Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1310311313315316909

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,604 ✭✭✭Amadan Dubh


    Great little country. More evidence of the manipulation of our property market for the benefit of the few.

    An Bord Pleanála’s (ABP) deputy chairperson didn’t declare a conflict of interest when he refused planning permission for a development beside land owned by his property firm.


    ABP board members are required to declare material interests in planning applications under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Failure to do so is a criminal offence.


    Paul Hyde, who also serves as chairperson of the board’s strategic housing development (SHD) division, has a 25 percent shareholding in H20 Property Holdings Ltd, which owns the land in question. Though Hyde was required by law to declare this shareholding, he didn’t disclose it in the 2021 register of interests he submitted to An Bord Pleanála.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Thanks but if you sell after 2 years do you only pay 2/5 of the money back?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,217 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves



    You are comparing apples and oranges.

    Since 1990 the population of NI has grown for 1.65 million to about 1.9 million less than a 15% increase. The population of the Republic has gone from 3.3 million to 5 million over a 50% increase.

    Because of this we have a younger population which add to housing demand

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Sorry, ignore above message, only seeing this now. Thanks Wassie.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭J_1980


    1 - does that include “incidents” like the Grenfell tower?


    except for natural monopolies (roads, railway) public sector spending is always wasteful. And even there is a big difference.

    There is a night/day difference between public and private(toll) roads in Italy/France. Private schools achieve MUCH better results with only marginally higher spending etc



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 997 ✭✭✭iColdFusion


    Jesus those third story roof windows are a total dogs dinner for a new build, could they be more "last minute tacked on Friday evening"?

    attic.JPG




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,011 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ....once again, we have substantial evidence to support, the private sector isnt as 'efficient' as we have lead ourselves to believe, the private sector introduces its own set of inefficiencies and short comings, compared to public sector inefficiencies and short comings, your claims are actually only ideologically based, with little or no conclusive evidence in their support. we ve been playing this game of private sector superiority complex for many decades now, and we re still waiting for this to be proved, but what has been well proven is, leaving elements of the private sector to guide (regulate) itself via its invisible people, is a bit of a disaster, so it really is time for us to grow up and accept these failures......



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,217 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Go secured. Find out there solicitor costs is but it should be less than 2k Inc vat. Check there fixed rates as well. It may pay to fix for five years

    You should be able to negotiate down the secured rate by up to 1% or more. Secured rates are usually not above 4%

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭MacronvFrugals


    This is Haughey level gombeenery! Coveney's pal also, neck like a jockeys bollox!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Which has absolutely nothing to do with the point made.

    Oversight and compliance with standards costs around 1k per unit is independent, accountable and larger developers pay more thereby levelling the playing field between larger and smaller developers

    Ours is multiples of the cost, self certified, unaccountable, and a barrier to entry for smaller developers thereby helping to maintain a monopoly for larger developers



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 997 ✭✭✭iColdFusion


    If we are still talking about building houses I have worked on public and private sector housing projects and the private sector jobs are at least 40% more efficient in going from a green field to houses/apts built, its not surprising, council staff don't give f#ck if the houses get built or not and have layers of middle management and paperwork to get through at each phase, private developers have massive loans that need to be paid and they ain't getting paid until those houses are built and sold plus loads of hands on experience in building houses.

    If you're thinking "oh well we'll just hire all those private sector guys to work for the state and get the same result" that's not going to happen either, people only want to leave the private sector for cushy public sector jobs where they get loads of holidays, guaranteed pay rises and never have to work an hour of overtime again

    So yeah in my opinion a state builder would just be a money pit, jobs for the boys kinda thing, every estate they do would be a mini national children hospital in cost overruns, variations and delays.

    Plus im sure on of the big private developers would take some case against the government claiming unfair competition in the marketplae from a state backed builder or something to generate a few million on legal fees and years of delays.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Private sector dominance with the greatest of respect with regards to building there should of been a public sector watch dog for building regs but not one person is held accountable in either sector. The public sector have showed us with the children's hospital it cant be trusted to build. Maybe a delayed bonus scheme to developers and try and attract people with building skills into the country I don't know how or what mechanism to use maybe even say come over for a year or after you up until you have built 1000 houses your pay is tax free for the year/1000 houses then after that if you want to stay you pay normal tax. ( Build x amount of houses in y amount of time.) Just trying to think out side of the box. I have a house so it doesn't impact me directly but I do see the struggles of the youth trying to get a foothold on the property ladder... There also needs to be a drive at secondary school level to start throwing more emphasis on areas like woodwork, metalwork and tech drawing, they were the 3 areas back when I went to school that people could show if they had any kind of aptitude for the game. I would nearly have an handyman's curriculum embedded in 5th year as people nowadays don't know how to change a light bulb or a fuse in a plug. I would love to see how much the curriculum for metalwork/woodwork/ tech drawing has come on in the last 2 decades as everything is now geared for college and tech/business.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    London is not in Northern Ireland

