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

Next governments affect on housing market

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »
    ........... that wealthy citizens should only be allowed to purchase .....hence the 3.5 mortgage rule ,the rest left to sink or swim at the mercy of the Rental Market...............

    You reckon borrowing more then 3.5 times your gross earnings is prudent?


  • Options
    #123
    l5auim2pjnt8qx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭l5auim2pjnt8qx


    Augeo wrote: »
    You reckon borrowing more then 3.5 times your gross earnings is prudent?

    You reckon having over 10K homeless adults and children a success story


  • Options
    #124
    CrabRevolution
    Registered Users Posts: 2,803 ✭✭✭CrabRevolution


    Augeo wrote: »
    You reckon borrowing more then 3.5 times your gross earnings is prudent?

    I'd imagine they also follow the argument that actually paying back a mortgage is optional, and if they can't pay it back it's 100% both the evil bank's fault and problem.


  • Options
    #125
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,355 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »
    You made in your post that any map shown a higher concentration of private housing or don't you recall.

    As I have said in my posts public housing slum clearance from 1930'40 pushed people out from the inner city to the early suburbs, people were then given the opportunity to buy back social housing from the councils which then became private housing, this accelerated greatly in the 1960's governments built the large towns which were mostly small villages back then by the building social housing and then after 10 years or so sold back to may social tenants who then became private home owners, Home ownership didn't peak until the mid 1990's
    to 80% but this did not take into account how much of these houses were originally built as Social Housing.......and as I have said my recollection of the 70s & 80's was of large scale social housing not private housing and I will stand by that comment.

    Again you made the bold comment of most people owned TV's in the 70.80's
    they didn't and now you seem to back track on that in your last post?

    I referenced low rents and fewer homeownership and general happy people back then with comparisons of today ...?

    Yes look up a map and if you know Dublin you know which are social housing. You will easily see that it is riddiculious to claim most housing in Dublin is social housing. You made the claim the majority were in social housing in Dublin which is obviously untrue.

    You are claiming a low home ownership of houses in the 70s and 80s when it was higher than today. That is simply and easily seen as not true. In 1990 home ownership was 79.3% you want to quibble about 0.7% go for it but it still proves you wrong.

    The vast majority of sex abuse is not institutional and we see the court cases come up all the time. It wasn't till the late 70s that you could buy a council house so the increase was mostly private purchases of privately built property. So how did social housing have an impact when it wasn't possible to buy them?

    Your claims are just not true. If you just type into google is home ownership good for society you can find all the studies. Find one that says it is bad is your challenge because it is akin to denying gravity but people also claim gravity doesn't exist and believe in flat earth. Some things don't need to be proved again and again.


  • Options
    #126
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »
    You reckon having over 10K homeless adults and children a success story


    I am all for the 3.5x cap being lifted, I've property to dump. Can you explain how the 3.5x limit is linked to homelessness?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    JamesMason
    Registered Users Posts: 152 ✭✭JamesMason


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    I am all for the 3.5x cap being lifted, I've property to dump.
    Drop your asking price and you'll quickly dump your property.


  • Options
    #128
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    JamesMason wrote: »
    Drop your asking price and you'll quickly dump your property.


    Of course, but why do that when people want to remove the 3.5x cap.


  • Options
    #129
    l5auim2pjnt8qx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭l5auim2pjnt8qx


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Of course, but why do that when people want to remove the 3.5x cap.

    you wanna post an image of the dump you want so much want to get rid of?


  • Options
    #130
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »
    You reckon having over 10K homeless adults and children a success story

    Well folk having kids when they can't provide for them is not a success, but if they were all housed tomorrow you'd have another few thousand ladies getting pregnant to get the house.

    I doubt many of the thousands were ever in mortgage application territory though, as an aside.


  • Options
    #131
    Samuel T. Cogley
    Registered Users Posts: 10,684 ✭✭✭✭Samuel T. Cogley


    Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »
    you wanna post an image of the dump you want so much want to get rid of?


    Avoiding the question I see.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    stevedublin
    Registered Users Posts: 979 ✭✭✭stevedublin


    handlemaster wrote: »
    ? I assume alot of landlords will be looking at selling with a full socialist manifest looming.
    landlords have been threatening to sell for the last 10 years (possibly longer).


  • Options
    #133
    l5auim2pjnt8qx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 151 ✭✭l5auim2pjnt8qx


    Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »
    Avoiding the question I see.

    Are you too embarrased to show us this dump.

    Is it even liveable?


  • Options
    #134
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Student accommodation is being built because it can be built to a much more dense capacity than normal apartments. However, there are backlashes coming. UCD students seem upset at the announcement if recent rent hikes and the focus on providing “expensive” accommodation, ie private rooms with en suite bathrooms and 4-5 per kitchen living room. The suggestion was that more shared facilities should be provided to cut costs and make it more affordable. Having seen a nephew’s NY dorm, basically a 12x12 shared room with communal showers/toilets and limited other facilities (catering is in canteens), I can see that for many Irish students the current accommodation is a bit luxurious. Most teenagers would not, for example, have access to a fully private bathroom in their family homes, off campus accommodation would more likely be shared bedrooms etc, I can see the point.

