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

fliball123

awec wrote: »

We still have the veto but it's not like we could veto proposals and they'd turn around and be like "ah that's grand lads, we'll just forget about it".

There will be changes around taxation, compromises will be made. Saying no all the time won't work, we'll have to engage. The corpo rate may go up or it may stay the same.

The idea that Ireland is set to be absolutely shafted is tenuous. The fixation on what the UK is doing is tenuous and ignorant of the huge elephant in the room on that front.

Well its been apparent that they have been trying to stop us using such a low corpo tax rate for a decade and have not been able to.. so what exactly has changed in the last month or so? The UK have shot themselves in the foot with Brexit and face 400 billion covid bill when we get out of this , their future is looking a hell of lot more bleak than Ireland's

MacronvFrugals

fliball123 wrote: »

Well its been apparent that they have been trying to stop us using such a low corpo tax for a decade and have not been able to.. so what exactly has changed in the last month or so? The UK have shot themselves in the foot with Brexit and face 400 billion covid bill when we get out of this , their future is looking a hell of lot more bleak than Ireland's

Having a direct phone line to the BOE printing press does offer a level of flexibility we don't have in fairness

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

He's actually saying 55k a year, which I think is the highest I have heard.

Re obsolescence he's not talking about an acceleration, or Georgian/Victorian, just going with the old chestnut based on long term average of 0.5% houses becoming obsolete every year.

Has there been a proper study done on actual obsolescence? So instead of x% estimate an actual analysis?

PropQueries

Its quite frankly amazing that public servants can indeed sometimes talk some sense. But, apparently when it's only impacting on their own back pockets i.e. the Dublin Bus pension fund deficit.

In an interview with the Irish Times today, Dublin Bus chief executive Ray Coyne said:

"Dublin Bus is planning to look at the feasibility of developing its prime property sites for residential and commercial purposes"

He then went on to say some very common sense things like:

"In the city centre environment, there’s lots of room above the depot and there’s also room below a depot. What we’ve seen in a number of other cities is that you can build above a bus depot and house your buses below ground level. You can then build mixed use residential above."

"If you look at Ringsend, there’s high rise apartments around that. So you can decant your buses out of Ringsend, do some retrofitting, build above and put your buses back in. There’s depot assets there, what’s the best use of those for the company and for the city?”

This is a prime example of why civil servants shouldn't get free pensions. Once they have skin in the game, they become very intelligent overnight which benefits all of society IMO

Link to interview in the Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dublin-bus-to-examine-developing-its-prime-property-sites-1.4500089

fliball123

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Having a direct phone line to the BOE printing press does offer a level of flexibility we don't have in fairness

And when they do use this mechansm what happens to everything else in relation to it. Will they keep printing to solve all of their problems until they get to a point where they have to stop using the 1 Pound coin as it has no value anymore like our 1 and 2 cents and go like the the pesato of old where it was 10000 pesatos to buy a lollipop. There are serious ramifications if they do this but I agree it is nice to have that flexibility. Although when they go away on holidays and its cost 200 Pound for a beer they might not be so happy .. But its all guess work. (and I am being a little over the top) What we know is they have added 400 Billion in debt over the last 2 years for covid. It will be interesting to see how they work through this.

JimmyVik

PropQueries wrote: »

Its quite frankly amazing that public servants can indeed sometimes talk some sense. But, apparently when it's only impacting on their own back pockets i.e. the Dublin Bus pension fund deficit.

In an interview with the Irish Times today, Dublin Bus chief executive Ray Coyne said:

"Dublin Bus is planning to look at the feasibility of developing its prime property sites for residential and commercial purposes"

He then went on to say some very common sense things like:

"In the city centre environment, there’s lots of room above the depot and there’s also room below a depot. What we’ve seen in a number of other cities is that you can build above a bus depot and house your buses below ground level. You can then build mixed use residential above."

"If you look at Ringsend, there’s high rise apartments around that. So you can decant your buses out of Ringsend, do some retrofitting, build above and put your buses back in. There’s depot assets there, what’s the best use of those for the company and for the city?”

This is a prime example of why civil servants shouldn't get free pensions. Once they have skin in the game, they become very intelligent overnight which benefits all of society IMO

Link to interview in the Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dublin-bus-to-examine-developing-its-prime-property-sites-1.4500089

Wait til they cost that idea

Cyrus

JimmyVik wrote: »

Wait til they cost that idea

indeed

subterranean storage for buses, there is no way that wont cost an arm and a leg if the govt are paying for it.

Villa05

schmittel wrote:

Re obsolescence he's not talking about an acceleration, or Georgian/Victorian, just going with the old chestnut based on long term average of 0.5% houses becoming obsolete every year.

