Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1586587589591592943

Comments

  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The reasons why the CH, and schools projects are mentioned so frequently, is because they are the most recent, and most glaringly obvious example of what happens when the State undertakes large property projects. It just doesn’t suit your narrative to acknowledge the failings associated with the projects, and the huge risks of similar failures in financial oversight and delay, which would undoubtedly be associated with the State buildings tens of thousands of houses.

    Villa05, what was the overspend on those houses you linked?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Planning permission will never be obtained for modular housing in established residential neighbourhoods and it would bring down house prices in the area, which would further fuel objections.

    We also have a chronically under resourced planning dept, which means any planning requests, objections and site assesements take forever.

    I do think the govt should put additional funding into the planning dept, to help grease the wheels of the planning process.

    We also probably need routes for residential planning to avoid all manner of objections, so that only serious and considered objections can delay a new build from starting.

    We do have to have an appeals process, but the one we have is far too biased towards the objector and it isnt too difficult for a residents association to band together and delay a new build into oblivion.

    That NIMBY approach needs to be addressed by the govt and replaced with a slicker, faster planning process that does not allow spurious objections.

    I would say we also need some fresh blood in DCC planning in particular, whom are not adverse to high rise in appropriate areas. Docklands, Heuston Station etc.

    In terms of prioritisation of key workers, it isnt preferable, but in the current housing shortage, its required.

    If we have 100 govt homes and 200 families looking for those homes and we are facing a major shortage in teachers/nurses within that community, we do need a way to prioritise those 100 homes (not all of them, but a bias nonetheless) towards key workers.

    if 60 of those 200 families are key workers, 30 are unemployed and 30 work part time in non essential services, why would we not offer help to buy and shared equity or cost rental schemes to all of the families, but prioritise the key workers first?

    if the key workers dont show up to work, social services collapse.

    The unemployed dont show up to work anyway, so they contribute 0 to the economy.

    The part timers are in supplementary roles that support private business, but their roles are not essential to keep that business afloat.

    They effectivley pay no tax because they earn a below median salary.

    The key workers are the staff in that equation that need to be housed first, because without them, we have no hospital services, school services etc.

    That doesnt mean we dont try to house the rest by the way, but when demand is greater than supply, there has to be a form of selection process, if we want to maintain optimal usage of the limited homes we have available.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is why I suspect the Government are proposing a subsidy. If memory serves me right, the one for apartments is paid at the end of the process, when construction is completed, rather than at the start. But the uptake on that has been poor due to the higher costs of apartments in comparison to houses. No doubt there will be some tweaking to be done, and assurances to be included, but there is no doubt that incentivising private developers to build now, delivers the houses sooner, and most likely cheaper than the State undertaking the whole project from start to finish.

    In relation to BAM, this is my objection to the State employing developers for large projects like building tens of thousands of houses. Developers are experienced operators in this sector, when they negotiate with Public/Civil servants, well obviously there is only one winner.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    There has already been substantial changes to planning from this government so with the right framework a modular home could be considered a temporary dwelling and planning would not be needed. If there was a will there is a way. Your still missing the point on your opinion of a key worker. If one set is prioritized over the other it further impugns the other group and they will not hang around if things have been made worse. You have made zero effort to address the current issue with pensions as the migration of our younger cohort is ramping up. So at the minute housing is prioritized to welfare, REITS and the rich, you now want your key worker definition put up higher than what you consider a non key worker. Who determines a key worker, you keep talking about teachers and nurses as key workers so who will serve these workers their food or groceries if there is a lack of employees to do this. So are food shop workers now deemed as being key? Then of course who pays the wage for all of these workers?? Are the people who pay the wage bills of all essential workers now deemed key workers and so forth. IMO every worker who pays income tax is a key worker and pushing one set further down the housing list will result in more people heading off to live somewhere else leaving an even bigger pensions timebomb for our grandkids to deal with. I outlined how money if its available should be spent by seriously reducing the amount of income tax paid by all workers who are paying into the system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭Mr Hindley


    Are those price drops based on the register, and so from properties that went sale agreed a few months back? There's no doubt that things quietened down over Christmas, everyone was expecting price drops and vendors were keen to shift properties. But now I'm seeing properties that have been lingering for months all getting snapped up, and new properties going sale agreed very quickly.

    Interest rates SHOULD be cooling the market, but they haven't all been fed through into mortgage rates yet.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    Yeap they are based on sold property prices that have come onto the PPR so you must be looking in a very specific highly sought after areas.



