Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

State competing against First Time Buyers

«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 782 ✭✭✭Dolbhad


    Wow that is very surprising. I don’t understand why the government won’t built. They have the land and surely, as the article points out, they are market value for houses they could build cheaply. I grow up in a council house and they knew how to build them in the 80’s!

    Really shows they don’t care about those getting up to work and pay taxes.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think the new maternity hospital shows what happens when the state tries to build.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,614 ✭✭✭The Sparrow


    Dav010 wrote: »
    I think the new maternity hospital shows what happens when the state tries to build.

    Or at least when the State outsources the build completely. I actually don't know the answer to this but I suspect that we used to build our own houses in the 50s/60s or at least have more control over it. Now everything has to be a public/ private partnership.

    Which seems to be code for the public getting ripped off.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 29 Roisin76


    If the State started hiring construction workers directly you'd be complaining that the State is sucking up the workforce out of the private sector.

    Plus, as noticed above. Public investments are NEVER as efficient as private investments.

    Give it two, maybe three more years and people will be moaning about oversupply and flooding the market with ghost estates. The irony of the cyclical Green Island.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,435 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Roisin76 wrote:
    Plus, as noticed above. Public investments are NEVER as efficient as private investments.


    Is there really truth to this, or have we been bamboozled by all this 'market efficiency' stuff?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 29 Roisin76


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Is there really truth to this, or have we been bamboozled by all this 'market efficiency' stuff?

    Figure why publicly traded companies with majority state stakes trade at quite significant discounts? There's a good reason for that.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,435 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Roisin76 wrote:
    Figure why publicly traded companies with majority state stakes trade at quite significant discounts? There's a good reason for that.


    Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,559 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Dolbhad wrote: »
    Wow that is very surprising. I don’t understand why the government won’t built. They have the land and surely, as the article points out, they are market value for houses they could build cheaply. I grow up in a council house and they knew how to build them in the 80’s!

    Really shows they don’t care about those getting up to work and pay taxes.

    They are looking after their pals in the CIF


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,559 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    What would be better is the state using land it owns and contracting credible builders/developers to build on it. Hand 20% or so over to the foreva home pay for nothing lot and sell the rest as affordable homes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,267 ✭✭✭Elessar


    Can you paste the full article here?

    It's not surprising. I've read reports that local councils are doing deals with REITs for guaranteed rent income if they get exclusive access to the new apartments they are buying. Now REITs are buying up houses and apartments en-mass and doing deals with developers to buy up entire complexes before they are even built. Then hand them over to the council for a guaranteed 25 year return.

    Developers are starting to see the €€€ and are swapping plans for houses (even where they have planning permission) to high density apartments. Already happening in Donabate.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 29 Roisin76


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Sorry, I'm not sure exactly what you mean?

    Stakeholders see states' involvement as a risk. Where states own controlling stakes in companies, shares usually/always trade at a lower price then they would otherwise. This is the way it is.
    If you have politicians controlling the money then all sort of bad things can happen and you may get a 'change of direction' every 4/5 years (election).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,012 ✭✭✭✭Cuddlesworth


    Dolbhad wrote: »
    Wow that is very surprising. I don’t understand why the government won’t built. They have the land and surely, as the article points out, they are market value for houses they could build cheaply. I grow up in a council house and they knew how to build them in the 80’s!

    Really shows they don’t care about those getting up to work and pay taxes.

    The main reason is they don't want council estates. Large groups of poor people reliant on social welfare leads to higher crime rates and significantly higher chances of their offspring being social welfare dependant.

    The issue here isn't that the council are purchasing homes for social welfare purposes. The issue is that the pricing in our citys has gotten so high again, that these buys are competing in price ranges that the majority of working couples can't afford. Which again, places a emphasis on lower paid workers that their efforts to improve their circumstances are wasted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,435 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Roisin76 wrote:
    Stakeholders see states' involvement as a risk. Where states own controlling stakes in companies, shares usually/always trade at a lower price then they would otherwise. This is the way it is. If you have politicians controlling the money then all sort of bad things can happen and you may get a 'change of direction' every 4/5 years (election).


