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

jill_valentine

Hubertj wrote: »

I’d take incompetency and corruption over bombing and terrorism any day. Sad day for society when that sort of behaviour is deemed acceptable. The impact on society of that sort of people governing a country has more far reaching impacts than just property. People in this country laughed and criticised that idiot in the US for 4 years. A party that justifies and defends terrorism is far worse. How will that impact the property market, economy and society? Careful what you wish for. To think they’d do any better...

The GFA was signed before some of my co workers were born. The Troubles are no more a reality to them than the Civil War, and FF and FG have apparently gotten over that. The political weight of the association is largely spent, and trying to use it as a distraction to FFFG policy failure is more or less a meme.

Meanwhile here, today, they're walking past tents to work as contractors during a pandemic so they can afford rent, if not living at home. They hear stories of people freezing to death or getting mutilated by a digger because somebody wanted his patch to look tidier in time for an election. Or the cervical cancer scandal, or the Mother & Baby homes report etc etc. That's all real harm too.

Or look at it this way. I'm currently having bother with a Rebuilding Ireland policy, because it's nonsense. Sent an email to everyone I could think of for clarification on it. Aengus Ó Snodaigh's office replied immediately, pursued my query. Got an answer from two different channels and followed up with me promptly. That's not empty Trumpian bluster from a voter's point of view, it's a useful response to me I can go forward with. The Greens replied eventually and asked if anyone else had gotten back to me. No other replies.

I've never voted SF, but regardless of who I'm going to vote for next personally, can you imagine how big an impression stuff like that would make for people struggling with the housing situation? After living under a housing crises overseen by FFFG their whole adult careers?

Housing is one of the biggest issues on millenial Irish workers plate, it affects absolutely every element of their quality of life once they clock out, and they've experienced it only go from bad to worse. FF steered the country into a crash that's defined their working lives, FG told them to leave the country or get rich parents if they wanted a home. FFFG have signalled they will actively pursue measures that all others have stated outright will make it worse again.

I won't blame anyone for seeking an alternative to the "make things worse" parties, and if we're talking about parties on the subject of housing policy, we should be keeping it on the subject of their housing policy.

The understanding now is that FFFG will make things worse. I don't think they even know what language to speak to even pitch the changes people won't expect to work (watch them propose another tax break or something...) or recognise the practical obstacles average people have vs the married double income high earners they live next door to. SF may seem a largely unknown quantity on this front, but talk a strong game so far via Ó Broin that appears comparatively coherent to casual onlookers.

Little else has bearing. The choice is between someone who will make it worse vs someone who might. That's the reality, like it or not, and it would require an almighty hail mary from FFFG to turn it around now. I won't hold my breath.

ExMachina1000

PropQueries wrote: »

The only possible solution I see is if they develop a register of who owns what residential property around the country.

If a lot of these vacant homes are indeed controlled by a few funds, slap a vacant tax of 20% of market value per annum on all such properties if the funds or another investor owns more than 10 of such vacant properties to force them into the market.

It's my theory on the reason for the "housing shortage" and I know many (most?) disagree with my theory but if I'm right, that's the solution right there IMO

If my theory is wrong, there's no way they can beef up new build supply in time for 2024.

Remember, people who were 30 in 2013 will be in their 40's by 2024. Who would you vote for in their circumstances no matter what your political beliefs are?

Governments shouldn't be encouraged to interfere with people's private property.

thefridge2006

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

If they do proceed with that nonsense they'll lose so many votes. The arrogance of them. they have been warned by so many about the impact this sh1te will do to an already broken system. They are just so incompetent

thefridge2006

decreds wrote: »

I like to remain apolitical but don't let your disdain for SF cloud your judgement.


While i am not pro SF, due to the sheer incompetence and corruption within our government, SF will romp home in 2024.

10000%

MacronvFrugals

It seems to come as a surprise to many on here but outside of the Irish Times and Indo column pages nobody under 30 cares one bit about the troubles, all the parties have very dark closets (FG talking about the "Jewish problem" in the 30s etc)

I'm early/mid 20s and housing is all that matters among my friends and acquaintances, i thought the shared-equity scheme would claw back lots of votes to FF but if that's not going ahead they are in big trouble.

The lines are looking more and more clear each day the next election will be between FG and SF imo.

Sweet.Science

thefridge2006 wrote: »

If they do proceed with that nonsense they'll lose so many votes. The arrogance of them. they have been warned by so many about the impact this sh1te will do to an already broken system. They are just so incompetent

Yes but nobody in office cares about long term consequences . It's only short terms they are in for and before they know it election votes are needed again

That's the biggest issue

PropQueries

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Governments shouldn't be encouraged to interfere with people's private property.

