the empties and oversupply of property

thebman

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its interesting to note that they count an estate as more than 10 homes, there are smaller estates than this in just about every country and small village now

and of course one of houses that are incomplete

and houses empty in otherwise occupied housing estates.

Ghost estates is one thing but I lived in an estate for a few months before things went south and many of the houses were empty in it. Some even still had stickers on the windows and then the house next door to us was empty but owned with grass up to the length of the wall.

Ridiculous and ugly. Planners should be held accountable for this crap and the estates built in areas that will flood. Although some politician probably got final say and went against planner advice in some cases I imagine and no political donations to FF had anything to do with the zoning that occurred :-/

Sleepy

Naya Orange Dimple wrote: »

Who was the wanker in the audience who suggested that the empty houses in the more affluent areas which fetched high prices in the boom time should not be used for social houses.... instead the social housing should be grouped together. Not just grouped together, but in terraced housing or something....

He made my blood boil. Basically, because some people paid half a million for houses in certain areas, they should be left empty rather than less well off people picking them up for a fraction of the price. Typical nouveau Irish ****

There's a strand of logic in his thinking with some validity... Those houses could probably still be sold in the current market whereas ones in less desirable areas might not be able to be.

Ergo, if you utilise the less-desirable areas for social housing, you get a better usage of resources.

I'm pretty firmly of the belief that if you're relying on the state to provide you with housing you shouldn't be in a position to argue about the location of that housing.

Victor

Sleepy wrote: »

Ergo, if you utilise the less-desirable areas for social housing, you get a better usage of resources.

- and ghettoisation. Its perfectly possible to put lower specification*, smaller houses, on less land into better neighbourhoods, that cost a lot less than their neighbours.


* e.g. cheaper bathroom and kitchen fittings

Sleepy

So effectively, less desirable housing in desirable areas. Is this the maximum utilisation of inputs though? Could more be achieved through investing the difference in the cost of the sites into the less desirable areas?

Was this what was done? From what I could see the 'affordable' housing and social housing units within Irish developments while perhaps using lower specc'd fittings were of no significant difference in size to the units they were sold alongside.

ei.sdraob

im surprised that everyone here and on frontline is missing the easy solution to the problem > stop NAMA propping up the prices and let these houses be sold on an open market, and sold they will be

all of these houses can and will be sold, yes it wont make a profit (thats the gamble that the banks and builders took on and must pay for) and there will be fire-sales

and yes that would affect the banks, but its their mess let them sort it out,
this whole "must bailout X" line of thinking is actually a very perverted Keynesian approach

we dont need NAMA, we need liquidater to squeeze as much money out of these assets, and then use that money to keep at least one bank going, if the rest go to the wall then thats a lesson for the banking sector to learn! if the ECB doesnt want the banks to fail then let them bail them out on their own money and not involve the taxpayer

Sleepy

And since we nationalised Anglo, we already have a bank to lend with

Japer

Despite there being 300,000 empty houses in this little country, some Borough Councils in some counties - where there are already lots of empty houses and ghost estates - have plans ( and already have the land ) to actually build more houses, as local authority housing etc. Crazy, we do not need more houses built in the country on a big scale for a very long time.

silverharp

Japer wrote: »

Despite there being 300,000 empty houses in this little country, some Borough Councils in some counties - where there are already lots of empty houses and ghost estates - have plans ( and already have the land ) to actually build more houses, as local authority housing etc. Crazy, we do not need more houses built in the country on a big scale for a very long time.

seems crazy its true, they should be be buying the empty properties if they have a budget for it