  • Administrators Posts: 56,217 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Just to put some data around this point, so things are a bit clearer.

    We've had 5 months of price drops in Dublin. 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 1.1% and then 0.1%, in that order. That is to say, the rate of price drops increased for 4 months but then slowed significantly in February.

    Nationally, the story is the same, price drops in January of 0.6% and in February it was 0.4%.

    Nationally excluding Dublin, the rate of drops increased from 0.2% in January to 0.4% in February.

    The huge change in Dublin is likely why the national rate of decline dropped from 0.6% to 0.4% despite the national excluding Dublin figure rising.

    In the grand scheme of things, where does this leave us? Essentially prices are back at September 2022 levels.

    To get back to January 2020 levels (i.e. before the covid surge) prices would need to drop roughly a further 20% from today. Unless something happens that causes the rate of declines to massively increase this would take years.

    So when you say "the pan is no longer boiling over" you are right. But really, we've moved from a pan at 100 degrees to a pan at 99 degrees.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 270 ✭✭tom_murphy112


    I think I mentioned this before, but we bought our house in 2008. I still remember being outbid for a house in Jan/Feb of 2008, it was a **** one and we went back and forth few times before I said No. We eventually found a house and went sale agreed in end of May/early June of 2008. It only took few months for the market to turn, from having to bid on properties to the market becoming dead.

    We did buy at the peak, but still managed to get 20K off the asking price as there was no other bidders. A year later a mate who bought a house, had no other option to post back his key and moved to Australia.. People forget that we saw bidding wars before 2008 and think what we saw in the last while is a new phenomena.

    Personally nobody knows what will happen to the market, but as a person who bought just before the last crash we were told the market will never crash etc. etc.. But only looking back retrospectively did we find cracks in the market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,839 ✭✭✭mcsean2163


    just shy of 2 million. I'm not seeing it .. is there that many people that can pull 2 million from behind the sofa?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 297 ✭✭Bsharp


    My money is land purchase to building denser housing. Decent sized plot. You could make a good offer to the property next door and get an apartment block in or just build a group of 3 storey town houses on the site itself.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,625 ✭✭✭fliball123


    how much did prices drop by in comparison as well



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,713 ✭✭✭enricoh


    Iirc inflation in the eurozone was c 10% last year, it's expected to be less this year. Are well off people just throwing their money into property? If say 6.5% this year in the space of 2 years one sixth of their purchasing power will be gone if left in the bank.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭2ndcoming


    The problem with this as we're already seeing with the first of these is when the government contracts private companies to do work they get absolutely rode. Everything is priced and charged at the absolute maximum so the "cost" rental ends up being 1500 quid a month for a two bed apt which is still pretty much useless.

    When a private developer builds to sell their own properties these costs are kept to an absolute minimum because the margin is their profit which is why you see porches and even windows starting to become a bit of a rarity on many new builds.

    This applies all the way up - a 200 bed hotel could be built for about 1/10 of a 200 bed hospital and we're seeing examples of this in Dublin as we speak.

    The only solution is for the govt to build and manage the properties in the first place but they won't do that because it would bring the price of property and rents down. Solving the housing crisis but upsetting the rich, which is a no-no.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    I think the 3k increase is a MoM figure...quote from the article below.

    the average home is on the market at £365,357 in March, a rise of 0.8% on the previous month.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Yep, but I read elsewhere, I think on rightmove uk, that they were up 3% year on year.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    In the Last decade we sold apartments and housing to investment funds for peanuts and rented them back for a kings ransom.

    Not smart

    In the next decade we propose to subsidise the building of apartments which investment funds may buy with the subsidy discount and rent them to the state for a kings ransom.

    Not smart

    In relation to BAM, this is my objection to the State employing developers for large projects like building tens of thousands of houses. Developers are experienced operators in this sector, when they negotiate with Public/Civil servants, well obviously there is only one winner.

    Surely the same logic applies to allowing a small number of investment funds monopolise and control rental supply in our high demand areas.

    When we built 100k units in one year, it was not BAM or Sisk that were building them it was lots of small/mid sized operations that were building in every County in Ireland.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ”we” didn’t build them, private developers did, motivated by profit and the need to build as quickly as possible and with manageable cost.

    If you can’t understand the difference between a developer building on their own site to sell, and the State employing developers to build for them, I’m not sure I can help you. Suffice to say, keeping costs down and managing a budget are more important when the developer is working for themselves.

