# 'Ghost Estates'; what to do with them?



## Welfarite (22 Oct 2010)

So what suggestions are out there about what to do with these unoccupied houses? The more imaginative the better!


----------



## tiger (22 Oct 2010)

How about we do nothing?
Why throw good money after bad?


----------



## callybags (22 Oct 2010)

Who you gonna call....


----------



## truthseeker (22 Oct 2010)

Build a swimming pool in each ghost estate and rent out the properties as holiday homes. 

Let the councillers stay in them on junkets and cook their own brekkie instead of tax payers footing hotel bills. They can bring their own booze too to cut down on expenses.

Flog them to some religious cult who needs to keep all their disciples in one place to keep and eye on them.

Put bars on the windows and doors with locks on the outside only and throw the entire government into them like luxury jail cells.


----------



## Chris (22 Oct 2010)

Put all of them to auction with no reserve. People with their own money in the property are more likely to maintain the properties.


----------



## Pique318 (22 Oct 2010)

Fence 'em off, dump the scumbags in there and re-enact Battle Royale !


----------



## BOXtheFOX (22 Oct 2010)

chris said:


> put all of them to auction with no reserve. People with their own money in the property are more likely to maintain the properties.


 
+1


----------



## Leper (22 Oct 2010)

Hand them over to the Israeli and American armies for training in anti-terrorism techniques.


----------



## csirl (22 Oct 2010)

Leper said:


> Hand them over to the Israeli and American armies for training in anti-terrorism techniques.


 
Allow foreign armies to use them for aerial bombing practice - for a fee of course!!


----------



## dmos87 (22 Oct 2010)

Chris said:


> Put all of them to auction with no reserve. People with their own money in the property are more likely to maintain the properties.


 
+1 for me also, excellent idea.


----------



## DerKaiser (22 Oct 2010)

dmos87 said:


> +1 for me also, excellent idea.


 
Same here.  Why knock them down if someone might buy them for €50k or €20k or whatever.

If you could buy a 2nd home down the country in Longford or somewhere for €150pm over 30 years you might get people tempted.


----------



## shanegl (22 Oct 2010)

Hold on to them for as long as possible in the vain hope that one day they will be worth what we paid for them. Do not sell them for fear of revealing the true market price, try and prop up that market! Meanwhile load more debt and interest repayments on the tax payer safe in the knowledge you won't actually be around to clean up the mess when it hits the fan.


----------



## Complainer (22 Oct 2010)

Chris said:


> Put all of them to auction with no reserve. People with their own money in the property are more likely to maintain the properties.



I'm really not sure that this would work at all, given the mess that these estates are in. Many of the estates are half finished, with the builder gone bust. There may be no management company, or if there is, it is controlled by a receiver.

Any individual buying into the estate would be buying into a legal quagmire for the next decade or so. 

The only way I could see this working would be if the estate was sold as a whole, and prospective buyers could price in the costs of works outstanding. Though I'm still not sure if these estates would have any positive value on this basis.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (23 Oct 2010)

From the Belfast Telegraph.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...200000--on-market-for-euro11700-14983916.html
Donegal flats worth '€200,000'  on market for €11,700
​


----------



## Complainer (23 Oct 2010)

Perhaps I spoke too soon. I guess that it is positive to see these estates moving forward, but this obviously going to create further inequality. Those who have the resources are able to pick up bargains when the market is very low, while those who could actually afford the unit cost of a single apartment/house can't afford the risk that comes with it in this case.


----------



## Chris (26 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> I'm really not sure that this would work at all, given the mess that these estates are in. Many of the estates are half finished, with the builder gone bust. There may be no management company, or if there is, it is controlled by a receiver.
> 
> Any individual buying into the estate would be buying into a legal quagmire for the next decade or so.
> 
> The only way I could see this working would be if the estate was sold as a whole, and prospective buyers could price in the costs of works outstanding. Though I'm still not sure if these estates would have any positive value on this basis.



Yes indeed, It wouldn't be simple, but there is a market clearing price for everything. You paint the ideal situation with someone coming in and buying up an entire unfinished estate, completing it to a sellable standard and then selling it on. At the end of the day, anything is better than letting them sit idle or knocking them down.



Complainer said:


> Perhaps I spoke too soon. I guess that it is positive to see these estates moving forward, but this obviously going to create further inequality. Those who have the resources are able to pick up bargains when the market is very low, while those who could actually afford the unit cost of a single apartment/house can't afford the risk that comes with it in this case.



But someone with the resources and willingness to take on the risk of buying up these houses would be doing every other potential buyer a favour. If they take on the risk, and are able to finish off the houses and then sell them on to someone who was not in the position to take on the risk, then that latter person will be better off than if nobody had taken on the risk.


