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*

1766767769771772913

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭Blut2


    The big issue its not even just the state buying social houses outright at hugely inflated prices though - they've for years now been signing hugely expensive long term leases on private sector apartments, which is surely the worst of all worlds. Massive cost, taking housing off the private sector market, over paying, and no asset to show for it long term. ie:

    https://www.businesspost.ie/news/state-to-sink-another-e450m-into-leasing-of-1000-social-housing-units/

    That aside, the moral hazard problem (and the ruinous financial cost to the state of leasing it) of social housing in very affluent areas that you outline (which is broadly reasonable I think) would be at least partly solved if we engaged in large scale social and affordable housing construction in cheaper locations.

    DLRCOCO for example has a social housing wait time of approx 10 years now. If someone on that housing list was given the offer of either an apartment in DLR in 10+ years time, or a house in Athlone in 6 months, the vast majority would take the latter. Especially if HAP was no longer an option while waiting.

    Anyone who very much wanted to stay in the area wouldn't be forced to leave. But they would have an incentive to leave. And with reduced demand in the area the state could stop this panic buying/leasing at massively overinflated prices.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,901 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Housing now is the greatest threat to the economy followed by the debt incurred to keep rents and prices at nose bleed levels. The reverse evolution experiment continues



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Nermal


    It would be 'wildy unpopular' with most of the media & our noisy NGO ecosystem, but it would be sweet music to the type of people who get up early in the morning. Who was the government elected to represent again?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Rent caps are failing to limit rental price increases, who could possibly have seen this coming



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,597 ✭✭✭tigger123


    The 'people who get up early in the morning' was a comment made by Leo who, as leader of FG, f*cking tanked the last election for his party and lost 15 seats.

    So, not really sure the Government was elected to represent that particluar viewpoint.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,901 ✭✭✭Villa05


    The only way FG represent people that get up early in the morning is by pushing them further and further away from their employment thereby ensuring they have to get up earlier in the morning and get home much later



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,585 ✭✭✭DataDude


    I agree but the most popular party in the country right now has three core economic pillars

    • Higher income taxes
    • Abolish our only wealth tax
    • More social housing

    Its clearly the flavour of the day politically



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭The Student




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,901 ✭✭✭Villa05


    While I have concerns about the most popular party in the country, very few could go through a forest of money trees faster than FFG.

    When it's pointed out to ye that the state is paying double the price for "affordable homes" when compared to investment fund who will put back in the market for the highest rents in the city. What hope is there for new entrants?

    Are ye that much scared that ye will sacrafice the children of the country again

    What part of the calculation do ye not understand, plus continuation of such policies will guarantee what ye appear to most fear will occur. Why don't ye put pressure on them to fix it properly



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,901 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Reverse evolution results:

    But this is not an option for everybody, and the ERSI has also found that high rents are pushing increasing numbers of working people into poverty - one-third of people on the poverty line are working full-time and have third-level degrees

    Almost two thirds of Dublin companies have lost staff or potential recruits because of the housing situation in the city, according to a new poll

    Remember the 80s when you might have 1000 applications for 1 job, well look at us niw

    ‘Huge’ housing queue: 15,000 bids for 75 council homes

    Post edited by Villa05 on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,337 ✭✭✭The Student


    Build council estates deal with anti social behaviour deal with non payment of rent problem decreased significantly.

    We are always been told of mixed tenure developments in Europe and how they work so well. Why not in Ireland? See the above paragraph.

    Where exactly do you think a vast majority of our tax take comes from? Corporation tax and income tax from those employed therein and the support businesses of all the above ie the multipler effect.

    We are a small open economy who need direct investment to fund day to day running of the country. We need to import building materials and we are not big enough of a customer to bulk buy building materials from above so we must take the market price.

    It is all well and good wanting to give everyone what they want but funding it is a different story. It is always easy in opposition saying what should be done it's different when you have to deliver it.

    Mods I am not political and if you deem the above too political please feel free to amend or delete as you see fit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    David Mc Williams writing how in today's Ireland rich people out bidding each other on ex council houses and living in houses originally built for poor people. Isn't that the truth!

    I spot houses which are ex council for the tune of 750k, absolutely insane.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,322 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    You wouldn't pay that for one in the Island Field.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    Location location I suppose.

    The population of Dublin and most other cities has at least doubled in the past 50 years when these houses were build.

    Shame the transportation systems haven't advanced at all, bar the Luas.

    I can understand people wanting to avoid rush hour commutes from dormitory towns



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,432 ✭✭✭combat14


    why dont the central bank raise the lending to 6 or even 10 times salary and problem solved .. nearly all houses be affordable then



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭Blut2


    "Take-up of office space in Dublin dropped to a three-year low between January and March, new data shows.

    The latest report from BNP Paribas Real Estate Ireland reveals that just 16,310 sqm of space was leased during the three-month period.

    It follows a surge in the number of offices completed during the quarter, with 84,000 sqm of space added to the market.

    This is more than the amount of office space completed in the whole of 2023.

