Unlock NAMA

20Cent

Since NAMA building now belong to the public how about the public are allowed to use them? Unlock NAMA is a group who are doing just that. First building will be unlocked today you can find out which easily enough.
Once unlocked the building will be used for talks by authors, economists etc free to the public. Great idea imo bit like the bank of ideas in London.

What ye think?

juan.kerr

Who pays the electricity? Is there insurance in place? What if someone comes to a talk and fakes a compo claim - who pays? What if a trespasser 'accidentally' burns the place down?

20Cent

juan.kerr wrote: »

Who pays the electricity? Is there insurance in place? What if someone comes to a talk and fakes a compo claim - who pays? What if a trespasser 'accidentally' burns the place down?

Same as every public building I presume.

WeeBushy

So let me get this straight, they're planning on breaking and entering?

juan.kerr

20Cent wrote: »

Same as every public building I presume.

Hardly. If you post is accurate they are 'unlocking' the building. Doesn't sound like 'every public building'.

juan.kerr

Sounds more like squatters.

20Cent

Websites here http://www.unlocknama.org/

Heading down there for a look now!

juan.kerr

Can you tell us where it is or do I need to scroll through a page of the facebook ****e to find out?

Fenian Army

juan.kerr wrote: »

Can you tell us where it is or do I need to scroll through a page of the facebook ****e to find out?

http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=google+maps+66+Great+strand+street+dublin&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq&hnear=0x48670e82951dec1d%3A0x1300c7a6fb9f8bb0%2C66+Great+Strand+St%2C+Smithfield%2C+Dublin+1&gl=ie&ei=qb8jT_32DY2GhQfKw6nxBA&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ8gEwAA

65-66 Great Strand street.




12 noon: Conor McCabe (author of Sins of the Father) on NAMA and Property Speculation in Ireland

2.30pm: Andy Storey (lecturer in politics and international relations) and Michael Taft (research officer, UNITE) on the Anglo: Not Our Debt campaign

4pm: Unlock NAMA: What buildings does NAMA have and how can we identify and gain access to them?

FreudianSlippers

You're going to Panti Bar?

20Cent

Heard a very interesting talk by Conor McCabe about NAMA. Left soon after but I hear the cops are there now and people refusing to leave.

Just shows a billion dollar scam no investigation people want to discuss the scam cops there quicktime.

Jonny7

They broke into the building?

RussellTuring

Just caught the end of it there as the last few occupants were leaving. I don't see why people should be forced to leave a building that isn't being used for anything.

Jonny7

RussellTuring wrote: »

Just caught the end of it there as the last few occupants were leaving. I don;t see why people should be forced to leave a building that isn't being used for anything.

Well basically its the law. You can't really squat anywhere under the premise of "it isn't being used".

RussellTuring

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well basically its the law. You can't really squat anywhere under the premise of "it isn't being used".

That still doesn't clarify how it's better to have an empty building sitting unused rather than allowing people to make use of it.

Also, that usually is the premise under which squats operate. People rarely try to squat anywhere else.

Jonny7

RussellTuring wrote: »

That still doesn't clarify how it's better to have an empty building sitting unused rather than allowing people to make use of it.

That's irrelevant. There are plenty of foreclosed homes which aren't being used.

RussellTuring

Jonny7 wrote: »

That's irrelevant. There are plenty of foreclosed homes which aren't being used.

It's irrelevant that you responded to me but didn't address what I'd said? That's a good one. And I don't see how all of those foreclosed homes lends any weight to the argument either.

Jonny7

Your argument is that it's unused.

My unused shed would like to counter that argument.

See the word "my". Implies ownership. That's the hurdle you are dealing with, not the fact that it is "unused" ergo unused is irrelevant.

RussellTuring

Jonny7 wrote: »

Your argument is that it's unused.

My unused shed would like to counter that argument.

See the word "my". Implies ownership. That's the hurdle you are dealing with, not the fact that it is "unused" ergo unused is irrelevant.