Niall Keane

I have said it before that although the Economists are correct in that the property “sector” will bounce back eventually, these properties won’t. Although I do work in the sector, I don’t see why that would be necessary to understand that there is a difference between the collective noun “property” referring to an economic activity, and the legal term property as it can refer to specific buildings.
NAMA is akin to buying 1989 Ladas that have no power steering, need leaded petrol and have no air bags and trying to sell them today for a profit. Most the NAMA stock would not pass even today’s planning (size of units) nor Building (energy efficiency) regulations. This is a shocking fact that the pro-NAMA brigade are not even aware of. And we're talking just 2-3 years since they were granted. By the time property - the sector does bounce back people will not be looking to invest in tiny profit generating tiger-boxes, the "boxes" being built then will be to a higher standard to suit the needs of families renting and buying to live in them, and the regs will have changed, have already changed, to encourage sustainable development. Some people still believe in the myth of a "starter" home, this concept only existed in the Tiger years. The idea that we would trade in houses like cars, making buildings part of our disposable culture is a fallacy. In the future it will be one home that will be designed by real architects (as the professional title is finally protected by law - now that the boom is over and the cowboys have made their fortune) New homes will be designed to consider the needs of people through their life cycle, adapting to their age and needs, with inevitable “upgrades” to Disability Access, Energy Efficiency, Structural and other regulations the NAMA sink estates will progressively become that aforementioned Lada.
So what can we do to use these buildings, well perhaps we could knock the party walls between apartments, and turn a 70 sqm 3 bed into a 140sqm 3 bed, that’s reasonable space for a family, not quite the 200 sqm of American and German family apartments but getting there. Do the housing estates similarly get a makeover, knocking a connecting corridor through the terraces and semi-ds, that also could enclose the shared space providing a suitable environment, (should a small health centre be attached) for a retirement village??? Will this return a profit? No, but I think any logical person who doesn’t believe in every bit of propaganda that has been fed to the Irish tax payers, would realise that there is no danger what so ever of NAMA making a profit.

Cork Boy

Victor wrote: »

- and ghettoisation. Its perfectly possible to put lower specification*, smaller houses, on less land into better neighbourhoods, that cost a lot less than their neighbours.


* e.g. cheaper bathroom and kitchen fittings

If you are relying on the state to provide you with housing, you shouldn't get to choose what neighbourhood you get - beggars can't be choosers.

It's up to the residents then to stop the "ghettoisation".

AlekSmart

im surprised that everyone here and on frontline is missing the easy solution to the problem > stop NAMA propping up the prices and let these houses be sold on an open market, and sold they will be

we dont need NAMA, we need liquidater to squeeze as much money out of these assets, and then use that money to keep at least one bank going, if the rest go to the wall then thats a lesson for the banking sector to learn! if the ECB doesnt want the banks to fail then let them bail them out on their own money and not involve the taxpayer

Ei.sdraob has it in one here.

It`s HUGELY significant that the Dutch owned ACC Bank almost managed to give the thick,sneaky Irish development elite a lesson in reality.
However one just has to witness the truly amazing lengths to which The Carroll Companies,backed by a selection of top grade legal representation,went to in order to frustrate the principles outlined by ei.sdraob.

NAMA is one top grade Crock`o ****e and few are in doubt about that...however it will probably fall to foreigners to eventually smack our collective chops and reveal the awful reality which our Governing classes continue to conceal from us.

Victor

ei.sdraob wrote: »

we dont need NAMA

We do need banks.

Japer wrote: »

Despite there being 300,000 empty houses in this little country, some Borough Councils in some counties - where there are already lots of empty houses and ghost estates - have plans ( and already have the land ) to actually build more houses, as local authority housing etc. Crazy, we do not need more houses built in the country on a big scale for a very long time.

Location, location, location.

Victor

Cork Boy wrote: »

It's up to the residents then to stop the "ghettoisation".

While they have a part to play, many of the people in such situations aren't equiped to do this.

Nidot

Victor wrote: »

While they have a part to play, many of the people in such situations aren't equiped to do this.

So what you're saying is that not only should the government provide people with accomodation, but it should also set up the social fabric of society in order that the areas housing these people don't become ghetto's.

Have people heard of the term 'personal responsibility' before.

fontanalis

Victor wrote: »

We do need banks.

Location, location, location.