    This combination of strong supply and weak demand caused the vacancy rate to jump from 13.1% in December to 14.5% in March."

    https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0507/1447239-dublin-office-space-take-up-hits-three-year-low/

    You'd think/hope this soft crash would result in a re-allocation of construction resources (and developable land) from offices to housing. But that should also have been incentivized to happen years ago if our government had any clue what it was doing so who knows I guess.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,231 ✭✭✭BlueSkyDreams


    Indeed.

    The renting for social housing of high end apartment schemes in the best & most expensive parts of Dublin and therefore the country, is mad stuff.

    And its not always just part 5, 10% or 20% going to social housing.

    There are new schemes in DLR where the apartments are 100% social, even though 90% of earners couldnt afford to live there themselves!

    Councils only having a duty of care, via the reduction of social housing lists, in order to accomodate social tenants & whilst ignoring the rest of society, is a big problem.

    Its as if the only metric that counts for the council is, "have we reduced the social housing list?"

    Anyone that doesnt qualify for that list is in direct competition with the local council that they directly fund, as far as accomodation is concerned.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,451 ✭✭✭herbalplants


    Yes good few companies are changing their office location in Dublin . That is only due to the fact they are getting new leases at good discounted rate.

    Remember the shills only get paid when you react to them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,924 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    It was abundantly clear by mid-2020 that the whole Spencer Dock developments alone were a bubble in the making. Owners of older office stock will be in serious trouble, assuming they have not already called insolvency.

    Long stopped believing the goverment is clueless. The shortage is intentional.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Del Griffith


    "strategy of the government attempting to inspire the private sector to build in large numbers" - what? What incentivises did the government put out to encourage building in large numbers?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Any large efforts this government has made have almost exclusively been on the demand side - FTB schemes, increasing the income:mortgage ratio etc - with the logic that by increasing prices that would increase supply. FG's core laissez faire policy has been since 2011 to let the private sector take care of the housing market, that the state should stay out of it.

    With obvious to everyone by now catastrophic results, unfortunately.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Ozvaldo


    Deplorable market conditions made by the Irish government everyday gets worse and now they want to buy all the do uppers.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Del Griffith


    I agree with all of that apart from that the intent was to incentivise the private sector to build in large numbers.

    They could easily incentivise developers directly with tax breaks and many other things, conditional on delivery of X units in Y timeframe, etc.

    They don't.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭Blut2


    "The state has agreed thousands of expensive long-term social housing leases at a cost of up to €3,200, the Business Post can reveal.

    The almost 9,000 deals come at with combined price tag of more than €3.24 billion over their 25-year lifetime, with scores of rental agreements costing the government €2,500 or more a month."

    https://www.businesspost.ie/news/exclusive-state-leasing-social-homes-from-private-sector-for-up-to-e3200-a-month/

    What a complete and utter waste of tax payer money. Leasing 9000 properties at massive cost, with nothing to show for it after 25 years. And taking those thousands of properties off the private rental market, driving up rental costs for tax payers, while they're at it. A double whammy for all the renters out there paying large amounts of tax.

    Its such a daming result of our current government's policy of refusing to just build state housing.



  • Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Isn’t providing accomadation for 9000 families during that 25 period something to show? Effectively what you are saying is, those 9000 should be homeless, so that those who can afford more, can rent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,315 ✭✭✭Blut2


    No, effectively what I'm saying is the state should have built 9000 social houses to house those families, instead of very expensively leasing housing from the private sector. As was social housing policy at every time in the history of the state until the failures of the 2010s and 2020s.

    Do you think the state spending billions of euro to lease social housing at €3200(!) a month is good value for tax payers? Do you think its good for the tax payers in the private sector rental market having those 9000 homes taken out of it, that they now have to compete with the state for the very limited number of properties available?



  • Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don’t think current spending is value for money, I also think that people saying the Government should have built all these houses is pie in the sky crap.

    There are so very many reasons for the housing problem that saying the government should have invested billions (which we didn’t have) to build houses (which we neither had the workforce nor the oversight necessary to do) to get the planning (which would have taken years and you can be sure not everyone wants a council estate next door), and at the same time, depress private development due to unavailability of a skilled workforce and falling prices as a result of State building. I’m sure there would be many other important reasons why State building on the scale some here believe should have been done, simply wasn’t possible.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,632 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The lack of workforce argument has been debunked recently by construction industry reps themselves - it's a question of viability mostly and lack of finance that holds back construction.

    For state built social housing the viability risk is gone - they put it out to tender and contractors can build houses with a guaranteed buyer and guaranteed price. The state could even forward fund and take the financing costs out of the equation.

    Instead they agree leases that over 25 years term will more than cover the build costs of the property. The most egregious example of short term only thinking



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 14,708 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It would be naive to think it is as simple as putting it out to tender, agree a price and hey presto, the houses are built. If the children’s hospital has shown us anything, it is that developers are far more skilled at playing the game than civil/public servants.

    The risks for the State, and any Government who undertook such a folly would be enormous, both financial and reputational.



Advertisement