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*

1806807809811812943

Comments

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


    @gaming_needs90

    Easier win an all ireland hurling final than get a home :-)

    Kerry was identified as one of the most unaffordable regions in the country.

    Rural Cork, Clare and Kerry were the ghost estate capitals of the last bubble. A mature approach to short term lets would go along way to fixing issues in these areas



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]




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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    Sure it's bad news for individual tenants if they're evicted to facilitate a sale, but it is not necessarily bad news for the rental supply as a whole.

    Buyers and renters don't exist in entirely different ecosystems. Most of the ex-rentals will be bought by FTBers who are vacating a rental, or by landlords who retain the property as a rental. Rental supply will stay broadly similiar.

    How can any of this be true? Rental properties being bought by FTBs will decrease the rental stock, you're surely not arguing otherwise?



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    If a rental is bought by an Ftb owner ocuppier yes it reduces the rental stock by one.

    But if the buyer is vacating a rental it also reduces rental demand by one.

    Hence there is no catastrophic impact on rental supply.

    None of this happens in a vacuum. LLs move in and out of the market, owner occupiers move in and out of the market, people trade up, down, sideways.

    It's called turnover and is a necessary part of a functioning market.

    Current figures do not suggest anything other than normal turnover of LLs.

    Certainly not a mass exodus.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    A headhunter today was asking me if I would relocate to Dublin (lived there prior to Covid) and I reckon that I would have to budget €2,500 to get an apartment in the city. I'm amazed renters in Dublin are not an endangered species..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,095 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    But owner occupied house have a lower housing density compared to rented property. So a rented property sold to an owner occupied reduces the housing. Obviously it's great for first time buyers but it's bad for anyone renting as it reduces supply. They are not one to one. It's been discussed countless times on the forum. And remember we have lack of rental accommodation so any sale that reduces this supply is a problem for renters. For FTB it's obviously good as it adds supply to a tight market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    If we had a lot of things, it would be different. However, when we have a "society" replete with hyper individuals, we get what we have now. You are correct that it will never be fixed under FF/FG, but it would not be fixed under SF, Labour or any other party currently in place. The housing crisis is a symptom of a systemic problem that affects every western country. Voting in another collection of bought and sold suits will not change that.



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


    I think its generally couples or people sharing, so more affordable then.

    But nevertheless, prices are crazy alright.

    Is the sharing thing applicable to single, social welfare tenants?



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


    How would we define too many people living here? Could it not equally be the case that there just arent enough homes?

    I wouldnt have thought the population density of ireland is very high at all, even by european standards.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 577 ✭✭✭Grassy Knoll


    Agree 2.5k is a lot to be paying each month. However,it would be interesting to see how much HAP is underpinning Dublin rents. Very often it is folks working in lower paid jobs who are in receipt of support. This in turn IMHO contributes towards setting a rental floor.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 577 ✭✭✭Grassy Knoll


    Agree 2.5k is a lot to be paying each month. However,it would be interesting to see how much HAP is underpinning Dublin rents. Very often it is folks working in lower paid jobs who are in receipt of support. This in turn IMHO contributes towards setting a rental floor.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    They're not mutually exclusive.

    The population density is not high, you are correct. However, it's a matter of what resources and services are available. People cannot live in empty fields, they cannot be treated in hospitals that do not exist, they cannot travel on roads that have never been built and they cannot be educated in schools that are not there.

    Could all these things change? Yes, but it would take time and resources to change this, and neither of those things are infinite. If the current level of available services do not meet the demands placed upon them, which at least with housing they clearly do not, it may be said that demand is exceeding supply; ergo there are too many people.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,803 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Leaving aside the the fact that lower average household size is supposedly a good thing we are striving for, fine, if the argument is any sale by a LL is a bad thing, then obviously some sales are taking place, and to many that is a bad thing.

    IMO we need more turnover of stock, not less, and if that causes issues for individual renters so be it. Banning LLs from selling with vacant possession would cause more problems than it solves.

    So there are definitely sales by LLs taking place. I am not disputing that. The point I was making is there is no data to support the theory of a mass exodus of LLs taking place.



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


    Yes, I understand your point.

    I think the caveat is that there are too many people for the available infrastucture, rather than simply, "too many people."

    We do indeed have a long way to go for infrastructure to catch up.

    Metrolink looks to be delayed again; a current example.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭PommieBast


    For arguments sake I assumed nose-bleed 50% of earnings going on rent but even that would require a salary of €93,000. Think even the MNCs would balk at that.

    Prefer not to think about what the equivalent market rate of social welfare is.



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


    Not so much the social welfare rate, but the management of assets. If a local council rents 5 x 2 bed apartments in Clontarf, would they be used to house 5 x single folks with no dependants or 10 x single folks with no dependants, in the latter case, the 10 strangers are sharing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 350 ✭✭SpoonyMcSpoon


    Without government intervention, house prices would fall quite a lot and I think there are too many people that would be unhappy with this occurring given it would impact their own wealth accumulation. Therefore, in order to see less government intervention voters would need to vote for parties that do not want house prices to keep climbing. Essentially, homeowners want and need government intervention whereas non-homeowners should want less government intervention.

