BBC Article on Ghost Estates in Ireland

Himselfe

A British take on an Irish problem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8653949.stm

MacWilliams is now an international superstar!!

TommyT

One in five homes empty? I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.

The_Conductor

TommyT wrote: »

One in five homes empty? I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.

If you factor in incomplete units and holiday homes- its not far off the truth. Some extreme examples (such as Leitrim) feature almost 35% more vacant than occupied properties.......

The methodology for calculating the number of vacant properties varies greatly- the CIF claim we have only around 80,000 vacant properties, the ESRI claim the number is closer to 210,000 while NIRA claim the figure is over 350,000

johndaman66

I'm raging that a Government minister should come out suggesting that houses should be knocked as a possible solution to the problem when decent affordable housing is still out of the grasp of very many of us, even those with pretty decent jobs. Are any members of local authorities going to be brought to task for this wreckless planning Mr Cuffe?

Also, Mr. McWilliams if you are reading not everyone took the property drug. A lot did yeah, but not everyone.

Freddie59

smccarrick wrote: »

If you factor in incomplete units and holiday homes- its not far off the truth. Some extreme examples (such as Leitrim) feature almost 35% more vacant than occupied properties.......

The methodology for calculating the number of vacant properties varies greatly- the CIF claim we have only around 80,000 vacant properties, the ESRI claim the number is closer to 210,000 while NIRA claim the figure is over 350,000

Would this be the same CIF that quoted 35,000 units in July 2009?

Blackjack

Loving how the whole concept of "Caveat Emptor" is lost on the woman in the video.

The_Conductor

Blackjack wrote: »

Loving how the whole concept of "Caveat Emptor" is lost on the woman in the video.

Theres lots of people like this now. The reasoning is- if the bankers are getting bailed out- why not the little people. The biggest disconnection of all appears to be a notion that money has to be borrowed, and repaid- by the government. Everyone is after a free lunch, with no cognisance of the need to pay for it at the end of the day.......

Blackjack

Absolutely Smcc. This is what absolutely sickens my Hole about the whole thing at the moment. People were quite happy to ride the train while prices were on the way up but now that has turned the other way they're looking for everyone else to take the responsibility.

It's desperately disappointing as a Nation to see people adopt this attitude and not wish to take the responsibility for their own actions in the first place.
They Bought a house - they knew what they were doing, and they borrowed as much as they could on the assumption things would always be good and their earnings would continue to increase. All you see now is people trying to blame the Government, Banks and Developers - who bear Certainly some responsibility - but not for the decisions people made on their own.

danbohan

johndaman66 wrote: »

I'm raging that a Government minister should come out suggesting that houses should be knocked as a possible solution to the problem when decent affordable housing is still out of the grasp of very many of us, even those with pretty decent jobs. Are any members of local authorities going to be brought to task for this wreckless planning Mr Cuffe?

Also, Mr. McWilliams if you are reading not everyone took the property drug. A lot did yeah, but not everyone.

yes lets take these unfinished estates and spend billions finishing them off and then lets give them for free to the poor souls who never worked in their lives or never will, and while we are at it lets increase their social welfare payments so that the can feel equal with the hard working people next door who have a mortgage for next 40 years , love it!

Dannyboy1987

It would be stupid to knock these houses down , there should be some type of government help to get young couples and familys in to these housing estates . 50/50 housing ?

Amhran Nua

smccarrick wrote: »

The biggest disconnection of all appears to be a notion that money has to be borrowed, and repaid- by the government.

Yup, this is why our current positive credit rating is doing us no favours. We'd have been better off with a more realistic rating than to continue to borrow.

The_Conductor

Dannyboy1987 wrote: »

It would be stupid to knock these houses down , there should be some type of government help to get young couples and familys in to these housing estates . 50/50 housing ?

A large problem with this is that a significant majority of these properties are in locations that simply don't have the infrastructure to support the population increases these would entail, and further those they are proposing to demolish are in rural locations that few people are interested in living in- irrespective of the initial cost of the properties.

You have to keep in mind- its not the case that you can move social welfare and/or rent allowance recipients en mass to Leitrim or Cavan (not that I have anything whatsoever against either county), people live in locales for numerous reasons including family ties, work, social networks and structures etc. Further- pensions and social welfare looks set to be significantly reduced in the December budget- could they even afford to live in 'free' houses?

