Next governments affect on housing market

handlemaster

Looking like SF will be having a big say in the next government. The people have spoken like it or not. What affects on the housing market will we see ? I assume alot of landlords will be looking at selling with a full socialist manifest looming.

The Student

handlemaster wrote: »

Looking like SF will be having a big say in the next government. The people have spoken like it or not. What affects on the housing market will we see ? I assume alot of landlords will be looking at selling with a full socialist manifest looming.

Personally I see a tax credit for tenants. Non tax compliant landlords will leave. SF want indefinite tenancies where you can't evict for reason of selling or for own use. They want to enshrine the right to housing in the Constitution.

I would expect the tax credit and selling with tenants in situ will happen, not sure about the using property for own use. How would it be fair if the tenant had greater rights under the Constitution than the landlord or one of his family.

VonBeanie

I really hope SF deliver more social housing, cheaper rents, cheaper purchase prices and everything that got them the support they received. I believe more interference will only make things worse - but I hope I'm wrong.

PommieBast

handlemaster wrote: »

I assume alot of landlords will be looking at selling with a full socialist manifest looming.

I think any landlord who would sell up based on SF's manifesto has already made that decision long ago.

handlemaster

VonBeanie wrote: »

I really hope SF deliver more social housing, cheaper rents, cheaper purchase prices and everything that got them the support they received. I believe more interference will only make things worse - but I hope I'm wring.

At what cost. Will SF provide all social housing if they run with all they have been saying the day of the private landlord will be coming to a close.

The Student

VonBeanie wrote: »

I really hope SF deliver more social housing, cheaper rents, cheaper purchase prices and everything that got them the support they received. I believe more interference will only make things worse - but I hope I'm wring.

I expect the housing situation to get worse rather than any better. We don't have the funds to take debt on the States books.

Unless we get a change in our bail out terms how will we pay for these properties.

I fear that we have not learned the lessons of the past and if we build vast amounts of social housing we will end up the same issues we had in Tallaght, Ballymun, Limerick from the 1980's onwards those that became no go area's where people did not want to live.

beggars_bush

Well, there isn't going to be any large amount of houses built for 3+ years - planning, land issues, financing

we don't have the manpower to build loads of new houses

handlemaster

beggars_bush wrote: »

Well, there isn't going to be any large amount of houses built for 3+ years - planning, land issues, financing

we don't have the manpower to build loads of new houses

You could be right. .. so a roll back on SF promises... surely not ..

The Student

beggars_bush wrote: »

Well, there isn't going to be any large amount of houses built for 3+ years - planning, land issues, financing

we don't have the manpower to build loads of new houses

Yeah I would totally agree with you on this what you might see is the sale of valuable state land in the city used to finance the build costs of properties outside the city but still in Dublin.

I do think the biggest issue is the manpower, we just don't have it. I do recall Mary Lou being asked by Miriam O'Callaghan on one of the leaders debates how would SF build the houses they were promising and she could not answer.

I do think there will be some roll back on this part of their manifesto.

beggars_bush

The Student wrote: »

Yeah I would totally agree with you on this what you might see is the sale of valuable state land in the city used to finance the build costs of properties outside the city but still in Dublin.

I do think the biggest issue is the manpower, we just don't have it. I do recall Mary Lou being asked by Miriam O'Callaghan on one of the leaders debates how would SF build the houses they were promising and she could not answer.

I do think there will be some roll back on this part of their manifesto.

builders aren't going to want the work from the state, when they won't make a profit on it due to the inflation on building costs.
and you cannot get a tradesman down the country for love nor money.

I'm very sceptical about any promises for large scale building of houses. Will the quality suffer? then they'll have to reduce building standards to lower the cost.

endacl

I hope SF don’t cock things up so much that they’re uncockable once the electorate realise they were never suitable for government and send them back to sniping (pun intended) from the sidelines.

Ray Palmer

Never forget SF were very present in local councils. The councils that took payout rather than provide 10% of the housing being built. They then proceeded to not build the housing with the money they had.

Once they do get in power they will find all the reasons they can't do what they proposed due existing laws.

dubrov

beggars_bush wrote:

builders aren't going to want the work from the state, when they won't make a profit on it due to the inflation on building costs. and you cannot get a tradesman down the country for love nor money.