Why have a shed and not use it?

Anyway, I think making use of a building is far more legitimate than letting it remain unused while claiming ownership.

Jonny7

RussellTuring wrote: »

Why have a shed and not use it?

Anyway, I think making use of a building is far more legitimate than letting it remain unused while claiming ownership.

The owner can do whatever they want with their property. Including leaving it abandoned if they so wish.

The protesters were not within their rights to enter or use that building today, but I think they knew that anyway.

Inverse to the power of one!

Jonny7 wrote: »

The owner can do whatever they want with their property. Including leaving it abandoned if they so wish.

The protesters were not within their rights to enter or use that building today, but I think they knew that anyway.

Not quite that straight forward with property. Abandonment is addressed in Law, i.e. Squatters rights.

While I do agree with private property rights and ownership, I also see the utility in use it or lose it. It mightn't make as much sense in Ireland where pop. density is low, but in the Netherlands SR makes a lot more sense as abandoned property only adds to the housing pressure.

If building held by NAMA are safe and usable, it is shame and waste of capital not to. However I'd agree this should be regulated and not ad-hoc for which ever group of randoms decides to take it for their own.

20Cent

Good article here about the reasons and plan of unlock nama http://www.politico.ie/social-issues/8235-unlock-nama-campaign-group-launch.html

Dr Galen

So a group of people decide that they like the look of an un-used building, owned by NAMA, they "unlock" it and move in. I'm getting this about right am I?

Sand

Well as 20Cent has spontaneously posted to alert us to this interesting group he has heard about and to keep us posted on his selfmotivated investigations regarding to this groups developments and thoughts - yeah, that would be their MO.

1) Squat in NAMA building
2) ????
3) Profit


Its a real step above and beyond the last time 20Cent spontaneously posted to alert us to an interesting group he has heard about and how he kept us posted on his self-motivated investigations regarding that groups developments and thoughts.

As I recall their MO was:

1) Squat outside the Central Bank.
2) ???
3) Profit

Dont worry though - this time I'm sure the world will quake at the idea of some unemployed hippies living rough and giving some speeches to people who already agree with them.

MadsL

Dont worry though - this time I'm sure the world will quake at the idea of some unemployed hippies living rough and giving some speeches to people who already agree with them.

And yet here you are talking about it. Hippies, hmm. That make you a Square?

Or have they perhaps opened the debate on what to do with this stock of buildings we now own... (....the loans on)

What is the social capital aspect of NAMA legislation and how do we realise it - because as far as I can see, with the exception of kicking out The Complex in Smithfield so that Tesco can open a street drinking facility store, there doesn't seem to be much social benefit to NAMA's operations. Big question is why? And Unlock NAMA are asking it...

Pissed that someone called the cops though...(can you be evicted from a building that you 'own' the loan on?)

markmorker

I am all in favour of public debate on this issue, but with regards to this particular publicity stunt...

Since this property was connected with the Morrison hotel, and since the Morrison hotel was openly and publicly marketed for sale already earlier this year by a receiver appointed by NAMA. A sale process that I might add that was widely reported on in the Irish Times and Irish Independent, I wish whoever bid the highest price for the property best of luck with their new property. This really doesn't seem to have been the best property for UnlockNAMA to have picked.

Looking at other properties though, as NAMA keep telling us and as explained on the NAMA website, unless a receiver has been appointed to the property, NAMA does not own the property, it owns a loan. Some property investor owns the property and until NAMA calls in their loan and appoints a receiver it does not control the property.

Until then saying that NAMA owns a property is like saying that the public should have the right to break into your vacant holiday home just because your mortgage is with state owned AIB.
I have a house that I rent out to students, this summer it will be vacant, the mortgage is with AIB, do Unlock NAMA think they have the right to occupy my house this summer? Because they think a state owned bank owns it. Of course not! Then why is this different?

