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

Hang on doing the handouts like HAP, FTB etc and long term leases have done nothing but up prices for everyone who are buying and renting. What the state should be doing is scouring Europe for laborer's offering 1/2 year visas and giving them their tax back if they head off home after they have completed the work as an incentive if they don't we keep it and we need solutions that is not going to cost the tax payer a small fortune. Why are they not forcing developers who when building a new development that they must put 20/30%% modular homes on them and retrofit modular homes to any estate that has been built over the last 20/30 years. These can be built quickly and with a lot less expense. Let those on social housing lists and in social housing and refugees take these modular homes and let the houses that are freed up come on to the private market for rent and sale. This is the simplest, quickest, fairest and most cost efficient way of dealing with this and not one party is talking about it.

Works out at 260k per unit in well located site in Limerick city suburbs.

Meanwhile overpaid politicians and there community big wins. Is this the function of TD's

The goal is to create affordable housing. The SF proposal will do that and then keep the asset in the "affordable pool", which is the policy goal in the end.

Current state "affordable" homes are a one off subsidy to a homebuyer who can then later on sell at market value and pocket the difference.

HTB works similarly, it's a subsidy to a homebuyer who gets an asset for below market price and then later can sell and pocket the difference.

Fair point

I suppose there are quite a few that can leverage the position and power to significantly increase income elsewhere.

In my opinion, all politicians and senior public servants should have to publish all of their private investments, and no one should be allowed to invest in an area that they can influence through policy.

Its all about the narrative and that's what is going on now. FFG are in power for over 100 years. This is there skill backed up by an incredibly powerful lobby group(s). I see the minister on X this morning boasting about giving ftb's 100k of taxpayers money to buy a home (ftb grant 30k, average drawdown on first home scheme 70k)

If you have a process that embeds affordability in sufficient stock, you only have to do this once, under FFG it's a continuous process that gets more expensive untill it crashes. Lobbyists and who they represent will be bailed out because there the "entrepreneurs" or we can't survive without banks

Public sector workers and people who have lost there jobs will be scapegoats and shur we all went mad, who could have seen it coming and we repeat the process again

This is also why we're likely never to see a metro or a rail link to the airport.

The goal is to create affordable housing. The SF proposal will do that and then keep the asset in the "affordable pool", which is the policy goal in the end.

So why sell the house but not the land to a buyer?

The most obvious solution is to keep the house owned by the state and get a tenant to sign a long-term lease.

Houses remain in the affordable housing pool. That is the better solution rather this weird hybrid model that SF wants tto go with that will have all sorts of consequences for the buyer and state.

Current state "affordable" homes are a one off subsidy to a homebuyer who can then later on sell at market value and pocket the difference.

Which is why we should not be selling these houses off at all.

Because leases long term or not are not nearly as permissive or flexible as home ownership, and don't encourage one to take care of your property nearly as much if it isn't actually yours and will get handed back at no cost in the end.

Also no long term lease would ever work out as cost effective as home ownership unless said lease was same cost as mortgage interest only, which would never happen

So why sell the house but not the land to a buyer?

The most obvious solution is to keep the house owned by the state and get a tenant to sign a long-term lease

Its quite a smart solution by SF in one sense

Upkeep and maintainence becomes the responsibility of the occupier. The ownership element reduces the risk of the estate falling into a rundown state as those that live there have greater stake in the estate

Do you realise that your argument is against the 100,000 social and affordable homes that SF are proposing?

For that reason, do you think its a mistake to provide this number of social and affordable homes?

Exsctly.

Earn over 90k as a couple and youre excluded from the SF homes.

To add to the misery, the price of private homes will go up further, because the building resources are prioritising the social homes, meaning weaker supply of private homes and so increased prices.

And to top it off, your help tp buy is gone, so good luck pulling together a deposit for your fast inflating private home.

You'd want to be seriously thinking about asking the boss for a pay cut or demotion so you could get on the housing ladder.

This is a good point in that the home "owner" will be liable for upkeep of the home. Given the "owners" are eanning below average salaries, will they be able to afford the upkeep?

All works on the homes will be at private market rate and that aint cheap.

Not sure why taxpayers are being asked to fund 1 bed apartments for single adults on the housing list when most working taxpayers could never afford a 1 bed apartment to rent or buy. Offer them a house share

Thanks for posting the breakdown