That argument doesn't stack up. The state is entitled to know about all your financial details for income tax purposes. They're entitled to know details of who to charge the property tax to. RTE is allowed by law to know if you have a TV in your house or not.

The state does indeed know everything (when it suits them) and I would be very suspicious of the reasons if they claimed they do not know how many of the vacant residential properties in Ireland are owned by the so-called vulture funds or what percentage of the new built-to-rent apartments are occupied by recipients of HAP, long-term lease agreements etc.

Hubertj

jill_valentine wrote: »

The GFA was signed before some of my co workers were born. The Troubles are no more a reality to them than the Civil War, and FF and FG have apparently gotten over that. The political weight of the association is largely spent, and trying to use it as a distraction to FFFG policy failure is more or less a meme.

Meanwhile here, today, they're walking past tents to work as contractors during a pandemic so they can afford rent, if not living at home. They hear stories of people freezing to death or getting mutilated by a digger because somebody wanted his patch to look tidier in time for an election. Or the cervical cancer scandal, or the Mother & Baby homes report etc etc. That's all real harm too.

Or look at it this way. I'm currently having bother with a Rebuilding Ireland policy, because it's nonsense. Sent an email to everyone I could think of for clarification on it. Aengus Ó Snodaigh's office replied immediately, pursued my query. Got an answer from two different channels and followed up with me promptly. That's not empty Trumpian bluster from a voter's point of view, it's a useful response to me I can go forward with. The Greens replied eventually and asked if anyone else had gotten back to me. No other replies.

I've never voted SF, but regardless of who I'm going to vote for next personally, can you imagine how big an impression stuff like that would make for people struggling with the housing situation? After living under a housing crises overseen by FFFG their whole adult careers?

Housing is one of the biggest issues on millenial Irish workers plate, it affects absolutely every element of their quality of life once they clock out, and they've experienced it only go from bad to worse. FF steered the country into a crash that's defined their working lives, FG told them to leave the country or get rich parents if they wanted a home. FFFG have signalled they will actively pursue measures that all others have stated outright will make it worse again.

I won't blame anyone for seeking an alternative to the "make things worse" parties, and if we're talking about parties on the subject of housing policy, we should be keeping it on the subject of their housing policy.

The understanding now is that FFFG will make things worse. I don't think they even know what language to speak to even pitch the changes people won't expect to work (watch them propose another tax break or something...) or recognise the practical obstacles average people have vs the married double income high earners they live next door to. SF may seem a largely unknown quantity on this front, but talk a strong game so far via Ó Broin that appears comparatively coherent to casual onlookers.

Little else has bearing. The choice is between someone who will make it worse vs someone who might. That's the reality, like it or not, and it would require an almighty hail mary from FFFG to turn it around now. I won't hold my breath.

I appreciate your detailed response. Clearly something you have thought about. Sinn Fein talk a good game when it comes to housing and as you said can they do any worse than the current lot... maybe maybe not. I would hope that people look at the wider context of Sinn Fein in government instead of just focus on the usual politics footballs of health, housing etc. Anyway off topic so apologies.

cnocbui

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wow what a yuppie post . Almost satirical. Partridge - esque

Pull up your pants, your begrudgery is showing.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

What’s the story with the cork housing market? There’s nothing but land around cork city.

I know Dublin has plenty of land but cork is basically one big field. That’s not being said in jest. There’s nothing but empty land around cork city, so no possible reason at all for any housing supply issues.

Pitch a tent in a field and live in it for a year and see how you get on. The issue isn't land, it's the timeframe and cost of construction. I have some suspicions that skilled workers in building trades are in relatively short supply vs projected housing requirements. An empty field is probly more than two years away from someone sticking the key in the front door and moving in, at the very least.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

That argument doesn't stack up. The state is entitled to know about all your financial details for income tax purposes. They're entitled to know details of who to charge the property tax to. RTE is allowed by law to know if you have a TV in your house or not.

The state does indeed know everything (when it suits them) and I would be very suspicious of the reasons if they claimed they do not know how many of the vacant residential properties in Ireland are owned by the so-called vulture funds or what percentage of the new built-to-rent apartments are occupied by recipients of HAP, long-term lease agreements etc.

There is no point in you going on and on about empty properties and REITs and what you think will deliver that cheap property you desperately crave.