    The big swindle has been to convince people that government intervention leads to more supply and lower prices when the opposite is the case. Ireland has big problems with its bloated quote unquote Government and State encroachment in people’s lives more generally but particularly in the property market which is not a properly functioning and fair market.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    This is mostly correct, but its worth noting that as of January a majority of the population (69%) would support a drop in home prices of almost a third tomorrow. 63% of Irish people polled said they would like to see property prices fall even if it meant their own home depreciated in value. [1]

    So a strong majority of the public, and even of homeowners, are actually OK with home prices dropping significantly. Its not a case of homeowners all wanting an increase in prices vs renters wanting the opposite.

    Even if they themselves aren't directly impacted most homeowners these days have children, or relatives, or friends, who're meaningfully impacted by the housing crisis. Or they're business owners/managers who can't get staff because of the housing crisis. Or they just care about the negative impact of the housing crisis on the country in general.

    The core problem is our government's political parties care more about the property industry than what the public wants or needs.

    [1]https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/poll-public-backs-mary-lou-mcdonalds-call-for-300000-average-house-price-in-dublin/a1386646140.html



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


    What are you suggesting the govt do though? Relax planning laws so we can get to 70k new homes per year, rather than 40k?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,132 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    We'll never catch up to anything with things as they are, but that's its own kettle of fish.

    Regarding the metro-link, I think it will never be built. Just look at what happened with the children's hospital, and no one will face consequences for that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    There have been many many posts in this very thread already discussing numerous measures the government could enact to lower prices immediately, in the medium term, and in the long term.

    Cut all of the waste of tax payers money demand side subsidies instantly, refuse new planning for commercial developments to route all current construction capacity into residential developments, and train/hire large numbers of people to staff a large state development agency that directly builds housing being respectively three of the most obvious/well accepted.

    But all would lead to a decrease in home prices, so won't happen under the current government.



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


    It’s not just home owners that are impacted..: Would trades men, suppliers etc be happy to take a 30% pay cut? That’s a genuine question on the economic reality of a 30% price drop because cost of building would need to drop or no new houses would be built because to do so with the existing cost basis would generate a loss.

    Can you explain how it would work once you join up the dots and look at the full picture



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    A 30% drop in home prices would never result in a 30% pay cut for tradesmen. Labour makes up only a fraction of the cost of building a new house, and is one of the least elastic elements.

    This is from the SCSI which is if anything over-generous:

    home-cost123.jpg

    When we're at essentially 100% construction employment currently, with the government desperate to hire any and all workers it can get, and with tens of billions of euros to spare, "if the prices dropped no houses would be built" is also blatently untrue.

    If prices dropped significantly, to the point where private development dropped significantly, any spare construction capacity would be instantly snapped up by the state to build badly needed social and affordable housing. We wouldn't see any dropoff in actual housing completions.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Crikey, that’s a lot of wishful thinking.

    There are certain inalienable truths, developers will not build if they think they are going to lose money on a project ( a 30% drop in the current climate would only result from a seismic event in our economy), and the government would never be able to ramp up their building projects at the rate which private developers would slow them down if a collapse in house prices of the magnitude you are talking about occurred.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭Blut2


    I'd fully agree a 30% drop is extremely unlikely, but do note I never said it was. I just posted an article that shows the majority of Irish people are in favour of a drop of that magnitude. A 10-20% drop would be far more achievable/likely given reasonable policies.

    That aside, the Irish state with its current massive surplus of funds, and almost equal massive deficit of social and affordable housing (we'd need about 50,000 new units tomorrow just to clear the current HAP list - nevermind anything else), would have absolutely no problem instantly hiring and putting to use any and all spare capacity in the Irish construction industry as it became available.

    Nevermind the countless much needed national infrastucture projects currently on hold due to an inability to get workers to build them on top, which would be an additional rather relevant (and worthy) use of any spare capacity.

    The idea that house prices can never drop a cent because it would cause all private developers to stop developing new projects, and that this would then cause all housing construction in the state to grind to a halt, is quite obviously completely insane when you look at the real world figures. Its a propaganda line exclusively pushed by developers, and politicians in their pocket, who want ever rising prices and ever increasing profit margins.

    If average Irish home prices dropped by 10-20% tomorrow it would be nothing but positive for the state, which is why a large majority of Irish voters, including homeowners, want it (or an even larger drop) to happen.



  • Posts: 14,768 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I’m always bemused by these polls, it’s like asking the public would they like the price of a pint to drop 20%, of course they say yes if they think they will ever buy a pint. Ask them if they want an economic shock that would cause prices to drop 20% over a short period and potentially lead to them losing their job/wages being reduced, and you might get a different response.



  • Posts: 12,836 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The arse has fallen out of SF since their comments on 300k houses, so perhaps people don't quite want that 30% drop as much as that poll indicated.



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


    can you please explain where the 30% saving in cost is going to come from because if there is no savings in cost then your talking about building at a loss…(regardless of it being private or the government….This sounds like some SF policy that when you dig into the figures you quickly find out they don’t add up and is something from a fairytale)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,699 ✭✭✭Padre_Pio


    This has been touted every few months for years. It won't happy any time soon.

    Im sorry to say that things will continue unless there is some external event that forces change.

    If a global pandemic and cost of living crisis can't even slow down house prices then I don't know what will.



Advertisement
Advertisement