Old diesel wrote: » The houses won't disappear though - so the question to be addressed is what is the best policy to address how these homes will get used. How many of them should be owner occupied????. How many should ideally come back to rental market - and who should be buying them for that purpose. Part of the challenge with the current rental supply is that it's in the hands of random people whose decisions are random in the context of a bigger picture. You wouldnt be able to run a company with 170 k people if all 170 k wanted to do their own thing and make totally random decisions. But we want to rebuild housing like that. It's not very workable. The system will likely need to evolve from the traditional model. People talk of the backstop in Brexit terms. Housing almost feels like it needs backstop solutions with a supply chain cranked up to identify the housing needs of the country and to deliver the housing with some always taken up by a backstop housing company. Such a company which could be state backed would take on supply that comes into the housing market both new and 2nd hand so people have homes to move into. The reality is that a tenant can't create supply in housing. But the exact same Tenant can have a company Passat for their work ordered up to a spec from the VW factory even on a lease car they will never actually own. Housing needs some of that thinking imo.
Old diesel wrote: » So here's what happens with the lease Passat.... 1) Michelle has a job which requires her to drive on business around the country. 2) her company decide their policy is to lease a car. Michelle gets one of these lease cars as her company car. 3) a budget per month is set - Michelle is given some criteria on make etc. Within the budget Michelle can add extras/spec colour. 4) the leasing company orders the car - and this results in VW making a car based purely on someone who will never own the car doing a deal with leasing company. 5) the car arrives and is part of the additional supply of Passats the market. A proper professional leasing company orders the car from a big company who make the car. Now if we were to run lease cars like we do housing. 1) Michelle would be totally restricted to whatever cars are available to lease from random people on daft.ie. Her company VW could be a 1991 Jetta 1.6 diesel. 2) Michelle could end up changing cars after a year because a 3 year lease is meaningless and random done dealer wants to sell the random Jetta. 3) when Michelle looks online she sees simultaneously that she can have a new Passat euro 6 to BUY at less a month then the random Jetta but the random done deal leasing guys are complaining that it costs too much to build a Passat euro 6. The Euro 6 Passat comes with too much emissions stuff and airbags "you just don't need".
Old diesel wrote: » ............... Now if we were to run lease cars like we do housing................
An_Toirpin wrote: » The more landlords the better. It allows competition and innovation. 170 k people trying to supply a demand is a strength.
Old diesel wrote: » .... Land at silly money for example in Dublin vs Wexford. True competition and innovation directly tackles the 210 k of unaccountable cost between the Wexford cost and the Dublin cost.
beauf wrote: » I'm not sure why you keep saying its unaccountable? Its due to the more desirable location. Which I know is obvious. But seem to be implying its some sort of intangible, when it really isn't. There is a cost to living in an undesirable location, usually transport costs, and commuting time.
Wheeliebin30 wrote: » The media is just as much to blame for peddling this homeless nonsense with tales everyday of poor Jacinta sleeping in her car blah blah. Politicians are afraid to say anything in case the mob and Sinn Fein call for their resignation. Instead we keep handing out free houses to anyone who rocks up homeless. Yeah cause that won’t give all the wasters the idea to go homeless. What a cluster****.
Old diesel wrote: » The problem with the 210 k is that it's part of the 400 k is too much money for a house cost....
Idbatterim wrote: » I totally agree, but its the government that have created and maintain this farce. I called this ages ago, they will create a situation so bad, that doing what the "wasters" do, is the only logical choice. They are putting hard working people in impossible situations... All these people with the housing provided by us taxpayers, they should be out working, their welfare payment can be the roof over their head, they can go out and work like the rest of us to pay for everything else! The country is a total banana republic! But like I said, the government have created this outrageous housing situation, they have created the welfare wonderland and entitlement society....
