Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

New Housing for All Plan launched

«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭ Amadan Dubh


    The devil will be in the delivery but it's quite clear that a material drop in rents and house prices will need to happen in the next 4 years, not 10 years, or this Housing For All plan will be scrapped to make way for the Shinners & Friends to give it a go. Personally, I feel it is already too late for FF and FG to bring down rents and house prices significantly enough to save their skin. 30,000 houses per year as a dramatic target is underwhelming when we have been doing 20000 the last few years - even the institutionals suggested a figure of 50,000 per year for the next 30 years last month. Our projected population growth figures would also lead to serious questions about the sustainability of our economy and immigration to this country with only 30000 homes being targeted for each of the next 10 years.


    A big issue is the covid jumps in house prices, that cannot be taken as the base cost from which a 10/15% drop in average prices should be targeted. The 7% increases during the last year of restrictions needs to be looked at as being on top of the decreases necessary from the levels achieved in the market in 2018/2019. Based on salaries, deposit rule, mortgage lending restrictions, the government will need house prices to drop 20% from their current levels at least, in my view, in the next 3 to 4 years, to get sufficient numbers onto the ladder that might then vote for them. Similar to rents, which haven't risen much during covid, the government needs to see rents at least 30% down from current levels, based on the salaries people earn (and salaried workers are the majority of renters), again within 3 to 4 years. If not then I just do not see how SF won't be in power with their comrades.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭ mrslancaster


    I wonder will more landlords exit when the indefinite tenancies plan is brought in?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,874 ✭✭✭✭ denartha


    "Ambitious" politico speak for "unachievable". "Unachievable and we can blame the next government for its failings"



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,094 ✭✭✭ jill_valentine


    I might be eligible for the Shared Equity/"First Home Scheme", but I'm in a dilemma about whether I should wait to see or rush and get something somewhere now in the middle of nowhere before finding out I'm not and it blows up prices everywhere.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,317 ✭✭✭ Underground


    300k new homes by 2030 with 90k earmarked for social housing. What about the investment funds that will acquire new developments en masse and immediately lease them back to the council as they are incentivised to do? That 90k in reality will be a much higher figure.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 59 ✭✭ Luxemburgo


    I would much rather see much large numbers of private housing. This will only increase prices for people looking to buy



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭ Marius34


    • from their plan: "ending of long-term leasing to provide social homes, moving to delivery of new builds"


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,975 ✭✭✭✭ rob316


    The social housing system has to be overhauled, cost rental should be championed, no way should you be getting a 350k new build for 30 quid a week. I live in social housing, looking to move and buy now and the council rent is too low IMO. 15% of income is too low for those that can afford it. People bitch about the council selling housing stock at huge discounts but the alternative, is rent out a property for about 50 years to a family and take in about 50 to 100k less maintenance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭ maestroamado


    I remember a minister saying just before the crash that we built 90,000 houses and it wasn't enough. Our population has increased by 500,000 since then and now 30,000 is what is being offered.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,054 ✭✭✭ timmyntc


    Where does the labour come from to build all this? They just assume enough construction workers & tradesmen will magic up out of nowhere.

    There aren't many trades who are sitting idle right now - adding demand for another 30k houses per year will just inflate their prices, it wont get anything more built.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Dylan Gentle Cowhide


    I'm still in the deposit-acquiring stage but yeah, all looks like more price inflation. The shared equity thing is a nonsense as well. Prices will just go up to compensate again. Oh well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,054 ✭✭✭ timmyntc


    Yup - the only way to get tradesmen is to get more young people trained in the trades - increase capacity in training programs and try encourage more uptake in the trades.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭ mrslancaster


    And extra construction workers need to live somewhere too...

    Part 5 social requirement in new developments increasing from 10 to 20%. Lots of people trying to buy saying they are being outbid by funds & councils /ahb's who are buying extra in those same developments bringing the % much higher.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,094 ✭✭✭ jill_valentine


    It's fairly ridiculous that a scheme ostensibly to help First Time Buyers is filling us with despair, but there you go, that's about right for housing policy in this country.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭ mrslancaster


    Heard Eoin obroin yesterday, he didnt have too many answers about how to increase supply. He wants a 3 year rent freeze & government to stop landlords leaving the market. He called it a 'disorderly exit'.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,908 ✭✭✭ zom


    We can build even million of new houses but if they go into hands of small group of "investors" they will keep prices artificially high (why they shouldn't) like it was 10 or 20 years ago. I have friends (couple) holding a vacant property in Dublin without any intention of using it, just enjoying its price constantly rising - so big international corporations can hold all quarters for decades...

    This is real issue - not "expensive labor".



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭ Marius34


    You should always take politics with grain of salt, it's not about "this government". The nicer it sound the less it should be trusted.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32 RingSting


    Plenty of lads working in offices with trades since 2008 (myself included).



  • Registered Users Posts: 200 ✭✭ JDigweed


    Just had a quick read through this last night. I think they are making a fatal mistake with the vacant properties. The amount of land with PP, vacant and derelict properties in this country is staggering. They should be crucifying anyone holding onto land without a good reason and if a derelict property cannot be redeveloped by the owner a CPO should be used immediately. Desperate times call for desperate measures



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,279 ✭✭✭ mrslancaster


    He wants government to prevent them from selling, he said over 20000 had left in the past few years & it needs to be stopped. He's been talking about indefinite tenancies & an escrow system for deposits for a long time & they are both in this new plan.

    Another thing is short term lets will be managed by Failte Ireland. How will that work? Will airbnb & private holiday home lets be gone?



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,094 ✭✭✭ jill_valentine


    Rory Hearne reckons quarter of the allocated budget is HAP...

    Post edited by jill_valentine on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,870 ✭✭✭ RichardAnd


    The question that no one asks is why the focus is build, build and build some more. In a world facing issues like the climate crisis and the unsuitability of infinite growth economics, I find the idea of constant expansion to be counter to the often stated goal of achieving "sustainability". Thus, when one hears that the goal of this plan is to build 300k "houses" in the next decade, one can't help but ask "what then?" Will there be another plan to build 400k houses by 2040 and so on? Where is this going?

    To me, it seems to be the case that the intention is to ensure a constant demand for housing though an ever increasing population. In other words, infinite growth. This ideology is why are have a situation where a house bought for 12k in the 1970s is now worth 20-30 times as much. We have got to start thinking about future generations what we are leaving them. I do not want my nieces and nephews to grow up in an Ireland covered in high-rise apartment blocks.



Advertisement