----------



## terrontress (27 Oct 2010)

If they were to go for fractions of the cost of a similar house in the same locality, the local house prices would hit the skids.

It is probably in the best interests of the banks and the government to have them decay to ruin than to be used to make a family home.

Depressing but true.


----------



## micmclo (27 Oct 2010)

Hire them out to airsoft and paintball groups.

Perfect for urban warfare training


----------



## cork (27 Oct 2010)

Investigate the  local authorities that gave planning permission for these.

Find out who was responsible and sack them.


----------



## Complainer (27 Oct 2010)

cork said:


> Investigate the  local authorities that gave planning permission for these.
> 
> Find out who was responsible and sack them.


You'll have to look a bit deeper. Most of them went to An Bord Pleanala - so maybe you should be sacking the Govt appointed members of ABP?


----------



## Howitzer (27 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> You'll have to look a bit deeper. Most of them went to An Bord Pleanala - so maybe you should be sacking the Govt appointed members of ABP?


Everyone's to blame so no-one's to blame?


----------



## Complainer (27 Oct 2010)

Howitzer said:


> Everyone's to blame so no-one's to blame?


That's a bit of a big jump there. How did you get from my identifying a specific group of 12 people to 'no-one's to blame'?


----------



## Howitzer (27 Oct 2010)

Each LA has a Planning Dept but they're not to blame as the Councillors made the ultimate decisions, but they're not to blame as An Bord Pleanala oversaw many of the decisions. But they're not to blame as it was all Lehman's fault.


----------



## cork (27 Oct 2010)

Howard Jones had a song "no-one is to blame"

How right he was.


----------



## Complainer (27 Oct 2010)

Howitzer said:


> Each LA has a Planning Dept but they're not to blame as the Councillors made the ultimate decisions, but they're not to blame as An Bord Pleanala oversaw many of the decisions. But they're not to blame as it was all Lehman's fault.


Councillors have no role in planning applications.

To be honest, it seems to be yourself that is peddling the 'no-one is to blame' line, not me. I'm putting responsibility clearly on the 12 individuals that had direct personal decision making responsibility on a large number of these developments. I'm not sure why you're trying to divert this responsbility.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Oct 2010)

Complainer said:


> Councillors have no role in planning applications.
> .


 
They may have no role in planning applications, but surely they have some responsibility given their role in zoning land in the first place?

Agree though that they are not solely to blame. 

As for what we do with ghost estates, priority should firstly to make those semi complete before someone(probably a child) get's killed. Given the state of some of them, I fear that is only a matter of time.

Others should be bulldozed, especially if there is no realistic prospect of the houses/appartments ever being sold. Once bulldozed, the land should be rezoned back to agricultural and sold. At least we'd get some money back.

harsh reality is that more houses were built then the population actually required


----------



## tiger (27 Oct 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Others should be bulldozed, especially if there is no realistic prospect of the houses/appartments ever being sold. Once bulldozed, the land should be rezoned back to agricultural and sold. At least we'd get some money back.


What if it costs more to demolish & revert back to the land, than the land is worth as agricultural land?


----------



## circle (27 Oct 2010)

- Give houses for free to people who bought into estates that are riddled with pyrite and knock the Pyrite estates. These are the people who I feel were dealt the worst hand in the property boom/bust, seems ridiculous that they are living in houses that are falling down while fine houses are empty.

- Offer a '2 for the price of one' deal to people who have already bought a house in these estates - they could take over the second house in a semi and knock them together.


----------



## Mpsox (27 Oct 2010)

tiger said:


> What if it costs more to demolish & revert back to the land, than the land is worth as agricultural land?


 
so be it, it's better then having towns and village surrounded by war-zones. Plus it would remove some of the overhand that exists in the property market


----------



## silverwake (28 Oct 2010)

circle said:


> - Give houses for free to people who bought into estates that are riddled with pyrite and knock the Pyrite estates. These are the people who I feel were dealt the worst hand in the property boom/bust, seems ridiculous that they are living in houses that are falling down while fine houses are empty.
> 
> - Offer a '2 for the price of one' deal to people who have already bought a house in these estates - they could take over the second house in a semi and knock them together.



Totally agree... I want mine now!


----------



## Yachtie (29 Oct 2010)

Councils should throw money into finishing those estates and housing those on housing lists (or whatever it's called) instead of paying exorbitant rents to private landlords. It would save a fortune to the state, lower the rents and by default prevent another housing boom all in the long run.


----------



## Complainer (31 Oct 2010)

Chris said:


> Yes indeed, It wouldn't be simple, but there is a market clearing price for everything. You paint the ideal situation with someone coming in and buying up an entire unfinished estate, completing it to a sellable standard and then selling it on. At the end of the day, anything is better than letting them sit idle or knocking them down.
> 
> 
> 
> But someone with the resources and willingness to take on the risk of buying up these houses would be doing every other potential buyer a favour. If they take on the risk, and are able to finish off the houses and then sell them on to someone who was not in the position to take on the risk, then that latter person will be better off than if nobody had taken on the risk.