If the government wont even charge REITs corporation tax or CGT, then any of your hairy proposals have got a midges chance in a hurricane of every happening.

It would be far more germaine to suggest that REITS be treated on a level footing with other commercial enterprises, before suggesting exceptional and novel measures.

Can someone tell me why not paying CGT or corporation tax isn't illegal state aid, à la Apple, and why the EU competition commission hasn't issued Ireland a warning?

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

There is no point in you going on and on about empty properties and REITs and what you think will deliver that cheap property you desperately crave.

If the government wont even charge REITs corporation tax or CGT, then any of your hairy proposals have got a midges chance in a hurricane of every happening.

It would be far more germaine to suggest that REITS be treated on a level footing with other commercial enterprises, before suggesting exceptional and novel measures.

Can someone tell me why not paying CGT or corporation tax isn't illegal state aid, à la Apple, and why the EU competition commission hasn't issued Ireland a warning?

How exactly does charging reits the same tax as small landlords increase housing supply?

I think the primary reason for small landlords demanding that the reits etc. pay the same tax as small landlords is that they know it won't happen but they hope the Government will reduce their taxes.

Rental income is income and is the same as if they were doing a 9-5 job. Why exactly should a landlord pay less tax on their rental income than a worker must pay on the income from his job?

Anyway, if you're an investor in these reits and you take your dividend payment (e.g. equivalent to rent payment), do you not pay income tax or near enough equivalent?

All Ireland has to attract the reits, multinationals etc. are our low taxes. If you want them to be placed on an equal footing with the rest of us and they leave and you're a landlord, paying tax on your rental property won't be an issue as you won't have any tenants and thus any rental income to tax.

ExMachina1000

PropQueries wrote: »

That argument doesn't stack up. The state is entitled to know about all your financial details for income tax purposes. They're entitled to know details of who to charge the property tax to. RTE is allowed by law to know if you have a TV in your house or not.

The state does indeed know everything (when it suits them) and I would be very suspicious of the reasons if they claimed they do not know how many of the vacant residential properties in Ireland are owned by the so-called vulture funds or what percentage of the new built-to-rent apartments are occupied by recipients of HAP, long-term lease agreements etc.

Difference in knowing who owns what and telling people what to do with their private property.

PropQueries

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Difference in knowing and telling people what to do with their private property.

If you're a fund with hundreds of residential units in an area and you're purposely keeping them vacant to drive up rents or the value of your properties, that's market manipulation.

In the united states, a company would be heavily fined or broken up if they did something similar in any other business area.

ExMachina1000

PropQueries wrote: »

If you're a fund with hundreds of residential units in an area and you're purposely keeping them vacant to drive up rents or the value of your properties, that's market manipulation.

In the united states, a company would be heavily fined or broken up if they did something similar in any other business area.

Put each property on the market at 400% inflated rent value so.

We are not in the United states either.

Subutai

cnocbui wrote: »

Can someone tell me why not paying CGT or corporation tax isn't illegal state aid, à la Apple, and why the EU competition commission hasn't issued Ireland a warning?

If you want an actual answer, it is because to avail of the favourable tax treatment REITs must meet a number of conditions. One of those is: distribute at least 85% of its income by way of dividend to its shareholders.

Those dividends are then taxable in the hands of shareholders. For resident shareholders this is pretty straightforward. For non resident shareholders they are subject to the Irish Dividend Withholding Tax, but may get relief if they are resident in a treaty country.

Indeed, eliminating the otherwise double taxation that prevented corporate investment in real estate was the point of the changes made in the Finance Act 2013.


You may dislike it, and feel that it provides a benefit to corporate structures over small property owners (of course, this is to a large degree the point of incorporation generally), but it is not illegal state aid and is based on a coherent policy rationale.

Viscount Aggro

PropQueries wrote: »

And they still don't get it. There is a good article in the Irish Times today regarding the 1,300 homes that are to be built on the publicly-owned Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum.

The columnist attended a recent webinar hosted by the LDA and the architects in relation to the plans for the site:

"Someone asked what would constitute success for the site. Architect Rob Keane spoke about preserving the rich tapestry of natural and historical features including its biodiversity, and ensuring that heritage of the main hospital building was preserved.

He also spoke about opening up the space to the local community and being truly sustainable. These are all important, indeed, vital issues and his sincerity was palpable. However, affordability featured nowhere in what he said. Barry Chambers of the LDA spoke after him. Finally, the word affordable was mentioned – this would be an 'affordable-led scheme'".

So, they apparently still don't get the issue.