Is this because of high prices, there is added incentives to restore an old house as opposed to buying a new one.

What should the rate be. Do we have a rate for the UK for example

Wanderer78

PropQueries wrote: »

Its quite frankly amazing that public servants can indeed sometimes talk some sense. But, apparently when it's only impacting on their own back pockets i.e. the Dublin Bus pension fund deficit.

In an interview with the Irish Times today, Dublin Bus chief executive Ray Coyne said:

"Dublin Bus is planning to look at the feasibility of developing its prime property sites for residential and commercial purposes"

He then went on to say some very common sense things like:

"In the city centre environment, there’s lots of room above the depot and there’s also room below a depot. What we’ve seen in a number of other cities is that you can build above a bus depot and house your buses below ground level. You can then build mixed use residential above."

"If you look at Ringsend, there’s high rise apartments around that. So you can decant your buses out of Ringsend, do some retrofitting, build above and put your buses back in. There’s depot assets there, what’s the best use of those for the company and for the city?”

This is a prime example of why civil servants shouldn't get free pensions. Once they have skin in the game, they become very intelligent overnight which benefits all of society IMO

Link to interview in the Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/dublin-bus-to-examine-developing-its-prime-property-sites-1.4500089

podcast version

https://player.fm/series/irish-times-inside-business/dublin-bus-ceo-ray-coyne-on-the-future-of-transport-in-the-city

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

Has there been a proper study done on actual obsolescence? So instead of x% estimate an actual analysis?

I'm sure somebody somewhere must have attempted it, but never see anything referenced. The only thing I found which is still being cited today, was a count from 2012. Using that today is pretty silly.

The impact is obviously pretty easy to measure in changes in the housing stock. As latest Geodirectory report showed more houses were brought back in to use than became derelict. If you discount this fact housing need forecasts are wildly over estimated.

It is also important to recognise that the market is pretty good at controlling obsolescence. Properties in Longford are far more likely to become obsolete than those in Dublin, for obvious reasons.

PropQueries

Villa05 wrote: »

Is this because of high prices, there is added incentives to restore an old house as opposed to buying a new one.

What should the rate be. Do we have a rate for the UK for example

You should see how quickly and cheaply they could bring these derelict buildings up to scratch if there was an annual 10% derelict property tax on them.

And no, it's not some, way out there, unworkable, socialist idea. Washington D.C. has a 10% annual property tax if the building is derelict

hometruths

Villa05 wrote: »

Is this because of high prices, there is added incentives to restore an old house as opposed to buying a new one.

What should the rate be. Do we have a rate for the UK for example

As mentioned to Hubertj, more to do with houses in Longford falling nto disrepair where there is no demand for them. But this has to be balanced with houses elsewhere being brought back into use.

Villa05

fliball123 wrote:

People have been shouting bubble since 2017 and the price of houses have not shown the same trajectory of being in bubble territory.

Again 50% of rents and 100% of new build sales subsidised by the state. This would not happen in a market that is affordable. Plus these actions are deemed insufficient and further incentives for demand are being dreamed up by government

The bubble from 96 to 06 was also interrupted in 02/03 by the 9/11 attacks and dot com crash,
Similarly this one has been interrupted by Brexit and covid

fliball123

Villa05 wrote: »

Again 50% of rents and 100% of new build sales subsidised by the state. This would not happen in a market that is affordable. Plus these actions are deemed insufficient and further incentives for demand are being dreamed up by government

The bubble from 96 to 06 was also interrupted in 02/03 by the 9/11 attacks and dot com crash,
Similarly this one has been interrupted by Brexit and covid

Hang on the Irish property bubble balanced out a bit for a couple of months after 9/11 and after this it then went up and up and up for 7 years (give or take 6months) as in a balloon hense the terminology. It hit the skids in 07/08 and fell for for 5 years (give or take 6 months) Since 2017 our prices have gone up a bit, gone down a bit, gone back up a bit , gone back down a bit and are rising again. There has been not much price increase (if any) since 2017. This pattern is not a bubble so regardless of what you perceive to be an affordability issue the properties that would identify a bubble has not existed in the market for the last 4 years. Or to put it simply affordability issues does not equal a bubble. Throw in that the cheap and easy credit available to blow up every bubble in history has not been there to inflate prices. You only have to look now there is a bit of a frenzy with regards to buying due to the low number of properties for sale but credit is not been thrown at couples like confetti. It is actually quite hard to get a mortgage from a bank now.

I have put up the math that those on the median wage can afford more than half the current property stock available on my home. The government are trying to help out those who are starting out. Ask yourself are you on more money now (this only works if your not in your mid 20s obviously) than you were when you were in your mid 20s..I know I am I bet a lot of people looking at this thread are and anyone I know is also on more now than their mid 20s. I am in my mid 40s and I am on about 3 times as much as I was when I was 24 buying my first house.