    Its important to realise, stock markets poorly represent the economy of the majority, but represent the economy of the minority very well, as the majority of shares traded, are owned by the minorities, particularly the wealthy. Its also important to realise that the majority of money created in our modern monetary system, is actually created by banks in the form of loans, of which our political systems have little control over.

    There's no question there's inefficiencies in the public sector, but is the private sector all knowing and truly more efficient?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    The state isn't really competing with first time buyers.

    It's worth remembering that if the council decides to build an estate they have to contract in a building company. If a building company spends the next two years building a council estate then this takes the company & skilled tradesmen off a possible private estate. While there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen in Ireland tying them up for two years on a council estate will actually give us a net increase of council homes but also a net loss of private homes.

    Vulture funds are a much more worrying thing buying entire apartment blocks. By doing that they are putting the entire block as rentals with not a single unit being bought privately. This is keeping young people renting for longer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,082 ✭✭✭enricoh


    At least when the celtic tiger calved we had got a great road network out of it.
    When the next recession hits we will have spent all the dough on housing the cant work wont work brigade.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 29 Roisin76


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Its important to realise, stock markets poorly represent the economy of the majority, but represent the economy of the minority very well, as the majority of shares traded, are owned by the minorities, particularly the wealthy. Its also important to realise that the majority of money created in our modern monetary system, is actually created by banks in the form of loans, of which our political systems have little control over.

    There's no question there's inefficiencies in the public sector, but is the private sector all knowing and truly more efficient?

    Not touching the 'who creates money' subject as this is also a known misconception that 'banks create money by giving out loans'.

    Private sector is not all knowing, but in general more efficient. This is rather widely accepted belief in the financial/economy world. States may mess up even the best running businesses.

    One example would be Irish banks and State's limits on management pay. Populist and anti-market measures. Then you have political appointments (boards controlled by politicians) and decision making with no real stake in the game. It all adds up.

    Now, imagine a company which has a defined strategy and let's say runs smoothly. The election shifts political forces, board members are being swapped, management replaced, goals scrapped, the strategy shift. Efficient companies can't be run like that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 29 Roisin76


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The state isn't really competing with first time buyers.

    It's worth remembering that if the council decides to build an estate they have to contract in a building company. If a building company spends the next two years building a council estate then this takes the company & skilled tradesmen off a possible private estate. While there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen in Ireland tying them up for two years on a council estate will actually give us a net increase of council homes but also a net loss of private homes.

    Vulture funds are a much more worrying thing buying entire apartment blocks. By doing that they are putting the entire block as rentals with not a single unit being bought privately. This is keeping young people renting for longer.

    Fully agree with the first part.
    Don't agree with the second.

    Nothing wrong with young people renting. I'd argue young people should be renting until a point when they settle down / have family, stable job location.
    No point buying if you move from place to place, change jobs or live an active city life.

    The problem is not that young people can't buy houses. The issue is with rental availability and costs. If rents were cheap nobody would be pressured to buy as soon as possible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Or at least when the State outsources the build completely. I actually don't know the answer to this but I suspect that we used to build our own houses in the 50s/60s or at least have more control over it. Now everything has to be a public/ private partnership.

    Which seems to be code for the public getting ripped off.

    Everything was cheaper back then.

    Building regs nowadays are much stricter.

    The only way to stop this nonsense is to stop handing houses to people who declare themselves homeless.

    I guarantee within a year you will have no homeless people and houses will go to people who deserve them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Roisin76 wrote:
    Nothing wrong with young people renting. I'd argue young people should be renting until a point when they settle down / have family, stable job location. No point buying if you move from place to place, change jobs or live an active city life.

    I don't have a problem with anyone renting. I rented an apartment myself nearly 30 years ago.

