NAMA social-housing proposal

The Minstrel

Minister Lenihan, in his NAMA speech to the Dail, suggested that some vacant NAMA-acquired apartment blocks could be used for social housing. This struck me as a proposal with good potential for the government to generate large revenues from public-owned residential blocks in city centre areas in need of rejuvenation, while at the same time implementing a strategic vision for the inner city.

Specifically, I am thinking of the section of Dublin 1, from the I.F.S.C to O'Connell Street. While this area has indeed been significantly regenerated over the past 10 years, there are a number of dilapidated blocks of council flats, and a seemingly never-ending line of refurbishment projects. Availing of the NAMA-acquired buildings could be a once-off opportunity of circumventing the problems associated with re-housing.

Problems with refurbishment projects:
1. Costly
2. Time-consuming
3. Cannot remedy fundamental design flaws of ramshackle 1960's flats.
4. Perpetuates ghettoisation

Solution:
1. Relocate tenants to NAMA-acquired apartment blocks.
2. Demolish selected ramshackle inner-city flat complexes.
3. Freed-up city-centre land would be prime commercial real estate and would command vastly higher values than corresponding NAMA-aquired apartment blocks.

Results:
Positive commercial integration of I.F.S.C (from Connolly Station) to O'Connell Street, complimenting existing residential aspect.
Tenants relocate to new units in these NAMA-acquired apartment blocks, in well serviced areas. The dispersal of NAMA buildings would mean avoiding the ghettoisation of previous relocation schemes such as Tallaght, Ballymun etc.

Demolishing existing blocks would be cheaper and more efficient than renovation. The government could then step away from the longterm commitment of managing dilapidated housing schemes, and would make an absolute fortune on the freed-up city-centre land!

peasant

I foresee a few problems there:

1) even though NAMA buys the loan that paid for the property, it doesn't acyually buy the property itself ...the developer still owns that

2) as long as the developer manages to service that loan, I don't think that NAMA can just force tenants on the developer that he doesn't want

3) even if the developer agrees to his property to be used as a social housing project, any potential rental income would not go to Nama, but to the developer first who would use it to service the loan ...the "social" element of the rent might get lost there

4) if the developer actually manages to pay off the loan and fully own the property is is higly likely that the frist thing he's going to do with it is to kick out any undesired and unprofitable tenenats ...what about your social projects then?

5) even if Nama actually ends up owning the property (because the developer has gone bust) its remit is to make a profit for the tax payer ...at some stage ther will be a conflict of interest betwen social housing and realising the the purchase price + modest profit on the property (remember ...NAMA is about to grossly over-pay on the market value to start with)

IMO ,this whole social housing idea is just another smoke screen that gets thrown out there to make this whole robbery more palatable to John Q. Taxpayer

The Minstrel

peasant wrote: »

5) even if Nama actually ends up owning the property (because the developer has gone bust) its remit is to make a profit for the tax payer ...at some stage ther will be a conflict of interest betwen social housing and realising the the purchase price + modest profit on the property (remember ...NAMA is about to grossly over-pay on the market value to start with)

The profit would lie in the enornmous revenues generated from re-zoning certain streets within an extended financial district between O'Connell and Connolly. Cross a few t's and dot a few i's and there is hard cash to be made in that area.

As regards a smokescreen, though, perhaps you're right.

Riskymove

peasant wrote: »

1) even though NAMA buys the loan that paid for the property, it doesn't acyually buy the property itself ...the developer still owns that

2) as long as the developer manages to service that loan, I don't think that NAMA can just force tenants on the developer that he doesn't want

3) even if the developer agrees to his property to be used as a social housing project, any potential rental income would not go to Nama, but to the developer first who would use it to service the loan ...the "social" element of the rent might get lost there

the state could offer to buy at a discount or write off the loan for the property , could be attractive to some of the developers

peasant

Riskymove wrote: »

the state could offer to buy at a discount or write off the loan for the property , could be attractive to some of the developers

the state wouldn't need the whole complicated construct of NAMA to do that, would it?
This could be done right now

dvpower

I'm not in favour.

NAMA should keep their remit as tight as possible. I can just imagine the excuses for failure in 10 years time - "We were constrained from protecting taxpayers money because we were saddled with a social housing remit...".

NAMA should operate on a fully (as possible) commercial basis. If local authorities want to lease properties from NAMA for social housing then so be it as long as it represents a good deal for taxpayers.

Riskymove

peasant wrote: »

the state wouldn't need the whole complicated construct of NAMA to do that, would it?
This could be done right now

well yes

but rather than sitting on empty property thats under NAMA's jurisdiction and where loans are not getting paid it may be a more productive use than sitting waiting for prices to rise

edit: also if you bought other land/buildings for social use that are outside NAMA, its like paying twice? or have I got that wrong

I presumed its why the Greens are pushing this social clause where the state would get first option on NAMA assets

bangersandmash

The Minstrel wrote: »

The profit would lie in the enornmous revenues generated from re-zoning certain streets within an extended financial district between O'Connell and Connolly. Cross a few t's and dot a few i's and there is hard cash to be made in that area.

Interesting idea and there's no doubt that the failure to redevelop the north city centre during the boom was a missed opportunity.

But where is the demand for commercial property coming from, even so close to O'Connell St? It's not as as if there is a shortage in the city centre. Don't forget that there is a substantial amount of residential and commercial property not far from Connolly in the North Docklands area which is already in the pipeline. This will be under NAMA's remit very shortly.

