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

My family income would qualify us for the SF scheme, ownership by far beats renting and thats with 0 subsidies

How much of anything gets built because of the continuous objections

They dont have to be complete estates just a % the same % that is used for social housing

But the narritive being pushed is about those who dont and cant get a house so why should the tax payer be used to help an individual create wealth remember a lot of those tax payers are paying mortgages with high interest rates why should they shell out again in tax to cover someone else?. If you cant afford a house by yourself and you need a house over your head you ill have the option outlined.

You seem to be very clear on what housing options you think are best for a FTB couple earning 90k, but I suspect many of their views might differ.

The 90k cap is a SF cap, not my cap.

The proposal does nothing to help any couple secure their own home who happen to earn >=€90,000

A couple both on the mim wage, earns approx €52,000 a year. I dont think we should be giving mortgages to those people personally. Its subprime all over again.

So there is a limited pool of eligable people who this scheme would suit.

Out of interest do you already own a property or are a you a potential FTBer?

I own my own home, and have a mortgage on it.

Didnt get a penny from the state in order to do so.

I suspect most of the complaints about SF s plans and the lack of wealth generation from rising property prices are coming from people who already own property. I.e people who will be unaffected by whatever affordable model is adopted.

Why do you think that is? What is your theory?

So you still have a mini getto, people will not want there children going down there. When the private houses are for sake nobody will want to buy backing on to the "council houses) or on the road down to them. Blackwell Close, Glencairn Park.

THe next thing is the 2-3 thuggish families start to gang up on anyone that challenges them. The children are treated different by the rest of the community around.

I thought he did answer it - anyone can inherit whether they would qualify for the scheme or not.

My theory is existing property owners solely thinking of the value of their own property like FFG's First Home Scheme because they know it will provide a tailwind for rising property values, and they don't like SF's leasehold scheme because they know it will provide a headwind for rising property values.

Given that approx 25,0000 of the planned 300,000 homes that SF will attempt to build over 5 years are these leasehold schemes, it represents approx 8% of the total output.

I would be against the scheme because it's stupid.

Im not a fan of it at all. You can check my previous post.

But, it's better than the SF leasehold scheme.

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

This is complete nonsense. Ask anyone why they opted to buy a house and very little will tell you it's about generating wealth.

And with an affordable leasehold home you are still building equity - but you are not part of the speculation of the private market.

Very very few peoples motivation for buying a home is an investment with a view to profiting. Just look at how many people never buy more than 1 home. Security of tenure and flexibility to renovate and upgrade as they see fit is primary motivation for homebuyers in this (and most) countries. All of which can be achieved with affordable leasehold homes also.

That's a fair point, but where will the volatility level be greater.

If all your eggs are in the high risk private market, the hit to the economy will be far greater than if you had a less risky product.

The fall in the private market may present opportunities to add stock at lower prices to SF model while cushioning the private market fall

If that where the case while did people opt to purchase their council houses.

House purchase even your ppr is about wealth generation everyone wants their children to inherit as much as possible this is normal behaviour. Even if they want to downsize later in life they will still want their property to be worth as much as possible.

Remember a 10% increase on €100k is less than a 10% increase on €200k. When you are downsizing you get a larger return the higher in value your property is.

What is your optimal solution

Tiered solutions to tiered incomes seems logical

I think the issue is the squeezed middle will, as usual, miss out.

They would earn too much for the SF homes and not enough for the private market, which is now even futher out of reach due to price inflation caused by limited private supply, coupled with an absence of govt supports, as far as deposits are concerned.

I would like to see local councils ramp up social and affordable home delivery, but without detracting from the private developers building new homes for the private market at an increased scale, as we are seeing today.

I do think the govt need to incentivise developers to sell new homes, not rent them. Give tax breaks or other incentives, but make it appealing to sell apartments, not just to rent them out to a select group of high earners.

I think the govt need to drastically speed up planning by investing in resource in that area; introduce a punitive vacant property tax and limit the power of housing objections from the public.

In short, build on the momentum we have now. 40k homes this year, pushed to 50k next year and so forth.

SF will drop the numbers off a cliff in 2025 with this policy because there wont be resources to deliver it and we will lose ground which cannot be made up over the next 5 years, especially if the state's population increases by another 100k people in 12 months.

Id say if you had a bell curve of income distribution of non home owning 25 to 40 year olds alot of them would fit into the 50 to 90k income bands, be it singles or couples