What would handing 'free' houses to social welfare recipients/rent-allowance recipients do to the mindset of all those professionals who purchased 'starter apartments' over the past 16 years? You would have an ABC1 revolt on your hands. Politicians listen to those who give them money- or who vote. This tends to be workers and pensioners. What is in the best interests of these two groups?

Instead of simply demolishing them- a possible course of action might be to do the mother of all roadshows in the US, France and Germany- selling off these properties as holiday homes with a stipulation that taxes must be paid on them and they must have a minimum annual occupancy. Kill a few birds with the one stone. Little holiday villages dotted all over the country, lots more local employment in these areas, more sustainable taxes, double our tourist numbers with the sweep of a pen, create local indigenous jobs?

Even if you gave away these to Yanks, Germans, French etc- but put very tight stipulations on minimum occupancy, annual property taxes etc- it could be made into a valuable asset?

Blackjack

smccarrick wrote: »

A large problem with this is that a significant majority of these properties are in locations that simply don't have the infrastructure to support the population increases these would entail, and further those they are proposing to demolish are in rural locations that few people are interested in living in- irrespective of the initial cost of the properties.

You have to keep in mind- its not the case that you can move social welfare and/or rent allowance recipients en mass to Leitrim or Cavan (not that I have anything whatsoever against either county), people live in locales for numerous reasons including family ties, work, social networks and structures etc. Further- pensions and social welfare looks set to be significantly reduced in the December budget- could they even afford to live in 'free' houses?

What would handing 'free' houses to social welfare recipients/rent-allowance recipients do to the mindset of all those professionals who purchased 'starter apartments' over the past 16 years? You would have an ABC1 revolt on your hands. Politicians listen to those who give them money- or who vote. This tends to be workers and pensioners. What is in the best interests of these two groups?

Instead of simply demolishing them- a possible course of action might be to do the mother of all roadshows in the US, France and Germany- selling off these properties as holiday homes with a stipulation that taxes must be paid on them and they must have a minimum annual occupancy. Kill a few birds with the one stone. Little holiday villages dotted all over the country, lots more local employment in these areas, more sustainable taxes, double our tourist numbers with the sweep of a pen, create local indigenous jobs?

Even if you gave away these to Yanks, Germans, French etc- but put very tight stipulations on minimum occupancy, annual property taxes etc- it could be made into a valuable asset?

You know what - that's a fantastic idee. Creative solution to a problem and create an Export revenue.

You have my vote!!

Amhran Nua

smccarrick wrote: »

a possible course of action might be to do the mother of all roadshows in the US, France and Germany

Have we not been disgraced enough on an international level with the blasphemy law? We could have Bertie with the ringmasters hat at the front of a circus like that.

Macha

johndaman66 wrote: »

I'm raging that a Government minister should come out suggesting that houses should be knocked as a possible solution to the problem when decent affordable housing is still out of the grasp of very many of us, even those with pretty decent jobs.

I don't think these houses are the solution to the lack of affordable housing today. For a start, housing prices are still going down, regardless of what Isabel Morton and the other property shills claim about the market bottoming out. So the simple matter of waiting one or two years should go some way in helping resolve the problem.

Secondly, as smccarrick said, these houses have very little supporting infrastructure and giving them away to lower income families may result in laying the foundations for future social problems.

And generally, I think we should just chill out about owning our own property. The obsession with it was a large part of what got us into the mess and we need to take the time to learn from our mistakes.

johndaman66

danbohan wrote: »

yes lets take these unfinished estates and spend billions finishing them off and then lets give them for free to the poor souls who never worked in their lives or never will, and while we are at it lets increase their social welfare payments so that the can feel equal with the hard working people next door who have a mortgage for next 40 years , love it!

Why did you quote me and then go off on that rant? Never at any stage did I suggest that houses should be given free to those who do not work or will never work in their lifes. Thats what you seem to be implying above while quoting me. I have absolutely no sympathy whatsoever for those who refuse to work long-term and believe the state is far too generous to them. Included in this category are those who lost their cushy number job and refuse to work in Mc'Dondalds et al as such a job would be "beneath them". Long-term ill and handicapped people I would categorise somewhat differently but I have no time for those who sponge of the state on a long-term basis with no intention or drive to seek work.