Yes they will. They will just price their profit into the jobs.

Based on other recent government schemes, the final cost will be triple whatever the original estimates were

Assetbacked

Whatever level of influence SF has in the next government, it is abundantly clear that the current housing situation (compounded by the last 9 years) is toxic and needs to change. The electorate have made it certain.

handlemaster

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Never forget SF were very present in local councils. The councils that took payout rather than provide 10% of the housing being built. They then proceeded to not build the housing with the money they had.

Once they do get in power they will find all the reasons they can't do what they proposed due existing laws.[/quote


Interesting.. they had alot off council power.. I think they lost it... but not 100% sure

TheBoyConor

Manpower is no issue. We can just do what they do in London and what we previously did in the boom. Hire in polish plumbers and romanian blocklayers who don't know one end of a brick from the other, all supervised by some midlands farmer's son who did a diploma in construction management and "sure, lash it up, it'll be grand, the painter will fix it" mentality. All fuelled by breakfast rolls.

Assetbacked

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Manpower is no issue. We can just do what they do in London and what we previously did in the boom. Hire in polish plumbers and romanian blocklayers who don't know one end of a brick from the other, all supervised by some midlands farmer's son who did a diploma in construction management and "sure, lash it up, it'll be grand, the painter will fix it" mentality. All fuelled by breakfast rolls.

Why would we do it this way?

The Student

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Manpower is no issue. We can just do what they do in London and what we previously did in the boom. Hire in polish plumbers and romanian blocklayers who don't know one end of a brick from the other, all supervised by some midlands farmer's son who did a diploma in construction management and "sure, lash it up, it'll be grand, the painter will fix it" mentality. All fuelled by breakfast rolls.

Which is what I fear will happen, sure Priory Hall was built by a friend of SF? I am sure he can help build!

TheBoyConor

Assetbacked wrote: »

Why would we do it this way?

Because we are Ireland. That is just what would end up happening.

Ray Palmer

Assetbacked wrote: »

Whatever level of influence SF has in the next government, it is abundantly clear that the current housing situation (compounded by the last 9 years) is toxic and needs to change. The electorate have made it certain.

No the electorate have not made it certain. Whom ever gets into power will have to do something. They can promise all they like but once reality comes along they have to deal with that. Legal challenges to some of their proposal already exist. They can't just change the employment of the civil servants. Most importantly they have to figure out how to pay for their promises.

It can all very easily stay the same or get worse if they don't know what they are doing. Their proposals make it clear SF do not understand economics or they are lying knowing they can't deliver.

Assetbacked

Ray Palmer wrote: »

No the electorate have not made it certain. Whom ever gets into power will have to do something. They can promise all they like but once reality comes along they have to deal with that. Legal challenges to some of their proposal already exist. They can't just change the employment of the civil servants. Most importantly they have to figure out how to pay for their promises.

It can all very easily stay the same or get worse if they don't know what they are doing. Their proposals make it clear SF do not understand economics or they are lying knowing they can't deliver.

This is pure conjecture. With FG and FF and their promises, at least we have evidence that they can't improve the housing situation. FF destroyed the economy and FG have sat on their hands for the past 9 years with the housing issue in particular. The electorate have lifted SF from the third largest party to potentially the largest party in just 4 years. The wider story is the fact that FF and FG have only ever been the parties in power in some form. This is a clear message that the housing market needs strong political intervention.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Because we are Ireland. That is just what would end up happening.

With FF that is what happened 15/20 years ago.

At best what will be built will be whatever the current government have planned/promised.

Claw Hammer

The housing situation has turned around. Rents are now falling, the homeless numbers are dropping and house prices are leveling off. The next government will claim credit for the work done by the last one. The banks are still on life support and no government will be allowed to crash the housing market.

Ray Palmer

Assetbacked wrote: »

This is pure conjecture. With FG and FF and their promises, at least we have evidence that they can't improve the housing situation. FF destroyed the economy and FG have sat on their hands for the past 9 years with the housing issue in particular. The electorate have lifted SF from the third largest party to potentially the largest party in just 4 years. The wider story is the fact that FF and FG have only ever been the parties in power in some form. This is a clear message that the housing market needs strong political intervention.



