Are properties being kept vacant deliberately?

p___

I wasn't sure whether to put this in here or in the politics thread.

I suppose it could go into anything related to artificially controlled rental market, house prices and even unnecessary homelessness and deprivation in Dublin city.

I was down at a friends place near the IFSC, he was commenting on how his rent kept increasing YOY even though many of the apartments in the buildings around him have been kept empty despite them being finished and there being a demand for them.
He had even looked into buying some of the vacant properties but was told they were NAMA owned and not for sale.

His story reminded me of a thread I read on here where large amount of apartment blocks are being sold off to foreign (mainly american and canadian) investment firms that are now using their near monopoly to increase rent prices. boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93251164


The apartments appear to have been sold by NAMA at a discounted (or below market value) price just because the companies are buying vast amounts- again there is a definite need amongst first time buyers for access to these properties which is being denied them by NAMA.
Here's an article on a sale- do a calculation on the average price they paid and the price compare to prices in myhome.ie for similar properties in that area.
irishtimes.com/business/sectors/commercial-property/over-160m-for-761-apartments-in-dublin-1


Anyway, all that above pissed me off, so I had a look on google to see if I could find anything on vacant houses in the city, as again I had read on here a couple of years ago that there was 20% vacancy across the city.
I found this-Dublin dashboards vacancy- it's from 2011, but with regard to the IFSC area it is still quite accurate.



So, to me, it appears that we are paying for NAMA (the government) to keep dwellings off the market through tax, this is then causing us to have to pay more for rent, pushing people out of homes and onto the streets and it is also pushing house prices out of range of first time buyers.

We could have had affordable rents, residences, less homelessness and probably a bit more money in our pockets. However, this government looks set to repeat our biggest mistakes of the past, as quickly as they can, only this time, the main beneficiaries are foreign firms (possibly using money that we paid them in bank bailouts :->).

Are there anymore sources that can be used to see vacancies in the city/country- who owns them, or why they are vacant?



sorry- you are going to need to google those sites because boards won't let me post links

snubbleste

Yes.
Property is an investment y'see, not just a 'home'.

2011 Census shows a 10% vacancy rate in Dublin http://www.thejournal.ie/14-5-per-cent-of-dwellings-in-ireland-vacant-in-census-2011-400231-Mar2012/

meathstevie

Call it a deluded conspiracy theory if you like but to me it all looks like part of a wider scheme to dispossess working and middle classes of assets and put the acquisition of any worthwhile assets beyond the reach of the above as well. This appears to be happening all over the Western world. To me it nearly looks like an attempt to recreate a current version of a 19th century proletariat.

Cuddlesworth

meathstevie wrote: »

Call it a deluded conspiracy theory if you like but to me it all looks like part of a wider scheme to dispossess working and middle classes of assets and put the acquisition of any worthwhile assets beyond the reach of the above as well. This appears to be happening all over the Western world. To me it nearly looks like an attempt to recreate a current version of a 19th century proletariat.

You are deluded.

The property tax over the next number of years might reduce the vacancy rate, but a property tax of reasonable levels would have drastically reduced vacancy rates in Dublin and across the country in the short term taking away any perceived value on property speculation.

We could do with taking a look at the "all in" approach of government nursing home placements, where 90% of all assets and income is handed over and the person is put into care. Meanwhile the house is not part of the 90% deal and is instead left empty until the person dies or habited at no cost by relatives. Which could in many cases takes place over decades.

Other then that as long as there is a ongoing cost for leaving properties empty, people should be allowed to do what they want.

p___

snubbleste wrote: »

Yes.
Property is an investment y'see, not just a 'home'.

2011 Census shows a 10% vacancy rate in Dublin [

well, if i could post a link to the map I was looking at, large parts of the city have over 20% vacancy- Nama apartment blocks, event around ranelagh and D4 there are huge amounts of property vacant.

