Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1894895897899900907

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,870 ✭✭✭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: 7,611 ✭✭✭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: 5,612 ✭✭✭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: 5,076 ✭✭✭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: 5,076 ✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,076 ✭✭✭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: 6,657 ✭✭✭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: 4,870 ✭✭✭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



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    "New Irish" is a weasel word (well, two words really). I would not move to France and begin calling myself "new French".

    I've long believed that buying property within the state of Ireland should be the purview of Irish citizens. Indeed, China (the source of many property investors here) have strict restrictions on foreign purchase of property within their state. They also do not recognise dual-citizenship. Ireland, on the other hand, is a globalist investment fund with a flag and crappy football team.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    IMO there are far more pressing problems to address in the property market than the nationality of property owners. As long as any properties that are bought are put to productive use I think there are greater influencing factors causing the problems than foreigners buying houses.

    I certainly don't think banning foreign ownership would do anything to improve affordability.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    I didn't say to ban foreigners from owning property. I said that I would like to see it restricted to Irish citizens. Someone can be a citizen of the Irish State without being ethnically Irish. In the absence of dual citizenship, this would mean that someone would be invested in this country and assimilated. But I digress…



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    OK I see the distinction but I don't think it really makes much difference in the grand scheme of things. If they're owner occupiers they're invested and assimilated irrespective of citizenship, and if they are not owner occupiers presumably they are landlords so they're providing much needed rental supply.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Well if there were restrictions on who could buy property, it would reduce the buying pool. Ergo, demand would fall. In that sense, it would aid affordability by taking many potential buyers out of the market.

    Anyways, none of this will happen one way or the other…



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I think all Irish citizens by way of their taxes are distorting the market to a far greater extent than the foreign buyers. I'd prefer to alleviate that problem first.

    That's equally unlikely to happen one way or the other!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Its pretty easy to dramatically reduce the number of foreign buyers without banning it. Lots of states have punitive rates of stamp duty for non-residents, which does the job nicely. It reduces foreign buyers, lowers demand / prices overall somewhat, and generates some revenue for the state on top while we're at it. We should really do similar.

    ie these are the rates for Singapore:

    Buyers-Stamp-Duty-Additional-Buyers-Stamp-Duty-in-Singapore_-Heres-All-You-Need-to-Know-2023.png


  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    I'm not suggesting that deterring foreign buyers is a difficult thing to do, just that I think it's not really going to make much difference.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Interesting also to note that Singapore has pretty punitive rates of stamp duty for its own citizens who want to buy more than one property.

    That proposal would not go down well here at all I suspect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭Blut2


    I don't think it'd make a huge difference either to be fair. But I also just don't see any downside to it - its all positives, if small. Theres no real reason not to do it.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    That's fair enough, I certainly don't have any deeply held ideological opposition to the idea, but the downside I do see is potentially an unnecessary consumption of political debate and decision bandwidth for something that's essentially window dressing solutions to the problem.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Article in IT today illustrating my point on the government's role, which is essentially that the state is the marginal buyer in every aspect of the property market.

    The sheer number of schemes and measures the Government now presides over is hard to get your head around. On the demand side, it bought about a third of the 33,000 units that came on stream in 2023 for its social and affordable housing programmes through local authorities, approved housing bodies (AHBs) and the Land Development Agency (LDA).

    It also operates three property purchase incentive schemes – Help to Buy, First Home and a Local Authority Home Loan scheme.

    Designed ostensibly to assist young people trying to get on the property ladder and arrest declining rates of home ownership, the schemes are also there to guarantee prices for developers to elicit more supply.

    On the rental side, the Government plays an even bigger role through its various rent support schemes, the biggest one being HAP (housing assistance payment).

    The last estimate – from 2020 – suggested that 54 per cent (almost 300,000) of renting households in the Republic received some kind of State support to help with the cost of housing, double the number two decades ago.

    The shift from building homes to providing rent supports – the so-called bricks to benefits switch – has been one of the defining features of European housing markets. The Government now spends close to a €1 billion a year on these supports.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2025/03/09/government-is-now-a-property-octopus-with-tentacles-everywhere/



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,209 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Tge idea that vacant property is a serious issue within the housing spectrum is a myth. It's 165k units or about 8% of stock. I like to see figures for other countries.

    At any snapshot in time there is probably about 20k units for sale probably 50%+ empty, we have about 50k deaths at least 20k of them will have units gojng through probate and then you have probably 20k units vacant due to owners in nursing homes. Those three issues are probably hitting 60k units.