If NAMA actually does fall out with the borrower, and appoints a receiver to the property, then it will be listed on the NAMA website within one month. If it is a company that owns the property it will also be publicly listed on the companies office, and the receivers appointment appears on the companies office website from the day it happens. Also, for properties owned by companies, every charge that a bank has on the companies properties is also registered on the companies office website. The receiver's contact details for each property are listed on the NAMA website. If someone then wants to use the property they can put their proposal to the receiver (listed on the NAMA website) or directly by email or post to NAMA itself (see the website for contact details).
Seriously, unlockNAMA, not everything related to the financial crisis is a conspiracy!

There are many reasons why someone might keep a commercial property vacant in Dublin.

They may be holding out for a pickup in the market among potential tenants, they may be negotiating with potential tenants trying to get a deal that makes sense for them, or preparing a planning application for a change of use. If someone does occupy the building who will pay for repairs, building insurance, public liability insurance, security, maintenance, electricity and council rates? The owner may be busy trying to save up the money to renovate the property. The owner may be locked in a legal dispute with some other party over control of the property. The property may have fallen into the estate of someone who has died and the testator of the Will may be trying to deal with the asset.
Of course it is frustrating as an outsider looking in, to see a vacant building. But there can be a whole host of commercial, financial, legal and safety reasons why it is the taxpayers best interest to leave the property vacant until certain issues have been properly dealt with. When you actually look into the details of these properties and talk with the owners and estate agents involved you start to appreciate that the situation is often more complex and not always just a problem of neglect.

Everyone, including I presume, NAMA staff, would like to see these buildings put to good use but if you are a community group and you have a valid use you need to put a well considered proposal to the property owner or the receiver that addresses the issues of rent, repairs, building insurance, public liability insurance, security, maintenance, electricity and council rates. There is no point just moaning in the media about wanting a free building. Otherwise if community groups start randomly occupying buildings as they see fit this will impose a huge additional financial burden on Irish taxpayers.

southsiderosie

Just a reminder folks: let's stay focused on the issue at hand and not individual posters.

Cheers,

SSR

MadsL

Dr Galen wrote: »

So a group of people decide that they like the look of an un-used building, owned by NAMA, they "unlock" it and move in. I'm getting this about right am I?

NAMA own the loan, we own NAMA, someone (probably fecked off somewhere else nice and sunny) owns the building

How many years should we wait for NAMA to sell it?? Any harm in using whilst we wait?

Jonny7

MadsL wrote: »

NAMA own the loan, we own NAMA, someone (probably fecked off somewhere else nice and sunny) owns the building

How many years should we wait for NAMA to sell it?? Any harm in using whilst we wait?

No we don't have direct ownership of NAMA properties. Regardless of what our taxes pay we don't technically "own" those entities.

RussellTuring

Jonny7 wrote: »

The owner can do whatever they want with their property. Including leaving it abandoned if they so wish.

The protesters were not within their rights to enter or use that building today, but I think they knew that anyway.

I don't seem to have made my point clearly enough for you: I understand the concept of ownership as regards large properties like the one occupied yesterday. What I'm saying is that I'd like an explanation as to how leaving a building vacant makes more sense than using it. I'm looking at the situation from a utilitarian POV to decide what is right. You're just describing the status quo.

Sand wrote: »

Well as 20Cent has spontaneously posted to alert us to this interesting group he has heard about and to keep us posted on his selfmotivated investigations regarding to this groups developments and thoughts - yeah, that would be their MO.

1) Squat in NAMA building
2) ????
3) Profit


Its a real step above and beyond the last time 20Cent spontaneously posted to alert us to an interesting group he has heard about and how he kept us posted on his self-motivated investigations regarding that groups developments and thoughts.

As I recall their MO was:

1) Squat outside the Central Bank.
2) ???
3) Profit

Dont worry though - this time I'm sure the world will quake at the idea of some unemployed hippies living rough and giving some speeches to people who already agree with them.

I don't think either of the situations you mentioned above were done with the aim of making a profit. I hope you were being facetious.