In answer to the not just a home, is it perhaps time to make the main purpose a home and the secondary purpose an investment? Allowing more people to have a home of their own and encouraging people to invest their money in something productive.

had to take out your URL to reply..sorry

p___

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You are deluded.

The property tax over the next number of years might reduce the vacancy rate, but a property tax of reasonable levels would have drastically reduced vacancy rates in Dublin and across the country in the short term taking away any perceived value on property speculation.

We could do with taking a look at the "all in" approach of government nursing home placements, where 90% of all assets and income is handed over and the person is put into care. Meanwhile the house is not part of the 90% deal and is instead left empty until the person dies or habited at no cost by relatives. Which could in many cases takes place over decades.

Other then that as long as there is a ongoing cost for leaving properties empty, people should be allowed to do what they want.

The property tax would need to be staggered, increasing as the number of properties owned increased to have any real affect.
Regarding the nursing home paragraph, what are you suggesting we do?
I think the biggest impact by far on vacancies is NAMA- as in it's imposed by government.

Cuddlesworth

p___ wrote: »

The property tax would need to be staggered, increasing as the number of properties owned increased to have any real affect.
Regarding the nursing home paragraph, what are you suggesting we do?
I think the biggest impact by far on vacancies is NAMA- as in it's imposed by government.

I think people over-rate the impact of Nama properties or the true number of finished units they hold in Ireland.

Nursing, I don't know the true answer. But I have rotated through a few areas in Dublin that would have a very large percentage of their population in retirement age and I am personally aware of a large number of family homes empty due to this. Perhaps insisting on a sale with x number of years, into a protected government sponsored account. Since the houses are left empty to "protect" the inheritance.

Big Davey

p___ wrote: »

The property tax would need to be staggered, increasing as the number of properties owned increased to have any real affect.
Regarding the nursing home paragraph, what are you suggesting we do?
I think the biggest impact by far on vacancies is NAMA- as in it's imposed by government.

Typical attitude of people in this country the harder you work to try to get on in life the more people want to screw you.
Landlords provide a service that this government can't by giving people usually decent homes and usually at a fair price and should be paying less tax.
For anybody who has invested in property and had to deal with tradesmen, tenants, letting agents etc etc it's not easy and many fail.
We all should just spend every bean we get on drink, prostitutes and gambling and then give the local relieving officer a sad story and get a few quid grab some cans and head back to our corpo house the less you do in this country the more it rewards you it's no wonder the country is a mess.
EFFORT AND REWARD........... EFFORT AND REWARD......... You can teach that to a dog quite easily but thanks to our welfare state so many just don't grab the concept.

p___

Big Davey wrote: »

Typical attitude of people in this country the harder you work to try to get on in life the more people want to screw you.
Landlords provide a service that this government can't by giving people usually decent homes and usually at a fair price and should be paying less tax.
For anybody who has invested in property and had to deal with tradesmen, tenants, letting agents etc etc it's not easy and many fail.
We all should just spend every bean we get on drink, prostitutes and gambling and then give the local relieving officer a sad story and get a few quid grab some cans and head back to our corpo house the less you do in this country the more it rewards you it's no wonder the country is a mess.
EFFORT AND REWARD........... EFFORT AND REWARD......... You can teach that to a dog quite easily but thanks to our welfare state so many just don't grab the concept.

Hahahaha. Everyone is out to take your hard earned pennies alright.

I doubt anyone in those investment firms have worked hard in their lives but anyway... I'm not talking about ants like you, I'm talking about those that own more than 4 houses.

Landlords are the same as they were in the history books, parasites who have probably inherited most of their wealth, without them we would live in our own houses, it's not a proper job and shouldn't be a form of investment.

Big Davey

p___ wrote: »

Hahahaha. Everyone is out to take your hard earned pennies alright.

I doubt anyone in those investment firms have worked hard in their lives but anyway... I'm not talking about ants like you, I'm talking about those that own more than 4 houses.

Landlords are the same as they were in the history books, parasites who have probably inherited most of their wealth, without them we would live in our own houses, it's not a proper job and shouldn't be a form of investment.

