Everyone's to blame so no-one's to blame?
'Ghost Estates'; what to do with them?
- Thread starter Welfarite
- Start date
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
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'?
Complainer
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
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.
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
What if it costs more to demolish & revert back to the land, than the land is worth as agricultural land?
- 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.
- 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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 98
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,949
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!