I wonder if there would be a way to do this on a non-profit basis by housing associations or maybe even local authorities? You need a large buyer to take on the risk of buying 20 or 50 units, and then selling or renting them one by one.


----------



## Chris (1 Nov 2010)

Complainer said:


> I wonder if there would be a way to do this on a non-profit basis by housing associations or maybe even local authorities? You need a large buyer to take on the risk of buying 20 or 50 units, and then selling or renting them one by one.



Given the government's hand in fueling the property bubble I would not welcome any attempt by this, or any other government, to start interfering in the property market again. The best bet would be to run a trial auction of one of the unfinished estates with no reserve.


----------



## joe sod (4 Nov 2010)

*demolish and consolidate*

Many of these estates in longford and leitrim etc only had a market at the top of the celtic tiger boom and will never be desirable. these estates should be consolidated. In other words decide which ones have the best potential and allow people to locate to these ones. People should be moved out of the least desirable ones and given a choice of other ones to locate to. By doing this you would at least be fully occupying estates which would make them desirable. However widespread demolition has to be part of the solution, in other words fully demolitioning estates and ripping up the roads and foundations. These should not be used for social housing because you will end up with hundreds of ghettos like moyross all over the country. The country has to face up to its folly and confront it. By demoliting estates housing stock would be removed from the market and it would start the property market moving again


----------



## Chris (5 Nov 2010)

joe sod said:


> Many of these estates in longford and leitrim etc only had a market at the top of the celtic tiger boom and will never be desirable. these estates should be consolidated. In other words decide which ones have the best potential and allow people to locate to these ones. People should be moved out of the least desirable ones and given a choice of other ones to locate to. By doing this you would at least be fully occupying estates which would make them desirable. However widespread demolition has to be part of the solution, in other words fully demolitioning estates and ripping up the roads and foundations. These should not be used for social housing because you will end up with hundreds of ghettos like moyross all over the country. The country has to face up to its folly and confront it. By demoliting estates housing stock would be removed from the market and it would start the property market moving again



This is the last thing this country needs, interfering with the proprty market caused this mess. The property market will start moving naturally when the bottom is hit, and the sooner that happens the better.
Why would you trust the decisions of politically motivated people to correctly choose which estates should or should not exist. Why not let the public decide by putting the houses to auction. The government has caused enough damage as it is.


----------



## tiger (5 Nov 2010)

I tend to agree with Chris, but I find more & more I'm agreeing with people like David McWilliams when they talk about debt forgivness and such like.

At the end of the day, I believe we live in a society first and an economy second.
With the current approach we risk "seriously damaging" some sectors of society, which will have a knock on effect for the rest of us.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2010)

tiger said:


> At the end of the day, I believe we live in a society first and an economy second.


Clearly we don't though. But Ireland isn't unique in this regard. Look at the US where Obama is fairing badly. Most people say he can only win a second term if he sorts out the economy. This is how Clinton won his second term. 
I was talking with a South African friend last night who says he regularly experiences racism here, with people asking is he Polish, and then telling him he's here taking people's jobs. When we had full employment this scenario was less likely. 
The riots in Greece are a result of budget cuts. The army are undergoing riot training here because of budget cuts. Remove the economy, and what sort of a society have we?
I'd like to believe we live in a society first, but I see no evidence of it.


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2010)

shnaek said:


> I'd like to believe we live in a society first, but I see no evidence of it.



The economy and society are part of the same thing. The living standards of the people are determined by economic activity. The state engages in a level of social engineering by taxing and re-distributing some of the peoples wealth and paying for infrastructure and services. Everyone agrees that this is desirable, the disagreement is about what level of wealth redistribution is desirable. Therefore society is dependent on the economy and vice-versa.


----------



## shnaek (5 Nov 2010)

Purple said:


> The economy and society are part of the same thing. The living standards of the people are determined by economic activity. The state engages in a level of social engineering by taxing and re-distributing some of the peoples wealth and paying for infrastructure and services. Everyone agrees that this is desirable, the disagreement is about what level of wealth redistribution is desirable. Therefore society is dependent on the economy and vice-versa.



I agree with all that - but the previous poster believed we lived in a society -first- and and economy -second-, but in reality it is the other way around. Society breaks down when the economy breaks down. And the reason for this? Our cultures emphasis on rights without emphasis on responsibility. Because no matter what state a country is in, no matter whether we are at war or at peace, boom or bust, we all have responsibilities as individuals. This is the basis of society, but without the foundation of responsibility there is no society. And that's my philosophising done for the morning!


----------