Jonny7

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't seem to have made my point clearly enough for you: I understand the concept of ownership as regards large properties like the one occupied yesterday. What I'm saying is that I'd like an explanation as to how leaving a building vacant makes more sense than using it. I'm looking at the situation from a utilitarian POV to decide what is right. You're just describing the status quo.

If, as you say, understand ownership then you should understand why they were forced to leave, regardless of your opinions over unused properties

I don't see why people should be forced to leave a building that isn't being used for anything.

PaulieBoy

Good to see that there are some people actually getting off their back sides and trying to do something about the situation. Unlike a lot of the above posters who are ready with the condemnation of a symbolic event that caused little or no harm to the property.
No doubt the objectors to this event felt it a little cold to protest!
Stayed in and watched the golf !

PeadarCo

PaulieBoy wrote: »

Good to see that there are some people actually getting off their back sides and trying to do something about the situation. Unlike a lot of the above posters who are ready with the condemnation of a symbolic event that caused little or no harm to the property.
No doubt the objectors to this event felt it a little cold to protest!
Stayed in and watched the golf !

Most of the people who condem these people are doing something. They are working and paying tax or doing there best to improve their personal situation so we can get out of this mess. Protesting won't close the deficit. It can do the opposite as large protests tend to put people off from lending to countries. Currently what we need is people other than the EU/IMF to lend money to us at affordable rates.

NAMA's job is obtain the best return for the taxpayer from its portfolio. Giving houses away free that could otherwise be sold for money only costs the country more. If the protestors really want to help they should approach NAMA with the intention of buying the houses.

Sand

@Madsl

And yet here you are talking about it. Hippies, hmm. That make you a Square?

Or have they perhaps opened the debate on what to do with this stock of buildings we now own... (....the loans on)

We dont own them. NAMA does - indeed if Scofflaw were here he would interject that NAMA does not own them, that instead NAMA owns the loans against them. We dont own NAMA. The banks do.

We are liable for NAMA's losses, but thats another story.

As for me talking about it - Yeah, me dismissing them as a bunch of irrelevant timewasters is a major win for them.

@RussellTuring

I don't think either of the situations you mentioned above were done with the aim of making a profit. I hope you were being facetious.

Its a cultural reference from within the last decade. Its derived from a Southpark skit where gnomes collected underpants with the ultimate aim of achieving profit, but without actually being clear on how collecting underpants would generate profit. Much like how the braintrust behind Occupy Dame Street or Unlock NAMA would have difficulty in explaining how squating in various sites achieves anything whatsoever at all.

See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBiSI6OdqvA

@PeadarCo

Most of the people who condem these people are doing something. They are working and paying tax or doing there best to improve their personal situation so we can get out of this mess. Protesting won't close the deficit.

Agreed - I probably pay more tax than the entire Unlock NAMA and Occupy Dame Street movements combined.

20Cent

The hint is in the name the NATIONAL ASSETS management agency. Also the legislation that created it included that is should contribute to the social development of the State. This it has failed to do. One of labours pre election promises was to open up NAMA buildings for public use. In a time when public services, youth clubs etc are being slashed this would be a good thing surely?

Leaving buildings to rot harms the businesses and residents who live nearby. It is a big issue which needs to be addressed. The building unlocked on Saturday is in a bad state of disrepair, NAMA are supposed to be managing these properties for the state they are failing.

The comments about how much money one earns or tax paid is sickening. The unemployed are allowed have their voices heard also as far as I know. We are still a republic people shouldn't be judged by their income or lack of it. Anyway unless someone does an audit of all the protesters its impossible to tell how many are unemployed (which is irrelevant anyway) most of those I've met are in full time employment.

There was a good article piece by Peter Hain in last Sundays Times. He was one of the original protesters against apartheid. He was called a troublemaker, communist, lefty etc in his day. He was even set up for a crime he didn't commit. This is the default reaction which has been programmed into people when anything questions the status quo. At least some people are able to see past this.

