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*

1893894896898899943

Comments

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


    I suspect you're right, that's as plausible an explanation as I can think of too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭The Student


    Investors want to make money (be they small or large). The property investment market has been made toxic hence rational business people (again be the small or large) are steering clear of it.

    Hoarding land/vacant property does not make business sense hoping just for capital appreciation. if we go into a recession (which appears likely because of Trump policies) then investors may end up losing on capital appreciation.

    Are all the owners of the vacant properties and development land wrong? Or is there another reason they are not utilising their assets? Business logic would suggest develop vacant properties get the rent and capital appreciation but owners/investors are not doing so. Maybe if they were asked why they are not then that would go someway to addressing the issue?



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


    Totally agree. Part of the problem with this debate on here is that there are many who cannot get their head around the fact it is possible to be both pro landlord and anti vacancy. They just genuinely cannot figure it out.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,351 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    You are missing the fact the government own the majority of the vacant property and planning delays and causes many vacant properties. The government would effectively cause many councils to owe tax and make them less likely to afford to fix them up if the tax was so punitive. It just wouldn't work



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Hoarding land is usually done in hopes of rezoning.

    My genuine belief is most (not all) people hoarding vacant properties are just on average, financially illiterate (I consider 95%+ of the population financially illiterate).

    Their reasons are ultimately not that interesting or relevant in the scheme of things though.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    If you could please link to where I missed that fact, that would be great so I can correct my mistake.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭The Student


    If most people hoarding vacant properties are average financially illiterate then convincing them to rent out their vacant properties would go a good way towards bringing the 160k vacant properties being bandied about.

    Do you think threatening them with a large vacant property tax will encourage them to act if they are financially illiterate? Would an incentive not yield better results?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    No, I do not fundamentally believe in offering incentives to people who have been engaged in behaviour that I consider to be detrimental to society.

    That is a moral position but also a pragmatic one. The problem with incentives is they are rarely time bound so they do not discourage behaviour. If anything, they might encourage more of the behavior to get the subsidy or hope it gets increased. The carrot is not time bound so no urgency is created.

    Someone willing to leave a property vacant is by definition willing to leave a very large carrot (some of the highest rental yields in the world) to rot away. Why place another carrot in front of them that they can ignore or eat at their leisure.

    Annual, recurring costs are absolutely more likely to drive behavioural changes in the short term and are also more palatable for those not engaged in the detrimental behaviour.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭The Student


    OK so the majority of those who voted in the poll saying the RPZ are not working are wrong? Again capping rent was a punitive measure and it appears they have not worked as per the poll results.

    If you force something on someone they react. People don't like to be controlled no matter how much you think they should be.

    If I told you that you had to take a wage cut and you could not leave your job even though there was another identical job paying twice your wage how would you feel?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    Read my post about 10 back. I am pro removal RPZ. Pro tenant eviction enforcement.

    We were talking about vacancy. Not landlords. I assumed you’d read those posts so we’re talking about carrots specifically for vacant homeowners. Eg. Vacant home grant .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭The Student


    Well then remove the RPZ cap and enforce timely evictions and make the sector less toxic and some vacant properties may return to the sector.

    Until the above is done placing punitive taxes on vacant properties is forcing people against their will.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,917 ✭✭✭DataDude


    I don’t follow the thread that closely but pretty sure every single person I’ve ever seen arguing for vacancy taxes takes that same position.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,349 ✭✭✭The Student


    Some posters first port of call is the implementation of punitive taxes rather than addressing the RPZ issues and slow eviction process.

    Definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.



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


    Then the new schemes should not have to reduce their car parking availabilty.

    Hopefully ABP overturn the decision anyway, but the point is that if we are discouraging car use at govt level, then local councils blocking a development because it doesnt have enough car spaces shouldnt be allowed.



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


    I think local councils are being pragmatic rather than idealistic regarding personal car use.

    Seems the number of passenger cars is on the rise
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/452305/ireland-number-of-registered-passenger-cars/#:~:text=In%202022%2C%20the%20number%20of,approximately%202.33%20million%20registered%20units.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,878 ✭✭✭Patsy167


    Will Dublin City apartment prices drop if there are more layoffs like those at TikTok this week?



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




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The population is also on the rise so no surprise the # of cars is going up nationwide. But in cities where decent PT is available we should not always be providing for car use. Car parking spaces take up massive amounts of space and ultimately just add to the cost of new builds.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,996 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Yes, I suggest at least 60 sqm as the minimum for one-bedroom apts.

    If we are to convince people to live in apts long-term, they must be spacious.

    After all, we have plenty of land.

