Ghost Estates Being Demolished Why Can,t They Be Converted Into Social Housing

Am Chile

A report in todays Indo states a certain amount of ghost estates will have to be demolished, does anyone else think this is a huge waste of resources, with the amount of people of housing waiting lists a hell of a lot of people could be housed if these houses were to be converted into social housing,and save a certain amount of money relating to rent allowance also- Instead of choosing to demolish them and leave people on housing waiting lists.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/housing-minister-jan-osullivan-admits-some-ghost-estates-will-be-demolished-3160031.html

christmas2012

some of them have no roofing and the interior is all moist and soggy causing irreperable damage,so they need to be knocked.

the ones with the roofs on though should go towards social housing..no doubt in my mind

mikemac1

Many are Section 23 estates in small villages

Tenants on the list can reject offers and so they may well reject these

Do the tenants have cars? Well they'll certainly need a car!

There are no local jobs, the biggest employer is the local Spar shop



It would be different if these estates were located in urban areas with services and some are. So good point OP, there are opportunities here for the local authority for those

poeticseraphim

A few reasons.

They were constructed during a boom housing and property is worth nothing now they are not seen as a valuable asset to the state.

They are not suitablefor social housing. The govt may not be able to afford the further renovation and services. And they have little incentive ..in the boom houses ould been seen as valued assets ...but falling prices mean they are valueless to try and renovate and do something with. It probably woud not be cost effective.

There is no demand.

These may be places that were expecting mre development like shops services etc and now no.

The gov wants rid because they are worthless and a liability.


I presume the local authorities don't have the budgets for renovation needed or simply they have not enough people..there has been a lot of emigration.

opti0nal

poeticseraphim wrote: »

These may be places that were expecting more development like shops services ...

....or a shipment of decentralised public servants from Dublin.

The properties are worthless because they're in places whose local economy can't justify their existence. Turning these into social housing would effectively mean importing unemployed people into already failed and desperate locations. It would be a recipe for ghettos of deep social deprivation.

To teach a lesson in moral hazard, the towns/village themselves should bear the cost of disposing of the eyesores. They were ready to reap the gains, now let them cover the losses.

Jogathon

[QUOTE=opti0nal;79581530

To teach a lesson in moral hazard, the towns/village themselves should bear the cost of disposing of the eyesores. They were ready to reap the gains, now let them cover the losses.[/QUOTE]


Bit harsh here, I know of villages that didn't want any development as the local schools would be overflowing, but planning and development happened regardless.

Social housing needs to be a place where people want to live, and most (not all) want to live in cities and urban centres. These ghost estates are generally not in an urban centre.

opti0nal

Jogathon wrote: »

Social housing needs to be a place where people want to live, and most (not all) want to live in cities and urban centres. These ghost estates are generally not in an urban centre.

Social housing needs to be near sources of income.

Lantus

opti0nal wrote: »

....or a shipment of decentralised public servants from Dublin.

The properties are worthless because they're in places whose local economy can't justify their existence. Turning these into social housing would effectively mean importing unemployed people into already failed and desperate locations. It would be a recipe for ghettos of deep social deprivation.

To teach a lesson in moral hazard, the towns/village themselves should bear the cost of disposing of the eyesores. They were ready to reap the gains, now let them cover the losses.

The residents in these Towns and villages didn't get a say in what was being built and certainly didn't get a profit share.

And yes too many were built in areas where there was little or no community. You needed to drive a significant distance to get a shop or anything of value or interest. Pointless making into social housing.

Delancey

Putting people into ' Social Housing ' in these Ghost Estates is a recipe for ensuring they will stay on benefits for the rest of their lives - no jobs in many of these places.

StillWaters

Lantus wrote: »

The residents in these Towns and villages didn't get a say in what was being built and certainly didn't get a profit share.

Well they did in a way, they elected the Councillors who granted planning for these white elephants, and they also benefited from the Development levies.

If local Councils were to bear some of the cost of the demolition / renovation for some sort of community use, it may make people value their vote in local elections, and recognise the link between this vote and development and planning, and not just vote for the most prolific funeral attender.