    What I was trying to explain was a very worrying trend. When a development is planned it is assumed that a certain percentage will be buy to let & some owner occupier. I'd be lying if I said that I knew the percentage but I'd hazard a guess that planners would expect a minimum of 20 percent to be owner occupied. Vulture funds are buying the entire development off the plans. This is taking homes city planners had expected to be owner occupied & making them rentals. It's a very new problem but its forcing young couples who want to buy an apartment to rent for longer. It's artificially altering the balance of rental and private ownership.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    The state isn't really competing with first time buyers.

    It's worth remembering that if the council decides to build an estate they have to contract in a building company. If a building company spends the next two years building a council estate then this takes the company & skilled tradesmen off a possible private estate. While there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen in Ireland tying them up for two years on a council estate will actually give us a net increase of council homes but also a net loss of private homes.

    Vulture funds are a much more worrying thing buying entire apartment blocks. By doing that they are putting the entire block as rentals with not a single unit being bought privately. This is keeping young people renting for longer.
    No, the approach allows councils a way out of their own poor performance on social housing. Far more hay to be made about homelessness and the government being complicit in a GE. This will help. The rental market is also facing a massive shortage, especially in Dublin. Single landlord strategies through REITs are part of that solution. At present though it seems to be the only one.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,189 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    is_that_so wrote:
    No, the approach allows councils a way out of their own poor performance on social housing. Far more hay to be made about homelessness and the government being complicit in a GE. This will help. The rental market is also facing a massive shortage, especially in Dublin. Single landlord strategies through REITs are part of that solution. At present though it seems to be the only one.


    I'm at a loss as to why you quoted me as your reply does not relate to my original comments.

    I will point out that I don't believe that any council ever employed full time builders to build homes. Even going back as far as the 1950s it was private building companies that built council estates.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 29 Roisin76


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with anyone renting. I rented an apartment myself nearly 30 years ago.

    What I was trying to explain was a very worrying trend. When a development is planned it is assumed that a certain percentage will be buy to let & some owner occupier. I'd be lying if I said that I knew the percentage but I'd hazard a guess that planners would expect a minimum of 20 percent to be owner occupied. Vulture funds are buying the entire development off the plans. This is taking homes city planners had expected to be owner occupied & making them rentals. It's a very new problem but its forcing young couples who want to buy an apartment to rent for longer. It's artificially altering the balance of rental and private ownership.

    I think the important here is that homes are being built. Planned to be sold or rented is less relevant. Every single home built takes the pressure off the system.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,205 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    Vulture funds are buying the entire development off the plans. This is taking homes city planners had expected to be owner occupied & making them rentals. It's a very new problem but its forcing young couples who want to buy an apartment to rent for longer. It's artificially altering the balance of rental and private ownership.
    In most cases the developer would never have built in the first place without having the units pre-purchased. They're not "vulture" funds, they are funds offering money to builders to build on the land they have.

    If we want to hand out large loans to builders for speculative building and then try and sell them into the market, we'd have people moaning about this too.

    You have to wonder where supply is supposed to come from. The government is driving private landlords out of the market, we can't repossess property from people who won't pay so banks don't want to lend, we don't want build-to-rent, we don't want loans being given to developers, and councils aren't allowed to build social housing estates any more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Elessar wrote: »
    Can you paste the full article here?

    It's not surprising. I've read reports that local councils are doing deals with REITs for guaranteed rent income if they get exclusive access to the new apartments they are buying. Now REITs are buying up houses and apartments en-mass and doing deals with developers to buy up entire complexes before they are even built. Then hand them over to the council for a guaranteed 25 year return.

    Developers are starting to see the €€€ and are swapping plans for houses (even where they have planning permission) to high density apartments. Already happening in Donabate.

    Article here. This is a true banana republic that punishes work and rewards idleness.

    https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/revealed-one-in-five-newbuild-homes-is-now-being-snapped-up-by-state-38082140.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60 ✭✭skippy123!