    Two-bedrooms = 80 sqm minimum



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,996 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    The VHT is ineffective, as the definition of vacant is so generous.

    If it's occupied for 31 / 365 days, it's not vacant.



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


    I 100% agree. The stick can be removing private car parking spaces, but there needs to be a carrot of faster public transport that brings people from the suburbs to work.

    If a bus journey is more than 50% longer than the equivalent car journey then no one will change. Same if public transport is any way unreliable.

    Journey from Blanch to Sandyford is 1hr 20min on PT, with two transfers.

    23 minutes in a car on the M50, just over an hour on a bike.

    Clontarf to Dolphins barn, a hour on the bus, 27 mins in a car, 31 on a bicycle.

    Finglas to Stoneybatter, 15 mins in a car, 23 on a bike, 40 on a bus.

    So on and so on. I'm just picking random locations, but when even long journeys are faster on a bike than paid public transport then something is not right. I can see why people don't want to give up private cars, and why councils mandate parking.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Purchased on the main public transport route in Limerick for back up, Service is unusable

    Raheen to Castletroy by car is 15mins, e scooter or bike 30 mins

    Scheduled bus journey is in excess of 1 hour, well over an hour at peak times and if your stop/pick up is after UL, Bus will be full.

    All buses are funnelled into the traffic blacks spots made worse by cycle lane infrastructure. Much better cycle infrastructure off road, canal bank, ballinacurra park etc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,777 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The flip side of that is you cannot improve public transport beyond a certain point unless you de-prioritise cars. Too many cars and congestion negatively impacts on bus times, unless you build bus lanes the whole way which people also are up in arms about because they also claim it's all stick no carrot.



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


    Greater variety of bus routes would be a start. Speaking of Dublin only, but most journeys from north side to south or west require at least one or two connection, with maybe a 10 or 15 minute walk in between. That can't be the best Dublin bus can do.

    I know the arguments against are "we don't have the drivers, the busses, the demand, etc" but if the end goal is to reduce car dependence then something must replace cars



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


    Yep. Councils being pragmatic is irrelevant.

    If the national planning guidelines are to reduce parking spaces in new apartments, then local councils shouldnt be able to reject the schemes for lack of parking spaces, especially in areas with good (by irish standards) PT.

    If you cant build apartments with a low ratio of parking spaces in the capital city and next to a QBC, where can you build them?

    I agree that car use is only going upwards, that isnt going to change, but the govt need to either scrap the minimal car parking policy on new builds or scrap the ability of councils to object to same.



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


    And thats fine, but then dont force developers to provide minimal parking spaces, in order to obtain planning permission.

    We need a consistent message is all; from planning boards, national govt and local councils.

    The liklehood is the planning will be granted anyway by ABP i expect, but we are delaying final planning decisions and the supply of new homes, all because the authorities cant read from the same script.



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


    The roads will never be fully prioritised for buses. We need to accept that.

    As long as the population continues to grow and there is no proper PT network across the city that does not rely on buses, car drivership will continue to increase.

    It's a multi-line metro or bust for Dublin.



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


    Lorcan Sirr had a piece on the vacancy issue this week in the IT. He makes a valid point:

    A cultural aversion to interfering with what people do with their properties or even asking owners what they are doing with them is part of the problem. An assumption that property rights are non-negotiable and take precedence over the common good has also led to a propensity for people doing what they want with their property or nothing at all.

    I think this attitude is behind a lot of the discussion on here when it comes to property in general, and vacancy in particular.

    Irrespective of whatever has sparked the media's sudden awakening to the issue, hopefully their interest is sustained enough that the politicians do something about it.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/2025/03/06/lorcan-sirr-how-has-public-squalor-become-so-normalised-in-our-towns-and-cities/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,035 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Despite all the grants and subsidies, it would appear that less than 5k new homes were sold to private buyers last year

    “Today, out of 30,000 units, if we take out the ‘one-off’ houses, if we take out social and affordable housing, take out cost rental and all of these things, there are less than 10,000 houses being built in the country.

    “And, as we are all aware today, the amount of new Irish buying houses now, price rental, is keeping us all in a job, so that the actual real numbers of Irish citizens buying houses at the moment is less than 5,000 houses in the whole country. It’s very frustrating for young buyers



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


    Strangely worded, but in addition to the low numbers, I think he might also be trying to make a slightly different point: foreigners coming over here and taking our houses:

    the amount of new Irish buying houses now, price rental, is keeping us all in a job, so that the actual real numbers of Irish citizens buying houses at the moment is less than 5,000 houses



Advertisement
Advertisement