fliball123 wrote: Its up to each individual to make their own choices in life and if these people choose those professions they should have looked at the salary and at the locations where the work would be as well as what strain it will put on their lifestyle. I don't see why anyone should feel entitled to live where they want.
fliball123 wrote: » As has been the case for a couple of generations. It still does not mean that Nuala, Mike or Sammy cannot afford a house in Ireland. Its up to each individual to make their own choices in life and if these people choose those professions they should have looked at the salary and at the locations where the work would be as well as what strain it will put on their lifestyle. I don't see why anyone should feel entitled to live where they want. If you dont like where you live but cannot afford something in a more suitable area for yourself then retrain or upskill and get a job that puts more money in your pocket and gives you more options socially.
timmyntc wrote: » A big rethink on how we deal with housing, with a massive increase in social housing. Big increase on income limits for social housing, & have low income workers get priority on housing lists. Cities need low paid workers to function - they are the shopworkers, waiters/waitresses, cleaners, bartenders, even nurses and teachers, and plenty of civil service workers too who would struggle to afford housing. Cities need these people, and should accommodate them.
Villa05 wrote: » I did but it's not posted, maybe the mods can explain. Hint Check out the track record of the person that compiled that report
Timing belt wrote: » A big rethink does not address the immediate needs of the housing market. It is all good to say yes we need a massive increase in social housing, Someone else will say we need a massive increase in FTB houses. Regardless of what type of property (social or private) there is limited capacity to deliver as the planning laws, building regs make the building of new houses inelastic so that it will always lag behind demand and what is in the pipeline at any point in time may be to little supply or to much supply. If you build more social housing then you will have less new private builds which will push the price of housing up more. This is exactly what some posters on here are complaining about being in competition with the government for FTB houses. If you build more private houses then the social housing needs are not meet and you require HAP which pushes up the price of housing and rent. I am not saying that things could not be done better or in a different way but it will take time to get adequate supply.
Hubertj wrote: » There should be scope to increase supply of houses if there is the expected reduction in building offices, hotels etc. Someone previously posted there are now a similar number of construction workers to 2006 when output was significantly higher. But as you said any of this would take a number of years and does not address immediate requirements, social, affordable, private, houses v apartments etc
schmittel wrote: » So are you saying that basically time is the only solution, there is no quick fix? We just have to grin and bear it whilst the required number of appropriate properties are built?
Hubertj wrote: » I’m not sure how you could draw that conclusion from my comment. Time is a significant factor in resolving the issues. In the short term there is an immediate housing requirement. Government is limited in what it can do short term other than what it is doing. It’s not a simple fix as some would suggest. What else can the government do short term?
Marius34 wrote: » I'm confident to say there is no quick fix, and there will not be quick fix. Housing is not a quick process in general.
schmittel wrote: » Assuming our planning legislation is sound (which I do, there has to be a procedure to approve development), and we have sufficient construction workers, is there anything govt can do to speed up the delivery of the required number of houses?
schmittel wrote: » The point I thought you were making is that there is nothing the govt can do in the short term. The only thing that will fix it is time. In the absence of any other suggestions, not sure how I could draw any other conclusion from your comment tbh.
Timing belt wrote: » Yes there should be more resources available with a reduction in building offices hotels but this yet again will take time unless existing projects are stopped midway and resources redeployed to housing immediately but that is not going to happen because of the financial cost of breaking contracts etc. The government use 37% of the construction resource according to EY report so yet again they could redeploy from here but then we won't have schools or hospitals. We could import workers via immigration but yet again they will need somewhere to live so will put additional pressure on the limited rental/housing stock that is available until more supply comes online.
schmittel wrote: » Are you saying there is nothing the government can do but take time to build? Seems like a lot of posts daying they could do this but... Is there realistically anything they can do now?
Timing belt wrote: » What I am trying to say is that there is always a trade off. yes their are things that they can do but it will be at the expense of something else.... There is noting to stop them from rezoning a large chunk of green land and building 10,000's of social houses on it. It would be quicker and more economical as would benefit from economies of scale as all houses would be the same..... It has been done before but it came with its problems.Anyone that says the problem can be fixed in the morning is not telling the full truth unless there is an honest debate on what the trade off is and whether people are willing to accept this. The one thing that the government and all political parties could do is work together to resolve this as we have seen time and time again one political party not approving another political parties plans for housing at a local government level. There is not aimed at any political party because they are all doing this to score votes.
schmittel wrote: » Rezoning a large chunk of land and building 10,000's of social houses is not going to fix the problem in the morning either! But I think you've hit the nail on the head with the bolded part. It seems like any honest debate that might lead to the conclusion that the trade off is lower property prices, is not palatable as people are unwilling to accept this.
combat14 wrote: » just seen below - wonder will it affect house building here in any way - certainly will cut into consumers disposable income... Debenhams to close online business in Ireland to avoid Brexit tariffshttps://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/debenhams-close-online-business-ireland-23280670.amp Under Brexit trade rules goods must “originate” in either the UK or the EU - under so-called “Rules of Origin” - in order to qualify for zero-tariffs. For example, if Tesco imports a pair of pyjamas from China into the UK and then sends them to Ireland for sale in its 151 stores here, they could be hit by a 12% tariff. At least fifty major UK retailers, including Marks and Spencer and Tesco, are in the process of going through their products lines, to establish how many of them will be now subject to tariffs from the EU. Tariffs can be applied to food and e-commerce and well as clothing
Cyrus wrote: » Sorry cut into disposable income ?? There has been some stretches on this thread but that takes the award.
combat14 wrote: » a 12% tariff on a range of goods/services is not insignicant lol
combat14 wrote: » Free’ mortgage offers put the focus on high costs imposed in Irelandhttps://amp.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/free-mortgage-offers-put-the-focus-on-high-costs-imposed-in-ireland-39945245.html
Timing belt wrote: Most people waiting to get onto the property ladder will see this as very palatable but you need to remember that in Ireland 2/3 of people own their property so the idea of lower property prices is up their with large tax increases ("with no benefits for the tax paying population"). Why would anyone choose to reduce their net wealth?
Hubertj wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/home-sellers-warned-to-price-their-properties-realistically-1.4452724 Interesting comments from lisney in relation to realistic asking prices. Somewhat contrary to myhome report. So you could argue they are telling people/other estate agents to cop on or they are pitching for business... either way, I think it is a welcome contribution from an estate agent.