Old diesel wrote: » Charging 1600 Euro a month for some random property of random standard isn't innovation. Wanting to charge 1600 a month because the guy next door gets that isn't what most associate with competition. Innovation is when you actually try to do something new. For example a Passive house mIght stereotypically be a 400 k house in Dublin. But a guy in Wexford actually did 3 bed Passive house for 190 k. All because he wanted to prove that Passive house could be done at a price normal house buyers on normal budgets could afford. Competition would be if another builder looks at that 190 k Passive house and is inspired to improve his product. The reason that Passive house would be 400 k in Dublin is because other things add 210 k to the price. Land at silly money for example in Dublin vs Wexford. True competition and innovation directly tackles the 210 k of unaccountable cost between the Wexford cost and the Dublin cost.
The Student wrote: » You do understand the idea of going into business. If property could be built at a lower cost than currently exists then surely property would be built to make a profit. Property outside the cities is cheaper because land is cheaper. All costs associated with a property must be included in the price and this includes land, development levies etc.
Eric Cartman wrote: » I think the building materials industry, land owners and property developers are too hell bent on bringing back the really good times so arent willing to drop prices. Theyre all holding out for the government to turn around and say 'ok, screw the central bank limit' and they can go mad again. The apetite for building actual affordable housing isnt there from anyone i volved in the building of houses.
LotharIngum wrote: » I bet that relaxation if the lending rules is coming soon too.
Augeo wrote: » I really don't see that happening.
LotharIngum wrote: » It will happen. Its for sure.
LotharIngum wrote: » No point having a ceiling if people cant get above the ceiling anymore. At the moment its squashing different value properties into closer price ranges. That's not sustainable.
markpb wrote: » Don't forget that the lending rules were created by the Central Bank to protect the banks. They're not particularly bothered about the effect (if any) on house prices, just on making sure that the banks aren't over-exposed when the next recession happens. The Central Bank also report more to the ECB than to the Irish government so it would take a significant argument from someone in order for them to expose the banks to risk just to make it easier for people to pay more for houses. You're ignoring the fact that loosing the lending rules is a bad thing. It will only push up house prices even further. I'm not sure what your last sentence means, maybe you can explain it?
LotharIngum wrote: » Well they will be bothered by it. Unless they are allowed to kill a market stone dead.
LotharIngum wrote: » It will happen. Its for sure. It will start by splitting the lending rules into different locations. Different price ranges. Different rules. First Dublin and the rest of the country will separate. Then Dublin lending rules will relax. Then County by county. Then split into price levels or amounts needed to buy. Then they will be relaxed at different rates for all the levels. No point having a ceiling if people cant get above the ceiling anymore. At the moment its squashing different value properties into closer price ranges. That's not sustainable.
The Student wrote: » There are regional variations already. Wages are by and large higher in the cities then outside the cities so 3.5 times a city wage is more than 3.5 times an out of city wage.
beauf wrote: » Better to create a job in Roscommon...
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » It would be great to see for a couple of years at least a bias against the cities when it comes to new jobs. Governments are chasing their tail. First they ensure most new jobs are in the cities, then struggle to build the transport and housing infrastructure. It takes years for them to catch up and creates general misery for everyone. How about build the transport infrastructure first such as high speed broadband rurally and then encourage movement of industry out from cities. There's no reason why Facebook, Google, etc should be smack bang in Dublin city centre, other than as a "Cool" location to work in for their Execs. They should be based in Dublin but outside the M50.
AlmightyCushion wrote: » The government doesn't decide where jobs go, the companies opening or expanding do. The government can and does use incentives to get them to set up else where but companies can still set up where they want (mostly). There are plenty of small and large towns with high speed broadband. As for moving large employers to outside the M50 but still within Dublin, we can't force them to do that but even if we could it would be a stupid idea as it would just encourage more urban sprawl and would massively increase traffic congestion.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » There's no reason why Facebook, Google, etc should be smack bang in Dublin city centre, other than as a "Cool" location to work in for their Execs. They should be based in Dublin but outside the M50.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Nope, it would encourage people not to commute from the suburbs to the city centre which is what is happening. You could then free up some of the city centre for more housing/apartments for those who work in the city centre. A win-win for everyone.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » Re companies deciding where they go, that's part of the problem. the government always do the command of the multinationals and to hell with the people trying to find accommodation. Its a major cause in recent years of the housing crisis. Tens of thousands of new workers in Facebook, Google, etc competing for limited housing stock in Dublin.