This is state-owned land. Affordability should be the only issue. And, this is on top of both the ESRI and the Central Bank this week telling the Government that their new proposed shared equity scheme will both increase house prices and will most likely break the central banks existing LTV/LTI rules so the shared-equity plan probably can't proceed as proposed even if the government approves it.

According to the Irish Independent yesterday: "It is understood the Central Bank believes the scheme, as proposed in the Affordable Housing Bill, will have 'immediate policy implications' for the regulator due to banks being centrally involved in the new housing plan."

Link to Irish Times article on Dundrum scheme here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-let-public-land-be-for-social-and-affordable-housing-1.4489717

Smouse156 wrote: »

These “valuers” haven’t a clue, agreed! Make one wonder why don’t new home purchasers just get their house valued +50% after two years and avail of the low LTV rates from the likes of Avant. Those “valuers” will probably sign anything

You are talking about Fizzbag Mansions.
It really should not be measured against local property values.
Affordability means, no more than 3.5 times your income,
even if one is a single person on average wage.

Sweet.Science

cnocbui wrote: »

Pull up your pants, your begrudgery is showing.[/QUOTE

Ha.

'Who would go down there anyway' partridge

Don't mind me . My postcode doesn't define my life

DataDude

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Governments shouldn't be encouraged to interfere with people's private property.

So if Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk decided to buy up all of Dublin, bulldoze it and use it as their own private paint balling arena - the government shouldn’t ‘interfere’ as it’s their private property?

Housing is a basic human need and the interests of society should always outweigh that of the individual. If a small number of people are acting in a way that benefits them at the cost to society as a whole (eg widespread vacant properties), of course the government should get involved. As with anything, the best way to deter undesirable behaviours is aggressive taxation.

ExMachina1000

DataDude wrote: »

So if Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk decided to buy up all of Dublin, bulldoze it and use it as their own private paint balling arena - the government shouldn’t ‘interfere’ as it’s their private property?

Housing is a basic human need and the interests of society should always outweigh that of the individual. If a small number of people are acting in a way that benefits them at the cost to society as a whole (eg widespread vacant properties), of course the government should get involved. As with anything, the best way to deter undesirable behaviours is aggressive taxation.

In your scenario the government would have sold all thevpublic land and government buildings to Bezos and Musk to facilitate the paintball grounds so they would be on board with it.

I'd rather talk about reality. Governments shouldn't interfere with people's private property. If there are housing shortages then it's up to government to build them or the private sector build for profit. If I have 3 houses and you have none why should I be penalised? Iv done nothing wrong.

DataDude

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

DataDude

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

In your scenario the government would have sold all thevpublic land and government buildings to Bezos and Musk to facilitate the paintball grounds so they would be on board with it.

I'd rather talk about reality. Governments shouldn't interfere with people's private property. If there are housing shortages then it's up to government to build them or the private sector build for profit. If I have 3 houses and you have none why should I be penalised? Iv done nothing wrong.

For the same principles the government interfere with the cost of my private health insurance to subsidise older people. ‘I’m young fit and healthy, why should I have to pay the same as some 80 year old with a heart condition’...because we live in a compassionate society and the greater good of giving our citizens affordable access to basic needs like healthcare and housing should always trump some feeling of entitlement to individual profit.

Also the government already ‘penalises’ tonnes of stuff that’s bad for society via taxation. E.g. higher rates of car tax on vehicles with higher emissions. Can’t see how vacant housing can be seen as ‘the line in the sand that they shouldn’t cross’

Stark

DataDude wrote: »

So if Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk decided to buy up all of Dublin, bulldoze it and use it as their own private paint balling arena - the government shouldn’t ‘interfere’ as it’s their private property?
.

As long as they don't go full "RoboCop 2" on it (though if anyone's going to have a go at building cyborgs, it'll be Musk).

Unrealistic scenario anyway. Planning/zoning laws are quite strict. You can't just buy all the property in a city and do what you like with it.

NewClareman

decreds wrote: »

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, the current group of smooth brains within government will realize of their impending doom when it's too late.

I thought the term "smooth brains" was one of the best insults ever, until I found out it was a real condition.

Sorry for going off topic, but this was important. 🙂

ExMachina1000

DataDude wrote: »

For the same principles the government interfere with the cost of my private health insurance to subsidise older people. ‘I’m young fit and healthy, why should I have to pay the same as some 80 year old with a heart condition’...because we live in a compassionate society and the greater good of giving our citizens affordable access to basic needs like healthcare and housing should always trump some feeling of entitlement to individual profit.

