# The Time: At least 74 ghost estates



## canicemcavoy (17 Jan 2010)

...not counting those that are fully built but partly unoccupied:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6991149.ece



> Belmayne’s exact location, two minutes from the disadvantaged estates of Darndale, did not feature in the titillating campaigns.
> Residents now estimate that just 40% of the 2,650 houses and apartments are occupied, even though parts of the estate were completed more than two years ago. Three-bedroom homes in Belmayne, which originally sold for up to €460,000, are now on the market for €289,000 and a building contractor which constructed some of the estate, LM Developments, went into receivership in November.


----------



## Mpsox (19 Jan 2010)

There is a new report out today that indicates that there are over 300000 empty houses in Ireland. 

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/more-than-300000-homes-lying-empty-say-academics-442590.html


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2010)

Presumable a lot of these houses are held by developers in anticipation of Nama?  But who is going to buy them?  I won't say anything about house prices as we are not allowed to discuss it.


----------



## canicemcavoy (20 Jan 2010)

Bronte said:


> Presumable a lot of these houses are held by developers in anticipation of Nama? But who is going to buy them? I won't say anything about house prices as we are not allowed to discuss it.


 
Thank heavens for that policy - it helped us avert a property crash.


----------



## RonanC (22 Jan 2010)

Bronte said:


> Presumable a lot of these houses are held by developers in anticipation of Nama? But who is going to buy them? I won't say anything about house prices as we are not allowed to discuss it.


 
Local Authorities are now planning on buying them 'on the cheap' according to reports


----------



## Complainer (22 Jan 2010)

RonanC said:


> Local Authorities are now planning on buying them 'on the cheap' according to reports


Why would they buy them? The state will own most of them, once NAMA starts calling in the loans.


----------



## Bronte (22 Jan 2010)

Complainer said:


> Why would they buy them? The state will own most of them, once NAMA starts calling in the loans.


 
That's an easy one to answer, they want to pay for them twice.   We wouldn't want local authorities to buy anything at a reasonable price now would be.  Look forward to to the prices if sold to local authorities being inflated by the builders, who have the ear of the government and hence the local county councillers in their hour of need.


----------



## Firefly (22 Jan 2010)

Complainer said:


> Why would they buy them? The state will own most of them, once NAMA starts calling in the loans.


 
Not sure how the NAMA thing will affect the properties, but maybe the government are doing  a share buy-back job to take supply out of the market. This may stimulate demand / increase prices.


----------



## Complainer (22 Jan 2010)

Firefly said:


> Not sure how the NAMA thing will affect the properties, but maybe the government are doing  a share buy-back job to take supply out of the market. This may stimulate demand / increase prices.


So they are trying to create a second bubble, 'cos the first bubble didn't cause enough damage?

But seriously, why would they buy something that they are almost certainly going to own for no cost in a few months?


----------



## Firefly (22 Jan 2010)

Don't know about a second bubble being achievable, but normally in a share buy-back the remaining shares (in this case) house prices rise. 

No idea why they are buying them either...sounds daft.. RonanC, have you links to these reports?


----------



## RonanC (22 Jan 2010)

It was said to me only yesterday that SDCC (south dublin co. co) are looking at the ZOE built apartments and hotels in the Tallaght area but are trying to plan it properly in order to prevent so called "ghetto's" happening. 

Local Authorities wont be in any position to build any new social housing this year. That money has been pulled, but suggestions have been made that NAMA owned properties (the ZOE development in tallaght being one of them) will be 'bought' by Local Authorities and then rented to some of the 56,000 people on waiting lists for social housing. I dont have an online source as of yet, although I am looking.


----------



## monore (30 Jan 2010)

Bronte said:


> Presumable a lot of these houses are held by developers in anticipation of Nama? But who is going to buy them?


 


RonanC said:


> Local Authorities are now planning on buying them 'on the cheap' according to reports


 


Firefly said:


> Not sure how the NAMA thing will affect the properties, but maybe the government are doing a share buy-back job to take supply out of the market. This may stimulate demand / increase prices.


 


Complainer said:


> So they are trying to create a second bubble, 'cos the first bubble didn't cause enough damage?


 


The government does not have the money at the moment to buy enough properties to make a difference. However they are looking at other ways of reducing supply of properties in areas where there is a demand for housing 

The current proposal is for the taxpayer to lease properties from developers for 10 years. They will be maintained by the local authorities and at the end of the lease period handed back to the developers in good condition. This will have the benefit of providing cash flow to developers from the taxpayer and income to Nama. 

Theoretically these properties could then be used for temporary social housing once fitted out and furnished by the LA with the tenants evicted at the end of the lease period but this will run into opposition from the landlords who currently receive €500,000,000 per annum in rent allowance payments so it is more likely that most will be kept vacant.

Its not yet certain whether they will get away with this but most developers have taken stock off the market in the last two months in anticipation of the leasing bonanza. Another option would be for NAMA to hoard the properties in areas where there is demand for a few years. 

The government is also in discussions with banks in which they have influence in relation to a ban on mortgages of less than €175,000. BOI has already adopted this policy. 

