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

1 the point I was making is that building our own is far cheaper and has the potential to be revenue positive

Imagine you had an asset built in the 60/70's and your charging rent levels for the noughties in an environment of full employment, even in a council environment it would difficult to make a loss

I'm not saying that will happen straight away if we start ramping up construction, but with a bit of luck, that may well be the situation when the pension crisis hits

Instead we are entering inflation adjusted long term leases that even protect investors from depreciation

Tax payer covers the cost either way. Current system fleeces the buyer in the purchase of their own home and in the highest cost method of social housing provision.

The state building their own stock would ease the burden through cooling house price inflation and significantly lower cost social/affordable housing provision.

2. The best way to ease the hurt of a crash is to implement policies that avert a bubble. If all state intervention is on the demand side a bubble is inevitable

1 higher standards = between 2 and up to 8% average higher costs. Bulk buying for larger projects may offset some of these potential increases and with the savings throughout the lifetime of the house it's a no brainer.

Where am I excluding land costs, and if the state has its own land idle what benefits are accrued from having it idle. Could they not put it to use to reduce outgoings elsewhere

2 Lti is a central bank induced measure overseen by the ECB. Government policy has been to undermine and circumvent it.

Can you give me 1 meaningful supply side measure implemented by government in the past 13 years?

2 to 8 % discussed Friday from a survey. Land has been sitting idle for years nothing done. More land has been sold to developers/investment funds and they have sat on it knowing that the system put no punitive measures if it were not used and will almost guarantee price appreciation

Of course developers are chasing profits, they are also one of the strongest lobby groups in the country. They are running rings around the government and every scheme they dream up becomes government policy.

These schemess maximise their profit, keep them in control of supply and citizens that rent or need to buy pay the price plus taxpayers have to pay for what must be the most expensive social/affordable schemes.

I understand why you are unable to identify one meaningful supply measure. Oddly an affordability crisis is being dealt with by multiple measure that all increase price. You know who's running the show when you see the results

Experiences of renter's throughout the country.

Dual income households in receipt of HAP as the rent is so high for substandard accomodation

Couple earning combined 80k trapped renting in basic accomodation

Things have been made very easy for those developers/investment funds "chasing profits"

Survey discussed Friday if you wish to have a look

Something valuable thats left idle or unused is lost potential revenue every year. It may also incur maintenence and security costs

What was the purpose of NAMA and how come so much of the land they sold to the private sector ended up being hoarded. It does not bode well for the theory that selling more land to developers will speed up supply of homes.

Regardless of the reasons the state is paying builders to be idle and selling land to hoarders

Hardly the actions of a government that is concerned of the plight of people seeking homes that they can pay for

My quote

From an article in written 27/09/21

Thanks for the current figures

The passive house article doesn't speak about typical low quality costs vs high quality cost properties. It's rather discuss passive house costs. In real world the high quality vs low quality properties price difference can be significant.

Which land you are talking that NAMA sold, and now is hoarded? If it's really hoarded it would be better tax it.

Was reading a columnist in the paper yesterday that likened our financial reliance on MNCs to the reliance on the potato in the 1850s! He didn't say there was blight on the way but we have zero plan b if there is.

House prices have bounced back since the crash solely because of the MNCs wages and taxes imo. Will we be as attractive as before the new tax agreement? I'm not so sure.

With regard to taxing land, its difficult to tax land when the owners of same are advising and lobbying government on how to "solve" the housing crisis. So the measures introduced are continuously suspended or unworkable.

Coincidence?

With regard to land sold no better source than the horse's mouth

The head of the National Asset Management Agency has criticised the practise of landowners hoarding sites which should be used for housing. 

Brendan McDonagh was speaking at the launch of NAMA's annual report for last year.

While there is an massive shortfall of new housing, some land that can be used for building is still lying idle. 

I think your just trolling now. The numbers are specific

Land sold to develop 50,000 homes.

Only 3,000 under construction

The figures are from the head of the agency that sold the land. What's your issue?

It may have sold the land with potential of 50,000 homes to be build. But it doesn't mean that builders are hoarding it. It may happen, but possibly only small part of it. If they are close to Cities, with good infrastructure, and council does not object it, most of that land will see properties popping up. There could be many reasons why they don't build homes on those lands, other than purposely hording it. Builder are busy, running on full or close to full capacity, constructions are ramping up.

Are they verified by 3rd party, who not paid by said investor? Knowing how investor hedge funds work those stats are worthless.

what is your point ? These companies have financial statements which are audited. Does the company pay for the audit….yes like every other company in every industry.

1. And I agree myself that some hoarding happens, which I point before that it should be taxed. But it doesn't mean that for majority of land that gets sold to private sector are for the purpose of hoarding it.
2. He just expresses his opinion, it's not a research or report. How do you know that NAMA/Council is any better and do not hoard land?

1 The system we have and it's subsequent inflation at levels multiples of general inflation in housing incentivises hoarding.

No measure to prevent it.

2. It is the opinion of the head of an agency tasked with the unwinding of the largest land and property portfolio ever assembled in the world.

Its also from an Oireachtas hearing on the matter so a little bit more than an "opinion piece"