Also we might want to consider the effects of moving close-knit inner city communities to poorly-serviced outlying suburban areas. Ballymun anyone?

peasant

Riskymove wrote: »

well yes

but rather than sitting on empty property thats under NAMA's jurisdiction and where loans are not getting paid it may be a more productive use than sitting waiting for prices to rise

Riskymove wrote: »

the state could offer to buy at a discount or write off the loan for the property , could be attractive to some of the developers

The state already offered a discount to the bank for the loan ...now you want to give another discount to the developer?

Most expensive social housing project I can think of


and on a more serious note ...I'm pretty sure that you will find that the lands/properties that will actually become availalble through non-payment of loan / defaulting builders will be the absolute basket cases ...the kind of properties nobody wants and where you couln't stick social housing either ...at least not with good conscience.

You can bet your bottom dollar (you won't have any euros left anyway:D) that all the "juicy" sites will find their ways into some investors back pocket.
Also NAMA should be quite reluctant to release promising sites to social housing projects ...after all their remit is to sell to the highest bidder in order to make some money for the taxpayer.

Riskymove

peasant wrote: »

...the kind of properties nobody wants and where you couln't stick social housing either ...

you obviously are not too familiar with the history of local authority housing in this country!:pac:

AlekSmart

Also we might want to consider the effects of moving close-knit inner city communities to poorly-serviced outlying suburban areas. Ballymun anyone?

Yes indeed Bangersandmash,some good points there right `nuff...although this "close-knit" term can be somewhat stretched to cover a multitude of stuff,none of which is envisaged by NAMA.

And I would be inclined to leave Ballymun out of it...a quick stroll around this "Flagship" project will swiftly bring you face to face with our native inability to manage anything of good intent.....twas a great idea at the time...and then the Politicians got involved !!!

gurramok

This ain't a good proposal for a buyer.

Why should one buy an apt in one of these many blocks when your neighbours will be socially housed who get it for 'free'??

The message from this is for the buyer to hold off from buying until all this Nama business settles or just go for a 2nd hand house.

aftermn

Does it not worry you that there is a discussion on what will happen to NAMA properties?
If there is even the smallest room for manouvre on what happens to these properties, I have absolutely no doubt that the developers will get them back at reduced rates.
Politics in Ireland is such that, unless we tie them up completely, they will abuse at every and all opportunities.
The only good reason to vote for the Lisbon treaty is that it will downgrade Irish politicians and other insiders to second place in the pecking order.

The_Conductor

Just why would we want blocks of dedicated social housing apartments? We've pulled down Ballymum already- all this would be is Ballymum Mark 2. What are we going to have- Adamstown with 50,000 social welfare recipients hidden away in West County Dublin- make that a Tallaght Mark 2 (you'd think we've learnt our lessons- obviously not........)

We *need* mixed developments- not social housing ghettoes.

The Minstrel

smccarrick wrote: »

Just why would we want blocks of dedicated social housing apartments? We've pulled down Ballymum already- all this would be is Ballymum Mark 2. What are we going to have- Adamstown with 50,000 social welfare recipients hidden away in West County Dublin- make that a Tallaght Mark 2 (you'd think we've learnt our lessons- obviously not........)

We *need* mixed developments- not social housing ghettoes.

Everyone keeps harping on about Ballymun etc., but it's an example that is not applicable in this case. As per the original post, what we have here is a bunch of apartment blocks scattered all over the place...NOT a huge area set aside for social housing ghettoes. In fact, what I was proposing would help break down an existing ghetto, while at the same time generating general social and economic progress in the area.

Rather than thinking about a sea of council flats, think a block in Balgriffin, a block in Sandyford...a mix of social & affordable.

optocynic

smccarrick wrote: »

Just why would we want blocks of dedicated social housing apartments? We've pulled down Ballymum already- all this would be is Ballymum Mark 2. What are we going to have- Adamstown with 50,000 social welfare recipients hidden away in West County Dublin- make that a Tallaght Mark 2 (you'd think we've learnt our lessons- obviously not........)

We *need* mixed developments- not social housing ghettoes.

That does seem to be the best, and most palitable way of address this issue. But this is where rationality clouds my usually liberal brain.

People are sitting on huge negative equity, especially middle class families. What do you think would happen to the vakue of these peoples houses if the 'integrated social housing' was implemented in their estates?

Unfortunately, no matter how nice we all try to be, we would not like to pay top dollar for a nice new house, and then have next door given to a large welfare family... no matter how nice they were..

The ugly truth.

bangersandmash

The Minstrel wrote: »

Everyone keeps harping on about Ballymun etc., but it's an example that is not applicable in this case. As per the original post, what we have here is a bunch of apartment blocks scattered all over the place...NOT a huge area set aside for social housing ghettoes.

I think the example is still applicable. Those unwanted NAMA apartment blocks won't be evenly distributed across the city. The ones located in established areas with good transport links are more likely to eventually sell after prices have been sufficiently reduced. That leaves properties in more outlying areas with poor transport and amenities. The OP's proposed scheme would probably see far more people housed in Adamstown, than say Elm Park.

smccarrick

smccarrick wrote: »

We *need* mixed developments- not social housing ghettoes.

I`ll go one further and say we dont need any social housing we need jobs and accommodation cheap enough so people buy or rent AND HAVE A LIFE on even the lowest wage


oh well this NAMA business is preventing all that