Am Chile

christmas2012 wrote: »

some of them have no roofing and the interior is all moist and soggy causing irreperable damage,so they need to be knocked.

the ones with the roofs on though should go towards social housing..no doubt in my mind

Its understandable if some of them have bad Interior they need to be knocked- the property tax/rates they want to bring in next year- they keep telling us will be gonna towards local services- peoples thoughts what if for arguments sake some of the money from the property tax/rates they want to bring in, provided councils with some money to take over these unfinished estates and finish building them so they can be converted into social housing ?

steph1

If the decentralisation programme had been organised properly only houses in areas where civil servants wanted to relocate to should have been built.
No point in building houses in the middle of nowhere with no services, no proper public transport etc. Must have been a lot of brown envelopes floatin around with some of the places that were picked for decentralisation!
Another idea that the government made a hames of.
It does seem wrong to have to knock these properties. Whatever about the incomplete ones, something should be done to salvage some so that people are not left waiting on lists for a house.

KyussBishop

Are all of these houses getting knocked, generally unfinished ones? (i.e. no completed houses getting knocked as well?)

If there's a surplus of houses, it's going to keep pulling down the price of property generally too (obviously depending on locality and how many are actually complete); I think that was a consideration in knocking down some developments in the US.

opti0nal

If those houses were applied to social housing, who would pay for the upkeep? The residents themselves, where would their living expenses come from? Central government or the local communities? Methinks this idea, like 'decentralisation' is just another rural money grabbing scheme.

Am Chile

Am Chile wrote: »

Its understandable if some of them have bad Interior they need to be knocked- the property tax/rates they want to bring in next year- they keep telling us will be gonna towards local services- peoples thoughts what if for arguments sake some of the money from the property tax/rates they want to bring in, provided councils with some money to take over these unfinished estates and finish building them so they can be converted into social housing ?

The thing is there are cases where it cost (hypothetically) 150k to build a house (not including cost of land) and at this stage it could be built for 50k or repaired for around the same. With the swathes of landbanks the government now owns there's actually a chance for properly planned and developed social housing and general development. I'm overly optimistic it'll happen but at least there's a chance.
As well with the unfinished estates there's infrastructural link-ups that need to be made and the poor location of so many of them makes that a higher initial and running cost. As said above, shoving a load of people who require social housing together in the arse-end of nowhere really isn't a great idea.

Terrontress

Lantus wrote: »

opti0nal wrote: »

....or a shipment of decentralised public servants from Dublin.

The properties are worthless because they're in places whose local economy can't justify their existence. Turning these into social housing would effectively mean importing unemployed people into already failed and desperate locations. It would be a recipe for ghettos of deep social deprivation.

To teach a lesson in moral hazard, the towns/village themselves should bear the cost of disposing of the eyesores. They were ready to reap the gains, now let them cover the losses.

The residents in these Towns and villages didn't get a say in what was being built and certainly didn't get a profit share.

And yes too many were built in areas where there was little or no community. You needed to drive a significant distance to get a shop or anything of value or interest. Pointless making into social housing.

But of course for the estates which were finished in their locality the locals indulged in the "My house was once worth 80k but now it's worth 450k. I'm loaded" mentality.

After pride comes a fall. Slap the charges in to the local community so at least there will be local dissent if anyone ever tries.

Sponge Bob

It does not matter what they cost. if they are derelict and in a field in outer roscommon they should be knocked

Laminations

Social housing = council housing or affordable housing?

musiknonstop

I envisage the empty unfinished blocks where I live being used as a dumping ground for various "trouble" tennants by the council and the HSE in the future.

AlekSmart

Laminations wrote: »

Social housing = council housing or affordable housing?

Sadly,in 21st Century Ireland,Social Housing tends to = Trouble.

IF this countrys Politicians had been bothered to observe other Social policies at work they might have striven to see the term "Social" used in somewhat different manner.

For me,a Social Housing policy would have entailed the Irish Government getting deeply involved in the Private Rental Accomodation field.

Devising and implimenting clear strategies under which the PRA Market could operate.

These strategies would include the status of tenancy agreements to allow for a far broader range of such,eg: Long Term tenancy agreements with State Guaranteed protections for tenants who had accrued good standing.