*Frontline *

Pat Kenny :Minister, We've been talkin about your plan. We still don't know what your plan is. What is your plan.
Minister for Housing: Well at the moment, em, uh, on my desk in the custom house we have returns in from all of the local authorities of Ireland to say that there are 56000 people on lists, eh...
PK: Yeah but whats your plan? We've heard that earlier. Whats your plan?
TD: My plan is that we avail of the opportunity thats there at the moment, eh, to long term lease many of these houses that are available in the different towns and villages right around this country and including the city of Dublin. and...
PK: So, you're going to lease these from the developers..
TD: from developers, ah, ah, ah, or from the banks, or through NAMA which we are in discussions with aswell. And eh, they will be leased....
PK: But NAMA has got to be independent. It can't be at the whim of politicians. NAMA will make decisions on the 6 options outlined depending on whether they're truely commercial decisions. They are not going to be listening to you, telling them to lease from developers that they might choose to force into bankruptcy ..
TD: They are listening to me because I am in discussions with NAMA on the basis of a social dividend for the excess houses that are there. 
PK: I don't think thats part of NAMAs brief is it.
TD: Well it is, because I am in discussions on it, with them on it, eh...
PK: Constantine, you're smiling at this...
CG: I certainly wish that Angela Merkel and the rest of the EU is listening to this because the whole sham has now been exposed right there in terms of NAMA.


----------



## Complainer (30 Jan 2010)

monore said:


> The government does not have the money at the moment to buy enough properties to make a difference. However they are looking at other ways of reducing supply of properties in areas where there is a demand for housing
> 
> The current proposal is for the taxpayer to lease properties from developers for 10 years. They will be maintained by the local authorities and at the end of the lease period handed back to the developers in good condition. This will have the benefit of providing cash flow to developers from the taxpayer and income to Nama.


The 'income to NAMA' arguement is (as I guess you are aware) nonsense, as it is simply moving money around from one arm of the state (local authorities) to another arm (NAMA).


----------



## Firefly (1 Feb 2010)

monore said:


> The government does not have the money at the moment to buy enough properties to make a difference. However they are looking at other ways of reducing supply of properties in areas where there is a demand for housing
> 
> _Why would anyone reduce supply of anything where there is a demand?_
> 
> ...


----------



## monore (2 Feb 2010)

The current proposal is for the taxpayer to lease properties from developers for 10 years. They will be maintained by the local authorities and at the end of the lease period handed back to the developers in good condition. This will have the benefit of providing cash flow to developers from the taxpayer and income to Nama. 
 
_Can you please provide the link to this proposal?_


http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/SocialHousingSupport/LeasingArrangments/
_"The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government has established a new leasing initiative.
The main features of the new arrangements are as follows:
Local authorities will enter into lease arrangements with property owners for periods of between 10 – 20 years; 
 Properties will be tenanted, managed and maintained by the local authority; 
Rent will be guaranteed for the whole lease period."_



_Can you please provide a link to this rent allowance that landlords are receiving?_

http://www.irishexaminer.com/archiv...the-right-direction-107532.html#ixzz0eOgMsEU8
_"The rent allowance scheme, costing almost €500m appears out of control.....  Landlords ......need to have reduced exchequer subventions."_

​ 
Another option would be for NAMA to hoard the properties in areas where there is demand for a few years. 

_Again, why would anyone reduce supply of anything where there is a demand?_
 
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mystery-of-ghost-flats-2041211.html
_" maybe they prefer to let properties lie empty in the hope that both NAMA and the unfortunate public will dish out big money for unsold houses and apartments."_




The government is also in discussions with banks in which they have influence in relation to a ban on mortgages of less than €175,000. BOI has already adopted this policy. 

_Again, can you please provide a valid link to this?_

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2009/nov/01/first-time-buyers-offered-loans-but-theres-a-catch/
_"Bank of Ireland ..... is operating a controversial "minimum property value" of €175,000 for mortgages.........which critics claim is a blatant attempt to "artificially inflate" the market by inhibiting lending on properties worth less than this sum. "
_ 
"They may make an exception,"...... "But the guidelines do say €175,000. " According to a spokeswoman for BoI, there is "no reason" why its minimum property values would inhibit prospective purchasers from buying homes in the current market. "The primary criteria that Bank of Ireland uses to assess a mortgage application is the customer's ability to repay the loan," she said.  "We feel our lending policy is prudently placed ."


----------



## Firefly (2 Feb 2010)

Thanks for all of those links Monore, interesting reading.


----------



## csirl (3 Feb 2010)

> not counting those that are fully built but partly unoccupied:
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991149.ece
> 
> ...


There may be other reasons why Belmayne is not sold - while I dont think the Belmayne estate itself is affected, some developments in Clongriffen have the pyrite problem. This has put a lot of people off buying in the area.


----------



## csirl (3 Feb 2010)

One thing that I've noticed in the media discussions about ghost estates is the discrepencies between the occupancy levels and number of houses the developers say they have sold. 

Typically the residents will say something along the lines of "only 25% of the houses are occupied". And the developer will say "75% of the houses have been sold". Quite a large gap between the two.

Am I missing something here, but isnt the explanation very obvious? Isnt the 50% gap made up of those houses that individuals and investment consortia bought to rent out or flip? Just because a house is unoccupied, it doesnt mean it hasnt been sold. We all know some colleagues or friends who have bought houses or apartments in new estates for investment purposes, but cant get tenants to rent them.


----------

