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

Yes clearly. Renters have limited scope to upgrade, renovate or even redecorate. Have you ever rented in this country?

Im not arguing against social housing, it's a necessary evil in that huge amounts of people will never afford a home or mortgage - social rents are very low relative to market rents or mortgages, that's why social housing exists. Otherwise you end up with high homelessness which creates far more antisocial behaviour and crime than social housing ever will.

But it is a proven effect that home ownership makes people take better care of their property and neighborhood. While Thatcher era selling of social homes was a mistake, the improvement in areas where homes were sold to tenants in situ is notable.

Yes clearly. Renters have limited scope to upgrade, renovate or even redecorate. Have you ever rented in this country?

Yes I have.

It is nonsense to suggest that a property owner has more flexibility than a renter.

A renter can give a few weeks notice and move.

They are not responsible for the maintenance or upkeep of the property.
They don't have to pay any of the taxes.
They are not beholden to the banks or need to get a mortgage.

They don't have to save up a sizeable deposit and sink it into the property.

They don't have equity stored in a very illiquid asset.

They dont have to furnish a property usually.

Ask, yourself, why is that younger people more often rent? Because it suits them for the most part.

Being a property owner does have certain advantages.

You get to build up equity.

You have security of tenure, so long as you pay your mortgage.

You can upgrade and decorate as you wish.

You can pass on the asset to your children after you are gone.

You can sell the asset and downgrade thus releasing equity.

But owning a house is a long-term thing. If you want to move, it is going to take approx 6 months, not a few weeks.

In summary, renting offers more flexibility, and owning offers more security. Both have their pros and cons, but to suggest a property owner has flexibility? Nonsesne!

Your posts sound very political. Tell me, do you think we should limit immigration numbers?

Someone else who wants their cake and eat it too.

100,000 social and affordable homes, a good thing

25,000 leaseholder homes, also a good thing as the state don't need to maintain them (what about the new 100,000 social and affordable homes, that the state need to look after??)

It is a contradictory argument.

7% is a stunningly high figure.

What should it be instead?

The issue of mortgage arrears is a legacy of the courts being very reluctant to kick families out of their homes for non payment. Is that something you advocate?

Of course, within reason, we can't look after the world..

There was salary stats from the CSO yesterday that showed Indian migrants had the highest average weekly salary in the country

There seems to be an attitude out there right now that if you skin is slightly different colour, your a scrounger.

We need to grow up and have a bit of balance. We need workers from abroad as I suspect those that plant phone cameras in individuals faces on a daily basis to invent a story and put it on X might not be very employable

The biggest asset most people buy and have is their PPOR.

That is where the majority of the wealth lies.

Sure, if the choice is between homelessness and a Leased House, the Leased House is better. But mark my words, there will be 2 housing markets if this plan comes into force. The existing housing market, and this secondary poor cousin where you are not going to see any meaningful rise of equity in the primary wealth generator for a household.

Now, before you go down the rabbit hole of saying, a house should be a home, not an investment, id agree in spirit, but we dont live in that world.

If a leased house if for sale a €250,000 and a normal near identical house is available for €350,000, the more expensive house is better value long-term.

Irish banks do not do repossessions on a large scale like the banks would in the UK if you want an honest comparison add the amount of mortgages in arrears and the amount of repossessions that have been executed and compare both in both sectors.

Mark you have to throw in the fact that currently the biggest asset someone will buy is out of reach for a lot of people. Did I not see something that you can buy the state out as well so its all in the person's control all this does is it stops the tax payer being fleeced to help someone buy something that an individual cannot afford. It will bring down prices.

In your analogy the 350k one is better but you have to find the money to bridge the 100k differential if you can do that then you don't need the leased home scheme as your not the demographic it is being created for.

Also lets be clear there are multiple markets already at play in our proprety sector as in house vs apartment, semi detached vs fully detached, 3 bed vs 4 bed, Sure in Dublin alone Northside vs Douthside or Dublin vs the rest of the country. So saying that it will cause a divide is irrelevant and the one thing that all of the divides I have listed above have in common (and the leased home scheme vs a regular property will have the same ) is some people will be able to afford one over the other and some will not be able to afford either its that simple

if you can do that then you don't need the leased home scheme as your not the demographic it is being created for.

Given the limit of a couple buying one of these leased homes is €90k a year, that is going to exclude most couples who want to buy their own home, so this scheme is really catering for those who should really be in affordable cost rentals. Not your usual person who wants to get on the property ladder.

So saying that it will cause a divide is irrelevant and the one thing that all of the divides I have listed above have in common (and the leased home scheme vs a regular property will have the same ) is some people will be able to afford one over the other and some will not be able to afford either its that simple

It is going to be a closed secondary market, fraught with risks and unknowns.

If your motivation in buying a house is the "meaningful rise of equity in the primary wealth generator for a household" then SF's leasehold scheme is not for you, and was never intended to be.

This is why most people buy homes in Ireland, it is a wealth generator, whether we like it or not.

Buying a home gives it certain advantages, like the rise in equity. If that does not exist by design for these leasehold properties, then for many people it will be a non-runner.

It may suit some people, but as I said, those people would be better off in a long-term 20-year cost rental, and letting the state maintain and run the property for you.

Nobody is suggesting SF's leasehold houses are going to be forced upon somebody!

True, but SF are going to revoke all support for the FTB who want to buy their own home that is not a leasehold property. There is certainly push on people to get onboard this plan.

I agree that if we can move HAP tenants into social homes, there will be a downward pressure on private rents.

But these SF social homes will be trying to address the backlog on the waiting lists initially, so HAP tenants would likley remain in situ.

Population growth in the country looks to be running at around 100k per year. Roughly demand for 40k homes each year, just to accommodate the population growth.

When you then consider new house formations like couples/singles moving into a new home but without leaving the original home vacant, the actual demand is surely going to be well over 50k homes annually, just to stand still and keep pace with population growth & internal population movements.

The chances of SF delivering 47k new homes in 2025 under their proposal is next to zero, as there is no labour to do it. All those staff would need to be hired and in the meantime, the rate of population growth continues unchecked and the housing gap widens.