There are a lot of issues and disclosures about NAMA which powerful forces would rather keep quiet. Its up to the public to draw these out into the open and start the debate. Waiting for the politicians to do it will not happen. We literally cannot afford not to as not addressing these issues leaves the whole mess to happen again in the future.

PaulieBoy

PeadarCo wrote: »

Most of the people who condem these people are doing something. They are working and paying tax or doing there best to improve their personal situation so we can get out of this mess.

Lucky you! Near half a million people do not have a job, and can't afford to pay for the mess of others. I'm sure you have some sympathy for those...

Are they allowed to protest? Can people not voice their outrage at the situation? Is peaceful protest not a core part of democracy? When did we trade all this in and for what exactly did we get in return for being sheep? Lastly I admire you trust. You trust the people who got us into this mess to get us out, and further you give them free unhindered, and unquestioned reign.
God Bless your faith :-)

MadsL

Jonny7 wrote: »

No we don't have direct ownership of NAMA properties. Regardless of what our taxes pay we don't technically "own" those entities.

Read what I wrote again....

Sand wrote:

We dont own them. NAMA does - indeed if Scofflaw were here he would interject that NAMA does not own them, that instead NAMA owns the loans against them. We dont own NAMA. The banks do.

Read what I wrote again

Sand wrote:

As for me talking about it - Yeah, me dismissing them as a bunch of irrelevant timewasters is a major win for them.

Someone once said it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness. At least they are doing something. You may not agree with them, but they are doing something more than you about the problem (unless I'm misinformed) - calling them timewasters and hippies is absurd.

20Cent wrote:

Leaving buildings to rot harms the businesses and residents who live nearby. It is a big issue which needs to be addressed. The building unlocked on Saturday is in a bad state of disrepair, NAMA are supposed to be managing these properties for the state they are failing.

Nail. Head.

PeadarCo

PaulieBoy wrote: »

Lucky you! Near half a million people do not have a job, and can't afford to pay for the mess of others. I'm sure you have some sympathy for those...

Are they allowed to protest? Can people not voice their outrage at the situation? Is peaceful protest not a core part of democracy? When did we trade all this in and for what exactly did we get in return for being sheep? Lastly I admire you trust. You trust the people who got us into this mess to get us out, and further you give them free unhindered, and unquestioned reign.
God Bless your faith :-)

They can upskill. I have no problem with protesting. But protesting won't close the deficit and isn't a great way of creating jobs. Protesting doesn't change the economic reality. In that sense it is pointless. Protest all u want but its not fair to critisise people who are actually doing something constructive to get us out of this mess. Also you should remember Fianna Fail were kicked out and ultimately we need politicans of some sort to run the county whatever system is used.

To the topic of the thread. As I said before NAMAs job is to get the best return for the taxpayer. If that means leaving bulidings unused for a certain amount of time so be it. How does giving away building for free that could otherwise be sold for money at some point in time help the taxpayer? Ideally NAMA should make a profit or at least minumise its loses. Giving buildings away for free doesn't help them achieve either of those goals.

20Cent

PeadarCo wrote: »

They can upskill. I have no problem with protesting. But protesting won't close the deficit and isn't a great way of creating jobs. Protesting doesn't change the economic reality. In that sense it is pointless. Protest all u want but its not fair to critisise people who are actually doing something constructive to get us out of this mess. Also you should remember Fianna Fail were kicked out and ultimately we need politicans of some sort to run the county whatever system is used.

To the topic of the thread. As I said before NAMAs job is to get the best return for the taxpayer. If that means leaving bulidings unused for a certain amount of time so be it. How does giving away building for free that could otherwise be sold for money at some point in time help the taxpayer? Ideally NAMA should make a profit or at least minumise its loses. Giving buildings away for free doesn't help them achieve either of those goals.

No one is saying that protests can close the deficit but attracting attention to various issues of concern is the duty of all citizens. Apparently "we" are to blame because "we" voted for and allowed successive governments to act in a cowboy fashion towards regulating the banking industry and the economy. Well if we are paying then how about we also keep a close eye on what is happening now? People can do both work/find work and being active in issues of concern to them. Putting the head down and leaving it to the gov isn't really an option anymore.

