Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

Villa05 wrote: »

If capacity is limited and there are already sufficient permissions in the system, how are we making things worse by opposing Poor value for money schemes for the taxpayer.

The function of the planning system is to provide sufficient correct housing in appropriate locations.

It should not be a mechanism for land hoarders to increase the value of their lands and sit on it

You’ve sidestepped the issue at hand.

enricoh wrote:

There was a mere 40% of the houses earmarked for social housing, not good enough said sinn Fein! I couldn't see ordinary punters queueing for the other 60% unless it was to lease them back to the council!

40% comprises of social, cost rental, affordable purchase.

Even private purchasers for the most part get FTB grant and investment funds get tax free status plus "can't loose" long term leases

So everything is subsidised to some extent so by definition social for everyone.

Basically a sign that every development is unaffordable and unsustainable

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What free homes? Sf do not advocate for this, they're trying to wrestle the whole property market away from the monopolsation of the fire sectors

No they do not. They want to prevent as many houses as possible being build. Over the last 10 years we have tried to prevent gettoization. This is where you have large proportion of social housing in a development. IMO 40% was a bit high although I taught that there was an affordable element within that. We even moved away from builders building 10-20% if a lesser type house in one corner of the site.

I would not mad about having a crowd of gits next door(however not all people requiring social housing are like that it's a small minority) but I see the advantage in the long run of integration of housing and the long term positive effect it should have on the majority of those buying social and affordable housing. You see this is smaller urban areas where for all the fault of the house purchase scheme's of the 80/90's it kept a lot of families out of gettoization.

SF do not want this to happen as it reduces there longterm potential voter base. It's a cynical play on housing. They want to create more Ballymun's, Moyross's and Knocknaheenie's so they can continue to harvest votes out of these types of getto's

ESRI bubble warning in the property market. It's all so familiar at this stage.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/house-prices-in-ireland-could-be-reaching-tipping-point-1.4602628

House prices reached a floor in 2013, the year the economy began its recovery. In the intervening period house prices have risen by 90 per cent, with the severe shortfall in housing supply driving prices back up to 2008 levels, despite wider pandemic challenges.

Given the exceptionally slow response of Ireland’s housing supply, there must be a real concern that house prices will surge here over the next 18 months. Already in the Netherlands they are up by 13 per cent on a year ago, and in the US they are 24 per cent higher. Can Ireland be far behind?

While a tightening of mortgage rules could help calm house price pressures over the next 18 months, this is not the job of the Central Bank: its remit is to protect financial stability. If the Government wants to tackle house price inflation, it needs to seriously ramp up supply, and it should stop throwing petrol on the flames through schemes that put more money in the hands of buyers, only to end up in the pockets of sellers.

Hubertj wrote: »

They object to planning and block development for political gain. They “care” about the “people” just as much as all other parties.

https://twitter.com/EOBroin/status/1408334355194339329

FG would give away all state assets to their associates for nothing if they thought they could get away with it.

They overpaid for the Children's Hospital. They would pay €50,000 for a milkshake if they knew the owner of the diner.

The name for that is graft btw, not 'incompetence' (the usual defence, some defence!)

Wanderer78 wrote: »

jesus christ, what utter bullsh1t, sf realises the ffg model of a fire sector lead economy will continually fail, and it will, particularly in relation to property, as this approach is ultimately about maintaining a trend of continual property and land price inflation

No objective minded person would be able to explain how this is true.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

id say you d be surprised, theres a lot of well respected commentators writing about this now, you d also be surprised of the amount of young people that understand it, even far better than me

I'm updated abit my statement, not to confuse.
Yes, I'm aware that many bloggers/commenters could write the same.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm looking forward to seeing these 18-24 year olds show up in force for the next general election.

Slacktivism always translates to votes.

oh they ll turn up, and so to will their parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts, this is going deep now!

Hubertj wrote:

They object to planning and block development for political gain. They “care†about the “people†just as much as all other parties.

I'm comfortable with the reasons for objection, that state owned land is key to resolving the supply issue, handing it over to a sector that openly controls supply to maximize profit will not resolve the issue

Villa05 wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the reasons for objection, that state owned land is key to resolving the supply issue, handing it over to a sector that openly controls supply to maximize profit will not resolve the issue

yup, speculation is killing us

Villa05 wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the reasons for objection, that state owned land is key to resolving the supply issue, handing it over to a sector that openly controls supply to maximize profit will not resolve the issue

Yes for political purposes.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

SF do not want this to happen as it reduces there longterm potential voter base. It's a cynical play on housing. They want to create more Ballymun's, Moyross's and Knocknaheenie's so they can continue to harvest votes out of these types of getto's

This is 100% correct.

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

The DBS odds have taken a very interesting shift, SF have gone from being 6/1 3 weeks ago to 7/4 today


Geoghan - 5/4
Boylan -7/4


The populist rhetoric from Leo over the last two weeks makes sense now

The only reason Boylan was 6/1 three weeks ago was she wasn't confirmed. SF could have put forward a different candidate. It was always going to be FG and SF top of the betting

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

The DBS odds have taken a very interesting shift, SF have gone from being 6/1 3 weeks ago to 7/4 today


Geoghan - 5/4
Boylan -7/4


The populist rhetoric from Leo over the last two weeks makes sense now

Speaking of populist rhetoric the Sinn Fein motion in the pension and retirement age is worse than any of the bol*ox coming out of Leo. “Demographics Will loos after themselves” fills me with confidence.
It’s all about politics, not what’s best for the people.