Your opinion is about as useful as a budgies fart. How can you begrudge a man who works hard, pays taxes, and invests his money on this beautiful island ? Unless of course you are an under achieving, jealous failure of a man ?

catbear

Outside of Dublin I know a lot of ghost estates are actually unsellable now for a number of reasons; vandalism, decay, etc..

In Dublin an interesting thread on the property pin website highlighted a lot of empty stock being maintained possibly by nama.

Nama has supposedly sold stock to international investors who will only flood the market if they try to sell and end up making a loss.

Big Davey

catbear wrote: »

Outside of Dublin I know a lot of ghost estates are actually unsellable now for a number of reasons; vandalism, decay, etc..

In Dublin an interesting thread on the property pin website highlighted a lot of empty stock being maintained possibly by nama.

Nama has supposedly sold stock to international investors who will only flood the market if they try to sell and end up making a loss.

My understanding was that Nama put everything up for public auction and I have not heard of stock being sold to international investors but you could be correct I hope not though.
I do think some of the international guys bought hotels and the like which is understandable and may even give us the customer better value.
I doubt many houses in Dublin or Cavan etc went to international investors but I could be wrong I have often been wrong :-)

MarkAnthony

meathstevie wrote: »

Call it a deluded conspiracy theory if you like but to me it all looks like part of a wider scheme to dispossess working and middle classes of assets and put the acquisition of any worthwhile assets beyond the reach of the above as well. This appears to be happening all over the Western world. To me it nearly looks like an attempt to recreate a current version of a 19th century proletariat.

Let them live on the Northside?

gaius c

500 apartments sitting mostly empty in Tallaght as NAMA try to offload them for social housing while they are busy building more around New Bancroft.

There's plenty of supply that is not being used and there's also plenty of sites in the city sitting vacant. I pass the St Teresa's flats in D8 on the way to work and it's a huge complex, which is approx 5% occupied. Just get them out, knock it down and build units there asap!

gaius c

And don't forget how stock that appears to be for sale, actually isn't!

seamus

I think we badly need a "use it or lose it" tax on property, particularly in urban areas. Property which sits vacant becomes liable for a 5% tax per year on the value of the property if it's vacant or unused. This would apply both to finished properties and undeveloped residential zoned land.

If someone can show that the property cannot be occupied for whatever reason and cannot be sold (i.e. in massive negative equity), then NAMA should CPO the property at half cost.

In some rare instances a speculator might choose to pay the tax rather than do anything, but especially if the tax remains pegged higher than inflation, there would be rarely any benefit to holding onto the property.

Cuddlesworth

seamus wrote: »

I think we badly need a "use it or lose it" tax on property, particularly in urban areas. Property which sits vacant becomes liable for a 5% tax per year on the value of the property if it's vacant or unused. This would apply both to finished properties and undeveloped residential zoned land.

If someone can show that the property cannot be occupied for whatever reason and cannot be sold (i.e. in massive negative equity), then NAMA should CPO the property at half cost.

In some rare instances a speculator might choose to pay the tax rather than do anything, but especially if the tax remains pegged higher than inflation, there would be rarely any benefit to holding onto the property.

How do you define vacant and better yet, how do you police it?

Mrs OBumble

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Nursing, I don't know the true answer. But I have rotated through a few areas in Dublin that would have a very large percentage of their population in retirement age and I am personally aware of a large number of family homes empty due to this. Perhaps insisting on a sale with x number of years, into a protected government sponsored account. Since the houses are left empty to "protect" the inheritance.

No reason why it should be protected.

If an older person no longer needs their home for them self (because they're never going to leave nursing home care) or their spouse (either deceased or in care), then the home should be sold and counted towards the assets available to pay for the care.

Inheritance is NOT a human right.

seamus

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

How do you define vacant and better yet, how do you police it?

Same way as the NPPR tax is done, except you also cross-reference against the PRTB. I would define vacant as being unoccupied for a period of 18 months or longer.