    Revised apartment planning rules might shift the pattern of development.

    Student accommodation is being built as dual use. When students are not in residence between academic terms the accommodation is rented to conference guests and tourists. The colleges are using student accommodation as an income generator in the absence of the ability to charge fees. In the States the fees are massive so the accommodation can be basic.


  • Options
    #135
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,355 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Student accommodation is being built as dual use. When students are not in residence between academic terms the accommodation is rented to conference guests and tourists. The colleges are using student accommodation as an income generator in the absence of the ability to charge fees. In the States the fees are massive so the accommodation can be basic.

    Most of the student accommodation being built is privately owned not owned by the colleges.


  • Options
    #136
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    Most of the student accommodation being built is privately owned not owned by the colleges.

    It is also dual use. I was dealing with the specific point about UCD and the comparison with America.


  • Options
    #137
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    stevedublin wrote: »
    landlords have been threatening to sell for the last 10 years (possibly longer).

    No point saying that when statistically there are less properties available now to rent vs 3/5 years ago. They are not threatening to leave. Some ll are leaving and the stock isnt being replenished by other ll.


  • Options
    #138
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,355 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It is also dual use. I was dealing with the specific point about UCD and the comparison with America.

    You said colleges are using it as income generators. Not true all suppliers of student accommodation do the same and they have always done this. Nothing new nor surprising but common sense in order to provide it.

    A bit like complaining shops also sell coffee but aren't coffee shops.


  • Options
    #139
    Browney7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,098 ✭✭✭Browney7


    The Student wrote: »
    Whether it is an apartment or a house the same principle applies.

    If a family want security then they should provide it for themselves or the State should. Its the private sectors role to provide a service nothing more nothing less.

    The REITS got preferential treatment to encourage them in to increase supply, yes they should pay tax like everybody else.

    It is all well and good saying that the figs are conservative by EU fiscal rules standards it still does not answer the question of where the funds are going to come from. I suspect they can't borrow on the international markets nor can any other party if any party could have then they would have done so in the past.

    Why would Fianna Gael have not borrowed and solved or gone a good way towards solving the housing situation before now. if they had they would have romped home in the election.

    And before you say they are for the landlords if they had built enough houses to house the homeless and stopped at that point then the landlords could still charge high enough rents.

    It does not make sense why the housing situation was not solved before now if it is as easy to do as SF are making it out.

    David McWilliams has been hammering the drum for a while that we should be taking advantage of the low rates (sub 1% for 20 year money the last time I checked) and embarking on a capital spending programme.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that Dun Laoighre council agreed to rent that block in Dundrum paying a 5 or 6% rental yield per annum for 25 years (which increases over time) and it's not owned at the end. It seems that Realis maintain the block but how much would that Knock off the yield - 1% p.a. maybe? Those German investors would only get 1% buying Irish debt for that same time period and the risk is not too dissimilar (the block isn't going to be worth zero in 25 years time!) Yet they are getting 5% Irish state guaranteed for renting a property. A nice little asset class they've discovered.

    If there are EU rules preventing borrowing the money to just buy the thing outright it is disadvantaging Irish tax payers in favour of German beneficiaries.

    At the end of 25 years we will still have to house those residents somewhere. HAP is treated as current expenditure but it is a liability for 10 or 20 or even 40 years.


  • Options
    #140
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,914 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Where did you see this odyssey? I thought they would ignore the problem but not say something like above.

    In Sinn Fein manifesto, page 66 they state they want to:
    * Remove all Residential Tenancies Act Section 34 grounds for new and renewed tenancies
    https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

    My understanding and please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this is that eviction for non payment of rent is currently in Section 34.
    The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #141
    garhjw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,424 ✭✭✭garhjw


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    In Sinn Fein manifesto, page 66 they state they want to:
    * Remove all Residential Tenancies Act Section 34 grounds for new and renewed tenancies
    https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

    My understanding and please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this is that eviction for non payment of rent is currently in Section 34.
    The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

    They want to do away with the requirement to pay rent. Never mind that removing section 34 would be unconstitutional, the simple people that voted for Sinn Fein will swallow anything


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    Browney7 wrote: »
    David McWilliams has been hammering the drum for a while that we should be taking advantage of the low rates (sub 1% for 20 year money the last time I checked) and embarking on a capital spending programme.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that Dun Laoighre council agreed to rent that block in Dundrum paying a 5 or 6% rental yield per annum for 25 years (which increases over time) and it's not owned at the end. It seems that Realis maintain the block but how much would that Knock off the yield - 1% p.a. maybe? Those German investors would only get 1% buying Irish debt for that same time period and the risk is not too dissimilar (the block isn't going to be worth zero in 25 years time!) Yet they are getting 5% Irish state guaranteed for renting a property. A nice little asset class they've discovered.

    If there are EU rules preventing borrowing the money to just buy the thing outright it is disadvantaging Irish tax payers in favour of German beneficiaries.

    At the end of 25 years we will still have to house those residents somewhere. HAP is treated as current expenditure but it is a liability for 10 or 20 or even 40 years.