    The whole thing on building even more social houses is completely ridiculous and unnecessary... Housing crises is not because houses are not available. It is because it is too expensive for many due to banking rules (which are placed with a reason). I am truly shocked that just because someone calls itself "homeless" is entitled to get a "free" house. And people who are killing themselves of work - need to pay of 30 years of mortgage is beyond my understanding. Definition of homeless needs to be re-evaluated and state needs to make sure that social houses are going to those that REALLY need it. If other country's have policy's that work great regarding that issue - why not just copy that from any of those country's?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭MayoSalmon


    Wanderer78 wrote:
    There's no question there's inefficiencies in the public sector, but is the private sector all knowing and truly more efficient?

    Yes..and it's not even worth the debate. Economics 101 stuff


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    lawred2 wrote: »
    What would be better is the state using land it owns and contracting credible builders/developers to build on it. Hand 20% or so over to the foreva home pay for nothing lot and sell the rest as affordable homes.

    If theyre only buying 18% of them now that means theyd be taking more house out of the private sector with your idea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,559 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    If theyre only buying 18% of them now that means theyd be taking more house out of the private sector with your idea.

    Not when the state is using its own land


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34 Wexforllion


    I know someone who spent 370k on a house.
    They are slaving every day with no spare cash only to to find their neighbors were gifted a council house. To make it worse the neighbors are loud, inconsiderate and just seem to hang around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Demoralizing.

    The truth is this Country is perfect for the rich and poor. The normal people keep the rich getting richer and keep the poor(or sometimes lazy) housed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 417 ✭✭rosmoke


    Ha, listen to this.

    Neighbours from my left paid 315k 13 years ago, in 2014 it was 70k (thank you Dublin City Council for turning it into a social housing estate), house is now worth 180k and still in negative equity. (terraced)
    Neighbour from my right got it from Council, paid 50k for it, has a brand new car and probably mortgage paid already. (semi-d)

    My neighbours don't even allow their kids to play outside, they need to take them somewhere else, if you wanna have an idea of the estate.

    And in the same time, I see people from same estate complaining on news sites about the quality of houses they stay in for free, while I pay 1800 for the same house.


    I will be looking at buying a property soon, but what guarantees me the state would not cross me over like it has happened with so many others?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭oceanman


    I know someone who spent 370k on a house.
    They are slaving every day with no spare cash only to to find their neighbors were gifted a council house. To make it worse the neighbors are loud, inconsiderate and just seem to hang around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Demoralizing.

    The truth is this Country is perfect for the rich and poor. The normal people keep the rich getting richer and keep the poor(or sometimes lazy) housed.
    why don't you join one of those groups?.....the rich or the poor.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34 Wexforllion


    oceanman wrote: »
    why don't you join one of those groups?.....the rich or the poor.

    Its not so easy to break into the rich. Its like the royal family :). If you arent born into it, to move up you need to take risks and have a lot of luck.

    I have been raised to work, I never really considered becoming a welfare bum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭oceanman


    Its not so easy to break into the rich. Its like the royal family :). If you arent born into it, to move up you need to take risks and have a lot of luck.

    I have been raised to work, I never really considered becoming a welfare bum.
    fair enough.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,513 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    I think people dont quite understand certain aspects of REITs and developers. Planning rules are different for to let construction. The developer can build more properties in this case. They can't be sold to private individuals as residents so not being taken from the market.
    Occupancy rates in rentals is higher than privately owned property.
    So REITs funding to let developments house more people and quickly. There is an increase in property to live which is what we need.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

    I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

    Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

    The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    The cost of emergency accommodation is off the scale.

    I saw a figure of 3500 to house a family for 2 weeks recently.

    That would be 364 k over 4 years.

    You could instead buy a house on the market - and if a family stays there more then 4 years - you start getting payback vs the hotel option.

    So it's a logical step.

    Presumably there is no need to tender to buy houses from the market.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,378 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Old diesel wrote: »
    The cost of emergency accommodation is off the scale.

    I saw a figure of 3500 to house a family for 2 weeks recently.

    That would be 364 k over 4 years.

