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

You're putting words in that posters mouth, he never once mentioned returning Irish. Do try and debate whats actually said instead of what you're "assuming".

Why can't the state implement a Denmark style asylum policy exactly? Whats stopping us?

As far as I can see its just people like you who throw their hands up in the air and say the problem is unsolvable, that limiting any immigration will destroy the economy, so we should do nothing. Which just isn't based on the real world outcomes that other countries have demonstrated.

Denmark's number of yearly asylum seekers accepted dropped from 21,316 to 1,151 after they reformed their policy. Its stayed around that level for most of the last decade, with 2,479 accepted in 2023.

They have a population of 6million, so about 20% more than us. And they're also on mainland Europe, and part of Schengen, so considerably easier for asylum seekers to reach.

So approximately the same, or less, for about 1000-2000 asylum seekers is a realistic level of arrivals for us to accept and house. Considering we're an island nation, on the outskirts of Europe, with a small population of 5 million people, and a severe housing crisis. Approaching 30,000 a year, which we're taking at present, is not.

What are you talking about?

The poster said ALL (in capitals because the poster put ALL in capitals) migration and not just asylum migration needs to be reduced.

I did not say that, they did.

If they had gotten into govt, do you think SF would deliver more new homes than FFG, over this next 5 yr term?

Well that's fair enough.

Personally, I dont see how driving investment funds out of housing construction, whilst at the time relying on those same private investment funds to deliver the majority of your new housing stock, was a viable plan.

Not to mention the SF state land homes that still do not have any commitment from the banks to lend mortgages on.

'driving investment funds out of housing construction " - source on this? Or is it just more alarmist nonsense

"Do not have any commitments from the banks to lend mortgages on" - BPFI and individual banks do not provide that level of certainty for policy of non-government parties. They will never give a firm commitment until it's a govt party making these policy proposals. We know they have had talks and their issue surrounding defaults has been resolved (banks get control of land in case of default). They are never going to come out and say "we will lend against this" because it isn't policy - if they were to say that they would be playing politics.

SF said plenty of times they want to stop "vulture" funds from purchasing/investing in homes in ireland; ignoring the fact that many of the schemes are made vialble because the funds enable them in the first place.

And so, as I said, the banks have not approved mortgages on the SF state land homes.

I haven't seen your edited post, but I assume you are now saying EU migration is fine uncapped, but everything else should be restricted?

Regarding asylum seekers, Indeed, we can plan in line with the resources available, but what do we do if that capacity is exceeded.

We can't put a hard cap on numbers arriving, or the volume of successful applicants - although we can introduce deterrents.

In the end, the govt doesnt really know how many will arrive each year.

I assume the plan is just to prepare for the highest likely number; yet with the legal blocking of the recent asylum centres in Thornton Hall and Athlone, you have to wonder what the plan is to provide the pipelined resource.

When you say the politcial will is not there to reduce migration, you perhaps need to be more specfic.

Is it that you believe the govt is trying its best to inflate the population, and if so, to what end?

If the govt is issuing non-EU work visas to fill a skills gap, surely that is sensible governance?

The govt, although able to introduce deterrents, cannot completely control the number of asylum seekers arriving to ireland.

The govt also has no control over the number of EU citizens arriving here.

The point I am making is that the govt doesnt have complete control over the number of people arriving into the state; Just because 150k people arrive here in a 12 month period, doesnt mean the govt planned for that to happen.

I agree, no need to fall out, it is an interesting debate! And of course, immigration does have a direct impact on housing.

I think most people will vote based on a number of factors, rather than just immigration.

If the electorate did feel immigration was too high, which way should they have voted?

Personally, I dont see how driving investment funds out of housing construction, whilst at the time relying on those same private investment funds to deliver the majority of your new housing stock, was a viable plan.

Who ever built our houses before we invited the world and their buddies to take a gamble on the 'sure thing' that is the Irish housing crisis? Why don't we have more of these houses that your investment funds build - for sale to Joe Public, rather than being bought wholesale by other funds to exploit the populace with high rents. The whole system is a crock of sh1t. But your line is "how will we ever manage". How do other countries manage prohibiting foreign buyers etc.? Do all these countries get no houses built or something?

Before investment funds became a big player in housing globally, banks provided the capital and we all know how that ended the last time. And it’s not just an Irish thing but a global thing.

It is funny how other privatised infrastructure like rail, power, water, waste all ended up in worse services and higher costs in the end.

"But housing is different" - until it isn't.

In 30 years time the policy of letting market forces solve housing need will rightfully seem absurd, just as privatising rail in UK or power generation across the continent all have been terrible mistakes that only now are members starting to push back on these practices.

Price rises in the West double the appreciation in the east. Extenting grants to 2nd hand properties in this environment would be economic suicide coupled with falling rates

The REA report, (one of the better reports out there)

Many are overestimating the effect of HTB on the second had market. It's has a limit of 500k on house price which will mean a substantial number of properties will be outside its pricing area. At the bottom section of the market it will give single buyers an edge over investors bidding for smaller one and two bed properties. Even at that I not sure it should have been put in place. However it effect on the market will be limited.

I agree that the government has to stop loading cost onto small businesses. Tge Minimum wage has increased too much over the last 3-4 year's. It's mainly paid to students in.part time work while in college. While there is some full-time workers on it these can.be supported by other social support such as the working family support and HAP for accommodation costs.

On the price of the pint and hospitality its cost is related to demand as much as high labour costs. If punters vote with there feet lower demand will force down prices. The main hospitality costs is rent. Only when hospitality businesses owners refuse to pay these rents will they drop

Yes again it has limits on house prices/ values, limits on income limits on mortgages. It will only apply at the lower end of the market.

I see friends of my children couple with decent jobs getting houses designed that are at the max of there affordability limits. Many are building houses 220sqM ++ with fea features that have significant costs. Corner windows, bespoke kitchens expensive fittings and furnishings. A friend was speaking about his son and GF. They want a new house and will not consider an older property that needs refurbishment.

I see many with unrealistic expectations I know couples renting for years with children that have left the market slip past them but unrealistic expectations.