Decent ones would be good.

ei.sdraob

Victor wrote: »

We do need banks.

of course we need banks

but as many (independent) economists in this country have noted and written to the government (only to be ignored)

NAMA is the arseways way of saving the banking system

Soil Mechanic

*COUGH COUGH*

Slightly offtopic but still an interesting interlude to the whole debate.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544&ei=Hk1jS87xKcnQ-Qby-PHECA&q=moneyasdebt&hl=en#

http://www.moneyasdebt.net/

As an aside, could it be argued that the issue is NOT in fact developers, or even greedy Lenders
(whom it has to recognised, only lent to greedy investors....)
but rather the "Hollow Man" of Irish government over the past few decades, specifically the near total lack of visionary long-term Strategic Planning that could have been legislated for via multiple myriad methods e.g. 1-for-2 affordable Social Housing in housing developments; compulsory services & amenities provision on a sliding scale of size, etc.

To blame the banks alone is NOT accurate, goverance is the ultimate arbiter: the irresponsible indulgent parent, with the bank(er)s the errant and spoiled children.

A grossley unregulated Market system allowed the Boom to inflate -the only way out of the bust is an effective Planned system....is NAMA the optimal solution..... well:(.........

SM

ballinatray

changes wrote: »

I was looking at my local estate agents website recently, the asking price for most houses has dropped very little.

I think people still have not accepted the reality that nobody is willing to pay those asking prices anymore.

. ..

Yes indeed the reality of that vast over supply has not yet hit home...Auctioneers are equally reluctant to tell their clients the truth !!!!

The market was criminally manipulated by Fianna \fail incentives and builders releasing property to market in a controlled manner creating the illusion of a shortage of supply...Horse.....t...

God help[ the young ....I am too long in the tooth to be affected!!! Take over the GPO again!!!only this time get rid of the carpet baggers>>>>

SkepticOne

The most likely solution of this is that the empties will be bought by local authorities from the builders at a cost (+reasonable profit) price and then demolished.

SLUSK

SkepticOne wrote: »

The most likely solution of this is that the empties will be bought by local authorities from the builders at a cost (+reasonable profit) price and then demolished.

Buying houses to destroy them, that seems to make a lot of sense. Ireland is sometimes like the upside-down crazy world of Alice in Wonderland.

fontanalis

Didn't they bulldoze houses in Zimbabwe recently? Quite apt as it signals the economic progression of Ireland.

Sleepy

As long as the houses aren't dangerous they should be left as they are until they can be sold at whatever price the market will pay for them.

Owners of these properties (private or developers) should be paying tax on them if they're unocuppied to encourage them to be sold at whatever price the market will take them at.

If councils are in need of social housing I see no problem with them picking a few of them up cheap (maybe buy by the estate to encourage a sense of community amongst the new residents).

I'd be astonished if the price they'd sell for at market value allowed a developer to recoup the price they paid for the land and build, never mind turn a profit but, that's the game you play when you speculate.

crossmolinalad

400.000 empty houses
Bought the local newspaper this morning and saw planning permission granted for 24 new houses in 3 diff estates
In the same locations are plenty empty houses in estates
Are those counsils going mad or do i

The_Honeybadger

Sleepy wrote: »

As long as the houses aren't dangerous they should be left as they are until they can be sold at whatever price the market will pay for them.

Owners of these properties (private or developers) should be paying tax on them if they're unocuppied to encourage them to be sold at whatever price the market will take them at.

If councils are in need of social housing I see no problem with them picking a few of them up cheap (maybe buy by the estate to encourage a sense of community amongst the new residents).

I'd be astonished if the price they'd sell for at market value allowed a developer to recoup the price they paid for the land and build, never mind turn a profit but, that's the game you play when you speculate.

What if they have been built in a truly unsuitable place, where no infrastructure exists, or is ever likely to exist, or if it is in a flood plain or something. I agree with what you are saying but where I live (very rural area) I often drive past half built estates and say to myself "Jeez what were we thinking?". If these went to market now I really struggle to think who would even want them as a present. Even people who want social housing would not be happy to move to some of these places.

Sleepy

Then let the developers pay to bulldoze them and have the land re-zoned as agricultural or whatever. No point in throwing expensive state money after their bad.

SLUSK

They will probably throw good money after bad. It is the Fianna Fail way.