Property Market 2018

Cyrus wrote: »

according to one chart you have referenced?

i am a millenial, i dont buy this.

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

engiweirdo wrote:

Keep it going sure lads. Generation greed might find there's nobody left to fund their pensions or keep buying their houses. Plenty of places in Europe alone offering better quality of life, a realistic chance of home ownership and are actively targetting Irish graduates/young professionals.

Each generation plays the hand it's dealt, this is a lot more complex than pure greed.

OwlsZat wrote:

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

debt jubilees have been spoken about by economist such as Steve keen and Michael hudson for some time now, can't see it happening though, we re no where near accepting this kind of thinking

OwlsZat wrote: »

There is a link in my post to the business insider article which covers the concept. It's been extensively written about. It's not a new concept nor am I trying to convince you.

its a uk based study that shows there may be a marginal decrease between two generations but that the millenials will over time probably over take the previous generation.

engiweirdo wrote:

Its not that complex. Although to be fair in Ireland its usually a heady blend of greed and stupidity.

This is far from simple, you ll find most individuals have played little or no part in the causation in our current situation, in my opinion, it has more to do with flawed thinking and dangerous group think.

Cyrus wrote:

its a uk based study that shows there may be a marginal decrease between two generations but that the millenials will over time probably over take the previous generation.

I'm not convinced of this at all, you can see the logic behind it, with rapidly rising asset prices, and relatively low wage inflation, and with added precarious nature of work for many, I suspect we have a problem

beauf wrote: »

Oh I agree. Dublin is mirroring London, to an unbelievable degree. Housing being driven by outside investment, and moving it out of reach of many.

As for St Annes I'm not sure if you think that was a good idea or bad. Or just that it was cancelled. Personally I don't think we should be losing amenities for all future generations so that someone else can make a fast buck. I though it was a disgrace. We are losing space for amenities and park land at an alarming rate. You can ignore it to get on the ladder, but is very short sighted thinking.

As for gardens, lots of people don't want gardens. But in general all the new developments have tiny gardens. I think we will regret this in future generations. especially when we are also losing amenity green spaces at the same time.

That said road widening beside a busy route, is very likely to happen. I don't think its the same thing as St Annes. Unless of course the mindset is just to build everywhere without regard of the impact. The it doesn't matter, you build on everything.

It's not a case of build nothing or just build everywhere, it's about finding a balance between the two.

Amenities are essential, as is housing. You're presenting it as if it's a binary decision, when it isn't.

beauf wrote: »

Actually it isn't. Some cities have converted road space back to parks.
Some place actually enforce a mix of all types of housing in a controlled sustainable return for developers.
It isn't driven by fire fighting. Developers and investors do not dictate policy.



Ah you are saying we have a excess of parks, green space and amenities.
You reckon, we don't need anymore as our populations increases, we have enough.
(Ireland's population growth five times EU average)

Its not the only story recently about pitches being sold for development.




TBH I don't know why you think Ireland should have a higher ownership rate than everywhere else.

I think you are willfully ignorant. You also exaggerate everything. Developers do not dictate policy here otherwise we would have high rise buildings and lower standard of building with less vat. So at best your claim is an exaggeration but given what we know I think it is intentional lying.
Any comment and you twist it away from what is being said.

beauf wrote: »

We have countless scandals of abysmal building standards. Most recently schools. I'm not entirely sure how it could be lower or how its an exaggeration.

Just because they are blocked from high rise does not mean planning and development is not driven by the needs of developers. Nama has done some very odd things in the middle of a housing crisis.

Willfully ignorant. Planing regulation not followed states the opposite of being allowed do as they please. Nana has nothing to do with planing and is an asset disposal organisation. Just because it is a government agency doesn't mean it has to align with other requirements.

You have heard this all before yet here you are again and choosing to ignore details you know. Willfully ignorant.

beauf wrote: »

Makes perfect sense. One hand actively working against the other.

The government do not own what Nama has on the books. The same way the government don't control the banks. Legal requirements. You talk of amenities being removed but you want to do away with the laws of this country and our EU membership. Wilfully ignorant because I know you have been told this all before by many people. You choose to ignore information and exaggerate

It's got to be a multi-layered solution right?

1. We, and by that I mean the government, must build a certain amount of social housing. Not at the level of the 1950's and 1960's, but enough that it's providing permanent accommodation to families who have been stuck in the hostel/hotel emergency accommodation system for over a year, and perhaps a little more to cover those who are living with relations or friends for more than two years. Unfortunately, this housing can't be built in Louth or Leitrim. It needs to be built close to areas where there is employment, otherwise everyone getting allocated social accommodation is going to be long term unemployed. That's no good for the families or the rural area they've been allocated. Secondly, they have to be built somewhere close to childcare. Most people in social housing can't afford private childcare, and there is not enough publically funded childcare (either places in urban centres, or facilities at all in rural areas) that would allow someone to take up employment, even if they secured something. So until such a point as universal public childcare is available (and this may never happen), families in social housing will have to rely on relatives. So when people say "oh X person turned down a house in Waterford because they wanted to be close to Mammy in Tallaght" it's not just a sense of entitlement - it's an economic necessity, for families anyway.

2. Get rid of the first time buyer grant for new houses. It's just a builder's subsidy. It doesn't reduce the cost of a house for first time buyer, it increases the cost of a house by the amount of a subsidy, and has a knock on effect on the value of second hand houses in the area, thus increasing the price for second time buyers and disincentivising them from selling their first house.

3. More active use of the CPO for vacant land. Yes, it will inhibit the free market for property. Yes, it will disincentivise investors from investing in property. Is that a bad thing? No. When buyers outstrip supplies, then anything that reduces the buyers is a good thing. Investors will choose other things to put their money into. Fine Gael won't do this as they are right wing, and in favour of the free market. The problem is, while the market adjusts (supply comes online) we have a crisis. They're just trying to ride the crisis out without intervening, and to be honest I find that reprehensible.

4. Have a really forensic look at why building costs are so high, without the first reaction being "lower building standards!". Are wages high? Can we get in cheaper labour? Are insurance costs artificially high? Can we find a way to reduce that e.g. through a government insurance scheme (though if we were to do that, you'd want to come down the heavy on any builder that breaches building standards - it should become an individual personal liability, like a doctor or teacher). Anything that reduces building costs *should* decrease the price of property, though again the government would have to make sure, in some way, that these savings are being passed on to the customer.

5. I can't think of anything else. Though I would assume brighter minds than mine have suggested all of the above and other things on this thread. And I would presume all of those options have been discussed within government departments. I just fail to understand why nothing substantial has been done.