    Next you have units over commercial premises which for security or insurance issues are not available for rent. This could be 20-30k units. As some of these woukd orginally listed as occupied in previous census they would be listed as vacant now

    If houses are complete by builders and either not sold or owner hasn't moved in ( remember this is a snapshot in time) then by census data they are vacant. If the owner is elderly and living with children it's listed as vacant. If it's a rental between tenancy it's listed as vacant

    The long term vacancy numbers are 23K for 10 years and 48k for 5 years. You would really need data regarding tyres of units whether houses, apartments or previous living quarters over commercial premises.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Commercial premises aren't counted in the 160k vacant property figure.

    Even generously allowing for your three issues (probate, sales and nursing homes) thats still approx 100k vacant properties remaining.

    48k of which are vacant for 6 or more years which is completely ridiculous - both for the housing crisis, but also for the owners own finances. And for the structural health of the properties themselves, if they're actually fully vacant.

    Those are huge figures given we only built 30k homes in 2024. If we could pull 10k a year vacant properties back into use (which would seem very doable given the above) we'd effective increase home completions by 33% a year. But even 5k, or 3k, would have a measureable impact. And theres no way 3k a year isn't achievable.

    That would make a huge difference to the housing crisis - at absolutely no cost to Irish tax payers. It would actually raise revenue too, if done via a significant vacant property tax. And it could be brought in almost overnight, its not something that requires years like most other supply side measures (apprenticeships, planning reform etc).

    And only 122k people in Ireland even own two properties or more, nevermind the even smaller number who own vacant properties. So theres essentially no political cost.

    Its a really easy win, as far as measures to help the housing crisis go - near instant, revenue raising rather than costly to tax payers, politically popular, and will have a noticeable impact.



  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Totally agree that it should be an easy win, but just cannot fathom why successive governments are so against tackling it.

    After the 2016 census figures were released the FG government was falling over themselves to say nothing to see here, even going as far as questioning the CSO's competence.

    Then when the 2022 figures were released, still showing it was an issue at 8%, the FFG government once again studiously ignored the elephant in room, and again encouraged a narrative that the data was unreliable etc.

    The risk of pissing off property owners who like to keep properties vacant versus the reward of increasing sales and rental supply would appear to be a total no brainer.

    So why has it been treated with such kid gloves? Makes no sense at all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,033 ✭✭✭✭drunkmonkey


    any thoughts on this article from the independent….it might be good advice for investors but by the sounds of it renters and the tax payer are going to get creamed.

    Buyers could cash in if they snap up properties near new National Children’s Hospital, agents urge..

    https://archive.ph/xmdTp



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,209 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Accommodation over commercial property is. Lots of pubs and shops had Accommodation over them traditionally. People lived there. There is one pub in our village where the owner lived over it until about 5-6 years ago. Town next to us ( it's a very small town has a hardware shop with living accommodation over it, two pubs one with owner living over it, one where owner was living over it but vacant now.

    The census counts all living Accommodation. Interestingly there is local authority housing there and at present there is three boarded up houses there and they are that way for about 10 years. Go into any local authority housing area in Limerick and there's multiple houses boarded up longterm

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd




  • Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,657 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Great thing about Census 2022 is that you can drill down into hyper local detail which put all these arguments to bed about vacancy being caused by empty flats above shops and pubs in rural backwaters and other low demand areas.

    If you look at Dublin you will see that the wealthiest areas have huge vacancy numbers, and the poorest areas have very little vacancy.

    For example - a designated "small area" in Eglinton Road, Donnybrook - a very valuable, densely residential area, with a housing stock of 129 and a vacancy rate of almost 24%.

    Screenshot 2025-03-10 at 10.23.13.png

    Granted this is an extreme example, but the pattern of very high vacancy rates in the wealthiest areas is repeated all over Dublin.

    https://rdm.geohive.ie/pages/national-census-atlas

    ETA: this place will account for almost half of vacancies - 15 short term let apartments in a block.

    https://www.lodging-world.com/ei/hotels/errigal-house,-eglington-road,-donnybrook,-dublin-4--by-resify-in-dublin-99849541

    Post edited by hometruths on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,870 ✭✭✭Villa05


    Yes, we haven't hurt sick children enough, we need do double down and go after there parents and carers, because that is what taxpayers money is collected for, battering our children and those who care for them

    More please



Advertisement