On the other hand also you mention those who have committed to 40 year mortgages. On the one hand these people knew what they were signing up to when the contract was put in front of them. Furthermore you can probably categorise these into a few different categories if you want. Those buying a relatively modest house for their basic living needs and were left with not much alternative but to committ to the 40 year mortgage, whom I do hold sympathy for. Then are those who bought the show houses that were clearly priced beyond their means in order to keep up with the Jones or those buying the overpriced houses to make a quick buck. These two categories of people I would hold absolutely no sympathy for and they were guilty (among others) of fuelling the mayhem.

I am raging that Mr.Cuffe suggested that these ghost eststes should be knocked without exploring the alternative options (because there are alternatives) and as relatively decent affordable housing is still clearly outside the grasp of the working Joe and Mary Bloggs who have the few kids and are having to pay the creche fees and what not. Providing free housing to social welfare recipients is one alternative but one I would absolutely be strongly against. Also the fact that he fails to mention if anybody in the local authorities who were guilty of partaking in this wreckless planning culture ar not being brought to task.

Feel free to debate what I say but please refrain from quoting me and going off on a rant about something I did not say or otherwise suggest.

rightwingdub

I don't want a bunch of Celtic Tiger welfare junkies living beside me thnk you very much, I would much prefer to live in a boring crime free estate.

Could the government not want out some of the houses to private tenants in middle class areas, there would be a middle class revolt if the government decided to let all these vacant properties out to social welfare recipients, possibly it could be a combination of renting and selling the houses at rock bottom prices to get the market moving again.

TommyT

What exactly is a middle class area? One of these celtic tiger identikit esates is certainly not a middle class area. The problem over the last few years is that people have got ideas way beyond their station. Living in a badly built house, mortgaged to the hilt with a 316i in the driveay does not make you middle class. Class is something you are born with and no amount of debt will ever change that.

The_Conductor

TommyT wrote: »

What exactly is a middle class area? One of these celtic tiger identikit esates is certainly not a middle class area. The problem over the last few years is that people have got ideas way beyond their station. Living in a badly built house, mortgaged to the hilt with a 316i in the driveay does not make you middle class. Class is something you are born with and no amount of debt will ever change that.

While I'd have phrased it differently- I have to agree with the sentiment.
People aspired to all sorts of unrealistic ideals during the boom years, and with the availability of cheap credit- many did fulfill (as they saw it) their transformation to whatever notion it was they had in their minds. Hence the Irish own over 90,000 holiday homes in Spain and Portugal- and we became the largest owners of BMWs per head of population in the world. We also coincidentally have the largest number of golf courses per head of population in the world.

People have it in their heads that Ireland is a wealthy nation- and that everyone deserves their slice of the pie. Unfortunately the wealth was purely illusionary- however this has not sunk home for a lot of folk yet.

Some people are expecting some magical rebound to happen in the property market- and everything to go back to normal again- when normality is in fact vastly different from what happened over the last 15 years.

In an Irish context- dual income households are not normal. Its not normal for Ireland to have the 6th highest minimum wage in the world. Its not normal for social welfare levels to be set at levels which actively discourage almost 40% of the population from seeking or maintaining gainful employment (a reflection of this is the bizarre fact that almost 80% of the civil servants qualify for one type of social welfare of another- most notably family income support, but also rent allowance etc).

We really need to get back to basics and to hammer home to folks- what normality actually entails........

the_syco

smccarrick wrote: »

Its not normal for social welfare levels to be set at levels which actively discourage almost 40% of the population from seeking or maintaining gainful employment

As someone said on another forum:

Fran79 wrote: »

even being on the dole here I am better off than when I was working in the UK.

When comparing Ireland to the UK. Back in the 80's, people went to Britain to work. Now, it may be better for them to sit at home doing nothing :eek:

conundrum

A large problem with this is that a significant majority of these properties are in locations that simply don't have the infrastructure to support the population increases these would entail, and further those they are proposing to demolish are in rural locations that few people are interested in living in- irrespective of the initial cost of the properties.

You have to keep in mind- its not the case that you can move social welfare and/or rent allowance recipients en mass to Leitrim or Cavan (not that I have anything whatsoever against either county), people live in locales for numerous reasons including family ties, work, social networks and structures etc. Further- pensions and social welfare looks set to be significantly reduced in the December budget- could they even afford to live in 'free' houses?