If your contention is that there is currently an affordability issue with the current market then why has the same rules not been applied to buying 2nd hand property and 2nd time buyers? Could it be that First time buyers are being given a leg up by government to actually get on the property ladder?

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

As mentioned to Hubertj, more to do with houses in Longford falling nto disrepair where there is no demand for them. But this has to be balanced with houses elsewhere being brought back into use.

You do need to consider the large number of listed /protected buildings in parts of Dublin. Renovation costs are significantly higher to comply with conservation regs (if actually adhered to)

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

I'm sure somebody somewhere must have attempted it, but never see anything referenced. The only thing I found which is still being cited today, was a count from 2012. Using that today is pretty silly.

The impact is obviously pretty easy to measure in changes in the housing stock. As latest Geodirectory report showed more houses were brought back in to use than became derelict. If you discount this fact housing need forecasts are wildly over estimated.

It is also important to recognise that the market is pretty good at controlling obsolescence. Properties in Longford are far more likely to become obsolete than those in Dublin, for obvious reasons.

I think kits better to continue using the outdated 2012 figure and argue about it. What would be the fun in using an accurate number?

Cyrus

Villa05 wrote: »

100% of new build sales subsidised by the state.

no they aren't.

Stark

I think he's referring to the Help to buy scheme.

Cyrus

Stark wrote: »

I think he's referring to the Help to buy scheme.

he may well be, that doesnt make the statement correct.

HansKroenke

Villa05 wrote: »

Regular source of dispute here:

David McWilliams talks through why he believes that we need 50,000 units built per year in the last 12 minutes of this podcast: How Ireland really works

Net immigration of 30k+ per year requires drastic increase in housing output as we also have lots of people already in the country looking for housing. To become more sustainable and reduce the risk of housing costs increasing further (in fact they might even decrease significantly) the more ambitious target should be set so then when it inevitably falls short we are still making a good dent in the problem.

To dispute the claims on the numbers required to meet our housing needs should only revolve around whether 55k is too high or 30k is too little. Anything else and the person either has a vested interest or is in denial that there is a problem.

hometruths

Hubertj wrote: »

I think kits better to continue using the outdated 2012 figure and argue about it. What would be the fun in using an accurate number?

You also need to remember that McWilliams lives in a 7 figure house.

Just saying, for context, like.

hometruths

HansKroenke wrote: »

Net immigration of 30k+ per year requires drastic increase in housing output as we also have lots of people already in the country looking for housing. To become more sustainable and reduce the risk of housing costs increasing further (in fact they might even decrease significantly) the more ambitious target should be set so then when it inevitably falls short we are still making a good dent in the problem.

To dispute the claims on the numbers required to meet our housing needs should only revolve around whether 55k is too high or 30k is too little. Anything else and the person either has a vested interest or is in denial that there is a problem.

I don’t have a vested interest, so I must be in denial so!

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

You also need to remember that McWilliams lives in a 7 figure house.

Just saying, for context, like.

as pee flynn once said you should try it sometime, might cheer you up

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

as pee flynn once said you should try it sometime, might cheer you up

Try what? I could do with cheering up.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Try what? I could do with cheering up.

living in a 7 figure house, youve mentioned it more than me at this stage,

and yes you could i think.

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

living in a 7 figure house, youve mentioned it more than me at this stage,

That box is already ticked. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

That box is already ticked. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Basis your posts one would assume you dont believe it will, as long as you arent over leveraged what difference will it make?

L1011

Take the bickering to PM

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

Basis your posts one would assume you dont believe it will, as long as you arent over leveraged what difference will it make?

I'm more hopeful it will than I was this time last year, I haven't posted any doom price drop forecasts for a while. Seems to me to be business as usual at the minute.

Mortgage free, but it potentially could make a big difference, because I am unusual in that I think the value of my current home is irrelevant, it is the relative difference between this house and the next one I buy that it is important.

Given that my next home will be a lower value property, I was worried that my current house would lose significantly more in value than its replacement.

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

I'm more hopeful it will than I was this time last year, I haven't posted any doom price drop forecasts for a while. Seems to me to be business as usual at the minute.

Mortgage free, but it potentially could make a big difference, because I am unusual in that I think the value of my current home is irrelevant, it is the relative difference between this house and the next one I buy that it is important.

Given that my next home will be a lower value property, I was worried that my current house would lose significantly more in value than its replacement.

i agree with you, im not that fussed about the current value of my home either, but where we differ is i would probably buy a more expensive property if i move so a falling market is in my favour, whereas, as you correctly point out, it works against downsizers.