Equally,the State would guarantee Private Tenancy Landlords,either Individual or Corporate the necessary rights of access,up to and including reposession once they had adhered to the relevant procedures.

The State needed to get involved in the actual process of cleaning-up the Private Rental Market from both sides rather than standing idly by and introducing expensive non-entities such as the PTRB and asociated other revenue generating twittery.

Sadly,successive Irish Administrations demonstrated a blindingly obvious ignorance of the meaning of the word Social,as they continued along the "Beer N Crisps" road in a doomed attempt to "keep the lid on things".

There is absolutely NO need for the State to get involved in building any more housing stock...All over the country we have plenty of useable stuff lying fallow as it is...BUT unless we devise and impliment a strategy for it's use it will fall to dust.

Delancey

musiknonstop wrote: »

I envisage the empty unfinished blocks where I live being used as a dumping ground for various "trouble" tennants by the council and the HSE in the future.

+ 1 . This will cause even further falls in value for those who have bought in these places.

I remember when Zoe Developments ( remember them ? ) were throwing up blocks of shoebox apartments along the Quays in Dublin , someone wrote at the time that the Government were giving generous tax incentives to build the new generation of slum dwellings - how right they were.

SeanW

Even "finished" buildings sometimes have to go because there are too many problems. One example near me is the Gleann Riada (sp?) development in Longford. Supposidly in Longford town, this was a small assortment of townhouse/apartments built in the countryside really on the far side of an industrial estate at the edge of the town. It's also a floodplain ... The apts are an eyesore and NAMA which owns them is going to demolish them. Proper order too, if they had tried to use them for council housing it would end up another Ballymun, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Now as to what the hell our local authorities were doing allowing apartments to be built in the countryside on a flood plain in the first place ...

Delancey

SeanW wrote: »

Now as to what the hell our local authorities were doing allowing apartments to be built in the countryside on a flood plain in the first place ...

I can't comment on any specific housing developments but I believe in years to come we will learn just how much corruption in the Planning system allowed these Ghost Estates to be built.

fly_agaric

Deleted User wrote: »

As said above, shoving a load of people who require social housing together in the arse-end of nowhere really isn't a great idea.

Shure we did it before (and the UK too) and it failed - lets do it all again rather than let houses that should not have been built go to "waste"! Definition of Insanity stuff.

bmaxi

musiknonstop wrote: »

I envisage the empty unfinished blocks where I live being used as a dumping ground for various "trouble" tennants by the council and the HSE in the future.

Exactly. It's already happening where I live. I moved here from Dublin to get away from scum like this, now, thanks to the HSE they're around me again and they just dump them, take no responsibility for how they maintain the houses or for controlling anti social behaviour.

sarkozy

Am Chile wrote: »

A report in todays Indo states a certain amount of ghost estates will have to be demolished, does anyone else think this is a huge waste of resources, with the amount of people of housing waiting lists a hell of a lot of people could be housed if these houses were to be converted into social housing,and save a certain amount of money relating to rent allowance also- Instead of choosing to demolish them and leave people on housing waiting lists.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/housing-minister-jan-osullivan-admits-some-ghost-estates-will-be-demolished-3160031.html

Simple answer IMO: ghettos of the future.

If you put people on low incomes in isolated estates, their isolation due to lack of income and simple connectivity/proximity to jobs, amenities, commerce, society, those estates turn inwards, get poorer and you have a whole new generation of social problems on your hands.

Just as lack of planning got us into this mess, a lack of planned and responsible social housing policy will create a new mess.

This crisis is an opportunity to do things right. But it means undoing the mistakes.

Unfortunately, I fear necessity is not the mother of all invention in Ireland. Mistakes are being repeated. Clearly, there is urgent need to house those in need of housing - a Trinity College professor estimated the need for housing in 2007 to be 250,000. Half of those would be social housing. We already know how isolated estates create ghettos, yet nothing was done to enforce planning laws and the national spacial strategy. But no one listened because everyone thought they were making so much money. Now, the same if not more people are in need of housing and the HSE is 'dumping' society's waste in these urban wastelands.