    Grenfell Tower tragedy was not attributable to the initial construction of the block, rather a change to the external appearance of the building as the gentrified inhabitants felt it was an eyesore for them.

    Last time I looked private school fees were very high, one would imagine those fees might attract better teachers and children of the advantaged class

    Finland has the best education system in the world. It is illegal for schools there to charge fees, raise funds outside state funds or charge students for any activity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,615 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    THey'll be doing well to find 300 people willing to work in Dublin in this environment.

    My bet is theyll be aiming to poach staff from other firms already working in Dublin. Grand if you have the deep pockets.

    The point isnt housing supply, its defective builds. Far less reported defective in the North than in the South, even for firms who work cross-border!

    I believe several schools in the south built by contractors from Tyrone turned out to be defective, to my knowledge no such problems were discovered on their work on their own side of the border! Regulatory environments better enforced on one side, and it isnt this one!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    This should never of been the case. The public sector are paid very handsomely to basically be a watchdog. They have shown they cant even do this. Not one public sector person held accountable even do there were numerous building issues such as priory hall and pyrite and our watch dogs in the public sector where once again found asleep at the wheel or gorging out on fine dining with the brown envelopes they were paid with regards to building. We then had the introduction in 2013 of the BCR system where the government (Take a bow mr Phil Hogan) tried to put manners on the wild west self cert that builders had indulged in up to this point (remember a person in the local authority has to approve planning and then they have to ensure planning has been adhered to with regards to both the building regulations and planning permission) and the BCR system came about due to issues found in builds like Priory Hall where no one could be held accountable. The idea was that there was a person called a Assigned Certifyer who underwrote the build. What happened??? Well the Assigned Certifiers indemnity shot through the roof which meant an extra cost for the customer. The idea was that everyone working on the job plumbers, sparks, brickies - etc all had their own certs that feed up into the final cert. But this was challenged in the high court where a sparks messed up a fuse board and a build went up on fire. The Assigned Certifyer tried to sue and the sparks defence was - There were brickies, panters, plumbers, labourers and plasterers all on site and there is no way of knowing if any of these touched the fuse board as the assigned certifyer would of had to be on site 24/7. With this case this BCR system was now pointless and with building industry lobbying there had to be a change. So it then became the BC(A)R system in 2015 with the A = amendment these certs and assigned certify where no longer needed and effectively the wild west self cert is back in business. People can still get a certificate of opinion on compliance after a build is done even if the engineer/architect signing off has not seen one brick being laid. There is too much money in building and with the brown envelopes passing from them to government the status quo will remain.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,011 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    once again, its over simplistic to say that the private sector is far more efficient than the public sector, we re currently experiencing a catastrophic collapse in this thinking and its ideologies, hence our current situation, and once again, this isnt just an irish problem, but a global one, this superiority complex truly is over. we must accept theres actually short comings and inefficiencies in both sectors, the incentive structures of the private sector is primarily based in the maximisation of outcomes, in particular maximising profits, returns, share holder value etc etc etc, this ultimately leads to serious and complex failures in meeting our most essential needs, in this case, our property needs.

    we must some how bring together the abilities of both sectors, in the hope of reducing the overall inefficiencies of both, but knowing complete efficiency(whatever the hell that even means!) is probably not achievable.

    the reality is, facilitating the private sector to do so, has completely failed, this is our reality, yes the public sector and the state has played major roles in this failure, but so to has the private sector, accepting our reality is actually a sign of maturity, yes we re being extremely immature to continue with these beliefs, i.e. the abilities of the private sector, and ultimately the market in providing us with all our needs is completely untrue, and in fact is highly dangerous in trying to do so, this is now clearly obvious, and at a global level also!

    again, another reality check, its clearly obvious private sector solutions are not going to come, so that just leaves the state, with all its inefficiencies and shortcomings.......