    Why aren't we the is it because we cant. If we could Finna Gael would have topped the election

    HAP is a current liability so does not affect the calculation of the bailout limits. Its purely an accounting process. This is why the approved housing bodies are not as active because they are a liability of the State.


  • Options
    #143
    Browney7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,098 ✭✭✭Browney7


    The Student wrote: »
    Why aren't we the is it because we cant. If we could Finna Gael would have topped the election

    HAP is a current liability so does not affect the calculation of the bailout limits. Its purely an accounting process. This is why the approved housing bodies are not as active because they are a liability of the State.

    What bailout limits? Are these defined somewhere - genuinely curious. Or is it the stability and growth pact requirement to be sub 60% of GDP which due to our leprechaun economics we're flattering ourselves compared to the real economy (GNI*).

    I'm not advocating blowing ten billion in one fell swoop but that Realis deal just stank to high heaven of an agenda and will cost the taxpayer far more in the long run. The more and more we pay HAP, the more of a HAP time bomb gets created to go with our looming pensions one.


  • Options
    #144
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    Browney7 wrote: »
    What bailout limits? Are these defined somewhere - genuinely curious. Or is it the stability and growth pact requirement to be sub 60% of GDP which due to our leprechaun economics we're flattering ourselves compared to the real economy (GNI*).

    I'm not advocating blowing ten billion in one fell swoop but that Realis deal just stank to high heaven of an agenda and will cost the taxpayer far more in the long run. The more and more we pay HAP, the more of a HAP time bomb gets created to go with our looming pensions one.

    They are somewhere they go along the lines of % of GDP. If we take on capital debt then we exceed them. Which is part of the bailout agreement.

    Some 2017 details
    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1023/914665-46-7-billion/

    I am on my phone so can't Google too much of them but they are available.


  • Options
    #145
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    The Student wrote: »
    They are somewhere they go along the lines of % of GDP. If we take on capital debt then we exceed them. Which is part of the bailout agreement.

    I am on my phone so can't Google them but they are available.

    I don't understand how these rules work but at the same time, our national debt is continuing to rise so we are (worryingly) not really bringing it down

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/270408/national-debt-of-ireland/

    Therefore, it would seem to me that there is scope to take on the debt in order to acquire the land and build state housing but the appetite is not there in government, for whatever reason. For example, powerful industry lobbying from the funds industry, law firms etc. combined with the effect this would have on property prices and rental returns i.e. it would cause them to decline and there are plenty of people that would hyperventilate if they knew the government were actively taking measures to lower property prices.


  • Options
    #146
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    Assetbacked wrote: »
    I don't understand how these rules work but at the same time, our national debt is continuing to rise so we are (worryingly) not really bringing it down

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/270408/national-debt-of-ireland/

    Therefore, it would seem to me that there is scope to take on the debt in order to acquire the land and build state housing but the appetite is not there in government, for whatever reason. For example, powerful industry lobbying from the funds industry, law firms etc. combined with the effect this would have on property prices and rental returns i.e. it would cause them to decline and there are plenty of people that would hyperventilate if they knew the government were actively taking measures to lower property prices.

    The higher our debt gets the higher the interest we are charged and this goes on and on.

    If anything it would be in the States interest to see house prices reduce so they could build more as they would require less funds to build.


  • Options
    #147
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    In Sinn Fein manifesto, page 66 they state they want to:
    * Remove all Residential Tenancies Act Section 34 grounds for new and renewed tenancies
    https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/SF_GE2020_Manifesto.pdf

    My understanding and please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this is that eviction for non payment of rent is currently in Section 34.
    The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2004/act/27/section/34/enacted/en/html

    I would have thought this meant that you can’t evict if selling,renovation,family member to move in etc.

    I would still expect that if someone is not obeying their lease due to anti social behaviour or arrears that you can evict.

    Thanks for find the above though.


  • Options
    #148
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    Fol20 wrote: »
    I would have thought this meant that you can’t evict if selling,renovation,family member to move in etc.

    I would still expect that if someone is not obeying their lease due to anti social behaviour or arrears that you can evict.

    Thanks for find the above though.

    How could a tenant have more rights than a landlord if the property was needed for a family member.


  • Options
    #149
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,623 ✭✭✭Fol20


    The Student wrote: »
    How could a tenant have more rights than a landlord if the property was needed for a family member.

    I didn’t say I agree with it. I’m just saying that’s what I thought it meant


  • Options
    #150
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 27,914 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The Student wrote: »
    How could a tenant have more rights than a landlord if the property was needed for a family member.

    Dont shoot the messenger... its in SF manifesto to scrap the Section of the Act that permits a landlord to issue notice of eviction for that reason. The manifesto didnt say anything about replacing it, at least not that I could see.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,247 ✭✭✭The Student


    odyssey06 wrote: »
    Dont shoot the messenger... its in SF manifesto to scrap the Section of the Act that permits a landlord to issue notice of eviction for that reason. The manifesto didnt say anything about replacing it, at least not that I could see.

    It was a question rather than an attack. this is were the constitutionality will come in. The president can refer a law to the courts to test its constitutionality.i


Advertisement