Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Donald Trumps

Property Market Overdeveloped, Government Policy To Blame?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

You have misunderstood the whole thing. Stick to cutting lawns

Right. I can see maths is your strong point. You’ve really presented a great counter argument there, well done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

No way on this planet are there 10 % empty properties. I have been that foot soldier and seen first hand what the score is 

Then why did Govt's own original figures indicate that there were? As an enumerator did you visit every area/home in the Island in order to form and validate your opinion?

I'm in no way connected or acquainted with James but in much the same presentation of Govt's numbers as Roger M has done previously he has left a lot of questions needing to be answered. Rather than blind acceptance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are the Prom apartments never advertised as being for sale, or listed in the Newspapers property sales?

Do the land holders, Danadara mainly, have a codicil in their original sale agreement that re-sale can only be thru Dandara?, do Dandara have a 'buy back' scheme?

>If this were so, I wonder what purpose it serves?

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Why are the Prom apartments never advertised as being for sale, or listed in the Newspapers property sales?

Do the land holders, Danadara mainly, have a codicil in their original sale agreement that re-sale can only be thru Dandara?, do Dandara have a 'buy back' scheme?

>If this were so, I wonder what purpose it serves?

Cos Dandara rent them to DHSC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hissingsid said:

I cannot wait for the day these greedy landlords are left with these properties empty. What happened to the government first time buyers scheme that was great.

My now daughter in law, moved out of her very nice apartment in upper Douglas which the Government bought back from her, being part of that scheme some three or maybe four years ago. It is still empty, no idea why it was very nice and in a nice area too !

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, James Hampton said:

"And for my next trick... I will make 5000 houses disappear..."

Is it just me or is this pretty cynical even by the standards of the IOM Government?

https://www.gov.im/media/1366717/2019-08-19-vacant-property-review.pdf

Clearly it must be pretty hard to build a case for new large scale green-field development when your own data shows there are probably well over 5000 empty houses kicking about, so what to do? Have the MUA help you make them disappear of course! With no concrete reference for this methodology or assumption that I can see anywhere, this report (which has apparently been prepared predominantly to influence the Eastern Area Plan) basically asserts that any house which is using electricity must be occupied - in direct contradiction to the most basic data published in the 2016 census. Poof, just like that we have have nice headline - only 664 long term unoccupied houses. However even the most basic logic highlights some problems. Firstly the report has to admit way down on page 13 that even with the electrical massage technique...


"4.14 Under this level, properties are unlikely to have been occupied for any significant length of time, for those in the 1-49kWh and 50-99kWh brackets, or at all for those in the 0 or no meter categories. This amounts to 2,368 properties, or 42% of the matched properties..." 


So even at the base level we've crept back up to 2368 empties. Essentially an admission of the wider problem with the fundamental assumption that electrical use = occupation which is clearly absolute nonsense. Last time I checked anyway humans don't run on electricity. So, @Chris Thomas can you explain it please, because to me this looks really really bad.

From the 2016 Census Report -

"Census forms were delivered to 42,281 properties throughout the Island, in advance of Census Night on 24/25 April 2016. The number of households that should have made a census return was 35,811, and a response rate of 99.9% was achieved, with 35,763 households having responded to the census form."

Where does the 35811 households that "should have returned” figure come from (the expected figure), because this report essentially contradicts that figure with no justification other than electricity bills?

6518 difference ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2019 at 11:13 PM, dilligaf said:

Road tax is not cheaper here. Where have you been hiding ?

Road Tax on a Diesel Ford Focus in Holland is over 300 euros every 3 months. Very much cheaper here.  Good friend lives there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's cheaper to pollute the planet here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, woody2 said:

6518 difference ?

Precisely! 

There is an explanation of where the property number comes from, so seems reasonable to assume that’s frailty accurate (though it’s slightly higher than the Post Office all island residential figure for the same year). 

However there’s no explanation I can see as to where the “expected” household figure comes from - as noted I assume either electoral roll, or tax numbers and the like?

Either way, this report is saying one of those figures is significantly wrong. Which one? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a Tynwald committee of enquiry into the empty homes fiasco

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, James Hampton said:

From the 2016 Census Report -

"Census forms were delivered to 42,281 properties throughout the Island, in advance of Census Night on 24/25 April 2016. The number of households that should have made a census return was 35,811, and a response rate of 99.9% was achieved, with 35,763 households having responded to the census form."

Where does the 35811 households that "should have returned” figure come from (the expected figure), because this report essentially contradicts that figure with no justification other than electricity bills?

This was always fairly comic.  Looking at the fairly lengthy chase-up process they used for unreturned forms, this seems to based on the people in the 48 households who were clearly there but refused to fill in the Census form even after numerous visits and threats of prosecution.  Obviously anyone who just managed to evade or ignore the Census takers isn't included.  So the "should have returned" is basically those that did return the form (plus the tiny minority who were particularly obstreperous in not doing so).  Which explains why it was so high.

It also of course undermines the whole 'not really vacant' narrative.  When they're telling us how efficient they are, these properties definitely had no one living there; when they want to claim there aren't many vacant properties, they magically had people there all along (as proved by someone using some leccy two years later).  Clearly these are Schroedinger's Residents, simultaneously living there and not living there at the same time.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recently met a French lady who suddenly realised where the Isle of Man was

 

"Ah yes my sister who works in London bought an apartment there for tax reasons .... she has not been there though"

 

No doubt this is an occupied building. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NoTail said:

I recently met a French lady who suddenly realised where the Isle of Man was

 

"Ah yes my sister who works in London bought an apartment there for tax reasons .... she has not been there though"

 

No doubt this is an occupied building. 

Précisément!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 more now proposed by Hartford Homes in Farmhill Lane, Douglas. "Much needed family accommodation" (3FM News).

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

This was always fairly comic.  Looking at the fairly lengthy chase-up process they used for unreturned forms, this seems to based on the people in the 48 households who were clearly there but refused to fill in the Census form even after numerous visits and threats of prosecution.  Obviously anyone who just managed to evade or ignore the Census takers isn't included.  So the "should have returned" is basically those that did return the form (plus the tiny minority who were particularly obstreperous in not doing so).  Which explains why it was so high.

It also of course undermines the whole 'not really vacant' narrative.  When they're telling us how efficient they are, these properties definitely had no one living there; when they want to claim there aren't many vacant properties, they magically had people there all along (as proved by someone using some leccy two years later).  Clearly these are Schroedinger's Residents, simultaneously living there and not living there at the same time.

Thanks for that Roger. I’ve used the link over on the PAG FB to see if Mr T can clarify the expected figure. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...