    You could instead buy a house on the market - and if a family stays there more then 4 years - you start getting payback vs the hotel option.

    So it's a logical step.

    Presumably there is no need to tender to buy houses from the market.

    How exactly is hitting a free 364k house a logical step?

    The logical step is to build mass cheap council
    housing. Sell a percentage privately as affordable housing to achieve a "mix" of social and private.

    The argument against social housing is about breeding anti social behaviour. This can be dealt with by putting in place solid actions to remove / evict undesirables.

    Under no circumstances should the social housing be sold off. There should be no concept of a free 4eva home. Once a family grows up then the trending occupants should be moved to more appropriately sized accommodation to free up larger homes for needy families. But of course, this can't happen in this country full of bleeding hearts.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,513 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Old diesel wrote: »
    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

    I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

    Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

    The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.
    The problem with this view is it rewards lack of personal responsibility and punishes those who do take personal responsibility.

    Access to housing what is needed not housing to be provide for free or extremely cheap to everyone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Old diesel wrote: »
    The cost of emergency accommodation is off the scale.

    I saw a figure of 3500 to house a family for 2 weeks recently.

    That would be 364 k over 4 years.

    You could instead buy a house on the market - and if a family stays there more then 4 years - you start getting payback vs the hotel option.

    So it's a logical step.

    Presumably there is no need to tender to buy houses from the market.

    How exactly is hitting a free 364k house a logical step?

    The logical step is to build mass cheap council
    housing. Sell a percentage privately as affordable housing to achieve a "mix" of social and private.

    The argument against social housing is about breeding anti social behaviour. This can be dealt with by putting in place solid actions to remove / evict undesirables.

    Under no circumstances should the social housing be sold off. There should be no concept of a free 4eva home. Once a family grows up then the trending occupants should be moved to more appropriately sized accommodation to free up larger homes for needy families. But of course, this can't happen in this country full of bleeding hearts.

    364 k is what not buying or building *anything* costs you in emergency accommodation costs.

    Remember too - the house that's built under mass production still costs *something* to build.

    The purchase of homes cannot be the only solution of course.

    But in the short term it can get someone into a home quickly.

    At a cost that is at worst no more than 4 to 5 years emergency accomodation...

    It's not perfect but it's worthwhile if you can get houses available to people on housing lists and what not quicker...

    In an era where 1500 euros a month for glorified house shares - sorry I mean co living for small rooms are a solution to housing shortage - its not the worst idea for the State to buy some homes from the market.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    Roisin76 wrote: »
    If the State started hiring construction workers directly you'd be complaining that the State is sucking up the workforce out of the private sector.

    Plus, as noticed above. Public investments are NEVER as efficient as private investments.

    Give it two, maybe three more years and people will be moaning about oversupply and flooding the market with ghost estates. The irony of the cyclical Green Island.

    In 2012 we were being told it would take 43 years to fill all the empty properties in the country.

    https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Old diesel wrote: »
    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

    I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

    Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

    The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.
    The problem with this view is it rewards lack of personal responsibility and punishes those who do take personal responsibility.

    Access to housing what is needed not housing to be provide for free or extremely cheap to everyone.

    Access at what cost though......

    Who decides what is an acceptable price for anyone to pay for a house.

    Presunably there is also a point where the house is also too dear right?????.

    My point is that whatever about free houses - it's likely cheaper for the state to buy a house then pay a hotel - long term.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Old diesel wrote: »
    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

    I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

    Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

    The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

    This is the kind of view enabling these lazy parasites - in what sane world should someone sitting on the dole be given a 200-300k house for absolutely nothing, while everyone else has to pay through the eyeballs and work their ass off to own one?

    And I would think a first time buyer has a much bigger entitlement to a house than some freeloader, you know considering they are have saved a deposit and are willing to PAY for the house....

    This is most certainly a them vs us situation - the wasters,freeloaders and parasites who have never worked a wet day with their hands out vs the taxpayers who bust their holes going out every day to work to fund their social welfare.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    Old diesel wrote: »
    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.