With FF that is what happened 15/20 years ago.

Not really. They propose a rent freeze as a way to help existing tenants. This goes against the known way to get investment into the sector and is known it will reduce investment. How they propose to pay for new housing without private investment has never been answered. They effectively never had a plan and just told the people what they wanted. They are either hiding some amazing genius plan, don't have a real or know they can't deliver.

Of those 3 which do you think is likely? It is amazingly optimism to think they have a secret genius plan that they never spoke about.

A strong political intervention doesn't mean a good outcome if it isn't stable and thought out. You also ignore the will of the people. The public laughed when they were told there was an impending housing crisis and claimed FF/FG were trying to line their developer friends pockets. That was a more popular opinion than the reality of a housing crisis. People just vote in a party that made this claim. Do you think SF are going to override the public to do the right thing or stay with their populist promises knowing it is a disaster? They will want to stay in power and act like the other parties.

Assetbacked

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Not really. They propose a rent freeze as a way to help existing tenants. This goes against the known way to get investment into the sector and is known it will reduce investment. How they propose to pay for new housing without private investment has never been answered. They effectively never had a plan and just told the people what they wanted. They are either hiding some amazing genius plan, don't have a real or know they can't deliver.

Of those 3 which do you think is likely? It is amazingly optimism to think they have a secret genius plan that they never spoke about.

A strong political intervention doesn't mean a good outcome if it isn't stable and thought out. You also ignore the will of the people. The public laughed when they were told there was an impending housing crisis and claimed FF/FG were trying to line their developer friends pockets. That was a more popular opinion than the reality of a housing crisis. People just vote in a party that made this claim. Do you think SF are going to override the public to do the right thing or stay with their populist promises knowing it is a disaster? They will want to stay in power and act like the other parties.

The fiscal policy of SF involves spending more than the other parties but is apparently conservative in terms of EU fiscal rules.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sinn-fein-celebrates-with-ira-songs-but-voters-focus-on-pledges/ar-BBZOt8d

It is constantly and lazily trotted out that SF's figures don't add up but I can't find hard evidence that they don't.

Peter File

The Student wrote: »

Personally I see a tax credit for tenants. Non tax compliant landlords will leave. SF want indefinite tenancies where you can't evict for reason of selling or for own use. They want to enshrine the right to housing in the Constitution.

I would expect the tax credit and selling with tenants in situ will happen, not sure about the using property for own use. How would it be fair if the tenant had greater rights under the Constitution than the landlord or one of his family.

Banks don't give mortgages with tenants in situ. This is not going to change.

Ray Palmer

Assetbacked wrote: »

The fiscal policy of SF involves spending more than the other parties but is apparently conservative in terms of EU fiscal rules.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sinn-fein-celebrates-with-ira-songs-but-voters-focus-on-pledges/ar-BBZOt8d

It is constantly and lazily trotted out that SF's figures don't add up but I can't find hard evidence that they don't.

They have not stated where they will get their money to fund their ideas. Explain how they expect money to be privately invested in the rental market when they are going to punish those that have? Do you think landlords are going to just accept it? I already sold one property and had plans to sell one more now I think I will sell them all. That is the reality they will create. Explain how that increases rental properties. They can't build property quickly enough to replace just what I am taking of the market in a few months let alone in a year

l5auim2pjnt8qx

The Student wrote: »

Which is what I fear will happen, sure Priory Hall was built by a friend of SF? I am sure he can help build!

How many developments were build by friends of FF which are fire pits and how many developers that who engaged in dodgy planning back in the Celtic tiger years were cushioned by Nama and are now buying their
developments back and selling them to foreign investors for hundreds of millions under FG watch,

Isn't it true that FG/FF were once a part of SF before they all split, isn't it true in Building circles that back in the boom some contractors repeatedly took building materials/ used for insulation and fire protection out of the inner walls after the foremen would do a daily check and would seal up to wall hence the insulation & fire problems which are appearing weekly in apartment blocks up and down the country.