And ... if I was in the mind to make a fortune, I'd start up a demolition business.

Fr Tod Umptious

opti0nal wrote: »

If those houses were applied to social housing, who would pay for the upkeep? The residents themselves, where would their living expenses come from? Central government or the local communities? Methinks this idea, like 'decentralisation' is just another rural money grabbing scheme.

How eaxctly would it be a 'rural money grabbing scheme'

Filling a tow/viallage full of people on welfare is hardly going to drive the economy of that town/village

itzme

An short (good) analysis of this has been written up here
http://t.co/V3TJ7zs2

Sierra Oscar

There are a number of reasons, some estates have deteriorated so much due to neglect that a significant investment would be required to actually make the houses inhabitable. Then there are other estates which should just not have been built in the first instance. Also, much of the current stock may not be suitable for social housing - there is no use trying to put a family into an apartment for example. Also, the housing list does not match the surplus of units across the country evenly.

opti0nal

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

How eaxctly would it be a 'rural money grabbing scheme'

Filling a tow/viallage full of people on welfare is hardly going to drive the economy of that town/village

Central government funds get used to finish the ghost estates and then maintain them. The influx of welfare recipients, again funded by central government, buy their food locally.

If the towns were viable, then they'd have the means to finish off their ghost estates and local people would be able to buy into them.

But instead, it will be city dwellers, especaiiy in Dublin, whose taxes will underwrite rural lifestyle choices.

Good loser

itzme wrote: »

An short (good) analysis of this has been written up here
http://t.co/V3TJ7zs2[/QUOTE]

That says it all.

Defiler Of The Coffin

We've seen what happens in certain parts of the country when you throw people into hastily built estates without regard for services or social planning. We've got enough ghettoes as it is. Most if not all of the ghost estates in rural areas would be better off being returned to agriculture. It's the next big thing don't you know!

Social housing needs to be carefully planned alongside a good spatial strategy. It all needs to tie in with decent transport links.

At this stage we are as well to cut our losses with the ghost estates, as posters have said above there it makes little sense just to use them for the sake of it. A lot of them would require too much investment to make them habitable anyway.

opti0nal

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

We've seen what happens in certain parts of the country when you throw people into hastily built estates without regard for services or social planning.

Ther's an assumption that poor city-dwellers would be shipped off and lodged in ghost estates on the fringes of economically failed towns and villages that cannot afford the estates themselves.

Another possibility is that the pressure for state subsidies to finish and then maintain the ghost estates is coming from the same towns and villages and the social candidates will be the sons and daughters of people in those same towns and villages.

blinding

The politicians/bankers and developers should be made to demolish these estate with a spoon for a shovel and a fist sized cannon ball for a sledge.

When they have done a good job and done a proper clean up, it is only then that they should be accepted back into normal society !

Defiler Of The Coffin

opti0nal wrote: »

Another possibility is that the pressure for state subsidies to finish and then maintain the ghost estates is coming from the same towns and villages and the social candidates will be the sons and daughters of people in those same towns and villages.

Is the wait for social housing in rural Ireland really that bad though? You'd hardly be able to quarter-fill some of those estates with social candidates out in the countryside. Best to keep them in the nearest town where there are adequate services or let them stay at home with their parents. This is all academic as I don't see such a situation ever being a runner.

bmaxi

opti0nal wrote: »

Ther's an assumption that poor city-dwellers would be shipped off and lodged in ghost estates on the fringes of economically failed towns and villages that cannot afford the estates themselves.

Another possibility is that the pressure for state subsidies to finish and then maintain the ghost estates is coming from the same towns and villages and the social candidates will be the sons and daughters of people in those same towns and villages.

In my experience 100% of those housed by the HSE in or around my estate are from Dublin. Quite a large proportion of those new residents who moved in since the estate was built are also from Dublin and commute daily, so these guys feel at home. I know of no native locals who have been housed., they probably don't want to live next to them.

Pride Fighter

Some demolitions are a good thing. Many of these ghost estates are on flood plains, good riddance to them.

The viable ones should be handed over to local councils housing authorities, end the council housing waiting list.