Villa05 wrote: » Interesting the the initial budget for this was 75m and he was trying to get the banks to match this. Freedom of information showed that the minister wanted to allocate far more to this scheme 4, 000 units is 2/3 of the current Ftb market. It shows how the state needs to subsidise citizens to the tune of up to 40% of the price of the house so that they can compete with entities that pay little or no tax. If they paid the same amount of tax as the first time buyers it might level the playing field somewhat
dor843088 wrote: » The future will be WFH. The government can make huge inroads to curing a lot of problems with the stroke of a pen . Traffic congestion, emissions targets, stretched services and an overcrowded capital can be greatly reduced through legislation towards WFH. There is more legislation coming down the tracks leaning towards WFH rights for workers. Even the CEO of Dublin bus who would be having close contact with government officials has stated this is how it will be and he only expects buses to be half full in the future due largely to WFH. WFH is a huge win win for everybody especially the government there is no way they wont push for it.
awec wrote: » Got a link for this?
dor843088 wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/business/business-podcast/inside-business-with-ciaran-hancock-dublin-bus-ceo-ray-coyne-on-the-future-of-transport-in-the-city-1.4500064?mode=amp
PropQueries wrote: » That's definitely true and I think the state has already stated they're looking at c. 20% WFH from their own staff in the near future. Interesting point on Dublin Bus's future projections as well. But I would disagree that the capital is overcrowded. Copenhagen has 600,000 people living in the same footprint as Dublin City has 100,000 people living between the canals.
dor843088 wrote: » Dublin is not built or planned for dense population and does not use its footprint efficiently. That's the whole point. Redesign the city or simply encourage people to move out through legislation. It's an obvious choice let alone the other problems it will cure.
Hubertj wrote: What’s wrong with Navan? Part from the accents.
Villa05 wrote: » Nothing, The issue is the commute and its cost to the commuter, the environment and to the state in helping the country break its co2 emmisions target helping to achieve that 500million annual fine.
JimmyVik wrote: » It reminded me of the time they used to say Dunshaughlin was 20 mins from Dublin city center.
JimmyVik wrote: » Sure they say in their sales blurb you are 45 minutes from Dublin. I had to laugh at that. It reminded me of the time they used to say Dunshaughlin was 20 mins from Dublin city center.
Hubertj wrote: » Yep, if only the relevant stakeholders engaged constructively to provide adequate public transport
PropQueries wrote: » But isn't regular public transport just a hidden subsidy to landowners outside the main urban centres? By spending billions on rail, bus, motorways etc., it just makes land with planning permission in places like e.g. Navan worth more than it would otherwise be as very few people (who work in Dublin) would consider living there otherwise. There was an analysis I read a while ago about if the costs of the rail, motorways etc. were factored into the selling price, the cost of delivering homes in places like e.g. Navan would actually cost more than the cost of delivering a similar house in e.g. South Dublin. Like the shared equity scheme, motorways, rail etc. are just another taxpayer back-door handout to landowners in the commuter counties IMO
awec wrote: » You've officially jumped the shark. We're now on to how good public transport is actually bad.
PropQueries wrote: » It is if it results in houses being built in the wrong locations IMO
awec wrote: » What is the "wrong locations"? If Ireland had a proper public transport system with regular services and wide coverage everyone would be better off for it.
PropQueries wrote: » Well, if Copenhagen has 600,000 people living in the same footprint as Dublin has 100,000 people living in between the canals, there would be no reason to build in places like Navan for commuters working in Dublin. If we utilised the city centre properties in the same way that Copenhagen does, the majority of young people sharing three-bed semis in Dublin would move into the city, which is where they obviously want to be and families could then move into their three-bed semis, without having to commute from e.g. Navan. Problem solved. But, that's too easy a solution in Ireland
fliball123 wrote: » How much and how long do you think it will take to do what you suggest?
PropQueries wrote: » A lot lot lot lot quicker and cheaper than applying for planning permission and building houses from scratch in places like Navan IMO
cnocbui wrote: » Just nationalise all the buildings in Dublin, do a 100% government haircut of every bank account in the country and use that money to make all those buildings props compliant. But that's too easy a solution, right, comrade? A couple of easy moves and you have a socialist workers paradise.
PropQueries wrote: » No need to nationalise. Just implement a similar derelict property tax like the socialist paradise that is Washington D.C. has of 10%. That would be incentive enough to bring many of them back into use IMO A similar tax for under-utilised commercial properties in our towns and cities and the market will take care of the rest IMO
schmittel wrote: » You know all is well in the property market when it only takes 850,000 of your hard earned/borrowed euros to buy a detached house with large garden in prime SCD:https://www.daft.ie/for-sale/detached-house-24-dundela-avenue-sandycove-co-dublin/2953175
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
