"average Dublin house prices should fall to ‘the €300,000 mark" according to Many Lou McD.

Where lower houses prices factor into this is they decrease the likelihood of another huge slow down in a recession, making the industry a more stable and attractive career option.

Those same lower prices for private housing will drive a recession due to massive negative equity.

First off, I don't think it would cause massive negative equity. I can't see those buying at the top end of today's market loosing out to affordable housing on state land.

Even if it does cause some negative equity, how will that greatly impact the domestic economy? People will still be paying the same mortgage they signed up for and have the same disposable income.

I don't think SF plans equate to an attempt to control prices in the sense of a price cap, or that type of intervention.

In fact, far from causing a housing down turn, I think you'd see more like the divide you seem to desire.

A high end of the market would be there for more exclusive development where developers are free to take as much risk and pursue as much profit as they like.

For the rest of us will be stable, consistent production of affordable housing, produced by the new entrants to the construction market attracted by these stable conditions.

Works for me.

I said massive negative equity.

I don't think the value of those houses at the higher end of today's market will be threatened by affordable housing on today's land.

And I quite clearly stated that it could cause negative equity, but I don't see this having a significant affect on the domestic economy.

I'd prefer not to be in negative equity myself, but I don't see it effecting my disposable income. My mortgage will remain the same regardless.

I fixed my mortgage for a nice long term, as I'd hope most who bought in recent years did.

I would still say the impact of this will be relatively small, as it's only lowering prices for a subsection of the housing market.

We can share the load and call it an FFG tax if you like, to compensate those affected?

Maybe use the economic benefits of once more people able to attract academic researchers and other valuable workers?

Regarding the movers, if their own place is worth less than they paid for it, I guess the plan is working and they'll be able to find a nice affordable family home too.

That's unlikely to happen for them now with the way prices are rising. As things stand now if you bought a starter home that forever family home is only getting further and further away.

You realise in today's market it's price doesn't stay fixed while the value of your starter home conveniently increases right?

After that I think you'll find it hard to argue against the economic consequences of leaving the housing market as it is.

One way that SF would help reduce new house prices is by abolishing HTB and the new shared equity scheme.

I agree with them about that.

How would the 4,000 buyers be picked, given that the seliing price can't respond to demand?

Dedication to “the cause”? Or by who made the biggest donation to the party (the NI branch of course…)?

SF have spent the past 5-6 years aping Bertie-era FF in an awful lot of their populist promises. Is the next step to start aping CJH-era FF?

I don't know the details of their plan, and cannot comment on whether they would work, but I think it was posted on thread that people who bought them would not be able to rent them out and would be restricted as to who (or how much maybe) they could sell them on for.

If there were such conditions, it would remove the attractiveness for any investors/speculators trying to buy them on the cheap to flip them.

Did previous affordable house schemes not have restrictions on renting out and a clawback on any capital gain if the property was sold within X years?

Here you go, see details below.

The house can never be rented out, and can only be sold to qualified applicants.

See my multiple previous posts on this.

The government cannot control the lower end of the private housing market without impacting the entire market. The private housing market is a spectrum from the cheapest dwelling of 50K all they way up to the multi million euro houses. If you impact the bottom you impact the top, your idea is akin to taking weight off one end of a see-saw and expecting the other end to remain the same. ITs frankly ridiculous, nevermind from someone who says they studied economics.

The state can only control state/social housing, nothing else, or the whole market will be impacted (read broken).

And how do you separate house buyers into those two markets? Whats your criteria for who gets to buy a cheap SF 3 bed semi for 300K versus those who have to pay 400K for the exact same house 1 mile down the road?

I serioulsy dont understand how some posters on here cannot see that its the same bloody single market.

There will be an impact throughout the market.

But this won't be applied evenly.

It's called normal goods vs luxury goods.

Price changes on fast food don't impact much on luxury dining.

It's debatable the extent to which this principle applies to housing. But I'd be quite confident houses in D4 and the huge McMansions won't be impacted much by the availability of affordable housing.

And in case you haven't noticed the market is broken now.