When we are seeing Margaret Sweeney of Irish Reit receive a bonus package of €330K in 2019 and 5 other executive receiving 1.34 million it shows how much price gouging in Corporate Rentals have engaged in and how FG staged the non professional Landlords as the bad guys.These Corporations are ripe for hundreds of millions that can & should be paid back to the Irish People to fund our building projects.

Moving on with a New government, a hugh import of foreign builders/developers are needed preferably Chinese obviously with a good track record in building with a contract to take on 50% young or Irish citizens as senior or as apprenticeships which will hopefully keep building and jobs going for the next 10 years and house our homeless.These contracts should only be awarded for a certain timeframe
/period meaning if they overun 25 % is the max the government will pay out,this will do away with builders dragging out timeframes and paid on a monthly basis.

TheBoyConor

Doesn't matter if the construction companies are irish or chinese or from the moon. It is the locally hired irish managers that will be the ones pulling the strokes and fast ones.

Anyway, with EU procurement rules can you cannnot narrow it down to companies from a certain country, let alone specify chinese only. You are talking out of your arse.

ednwireland

Assetbacked wrote: »

The fiscal policy of SF involves spending more than the other parties but is apparently conservative in terms of EU fiscal rules.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/sinn-fein-celebrates-with-ira-songs-but-voters-focus-on-pledges/ar-BBZOt8d

It is constantly and lazily trotted out that SF's figures don't add up but I can't find hard evidence that they don't.

i think the thing is the SF figures add up in terms of thats what it will cost to iplement those polices, the real question is whether the economy can sustain their spending plans

TheBoyConor

Build quality is bad enough as it is without putting up chinese Tofu Dregs buildings.

Idbatterim

The Student wrote: »

I expect the housing situation to get worse rather than any better. We don't have the funds to take debt on the States books.

Unless we get a change in our bail out terms how will we pay for these properties.

I fear that we have not learned the lessons of the past and if we build vast amounts of social housing we will end up the same issues we had in Tallaght, Ballymun, Limerick from the 1980's onwards those that became no go area's where people did not want to live.

the gurriers are already all in their free accomodation for the most part. Its affordable housing for the working masses that I care about!

Assetbacked

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They have not stated where they will get their money to fund their ideas. Explain how they expect money to be privately invested in the rental market when they are going to punish those that have? Do you think landlords are going to just accept it? I already sold one property and had plans to sell one more now I think I will sell them all. That is the reality they will create. Explain how that increases rental properties. They can't build property quickly enough to replace just what I am taking of the market in a few months let alone in a year

They have claimed it has been through the relevant government departments and has been costed. Rather than relying on noble landlords like yourself, the State will start building properties again so that is where the supply will come from. There is no evidence that SF can't do it at this stage whereas we see that FG have minimal appetite to dramatically reduce rents and make house prices climb down from their crazy heights. FF maybe have experience of encouraging mass building so maybe they can deliver. I just can't rule out SF to not deliver a better-functioning housing market than leaving it solely to the realm of investors to deliver housing. I voted FG 1 and 2 but I don't have any problem with SF.

l5auim2pjnt8qx

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Build quality is bad enough as it is without putting up chinese Tofu Dregs buildings.

No more like this http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-04/23/c_137131533.htm

or this :https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/a-skyscraper-in-two-weeks-does-chinas-building-boom-hide-bigger-problems.html

is_that_so

handlemaster wrote: »

You could be right. .. so a roll back on SF promises... surely not ..

No, FG's fault obviously!

Idbatterim

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The housing situation has turned around. Rents are now falling, the homeless numbers are dropping and house prices are leveling off. The next government will claim credit for the work done by the last one. The banks are still on life support and no government will be allowed to crash the housing market.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rents-fall-for-first-time-in-8-years-daft-ie-national-survey-finds-1.4161541


"Headline national rents have fallen for the first time since the middle of 2012, according to a new report released on Tuesday by property website Daft.ie.

According to the research, rents in December reduced incrementally, by just 0.1 per cent, compared to the previous three months. The decrease was driven by falling rents outside the five main cities.