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Maybe setting up something like the government sets up a bank for builders to provide loans at 0%. The Builders provide the Government with the QS numbers for x amount of housing (and the materials are bought in bulk at that time and stored) and the profit margin this should be no more than 10%. There should be zero new housing going to REITS and say 10% given to the government for homeless/HAP etc. The rest is sold at the cost of QS/Land price/build/Profit margin. The builder saves on the loan interest and the government have the power to do this tax free. It could save going forward - But this will not happen as there are too many piggies within our public sector system getting paid off to look left when the builders are building.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭celt262


    The last line is so relevant to me bought in 2007 and only out of Negative Equality last year.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,011 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    im a big fan of public banks myself, including public infrastructure banks, this is more or less what you re talking about, and yes, i think this is a critical element in what we re missing, but i also realise, major private sector industries such as the fire sectors are still needed, to try resolve this, including private sector financing, but its critical that strict conditions are first put in place before agreements, such as no excess profits etc. private sector entities clearly need to profit, as its critical for their survival but theres a point where profiteering endangers all, including themselves, these entities must also be protected as much as possible from unexpected events such as inflation etc, and again, the state is the only real solution there. none of this is going to be easy or quick to resolve....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    There would need to be some serious regulations going on and the builder should see a % of their profit stay in Escrow for 10 years in a bond to ensure that there are no issues with the build. That way they cant just walk away with out a financial hit if they build sh1t



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Already tried but captured by the investment funds and big developers because they have the Government in their back pocket. They now dictate everything and can churn out poor quality overpriced crap for the phlebs.

    Competition of smaller developers and landlords is destroyed by gov policy and the bigger providers control quality (lack of) price and supply




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Which is why I stated zero housing going towards REITS/Vultures. Look as I say a lot of people in the country have a house so it doesn't directly impact them. But they will have family looking to get on the ladder. If we can bring costs down where we have the power to do so as in interest on loans, a saving by buying QS materials in bulk and taxes paid for by developers then it should be looked at but the cost saving needs to be passed onto the buyer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I believe the much cheaper regulation in NI is provided by a private firm with there work insured. No need to over complicate and adding cost to construction



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Yeah then insurance is a cost and it will go up if the insurance company is on the lamb - the insurance game has shown this before with the BC(A)R system. If 25% of a builders profit was put in escrow for 10 years you can be sure that they will do the job right as that is a huge hit if they make an a$$ of it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,619 ✭✭✭Timing belt


    Public sector builders would be the equivalent of setting up a HSE for builders where no one is accountable, low staff morale as there are more middle managers than staff working and a ton of bureaucratic rules.

    A perfect example of this that I saw recently was someone that was due a MRI scan on a wed but was admitted to hospital on Tuesday and scan had to be cancelled because no longer an outpatient and had to wait a week in hospital taking up a bed to get the exact same scan just because it came out of a different budget. Do we really want this type of sh1t when it comes to building houses generating additional costs for no valid reason.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,600 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Well there is a valid reason with respect Timing. Look I do agree with you almost all the time but it has come to a point now where the lack of building in the country cannot be ignored. Something needs to be done the continuation of all around burying their head in the sand cant continue. There should be a public bank set up for builders to borrow from at 0% and it other options like keeping 25% bond on a builder for 10 years should be looked at. I know a lot of irish builders wont like this as they are too used to being suckled like a pig so I would open it up to world wide builders to come in and see who might be interested. All savings made on this should be passed onto the buyer.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,615 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The state should put social housing construction out to tender - but first we need big overhauls of state tendering rules, & of regulation in the construction sector.

    Then the state will be the one putting the money up, builders dont have to worry about finance or materials rising as finance should be there to buy in bulk near start and store to be protected against price shocks, state land so no land inputs etc. The big problem with tendering now is that the state cannot blacklist someone for fecking up a previous state project (BAM), so companies can just continually low-ball tenders to get contract, and then make claim after claim for more money. If companies previous reputation was allowed to be considered in tender process, this would not happen as you would never get a state contract again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Much better results on marginally higher spending again the facts differ

    On roads, I think we managed to get the worst of both sectors through public private partnership provision model

    On the children's hospital, political interference was a huge contributory factor in Fg insistence on ploughing ahead despite the plans not being finalised



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Genuine question, Are our semi state bodies hampered by such issues?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,877 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I'm sure the insurance cost is covered in the fee in the NI model.



Advertisement