    Because the state buying on the open market pushes prices up even further. They have very deep pockets so its not realistic to compete with them. You cant outbid them.

    If they overpay for 1 house in an estate then that sets a bench mark price for every house in that estate of the same type. Pushing prices up even more.

    The people who cant afford to buy or rent end up possibly falling into the homeless category (as wide as that definition seems to be these days).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 838 ✭✭✭The_Brood


    I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

    Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

    We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

    The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

    It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,901 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Dolbhad wrote: »
    Wow that is very surprising. I don’t understand why the government won’t built. They have the land and surely, as the article points out, they are market value for houses they could build cheaply. I grow up in a council house and they knew how to build them in the 80’s!

    Really shows they don’t care about those getting up to work and pay taxes.

    The state have to buy 10% for part v. Which is the requirements for social housing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    The_Brood wrote: »
    I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

    Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

    We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

    The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

    It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.

    Buy outside of dublin with your current dublin salaries. Then once you have purchased outside of dublin and your monthly repayments are much less than rent, you will be able to afford to change jobs to somewhere nearer to your house. You will have a lower salary, but at least you will have a house.

    Its a **** situation, but you cant have everything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    Old diesel wrote: »
    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

    I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

    Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

    The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

    This is the kind of view enabling these lazy parasites - in what sane world should someone sitting on the dole be given a 200-300k house for absolutely nothing, while everyone else has to pay through the eyeballs and work their ass off to own one?

    And I would think a first time buyer has a much bigger entitlement to a house than some freeloader, you know considering they are have saved a deposit and are willing to PAY for the house....

    This is most certainly a them vs us situation - the wasters,freeloaders and parasites who have never worked a wet day with their hands out vs the taxpayers who bust their holes going out every day to work to fund their social welfare.

    The first time buyer has an entitlement to buy a house.

    What they dont have an entitlement to is to stop someone else buying the house - perhaps because they offered a better price.

    The person on the housing list is allowed to access social housing because their circumstances fit the criteria.

    The state has obviously decided that in the short term some social housing can be delivered by buying homes from the market.

    Unless your solution is to stop people going into any social housing then I still don't see the problem.

    If someone gets a social house then does it matter where it came from?????.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Old diesel wrote: »
    In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

    I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

    Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

    The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

    Homeless crisis my hole.

    A tiny tiny amount of wasters have now found out why they shouldn’t have dossed in school and actually took responsibilty themselves.

    Tough you reap what you sow.

    Why is it called a homeless crisis in Ireland yet most country’s have more homeless and its never referred to as a crisis?

    Absolute scam and gravy train.

    No one should ever get a new house for 40 euro a week if they have criminal records, are too lazy to work.

    While working people get the same house and pay 1000 a month.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭The Specialist


    Old diesel wrote: »
    If someone gets a social house then does it matter where it came from?????.

    Yes it absolutely does matter when the government are buying up houses in new developments for them - as I said how can you justify a freeloader being handed a 300k house for nothing in a street full of people who worked their asses off to buy theirs?

    Go and build social housing estates for these people and give them their free houses in those estates - if they want to live in 300k house then they can get off their lazy ****ing arses and work for it like the rest of us.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 838 ✭✭✭The_Brood


    The_Brood wrote: »
    I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

    Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

    We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

    The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

    It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.

    Buy outside of dublin with your current dublin salaries. Then once you have purchased outside of dublin and your monthly repayments are much less than rent, you will be able to afford to change jobs to somewhere nearer to your house. You will have a lower salary, but at least you will have a house.

    Its a **** situation, but you cant have everything.


    If only it was that simple. It took me 4 years of applying for jobs to get the one I have now. I have looked elsewhere but this is the only available place that took me on. Outside of Dublin they rarely if ever have jobs in my line of work. I don't understand how regular Dublin salaries are not enough to be able to afford to live in Dublin itself, other than if you permanently rent, which has a very heavy consequence at the end.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement