2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

combat14

optogirl wrote: »

because a third of a million can't by you a decent family home in Dublin

and the quality of many properties are quite poor adding to the over pricing problem to begin with

timmyntc

Hubertj wrote: »

Any comment on the article I linked?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/council-construction-considerably-more-expensive-than-private-development-report-1.4451602

You seem to think there is a simple solution. Looks far from it based on comments from people who know a lot more about it than you or I.

Affordability and availability are an issue but there is no simple or quick fix.

A big rethink on how we deal with housing, with a massive increase in social housing. Big increase on income limits for social housing, & have low income workers get priority on housing lists.

Cities need low paid workers to function - they are the shopworkers, waiters/waitresses, cleaners, bartenders, even nurses and teachers, and plenty of civil service workers too who would struggle to afford housing. Cities need these people, and should accommodate them.

Villa05

fliball123 wrote:

Its up to each individual to make their own choices in life and if these people choose those professions they should have looked at the salary and at the locations where the work would be as well as what strain it will put on their lifestyle. I don't see why anyone should feel entitled to live where they want.

Many of those professions are embraced, welcomed and looked after by other nations who recognise their value to the citizens of their country

We have lost them despite paying for their education, training and development.

I as a taxpayer would prefer to have them here than a pile of overpriced houses

Many came here to help with covid but were immediately met with accomodation issues
Kind of sums up the good nature of Irish people and the absolute contempt our politicians have for them

Do you think we have our priorities right

woodchuck

fliball123 wrote: »

As has been the case for a couple of generations. It still does not mean that Nuala, Mike or Sammy cannot afford a house in Ireland.

Its up to each individual to make their own choices in life and if these people choose those professions they should have looked at the salary and at the locations where the work would be as well as what strain it will put on their lifestyle. I don't see why anyone should feel entitled to live where they want. If you dont like where you live but cannot afford something in a more suitable area for yourself then retrain or upskill and get a job that puts more money in your pocket and gives you more options socially.

Retraining or upskilling usually comes with a hefty price tag. The type of price tag that Nuala, Mike or Sammy are unlikely to be able to afford in their current jobs.

Timing belt

timmyntc wrote: »

A big rethink on how we deal with housing, with a massive increase in social housing. Big increase on income limits for social housing, & have low income workers get priority on housing lists.

Cities need low paid workers to function - they are the shopworkers, waiters/waitresses, cleaners, bartenders, even nurses and teachers, and plenty of civil service workers too who would struggle to afford housing. Cities need these people, and should accommodate them.

A big rethink does not address the immediate needs of the housing market.

It is all good to say yes we need a massive increase in social housing, Someone else will say we need a massive increase in FTB houses.

Regardless of what type of property (social or private) there is limited capacity to deliver as the planning laws, building regs make the building of new houses inelastic so that it will always lag behind demand and what is in the pipeline at any point in time may be to little supply or to much supply.

If you build more social housing then you will have less new private builds which will push the price of housing up more. This is exactly what some posters on here are complaining about being in competition with the government for FTB houses.

If you build more private houses then the social housing needs are not meet and you require HAP which pushes up the price of housing and rent.

I am not saying that things could not be done better or in a different way but it will take time to get adequate supply.

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

I did but it's not posted, maybe the mods can explain. Hint Check out the track record of the person that compiled that report

Who? The person in the council? Or the author of the article?

Hubertj

Timing belt wrote: »

A big rethink does not address the immediate needs of the housing market.

It is all good to say yes we need a massive increase in social housing, Someone else will say we need a massive increase in FTB houses.

Regardless of what type of property (social or private) there is limited capacity to deliver as the planning laws, building regs make the building of new houses inelastic so that it will always lag behind demand and what is in the pipeline at any point in time may be to little supply or to much supply.

If you build more social housing then you will have less new private builds which will push the price of housing up more. This is exactly what some posters on here are complaining about being in competition with the government for FTB houses.

If you build more private houses then the social housing needs are not meet and you require HAP which pushes up the price of housing and rent.

I am not saying that things could not be done better or in a different way but it will take time to get adequate supply.

There should be scope to increase supply of houses if there is the expected reduction in building offices, hotels etc. Someone previously posted there are now a similar number of construction workers to 2006 when output was significantly higher. But as you said any of this would take a number of years and does not address immediate requirements, social, affordable, private, houses v apartments etc

timmyntc

Timing belt wrote: »

A big rethink does not address the immediate needs of the housing market.

It is all good to say yes we need a massive increase in social housing, Someone else will say we need a massive increase in FTB houses.

Regardless of what type of property (social or private) there is limited capacity to deliver as the planning laws, building regs make the building of new houses inelastic so that it will always lag behind demand and what is in the pipeline at any point in time may be to little supply or to much supply.

If you build more social housing then you will have less new private builds which will push the price of housing up more. This is exactly what some posters on here are complaining about being in competition with the government for FTB houses.

If you build more private houses then the social housing needs are not meet and you require HAP which pushes up the price of housing and rent.

I am not saying that things could not be done better or in a different way but it will take time to get adequate supply.

Clearly there is no 'quick fix' solution - housing issues take years to resolve because of how long it takes to create new housing.

The only side who can deliver housing at a loss is government - because they have the funds. They are the only people who can build enough housing at an affordable rental price, even if it means they dont break even for decades.

Why would they do this? Well, as I said in my previous post, cities need low paid workers. They cannot function without them. For the sake of the Irish economy and it's continued growth, the government need to help lower-income people to afford to live in Dublin (& other cities).


Will this impact supply of private houses? Maybe, if there is finite supply of labour. However a big investment into social housing building by govt would surely see more labourers and developers come into the market chasing the money.

Marius34

Hubertj wrote: »

There should be scope to increase supply of houses if there is the expected reduction in building offices, hotels etc. Someone previously posted there are now a similar number of construction workers to 2006 when output was significantly higher. But as you said any of this would take a number of years and does not address immediate requirements, social, affordable, private, houses v apartments etc

I highly doubt it.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

There should be scope to increase supply of houses if there is the expected reduction in building offices, hotels etc. Someone previously posted there are now a similar number of construction workers to 2006 when output was significantly higher. But as you said any of this would take a number of years and does not address immediate requirements, social, affordable, private, houses v apartments etc

So are you saying that basically time is the only solution, there is no quick fix?
We just have to grin and bear it whilst the required number of appropriate properties are built?

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

So are you saying that basically time is the only solution, there is no quick fix?
We just have to grin and bear it whilst the required number of appropriate properties are built?

I’m not sure how you could draw that conclusion from my comment. Time is a significant factor in resolving the issues. In the short term there is an immediate housing requirement. Government is limited in what it can do short term other than what it is doing. It’s not a simple fix as some would suggest.

What else can the government do short term?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

So are you saying that basically time is the only solution, there is no quick fix?
We just have to grin and bear it whilst the required number of appropriate properties are built?

I'm confident to say there is no quick fix, and there will not be quick fix.
Housing is not a quick process in general.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I’m not sure how you could draw that conclusion from my comment. Time is a significant factor in resolving the issues. In the short term there is an immediate housing requirement. Government is limited in what it can do short term other than what it is doing. It’s not a simple fix as some would suggest.

What else can the government do short term?

The point I thought you were making is that there is nothing the govt can do in the short term. The only thing that will fix it is time.

In the absence of any other suggestions, not sure how I could draw any other conclusion from your comment tbh.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

I'm confident to say there is no quick fix, and there will not be quick fix.
Housing is not a quick process in general.

Assuming our planning legislation is sound (which I do, there has to be a procedure to approve development), and we have sufficient construction workers, is there anything govt can do to speed up the delivery of the required number of houses?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

Assuming our planning legislation is sound (which I do, there has to be a procedure to approve development), and we have sufficient construction workers, is there anything govt can do to speed up the delivery of the required number of houses?

Probably there is, maybe reduce some requirements, bureaucracy. I don't know...

I don't think there is sufficient construction workers to increase significantly supplies.
As far as I know even relatively simple work like house extension, that small companies/contractors can do, labor is expensive, meaning there is no huge competition between construction workers, and they have plenty of work upfront, even with current lower output.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

The point I thought you were making is that there is nothing the govt can do in the short term. The only thing that will fix it is time.

In the absence of any other suggestions, not sure how I could draw any other conclusion from your comment tbh.

The point about time is that whoever is in government will need time to put proper policy in place. Parties that say they will build 20k houses per year starting in yr 1 are liars.
So right now the government is unfortunately competing with FTBers and renting at “market rates” as they have no other real options. Look at the issue of the xx thousand vacant units. It would take a long time to assess and address that if there is an opportunity to increase supply.

You also have to remember that public servants and councils have limited competence and apart from politicians (at election time) there is no accountability for failing to do your job.

Timing belt

Hubertj wrote: »

There should be scope to increase supply of houses if there is the expected reduction in building offices, hotels etc. Someone previously posted there are now a similar number of construction workers to 2006 when output was significantly higher. But as you said any of this would take a number of years and does not address immediate requirements, social, affordable, private, houses v apartments etc

Yes there should be more resources available with a reduction in building offices hotels but this yet again will take time unless existing projects are stopped midway and resources redeployed to housing immediately but that is not going to happen because of the financial cost of breaking contracts etc.

The government use 37% of the construction resource according to EY report so yet again they could redeploy from here but then we won't have schools or hospitals.

We could import workers via immigration but yet again they will need somewhere to live so will put additional pressure on the limited rental/housing stock that is available until more supply comes online.

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

Yes there should be more resources available with a reduction in building offices hotels but this yet again will take time unless existing projects are stopped midway and resources redeployed to housing immediately but that is not going to happen because of the financial cost of breaking contracts etc.

The government use 37% of the construction resource according to EY report so yet again they could redeploy from here but then we won't have schools or hospitals.

We could import workers via immigration but yet again they will need somewhere to live so will put additional pressure on the limited rental/housing stock that is available until more supply comes online.

Are you saying there is nothing the government can do but take time to build?
Seems like a lot of posts daying they could do this but... Is there realistically anything they can do now?

FileNotFound

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying there is nothing the government can do but take time to build?
Seems like a lot of posts daying they could do this but... Is there realistically anything they can do now?

The whole extra resource thing is doubtful - even during the quietest recent times tradesman have been hard got, at least reasonably priced ones.Even then its always a temporary moment as soon as the lads can get bigger paying jobs they do just that (Assuming vaccines work that would be late summer).

Lot of new build in Dub are holding or raising prices and seems demand still outstrips supply as they sell quick.

Could be a funny one though - personally i think we will be quick to forget covid once its over and everyone will be back to 2019 in no time - only my guess though, no better than anyone else's


Also i know a lot of potential buyers who were holding for brexit and are now more desperate to buy than ever - combine that with limited building and rise seems more likely than fall.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Are you saying there is nothing the government can do but take time to build?
Seems like a lot of posts daying they could do this but... Is there realistically anything they can do now?

What I am trying to say is that there is always a trade off.

yes their are things that they can do but it will be at the expense of something else.... There is noting to stop them from rezoning a large chunk of green land and building 10,000's of social houses on it. It would be quicker and more economical as would benefit from economies of scale as all houses would be the same..... It has been done before but it came with its problems.

Anyone that says the problem can be fixed in the morning is not telling the full truth unless there is an honest debate on what the trade off is and whether people are willing to accept this.

The one thing that the government and all political parties could do is work together to resolve this as we have seen time and time again one political party not approving another political parties plans for housing at a local government level. There is not aimed at any political party because they are all doing this to score votes.

combat14

just seen below - wonder will it affect house building here in any way - certainly will cut into consumers disposable income...



Debenhams to close online business in Ireland to avoid Brexit tariffs

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/debenhams-close-online-business-ireland-23280670.amp

Under Brexit trade rules goods must “originate” in either the UK or the EU - under so-called “Rules of Origin” - in order to qualify for zero-tariffs.

For example, if Tesco imports a pair of pyjamas from China into the UK and then sends them to Ireland for sale in its 151 stores here, they could be hit by a 12% tariff.

At least fifty major UK retailers, including Marks and Spencer and Tesco, are in the process of going through their products lines, to establish how many of them will be now subject to tariffs from the EU.

Tariffs can be applied to food and e-commerce and well as clothing

hometruths

Timing belt wrote: »

What I am trying to say is that there is always a trade off.

yes their are things that they can do but it will be at the expense of something else.... There is noting to stop them from rezoning a large chunk of green land and building 10,000's of social houses on it. It would be quicker and more economical as would benefit from economies of scale as all houses would be the same..... It has been done before but it came with its problems.

Anyone that says the problem can be fixed in the morning is not telling the full truth unless there is an honest debate on what the trade off is and whether people are willing to accept this.

The one thing that the government and all political parties could do is work together to resolve this as we have seen time and time again one political party not approving another political parties plans for housing at a local government level. There is not aimed at any political party because they are all doing this to score votes.

Rezoning a large chunk of land and building 10,000's of social houses is not going to fix the problem in the morning either!

But I think you've hit the nail on the head with the bolded part.

It seems like any honest debate that might lead to the conclusion that the trade off is lower property prices, is not palatable as people are unwilling to accept this.

Timing belt

schmittel wrote: »

Rezoning a large chunk of land and building 10,000's of social houses is not going to fix the problem in the morning either!

But I think you've hit the nail on the head with the bolded part.

It seems like any honest debate that might lead to the conclusion that the trade off is lower property prices, is not palatable as people are unwilling to accept this.

Most people waiting to get onto the property ladder will see this as very palatable but you need to remember that in Ireland 2/3 of people own their property so the idea of lower property prices is up their with large tax increases ("with no benefits for the tax paying population"). Why would anyone choose to reduce their net wealth?

Of the 1/3 of the remaining population a subset of this will be people with social housing needs who would not be looking to buy for a range of reasons.

The other thing that is important is that lower property prices is deflationary and you will still have people sitting on the sidelines waiting to buy because they believe that property will be cheaper in the future and less housing stock gets built as a consequence and you end up with a lack of supply which will push up prices in the long term.

If prices are rising it encourages people to buy or to settle for a property that is not their ideal property because they believe that the price will go up and they may not be able to afford it in the future.

A little inflation is good but not when it totally outstrips wage inflation.

Cyrus

combat14 wrote: »

just seen below - wonder will it affect house building here in any way - certainly will cut into consumers disposable income...



Debenhams to close online business in Ireland to avoid Brexit tariffs

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/debenhams-close-online-business-ireland-23280670.amp

Under Brexit trade rules goods must “originate” in either the UK or the EU - under so-called “Rules of Origin” - in order to qualify for zero-tariffs.

For example, if Tesco imports a pair of pyjamas from China into the UK and then sends them to Ireland for sale in its 151 stores here, they could be hit by a 12% tariff.

At least fifty major UK retailers, including Marks and Spencer and Tesco, are in the process of going through their products lines, to establish how many of them will be now subject to tariffs from the EU.

Tariffs can be applied to food and e-commerce and well as clothing

Sorry cut into disposable income ??

There has been some stretches on this thread but that takes the award.

combat14

Cyrus wrote: »

Sorry cut into disposable income ??

There has been some stretches on this thread but that takes the award.

a 12% tariff on a range of goods/services is not insignicant lol

Cyrus

combat14 wrote: »

a 12% tariff on a range of goods/services is not insignicant lol

lol indeed

That assumes one has to buy their goods from only one seller or a set of sellers whose goods are subject to the tariff but they aren’t are they .

Hubertj

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/home-sellers-warned-to-price-their-properties-realistically-1.4452724

Interesting comments from lisney in relation to realistic asking prices. Somewhat contrary to myhome report. So you could argue they are telling people/other estate agents to cop on or they are pitching for business... either way, I think it is a welcome contribution from an estate agent.

combat14

Free’ mortgage offers put the focus on high costs imposed in Ireland

https://amp.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/free-mortgage-offers-put-the-focus-on-high-costs-imposed-in-ireland-39945245.html

fliball123

combat14 wrote: »

Free’ mortgage offers put the focus on high costs imposed in Ireland

https://amp.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/free-mortgage-offers-put-the-focus-on-high-costs-imposed-in-ireland-39945245.html

Be interesting to see how the bank tends to make a profit on this. Also we pay high interest rates here due to the exposure banks have with regard to repossessions. Its hard as hell to get someone out of their gaff if they decide they have had enough with paying the mortgage and like car insurance your bill goes up due to someone elses actions.

Timing belt

combat14 wrote: »

Free’ mortgage offers put the focus on high costs imposed in Ireland

https://amp.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/free-mortgage-offers-put-the-focus-on-high-costs-imposed-in-ireland-39945245.html

I posted about this the other day and it was pointed out that it is not the mortgage that is at 0% it is the Bond yield and does not take into account additional fees such as the banks banks margin. After reading up on it is clear that that it is a totally different model so it is like comparing apples and oranges.