NAMA are handling the sale of these properties very badly. Did you know that the list of foreclosed buildings was only published in 2011! The list was incomplete, is a .pdf file so cannot be sorted, many of the addresses are incorrect and properties are mislabeled. How are potential buyers even supposed to find the property they want. Surely a proper list isn't that hard to do a searcheable database? Nama spend and pay themselves enough to expect that.

We also have the issue of empty buildings. I live near a NAMA building it is attracting graffiti, vandals and is starting to fall apart. Don't see anyone asking for them to be given away for free! How about opening up the building and using the space for the local community. The advantage is that the locals get a free space to use and the building can be maintained. If it is sold later on then so be it. Easier to sell a building that is being used than one that is rotting. Leaving it there until the price goes up is such a waste of space and harmful to the local area.

PeadarCo

20Cent wrote: »

No one is saying that protests can close the deficit but attracting attention to various issues of concern is the duty of all citizens. Apparently "we" are to blame because "we" voted for and allowed successive governments to act in a cowboy fashion towards regulating the banking industry and the economy. Well if we are paying then how about we also keep a close eye on what is happening now? People can do both work/find work and being active in issues of concern to them. Putting the head down and leaving it to the gov isn't really an option anymore.

Look thats democracy Fianna Fail and their policies were endorsed 3 time in a row. Fianna Fails problem was that they listened to the people and ignored the longterm consequences but if they had igorned the voting public they would have been sacked. That doesn't mean they're not at fault but that the general public shares some of it.

20Cent wrote: »

NAMA are handling the sale of these properties very badly. Did you know that the list of foreclosed buildings was only published in 2011! The list was incomplete, is a .pdf file so cannot be sorted, many of the addresses are incorrect and properties are mislabeled. How are potential buyers even supposed to find the property they want. Surely a proper list isn't that hard to do a searcheable database? Nama spend and pay themselves enough to expect that.

We also have the issue of empty buildings. I live near a NAMA building it is attracting graffiti, vandals and is starting to fall apart. Don't see anyone asking for them to be given away for free! How about opening up the building and using the space for the local community. The advantage is that the locals get a free space to use and the building can be maintained. If it is sold later on then so be it. Easier to sell a building that is being used than one that is rotting. Leaving it there until the price goes up is such a waste of space and harmful to the local area.

I would agree having buildings fall into disrepair is a bad use of assets. If a group is prepared to approach NAMA and pay them either in rent/upkeep expenses I would support them. But to do that they would need some kind of contract with NAMA. Nobody is going to invest in a building if they could be kicked out at a moments notice. Doing a deal with NAMA is very different from unilaterally taking over a building.

MadsL

PeadarCo wrote: »

I would agree having buildings fall into disrepair is a bad use of assets. If a group is prepared to approach NAMA and pay them either in rent/upkeep expenses I would support them. But to do that they would need some kind of contract with NAMA. Nobody is going to invest in a building if they could be kicked out at a moments notice. Doing a deal with NAMA is very different from unilaterally taking over a building.

Consider the fate of the Complex in Smithfield; a non-profit theatre space. When it was plain that the retail just wasn't happening - Chris Kelly of Redquartz (Paddy Kelly's son) allowed the Complex to open - they made improvements, added toilets, painted cleaned etc. They put the ESB in their name and offered to pay rent; Chris, being a nice guy, declined any rent, and told them to stay as long as they liked.

Eventually NAMA takes over control - Tesco get intetested as there are plenty of street drinkers customers in the area and they get to push out Fresh. There are numerous units available, but Tesco want the one that the Complex occupies. NAMA support Tesco.

Currently under consideration by ABP; but my point is that NAMA really isn't thinking in terms of social capital, rather any fast way to dump these properties on the next paying tenant. This doesn't get us away from the debts (doubt Tesco will buy the unit) but puts the taxpayer in the position of landlord for the next 20-30 years. Anyone with the idea that NAMA will make a profit is in LaLa land.