Also the government already ‘penalises’ tonnes of stuff that’s bad for society via taxation. E.g. higher rates of car tax on vehicles with higher emissions. Can’t see how vacant housing can be seen as ‘the line in the sand that they shouldn’t cross’

I understand you have your opinion on how things should be and I have mine. They are different and that's ok. Let's not go back and forth but get nowhere

DataDude

Stark wrote: »

As long as they don't go full "RoboCop 2" on it (though if anyone's going to have a go at building cyborgs, it'll be Musk).

Unrealistic scenario anyway. Planning/zoning laws are quite strict. You can't just buy all the property in a city and do what you like with it.

Point wasn’t really about Jeff and Elon, just an intentionally absurd scenario to show that sometimes just because someone can afford to do something, doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t stop it, or at the very least raise revenue from it. You can’t buy all the property in a city and do whatever ever you like with it, but you can buy it all and do nothing with it. Which seems just as destructive to me.

Maybe in my absurd scenario I should have picked something they could legally do though - I’ll go with, “buy all the apartment blocks and residential houses for playing hide and seek!”

Hubertj

DataDude wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

Will ask my friend. He lived in grey stones the last 3 years and just got the keys to his house in la Touché. I know he looked at a lot of places. Will report back if he knows anything about the development you are referring to.

johnnyskeleton

DataDude wrote: »

Point wasn’t really about Jeff and Elon, just an intentionally absurd scenario to show that sometimes just because someone can afford to do something, doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t stop it, or at the very least raise revenue from it. You can’t buy all the property in a city and do whatever ever you like with it, but you can buy it all and do nothing with it. Which seems just as destructive to me.

Maybe in my absurd scenario I should have picked something they could legally do though - I’ll go with, “buy all the apartment blocks and residential houses for playing hide and seek!”

But you are using the absurd scenario to justify real world interference. Your argument seems to be that if the governnent intervention to stop billionaires buying up a city and turning it into a paintball park is valid, then all government intervention is valid.

Surely there comes a point when there is so much intervention that the intervention itself is the problem, but they keep blaming the market to justify more and more intervention?

DataDude

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But you are using the absurd scenario to justify real world interference. Your argument seems to be that if the governnent intervention to stop billionaires buying up a city and turning it into a paintball park is valid, then all government intervention is valid.

Surely there comes a point when there is so much intervention that the intervention itself is the problem, but they keep blaming the market to justify more and more intervention?

Not at all. I wasn’t trying to say all intervention is valid, clearly that would be insane. Just trying to say this idea that ‘it’s my property, I’ll do what I like. Government leave me alone’ (I.e. no intervention should be allowed) is crazy. It’s also not applied in any other walk of life where the government gets involved and taxes everything we do. The government are also already heavily intervening, but primarily by stimulating the demand side. Not sure why a supply side measure should be just shut down without consideration.

I wouldn’t even be as naive to claim that vacant property taxes are obviously correct or anything, I’m no economist. But the main arguments you see made against them are based on some really poor fundamentals. Usually ‘me, me, me’ arguments or else really specific cases like someone being in a nursing home which could easily be accounted for in legislation. I’ve never seen a solid case put together for why a vacant property tax would be negative for society as a whole.

PropQueries

DataDude wrote: »

Not at all. I wasn’t trying to say all intervention is valid, clearly that would be insane. Just trying to say this idea that ‘it’s my property, I’ll do what I like. Government leave me alone’ (I.e. no intervention should be allowed) is crazy. It’s also not applied in any other walk of life where the government gets involved and taxes everything we do. The government are also already heavily intervening, but primarily by stimulating the demand side. Not sure why a supply side measure should be just shut down without consideration.

I wouldn’t even be as naive to claim that vacant property taxes are obviously correct or anything, I’m no economist. But the main arguments you see made against them are based on some really poor fundamentals. Usually ‘me, me, me’ arguments or else really specific cases like someone being in a nursing home which could easily be accounted for in legislation. I’ve never seen a solid case put together for why a vacant property tax would be negative for society as a whole.

That’s the thing. Many countries have vacant property taxes. The one I like is the Washington D.C. tax. It’s a 5% tax on the assessed value of a vacant property and a 10% tax on a vacant blighted property.

Another good one is Denmark, where you’re required by law to inform the state if your property is vacant and you must give a reason why. It’s actually a criminal offence not to tell them. At least then the state has the information and can formulate policy as needed and spot and solve problems before they become too big.

Link to Washington D.C. vacant property tax here: https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/otr-vacant-real-property