Hubertj wrote: » Free month of rent..... life tenancies..... rent freeze for 3 years..... 4K affordable houses per year. All lies, undeliverable. Instead they could have proposed changes to state procurement regulations to speed up the ability of councils to commence projects. They could have proposed workable changes to tax treatment of funds/REITs etc. They could have proposed changes to planning laws and SHDs, grounds for NIMBYs objections. They could propose how public servants will be held accountable for not doing their job in relation to spending/wasting tax payers money.
Sweet.Science wrote: » They really need to make downsizing appealing Build one bed apartments in appealing towns and villages We have thousands of pensioners living in 3 bed semis because there is no alternative
RichardAnd wrote: » I'm not the protesting type, covid or not, but this is one protest that I would join. What is happening here, as I see it, is that generations below 40 are being funneled into being tax/rent cattle to be milked by the state and globalist interests. Even if I owned a house now, I still would fear for the future of younger generations coming up behind me (I'm 34). If this isn't stopped, it will only get worse.
AlmightyCushion wrote: I accept that it is a small percentage of the market and I've even argued it on here in the past. Regardless, evictions are not easy here like he claims and I doubt any investment company thinks they are.
amacca wrote: My parents rented bedsits in Dublin back in late 80s early 90s ......even then the percentage of tenants that caused problems, didn't pay, damaged property was way way above 1%
amacca wrote: Can't help thinking govt meddling and driving private landlords out of the market has contributed big time to this problem.......now it's either incompetence inaction or unwillingness to take action
Hubertj wrote: » That’s what I mean. The people need proper solutions and honesty from politicians (laughable I know). The stuff SF proposed yesterday does nothing but throw more populist nonsense into the mix.
Meanwhile, RTÉ News understands that proposals that could lead to changes in the tax treatment of institutional investors in property in Ireland could be considered by Government ministers as early as next week. It follows a meeting yesterday between the Housing and Finance ministers to address the buying of large sections of housing estates by these investors. Planning regulations are also set to be reviewed with a view to ensuring that at least 30% of homes in new housing developments are set aside for first-time buyers. A further 20% of homes on these developments would be social and affordable houses.
derekgine3 wrote: » huge chatter of groups on social media trying to organize a boycott of the property market (not sure this would work) but all talk no action thus far.
Wanderer78 wrote: » we also need to support older folks who want to remain in their home, if they chose to be, as their community is a fundamental part of their existence, and of course to preserve their memories of raising their family in their home
Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: » Looks like the first one has a north facing back garden and the second one is south facing? That's a pretty significant difference in fairness.
C14N wrote: » Bit of a catch-22 though. Usually the settled ones don't like new developments (especially apartments) in their own community. I'd imagine most people at retirement age haven't got much interest in moving to a brand new area, so I don't really see a solution for making downsizing appealing.
IAmTheReign wrote: According to the PRTBs own stats Rent arrears/Rent arrears and overholding is by far the most common reason for disputes brought to the PRTB. It's reason for 33% of all cases, and over 80% of cases brought by landlords. Who knows how many cases are never brought to the PRTB though. Stats for Q1 2021 are
Wanderer78 wrote: » i think the option should be looked at though, maybe some would like to move, maybe, but those that dont want to, need to be also protected
C14N wrote: » I actually don't agree. Might sound cold but I think elderly people living in large family homes (many of which are not up to modern-day building codes) with gardens in high-demand areas that they happened to buy on the cheap 30 or 40 years ago is an inefficent use of land and should generally be discouraged by public policy instead of protected. At the same time, it should be made easy to move out and find new smaller places within their community, but both push and pull effects are important.
Wanderer78 wrote: » ...so when you get to that age, the same should be for you?
cnocbui wrote: » I am a near perfect fit for the downsizing argument. You can keep it - it's got knobs on it. I do not want small, cramped living spaces, which is unversally what you get with single bedroom accommodation. The whole property market in Ireland is slow, cumbersome and expensive, so is wholly unsuited to encouraging downsizing. Solicitors fees, EA commissions, BER certificates, engineers reports - X2 for the expensive ones - all add up many thousands in expenses to downsize. A lot cheaper, and far less hassle, to just close 3 bedroom doors.
C14N wrote: » Right, but this is with our housing market the way it is right now. I'm sure if I was in your situation today, I'd be doing the same calculation and arriving at the same conclusion. I'm saying that policy can be used to make downsizing an attractive option instead of the massive pain you're describing.
C14N wrote: » I actually don't agree. Might sound cold but I think elderly people living in large family homes (many of which are not up to modern-day building codes) with gardens in high-demand areas that they happened to buy on the cheap 30 or 40 years ago is an inefficent use of land and should generally be discouraged by public policy instead of protected. At the same time, it should be made easy to move out and find new smaller places within their community, but both push and pull effects are important. Maybe not as big a deal in small towns or the countryside, but more in city centers and surrounding areas.
Shelga wrote: » Agree completely. Very aware that I really do not want to become like these politicians- if by some miracle I buy a shoebox apartment, I then turn my focus to ensuring its value doesn't drop. It's so selfish and short-sighted. Reminds me of the establishment teachers screwing over new entrants and is everything I don't like about Ireland (I do like rather a lot, but it's hard not to feel depressed and negative this year). I want a politican who is also thinking about how we can make housing work for young people in 20/30/40 years time- we do not have to live like this and I don't accept that "that's just how it is".
RichardAnd wrote: » To me, the solution would be to dramatically reduce the size and power of the state. A small state would not have the power to interfere with the housing market to the extent that has been seen. It would not be able to incentivise investment funds to come here with the promise of 25 year leases for social housing. It would not be able to force massive demographic changes with plans such as Ireland 2040 in an attempt to continuously maintain demand for property by increasing the population. To me, it seems that the state wants to be a farmer with the population as the cattle; to be milked and used as a resource. That is not the kind of world I want to bring children into, and it's certainly not one I want to leave behind for generations yet to come. The state is rotting to the core.
Galwayhurl wrote: » 20% is a huge tariff to pay for aspect, no?
tigger123 wrote: » Yes. The invisible hand of the market would solve our housing crisis.
C14N wrote: » Yes of course. I live in an apartment now with a partner and no kids. If I'm buying a house, I'll probably want something a bit bigger with the expectation that I will raise some kids there. When they're gone, I won't need as much space anymore, and if I want to hold onto it there should at least be a premium to pay for the luxury. In our current system though, I most likely would not be incentivised to do so, because I'd already own a big house that would be paid off and it would be more effort to downsize than to just stay put.
EddieN75 wrote: » https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1390277425121136641?s=20 It's all an illusion. No change is coming