    In relation to investment funds, it wasn’t long ago that posters were calling for professional landlords, you should be glad they are here, because without them and their forward financing, a lot of those rented developments would still be rubble strewn sites.

    I know you are not for turning, but if you want houses delivered more quickly and with lower costs, then you incentivise developers, you don’t employ them, hand them a saddle and tell them to jump on your back. Robert Watt was an example yesterday of what happens when you give PS/CS money to spend, they won’t give a toss about what people like you and me think, they will just hand out the money, would you even know who is responsible for overseeing the children’s hospital? Of course you wouldn’t, you just want to hand the same type of people billions to hand out to developers, but you are smart.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,853 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    So where are all these modular homes being built?

    if you only have 100 homes available, you can only house 100 families. If we dont prioritise key workers (or another group -please name another group if there is a better one?) then the 100 homes will fill up with those on welfare and the rich.

    Exactly as you say.

    So the squeezed middle will emigrate anyway, if they are so inclined.

    if its a choice between a nurse or teacher or supermarket worker staying, yes, id prefer the key worker stayed over someone self employed or working admin in a bank, insurance company etc.

    pensions were not part of the conversation but i agree that is a ticking time bomb.

    we are replacing a lot of the young migrating with new young immigrants.

    the CSO stats from the census will confirm this year.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    You want speculators to be rewarded, while I want workers that add value to be rewarded. Speculation adds costs and results in the boom bust markets we have become accustomed to.

    We have examples of "bucks from Mayo" building for an affordable price to median income earners and all the policies implemented to reward speculators used to snap them away from those people and handed to speculators who add 100,000 to the price or double the rent.

    You want taxpayers money to reward speculators rather than it being used to be invested in critical infrastructure that helps the economy and the nations citizens. It really is that simple.

    The funds we incentivised were the ones that wanted to turn a quick buck. Many funds who want stable reoccurring income in a stable environment refused to come here because they could see our policies were boonm bust in nature. This is harmful to their business model



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It’s been a few weeks since that article was published about the small development in Mayo, but am I right in saying the developers built them, then sold on the houses? If that is the case, they were motivated to keep costs as low as possible, would that motivation exist if they were working for the State?.

    Developers will undoubtedly be rewarded if they are employed directly by the State to build large State managed projects, what could be better? They would know that cost over runs are the State’s problem, the developer will get paid either way, and like BAM, if the State threatens to pull the plug, the developer threatens to walk, leaving the State in the unenviable position of having to negotiate again with another developer who knows that the State will be in a position of desperation.

    I get that you have this naive opinion of how things should be, but it is not based in reality. You are blinded by this need to prevent the private sector from profiting, to the point that you are willing to waste more money by ignoring the benefits incentivising the building of houses quickly and at what is likely to be a lower cost than letting a bunch of beaurocrats get turned over by seasoned developers.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,463 ✭✭✭✭rob316


    We could argue the pros and cons till the cows come home, bottom line we need rental properties today. Commencements are down for the 3rd month in a row, whatever gets building done get it done. The government don't need any help in pissing money away atleast the average working citzens sees something out of this.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭Zenify


    Does anyone have a good explanation of why the UK property prices are going up? It just seems crazy with their interest rates and it doesn't make sense to me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    You'd often wonder why Irelands social housing policy has evolved to be so expensive.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    Mix of massive inflation and lack of supply, cost of materials to build etc. similar to here.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,036 ✭✭✭Villa05


    I've no issue with the private sector making a profit, I and most others work with in that system after all.

    Current policy has created barriers and added costs to small developers and landlords while rewarding much larger operators who can lobby and have the ear of government. That lobbying has resulted in policies that appear to have small landlords and developers rushing for the exits and discouraging new entrants.

    Creating an environment that encourages and at least levels the playing field for small operators to compete with the larger operators increases efficiencies and innovation within the sector.

    Continuing with current processes guarantees higher costs and activities that add no value, increase costs, suppress supply, encourage land and property banking as well as vacancy and delapidation.

    This all adds cost to every single tax payer and private entity trying to make a profit. Please stop trying be a messiah for private enterprise



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 996 ✭✭✭Ozark707


    Seemingly immigration is increasing (contrary to what many had thought after Brexit) so extra demand is probably helping as well.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 768 ✭✭✭dontmindme


    Is there anyone going to jail or is it just the usual corrupt crooks running the country?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 414 ✭✭ingo1984


    Lol no chance. But I can guarantee that 'lessons will be learnt'.



Advertisement
Advertisement