Inside the main urban centres, rents continued to rise by 0.7 per cent across the three months, although they increased by a lower rate in Dublin than the city average for the rest of the State. Rents in the capital increased by 0.4 per cent."

so rip off rents in dublin are still increasing! I suppose there is a limit to what people can afford to pay, without starting to sell off organs :rolleyes:

Wanderer78

Everyone needs to relax here, sf aren't in government yet, and if they do go into government, they ll be lucky to implement half of their manifesto, our housing issues are extremely complex, it certainly won't be solved by the incoming government

l5auim2pjnt8qx

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the construction companies are irish or chinese or from the moon. It is the locally hired irish managers that will be the ones pulling the strokes and fast ones.

Anyway, with EU procurement rules can you cannnot narrow it down to companies from a certain country, let alone specify chinese only. You are talking out of your arse.

No need to be a Dick ,it would be more beneficial to the post it you could give more than one line digs.

Ray Palmer

Assetbacked wrote: »

They have claimed it has been through the relevant government departments and has been costed. Rather than relying on noble landlords like yourself, the State will start building properties again so that is where the supply will come from. There is no evidence that SF can't do it at this stage whereas we see that FG have minimal appetite to dramatically reduce rents and make house prices climb down from their crazy heights. FF maybe have experience of encouraging mass building so maybe they can deliver. I just can't rule out SF to not deliver a better-functioning housing market than leaving it solely to the realm of investors to deliver housing. I voted FG 1 and 2 but I don't have any problem with SF.

They can claim away but they literally can't get the information before they are in government. They did their own costings not the civil servants

The EU regulation and planning laws don't disappear because SF says so. They can't just build social housing and be done. They know thus and they rely on the public not knowing.

How long will it take? While landlords leave the market and rental stock disappears there will be less to rent. This known consequences. It will take them at least a year to build even one extra property and where do the people live then? No place to rent and no place to live. That is SF plan.

After they build these mass housing what are the areas going to be like? The worst neighbourhoods are still former council housing estates. That is the problem with all social house around the world, they become slums and take decades to gentrify if you are lucky. Want to make another larger Fingas or Ballymun? That is what we will end up with.

They also have to go against our constitution about ownership of property to stop the state from seizing it. Put there due to how English rule worked. The irony the SF would break this right is lost on most. They want to dictate what the irish people do with their own property.

Idbatterim

the morons plan loads of 4-5 floor development down on the irigh glass bottle site. Its the vision like this, that has people commuting 4-5 hours a day , instead of 4-5 minutes on a bike or public transport from ther IGBS to the mass employment in the docklands!

Massively curtailing development and then wondering why there is a homes and funding shortage! LOL!

they can also house tens of thousands in dublin port, if they move it, as has been discussed before...

Marcusm

beggars_bush wrote: »

Well, there isn't going to be any large amount of houses built for 3+ years - planning, land issues, financing

we don't have the manpower to build loads of new houses

SF would say that there’s plenty of construction capacity but that it’s misdirected towards building offices, hotels, student accommodation and build for rent housing.

Claw Hammer

Idbatterim wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rents-fall-for-first-time-in-8-years-daft-ie-national-survey-finds-1.4161541


"Headline national rents have fallen for the first time since the middle of 2012, according to a new report released on Tuesday by property website Daft.ie.

According to the research, rents in December reduced incrementally, by just 0.1 per cent, compared to the previous three months. The decrease was driven by falling rents outside the five main cities.

Inside the main urban centres, rents continued to rise by 0.7 per cent across the three months, although they increased by a lower rate in Dublin than the city average for the rest of the State. Rents in the capital increased by 0.4 per cent."

so rip off rents in dublin are still increasing! I suppose there is a limit to what people can afford to pay, without starting to sell off organs :rolleyes:

Rents are dropping in Dublin. Those statistics are skewed by new releases. When existing properties are turned around the new rent is often lower than the old. There are properties let under market value which had 4% increase applied and that shows up as rising rent but it is nothing of the sort. It takes up to two years for changes in the rental market to show in published statistics. The reality is that rents have stooped rising since early last year ad are now falling back.

BluePlanet

Ray Palmer wrote: »

They also have to go against our constitution about ownership of property to stop the state from seizing it. Put there due to how English rule worked. The irony the SF would break this right is lost on most. They want to dictate what the irish people do with their own property.