What I find particularly objectionable is that NAMA is not subject to FOI legislation, so judging its performance by press releases is fun.

ressem

PeadarCo wrote: »

I would agree having buildings fall into disrepair is a bad use of assets. If a group is prepared to approach NAMA and pay them either in rent/upkeep expenses I would support them. But to do that they would need some kind of contract with NAMA.

I was travelling through Ballinasloe this morning. Have you seen the number of old, closed down mental health buildings on the main road? Huge buildings (used to cater for a couple of thousand patients + staff) on huge grounds left boarded up for decades in the hope that some property investor will come and buy them at full market value. And this even through the property bubble. No-one bothered to get a deal done.

Now those government owned properties are growing derelict, water coming out the doors when some pipe freezes. (just like the closed stores / pubs in that town, with vandals breaking in the back and gutting them.)

Nobody is going to invest in a building if they could be kicked out at a moments notice.

There's quite a few small businesses that would pay to maintain the smaller places, with just 1 months notice.

E.g. someone wants to sell scones, coleslaw or some other simple food product.
The FSAI demands that this be done in stainless steel kitchens and preparation areas, that a startup does not have access to. Plenty of closed down premises would have this.
Trade maintenance costs in lieu of rent. Footfall in the street might increase, and improve the town for everyone.

The start-up makes enough to make the contract permanent or it doesn't.

NAMA and the possible purchasers get an improved idea of what the internal fixtures are worth above the property value, and the pace of damage slows.

So I'd agree with the unlock protests only in-so-far as they might embarrass property holders to consider alternatives to boarding up the property, which seems the ultra-conservative cautious approach. "Board the property up and it's not my problem".

PeadarCo

ressem wrote: »

I was travelling through Ballinasloe this morning. Have you seen the number of old, closed down mental health buildings on the main road? Huge buildings (used to cater for a couple of thousand patients + staff) on huge grounds left boarded up for decades in the hope that some property investor will come and buy them at full market value. And this even through the property bubble. No-one bothered to get a deal done.

Now those government owned properties are growing derelict, water coming out the doors when some pipe freezes. (just like the closed stores / pubs in that town, with vandals breaking in the back and gutting them.)

Thats a debate on how best to use the buildings. Everyone wants NAMA to get the best return. If NAMA gives away an asset for free or at a lower price than they could otherwise get its a cost to the taxpayer. If people are prepared to accept this extra cost so be it.

ressem wrote: »

There's quite a few small businesses that would pay to maintain the smaller places, with just 1 months notice.

E.g. someone wants to sell scones, coleslaw or some other simple food product.
The HSA demands that this be done in stainless steel kitchens and preparation areas, that a startup does not have access to. Plenty of closed down premises would have this.
Trade maintenance costs in lieu of rent. Footfall in the street might increase, and improve the town for everyone.

The start-up makes enough to make the contract permanent or it doesn't.

NAMA and the possible purchasers get an improved idea of what the internal fixtures are worth above the property value, and the pace of damage slows.

So I'd agree with the unlock protests only in-so-far as they might embarrass property holders to consider alternatives to boarding up the property, which seems the ultra-conservative cautious approach. "Board the property up and it's not my problem".

That my point they pay NAMA a fee/maintainance and have one months notice before they leave. Its that type of idea I would completely support. About no notice I mean the possibilty of NAMA coming in tomorrow to an organisation and telling them to get out. What I am against is some of the retoric earlier in the thread that goes along the lines of NAMA owns the buildings, which is owned by the government therefore we own the buildings and can do whatever we want with them just because they are empty and we are the "people". A better way of embarrassing NAMA would be to find a person/people along the lines that you've described whos been rejected by NAMA and publise it, not by using some selfrightous crowd along the lines of the Occupy movement.

ressem

PeadarCo wrote: »

Thats a debate on how best to use the buildings. Everyone wants NAMA to get the best return. If NAMA gives away an asset for free or at a lower price than they could otherwise get its a cost to the taxpayer. If people are prepared to accept this extra cost so be it.

