Nama to ‘resolve’ remaining ghost estates by end of 2017


Nama to ‘resolve’ remaining ghost estates by end of 2017 - Ciarán Hancock -> … -1.2926635

#2 … 8?mode=amp

What I don’t understand is that wouldn’t a developer be required to have insurance or lodge a bond with his bank in the event that if he goes under, the development would be finished to a decent standard?


I’ve seen fully finished houses in ghost estates get striped of windows, doors, fittings etc in the years after. I amazed actually more didn’t get torched by bored local kids.


No, I don’t have proof of the following but it does seem to be the case based on two local examples that I am familiar with.

  1. We know from the Mahon Tribunal of the close connections that exist(ed) between County Councillors as well as Executives.
  2. We know from development levies that money was generally meant to be provided to cover future site dependent development costs.
  3. Well, roll on the Financial crisis and what arises is that the Banks get enabled to have special protection provided at the cost to the state and taxpayer.
  4. To rub it in, it turns out that many of these “housing estates” were being mainly financed by the Banks and that the money item No. 2 above was in the form of Banking Bonds or guarantees.
  5. The Councils get complaints from residents who if well enough connected and empowered enable the making of fencing in of the estates or closing off from access or tidying up of critical issues. But the proviso was that generally THE BONDS WERE NOT TO BE CASHED IN.
  6. If they were cashed in by the county councils/local authorities/city councils then arrangements would be made to ensure that a message got delivered to said council about their future central government subventions.

It was all agreed by the powers that be, the untouchables.


#5 … -1.3181498