Rubbish.
Private property is in the constitution but is balanced with the "public good".
High rent represents a transfer of wealth from working people to owners.

It's gotten so unbalanced now that high rent is contrary to the public good.
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/rent-freeze-4929058-Dec2019/

l5auim2pjnt8qx

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the construction companies are irish or chinese or from the moon. It is the locally hired irish managers that will be the ones pulling the strokes and fast ones.

Anyway, with EU procurement rules can you cannnot narrow it down to companies from a certain country, let alone specify chinese only. You are talking out of your arse.

To answer you arseways Eu procurement line, it states The EU law on procurement requires public bodies to open up higher-value contract opportunities to bids across European Union. ........Meaning it requires EU countries to open up contracts to more European countries it doesn't state that we have to pick a European country just consider them in the running for Builder/developer Contracts if that's what you are trying to say?.......No doubt another FG supporter licking there wounds from the beating of the electorate..

Ray Palmer

BluePlanet wrote: »

Rubbish.
Private property is in the constitution but is balanced with the "public good".
High rent represents a transfer of wealth from working people to owners.

It's gotten so unbalanced now that high rent is contrary to the public good.
https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/rent-freeze-4929058-Dec2019/

That is on an individual level on a particular piece of property. A case has to be made on an individual property. You are suggesting that the government can deem all privately owned rented property can be compulsory purchased. That is against our consititusion and EU law. That is why they can't. The article is an opinion and would be challenged and have to have a ruling in a court. You have to realise many people rent out property they inherited which would be family homes and some plan to live in them in the future too. That is severely a step to curtail individuals rights that won't get the support you think. It is the act of a totatarism government.

Simply even if they win their case it will take years to get a judgment. During that time it will stop investment, not freeze rents or change rights. You can have your social ideals all you like about wealth transfer but reality will remain.

According to you the time and effort my family spent saving buildings and putting them to use again os wealth transfer! We wouldn't do it if we weren't going to be paid and there would be no service to use if we didn't. Somebody has to get paid to do the work so you propose the government pay people to do this and self finance.

CrabRevolution

Marcusm wrote: »

SF would say that there’s plenty of construction capacity but that it’s misdirected towards building offices, hotels, student accommodation and build for rent housing.

So is their plan to present a blank cheque to the developers in order to outbid those who want hotels, offices etc. built?

is_that_so

Marcusm wrote: »

SF would say that there’s plenty of construction capacity but that it’s misdirected towards building offices, hotels, student accommodation and build for rent housing.

And does that mean all of that has to stop so they can fulfil their promises?

Saudades

Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »

Moving on with a New government, a hugh import of foreign builders/developers are needed preferably Chinese obviously with a good track record in building with a contract to take on 50% young or Irish citizens as senior or as apprenticeships which will hopefully keep building and jobs going for the next 10 years and house our homeless.

Where are all these "hugh import of foreign builders/developers are needed preferably Chinese" going to live though?
And once they taste the quality of Irish life compared to Chinese life, how many of them will return to China after their contracts are finished?
They would have to be building a significant number of extra properties just to house themselves first.

Saudades

Marcusm wrote: »

SF would say that there’s plenty of construction capacity but that it’s misdirected towards building offices, hotels, student accommodation and build for rent housing.

I do agree that we should be looking at the existing construction capacity rather than a mass import, however, the student accommodation is needed though because without it the students would just be competing with regular renters for regular private property.

enricoh

CrabRevolution wrote: »

So is their plan to present a blank cheque to the developers in order to outbid those who want hotels, offices etc. built?

Double digit construction inflation in the pipeline!

Eric Cartman

Short term : house buying stops dead while people sit back and wait to see

sf government :
lower incomes stop buying houses alltogether at the prospect of a free house
medium incomes stuck with property values flatlining or contracting slightly.
Upper incomes look into selling up before any kind of crash, taxation, seizure or wealth levy rolls round.

non sf government :
lower incomes buying increased due to lack of free housing on the horizon,
medium incomes buying, those who own already not selling as they cant compete with new properties and HTB schemes
upper incomes continue as before.