As MadsL observes, NAMA is not transparent.
Is the cost and risk of damaged properties being put on the books and is there anyone in NAMA charged with bringing this down? Who is the contact person?

Is NAMA just being run as an property managers dream job? I.e. pay regardless of missed targets, a client (the government) that is ridiculously overpatient/ thinks it's better to support the current property valuations, rather than undercut the competition; Is unconcerned at write off destruction of unmaintained property with a c'est la vie attitude.

PeadarCo wrote: »

A better way of embarrassing NAMA would be to find a person/people along the lines that you've described whos been rejected by NAMA and publise it, not by using some selfrightous crowd along the lines of the Occupy movement.

A few of these people have turned up in the media over the last couple of years, and been met with a blank gaze from NAMA. Again, no obvious accountability.

blahfckingblah

another genius form of protest :rolleyes: How is a load of full time protesters comandeering a building supposed to have any effect on our economy.. give me strength

MadsL

blahfckingblah wrote: »

.. give me strength

...enough to read the whole thread rather than just plonk your comment on the end like you just got back from the bar....

or is all just blahfckingblah?

RussellTuring

Jonny7 wrote: »

If, as you say, understand ownership then you should understand why they were forced to leave, regardless of your opinions over unused properties

They were forced to leave because the owner of a building, whoever that may be, has the legal right to exclude others from it's use: that's what makes it private property, this legally-enforced right to deny entry. I have no problem if someone is actually using the property over which they're claiming ownership but in a situation where it does nothing but gather dust and further devalue other properties in the locality, I'm questioning why they should be afforded this legal protection.

You maintain that the owner of the property should have the right to leave a vacant a building they own but I think it would make for more sense for ownership of property to be conditional upon use. Buy an apartment in Amsterdam and see how long you can leave it vacant before it's put to good use.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Most of the people who condem these people are doing something. They are working and paying tax or doing there best to improve their personal situation so we can get out of this mess.

I'd hazard that many of the protesters do what you describe above. What distinguishes them is they they are at least trying to not only improve their own personal situations, but also address the issues that are hurting nearly all of us. Being a protester doesn't necessarily mean a person is unemployed and makes no positive contribution to society.

Protesting won't close the deficit. It can do the opposite as large protests tend to put people off from lending to countries. Currently what we need is people other than the EU/IMF to lend money to us at affordable rates. NAMA's job is obtain the best return for the taxpayer from its portfolio. Giving houses away free that could otherwise be sold for money only costs the country more. If the protestors really want to help they should approach NAMA with the intention of buying the houses.

I don't think anyone has suggested building occupation will directly reduce the rates at which we borrow money or collect revenue but one thing that's obvious is opening up resources (such as property) to people who need but can't afford them allows opportunities for the country to improve and is far more likely to achieve a positive result than having countless unused buildings with no plans to make them productive. The fear of occupation might even make people more motivated to either use their property or sell it to someone who will.

Sand wrote: »

@RussellTuring


Its a cultural reference from within the last decade. Its derived from a Southpark skit where gnomes collected underpants with the ultimate aim of achieving profit, but without actually being clear on how collecting underpants would generate profit. Much like how the braintrust behind Occupy Dame Street or Unlock NAMA would have difficulty in explaining how squating in various sites achieves anything whatsoever at all.

See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBiSI6OdqvA

Have you asked or are you just assuming there is no forethought involved?

FreudianSlippers

We've asked about a billion times. No answers thus far.

RussellTuring

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We've asked about a billion times. No answers thus far.

Well I'm not involved in Unlock NAMA or any of that but just from keeping up with the news I know that they want to get some use from currently unused property as well as publicise details of NAMA assets and their sales(given the agency's exemption from FoI).

In their few hours in the building they made improvements to a place that had been let fall into disrepair and forced the receiver to come forward.