existed in Spain in 1938... or even later? 

Is land ownership in Spain truly freehold?... an important point.

Are land acquisition regulations for emergency purposes being misused in peacetime? An example is the Commonwealth bank in Australia resuming property on the basis of being "insulated because of its" commonwealth "status"... something my poor and desperate but extremely intelligent father realised was a load of "old cods" and won a case of eviction through it.

It is essential to learn the points of "limpeting" of land law in any environment, whether regulations are misused, inappropriate or non existent and to attack them. Sometimes public demonstrations and lobbying locals to see your point of view, build bridges , is a big step forward. "Winning the hearts and minds" is something not only a developer's domain...but the locals getting seemingly free benefits merely through disadvantaging the rich immigrant needs quite a powerful moral argument to overcome and one means is by a simultaneous  disadvantaging of some locals as well... enough disadvantage that the perverse "this would never have happened to me if they had not come here" cannot actually end up working against you. At the end of the day being popular additions to the community will be your greatest advantage. Even "third world" cultures understand loyalty and fair play.

In our self preening, introspective "Anglo Saxon" way we make films about the paysan thrust into power that becomes despotic and now as you can see, it is no laughing matter. 

Taking land for "open space" or "public use" doesn't mean it should not be compensated. developers on a larger scale can build that into their net costs and pass it on in one form or another. Smaller holders do not have that degree of communication and negotiation where the establishment will overlook one thing if  suitable excuse can be manufactured "we are giving you a park".

As a young man I was told by the local council in Australia I would have to donate land as a park ...I said "my place is surrounded by a thousand square miles of open space, bush land and parks ...go to blazes" and since then the blackmail of being compelled adding valuable land to the local register so as to be allowed to develop one's land is not so rigid. 

On the other hand when large scale developers make places for thousand to come to a small plot of land by vertical "strata" then I agree wholeheartedly that they must provide a great deal of recreational facility which does not encumber the other locals. 

I might add that in my desperation of my wife leaving me and the children when I was 26 I felt I had to sell out and move back to Sydney where "Mum" was. I later found that the local estate agent acting for me both lied to me on several aspects of its value and had his sister making low offers as "no one else seemed interested" in this magnificent acreage. He secretly  formed a company with a developer and bought my land for very little and then subdivided it (without public space)and thus made a great deal of money... over $100,000 profits in an era when that was today's $1 million. Today that land developed is worth about $3M. 

It later drove me to become an expert in property matters... in my country. I then had to become expert in France through  bad experiences through corrupt agents, predominantly English,  and corrupt Notaries in France and now I see Spain is a problem... and the causes are from the same root.

One has to question, if my land is being acquired against my will or worse "resumed without appropriate compensation including moving costs" then what are my undeniable rights, before the song and dance act starts. I see in your interesting article that the "moving costs" very conveniently bypassed by allowing you to keep some of the land!... land which is probably worth much less owing to the monstrosity built alongside it and the restrictions of development post development of the major part of the site. Perhaps one has to look at the right to demand total acquisition when acquisition occurs and to be at a rate which reflects the value of the land as development land.

If I am the victim of compulsory acquisition or resumption of my land should I be compelled to have any of that referred to as "public utility" in the assessment, I am after all, not a voluntary developer.

If an authority resumes my land for some purpose, demand that IT provide the open space from its own resources. Unfortunately because people are antagonistic towards unwanted immigration it seems perversely "just" to them that these rich immigrants lose something back to the general good.

If it appears that land belonging to absentee proprietors is significant in degree of resumption this might well be a very compelling point in the court even though it will be claimed, with some perverse reality, that these people are rarely here so the impact is minimised. 

That has to be counteracted with the essential theory of freehold ownership and the basis that just owning the land is a daily pleasure, a it would be, though perhaps a little less, or perhaps a little more, than were the person there on the land.

There is quite a distance between having the right to resume or compulsorily acquire land and using those powers and quite a distance perhaps between the latter and using them properly. People denied their rights are still people who are a part of "the common good" in whose name such actions occur.

So, putting all that together we have human forces at work. If the top regional bureaucracy is acting against the natural human rights then those rights must be contested and where possible, on advice,  that person advised that redress will be taken personally against him or her to achieve compensation. 

Only damages against the party personally will affect them otherwise at worst they "take responsibility" (which means admitting guilt but nothing happens)and resign thus insulating themselves and enjoying the profits... sometimes on going and perhaps joining the development company as a lobbyist. To know your arsenal you need to know what personal responsibility is associated with public positions and what redress in law you can make against them for compensation for their decisions and under what circumstances. 

Another method, slower but sometimes quite effective as long as the locals see benefits , is to stand as a body against the mayor and his associates in local elections on the platform but equally knowing what other things affect people and having plans to keep them happy elsewhere as well. After all, developers and real property agents are often found in local councils! 

Another method is to have the bureaucracy legally examined publicly as recently took place here at the Gold Coast in Queensland, albeit very averagely done in my view... and that was over development bribes etc!! 

You have tried this public scrutiny through a more distant form in which you hoped power would be exerted only to find that you were disappointed as the system is geared to NOT change and the EEU only has power where it has bureaucratic enthusiasm from the local scene and some real power to swiftly enforce its will or at least to hold up development until a resolution. The developer's hip pocket is where his ethics and morality are kept and what is tough for them to swallow will impact on the largesse offered to the bureaucracy.

I can write on but have things to do. Its 2am and I am tired and finding it difficult to organise my thoughts. If anyone is interested perhaps we can examine together the land system in Spain. In the meantime get individuals to lobby the EEU as well as groups.