Browney7 wrote: » Bit of a stretch that these cost 200k of a difference no? Isn't Oscar Traynor a Greenfield site requiring no demolition? It just seems baffling to me that one hand of the state was able to get units built at a significantly cheaper rate two to three years ago than that been touted in the media right now by DCC. It is also curious that DCC in trying to get the Oscar Traynor development passed said housing delivery would be delayed yet over a year on from the o'devaney gardens approval, work has still to commence. We can get into VAT, land costs, infill costs etc to try and confuse the issue all we like but do we really think the effective cost to the state of delivering a 2 bed apartment on land it already owns is really over 400k a unit? I just have huge concerns the state is being screwed and is letting itself get screwed on housing delivery
schmittel wrote: » The looming presence of Sinn Fein poses an interest question re the property market - i.e what can/will they do? It's more than likely, probably at next election, that they will be biggest party largely on back of electorates frustration with dysfunctional housing market. They won't be able to build faster to increase supply so they will be forced to choose other options, all of which I suspect lead to lower prices.
PropQueries wrote: » A bit off topic but it appears that the low debt to GPD countries in Eastern Europe are beginning to finally question the ECB’s low/negative interest rate policy and how/if it benefits them. “The sting in the tail of the European Central Bank’s massive pandemic stimulus, in particular its so-called TLTRO program of loans, is that monetary authorities from Estonia to Austria are facing reduced earnings. That means less money feeding into national treasuries.” But it does apply to the future direction of house prices in Ireland given that they’re primarily reliant on the low interest rate environment remaining as is basically indefinitely IMO. Link to article in Bloomberg here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-14/the-ecb-is-no-longer-a-reliable-cash-machine-for-governments
schmittel wrote: » They won't be able to build faster to increase supply so they will be forced to choose other options, all of which I suspect lead to lower prices.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » What are the "other options" which can increase supply, and why aren't the existing government doing them?
Idbatterim wrote: » If they economy needs to be tanked again, if SF got into power, to bring about the reform and change needed, from the parasites at the top in government etc , then so be it!
Idbatterim wrote: » yes, an experiment I want to see how it plays out at this stage, lets have it. FFG have provided endless incompetence, rip off housing, status quo and magic money trees at the drop of a hat. Whether sf change things or force FFG to change the rotten to the core setup, I dont care. But we need change to come about and constantly rewarding the comedy duo, wont bring that about! If they economy needs to be tanked again, if SF got into power, to bring about the reform and change needed, from the parasites at the top in government etc , then so be it! so we get a few more years of FFG pisstaking, SF win most seats on housing again, can FFG then form another government, make the housing crisis worse and ignore why SF won the most seats? I cant wait to see how it pans out, because its not going to end well, they thought they could get away with bull****ting indefinitely , they wont!
Idbatterim wrote: » density should be higher, scheme should go to abp etc and the max reasonable density permitted. Start the process of diverting construction away from office and hotel to residential, even with shortish term measures (taxation), than can be extended. Start taxing unused residential development land at meaningful rates, the land hoarding they encourage is ridiculous...
Hubertj wrote: » What a their options are you referring to?
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Schmittel's point was that SF won't be able to build faster so will have to use other options. All of the above could help build faster, but they aren't alternative options. In any event, density is set by local councils and generally there isn't much interest in high rise or high density housing. Of course there are appeals to ABP and the local authorities can increase the density in their plans, but there are a variety of reasons against this. Not even Sinn Fein can force people to change construction from offices and hotels to housing, other than e.g. punitive taxes on those industries, which will in turn result in job losses. The reason why offices, hotels etc are being built is because there is demand for same. The situation is slightly different with student housing, where there are special tax incentives for same, but those were brought in at a time when there was a chronic shortage of student housing. As for the vacant site levy, the government have already brought this in. But it is proving difficult to enforce:https://www.thejournal.ie/vacant-site-levy-5104669-May2020/ I'm not adverse to the idea that SF or any other party can solve the housing crisis, but I would like to see clear, tangible plans to do so. The only real option I can see is for the government to use public money to build local authority housing, thus freeing up private developers to develop private homes. However, this goes back on the problem that we have had where we have council estates etc. There is no easy solution, and there is no alternative other than building more houses.
Timing belt wrote: » Isn’t it the same pool of resource that the private developer and the government would be getting workers from? No matter which way you cut it...it takes time to get supply and no government can solve it over night and as I said before there will alway be a trade off.
schmittel wrote: » Short answer - Policies that encourage more efficient use of the stock we have. I have posted the long answer to this repeatedly over the last year.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Not necessarily, thanks to free movement of workers within the EU. But the take home message is that I don't see how there is any alternative to building houses as was contended for and I agree that it takes time and that there are trade offs.
johnnyskeleton wrote: » Like an empty room tax etc? I doubt SF would serious suggest such things as they would be a real vote killer to their base.
Timing belt wrote: » Wouldn't those workers have to live somewhere and put more pressure on the housing market? I am not knocking the idea i'm just trying to show that no matter what happens there is a catch and no magic wand. I have no doubt that SF could fix the housing problem within 2 years.. All they need to do is come in implement policies jobs disappear... people forced to emigrate... lots of empty houses. :D For all the people who think that they have it bad with income tax... I just want to point out that this is a drop in the ocean compared to the high rates of tax in the 80's....which resulted in lower tax take as it forced everyone to hide money from the tax man and a problem that was still there into the early 2000's
Timing belt wrote: » I have no doubt that SF could fix the housing problem within 2 years.. All they need to do is come in implement policies jobs disappear... people forced to emigrate... lots of empty houses. :D
schmittel wrote: » If FF/FG carry on the way they are going the mere threat of SF might have an impact! At the very least I suspect some of these vacant properties might come to the market if it looks like the winds are changing.
Timing belt wrote: » The only way prices will come down without large scale job cuts or emigration will be with an increase in supply and having an oversupply with even more vacant's that we have. Rental income will be the first place where we will see the pressure lift....
Timing belt wrote: » The only way prices will come down without large scale job cuts or emigration will be with an increase in supply and having an oversupply with even more vacant's that we have.Rental income will be the first place where we will see the pressure lift.... p.s. Its not threat........ if people want SF then vote them..... but give them a majority so that they can pass policy and when they increase tax rates for all workers and drive companies out of Ireland don't come crying.... The housing issue will be the last thing that anyone will care about at that stage.
schmittel wrote: » I doubt they'd consider an empty room tax, it's a bit too British.
PropQueries wrote: » There was an interesting article in the FT today with a new report questioning official government data and stated: “In London alone, almost 700,000 foreign-born residents have probably moved out, the authors of the blog calculated, leading to a potential 8 per cent drop in the capital’s population last year. The study drew a clear link between the departure of so many foreign-born nationals and the high number of job losses in hard-hit sectors such as hospitality, which has typically relied on overseas workers“. Does anyone have any information/data of something similar happening in Dublin that is not showing up in the official data? People can read the article in the Financial Times by googling “Coronavirus sparks exodus of foreign-born people from UK” and clicking from google as that allows one free read of an article in the FT.
schmittel wrote: » Indeed. I can't imagine SF and buddies would be too happy about REITs with large vacancy numbers or amateur short term let landlords. There is a bit of low hanging fruit in the rental sector.
Timing belt wrote: » You saw their latest proposal for rent... a two year ban on any rent rises..... who know's the investors might leave with extra regulation.
awec wrote: » I wonder why foreign workers could be leaving the UK? :rolleyes:
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5029bac657ae68f2ca4b7fa18994db0d.svg)