What would handing 'free' houses to social welfare recipients/rent-allowance recipients do to the mindset of all those professionals who purchased 'starter apartments' over the past 16 years? You would have an ABC1 revolt on your hands. Politicians listen to those who give them money- or who vote. This tends to be workers and pensioners. What is in the best interests of these two groups?

Instead of simply demolishing them- a possible course of action might be to do the mother of all roadshows in the US, France and Germany- selling off these properties as holiday homes with a stipulation that taxes must be paid on them and they must have a minimum annual occupancy. Kill a few birds with the one stone. Little holiday villages dotted all over the country, lots more local employment in these areas, more sustainable taxes, double our tourist numbers with the sweep of a pen, create local indigenous jobs?

Even if you gave away these to Yanks, Germans, French etc- but put very tight stipulations on minimum occupancy, annual property taxes etc- it could be made into a valuable asset?

Brilliant Smccarrick!

Just asked around the office where I am working in Madrid if anyone would fancy having a place in Ireland in accordance with a scheme like that. Very favourable response from people with a soft spot for Ireland (as many of Spanish have) and who have always fancied having a holiday home with a garden that waters itself

Yes I know Spain has a few similar problems of its own at the moment, but hey...

fontanalis

rightwingdub wrote: »

I don't want a bunch of Celtic Tiger welfare junkies living beside me thnk you very much, I would much prefer to live in a boring crime free estate.

Could the government not want out some of the houses to private tenants in middle class areas, there would be a middle class revolt if the government decided to let all these vacant properties out to social welfare recipients, possibly it could be a combination of renting and selling the houses at rock bottom prices to get the market moving again.

Can't beat the celtic tiger coke heads can you?

TommyT

the_syco wrote: »

Now, it may be better for them to sit at home doing nothing :eek:

That is a huge problem in this country, there is no real incentive for anyone to get job. A friend of mine is married with 5 kids. He gets over €450 a week on the dole, plus childrens allowance and the government pay the interest on his mortgage. He has no incentive to look for work and this is unsustainble.
The dole should be cut be at least 50% for everyone while cutting wages across the board at the same time. Other ridiculously high costs would soon follow. It would mean hard times for a lot of us for a while, but we would come out of this mess much better in the long run.

Freddie59

TommyT wrote: »

What exactly is a middle class area?

I've been asking this for years. I live in a 'private' estate (usual 3-bed semi-D's) but consider myself working class (as is the vast majority in this country). Social climbing of the worst kind.

Freddie59

smccarrick wrote: »

People have it in their heads that Ireland is a wealthy nation- and that everyone deserves their slice of the pie. Unfortunately the wealth was purely illusionary- however this has not sunk home for a lot of folk yet.

The nub of the problem. But if people are told something often enough (as they were) they start to believe it.

The_Conductor

Freddie59 wrote: »

I've been asking this for years. I live in a 'private' estate (usual 3-bed semi-D's) but consider myself working class (as is the vast majority in this country). Social climbing of the worst kind.

I live in a private gated estate, with both security gates and also a barrier to be traversed entering and leaving. I'd guess that over 80% of the residents are unemployed subsiding on social welfare. You can't assume that a gate or indeed a BMW means you even have job anymore......

gurramok

smccarrick wrote: »

I live in a private gated estate, with both security gates and also a barrier to be traversed entering and leaving. I'd guess that over 80% of the residents are unemployed subsiding on social welfare. You can't assume that a gate or indeed a BMW means you even have job anymore......

Not surprised with that. Same with the complex I live in but I wouldn't say its 80%, more like 30%. People with high end cars in the car park live alongside a few tracksuit laden types

Rent Supplement is very high as a reason for this.

Amhran Nua

I don't think the high dole is a disincentive for most people to seek work. During the peak of the boom, bubble, whatever fits, around 1% to 2% of the workforce was in long term unemployment, and that includes those on disability benefit. The fact that so many people are on welfare now isn't an indication that welfare is great, its an indication that there is no work.

If the jobs come back the welfare numbers will drop through the floor again. The way it has been set up is too generous, but the same could be said for every area of government expenditure over the last few years - it wasn't built to handle these numbers, and we're all going to suffer as a result.

However I maintain that cutting welfare is only a band aid on a major wound, we need to get jobs in and the problem will solve itself. This will also solve the problem of mortgage repayments, hence bank capitalisation, and a lot more besides.