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

They need the workforce for that of course, a publicly owned property developer is what's needed I think

CIF is saying that the workforce to deliver 50k homes is already there.

Whether the councils contract out the building or not is fine either way, but I do think they need to become responsible for self build homes with targets.

Most of their current delivery is just part 5 or homes they have rented/purchased from the private market, using tax payers money.

They need to do the leg work themselves to deliver and build social homes and let the private sector deliver private homes.

Not like the OPW, the OPW doesn't understand the value of money, they can't be put in charge of housebuilding during an emergency

Civil servants have a lot of great work and pay conditions which have ongoing costs.

There's nothing to stop a state owned company offering similar pay and conditions as private developers but instead of profiting from the sale, as a private developer needs to do, they simply rent the homes out or sell them as affordable housing

50k homes per year I assume you mean? It's a good start but we need closer to a workforce for 100k homes pa I'd say. I completely agree they need to be more proactive. I think the time for relying on private developers to build social homes is long since gone. With that being said, I don't think there is one single approach that will sort the mess out.

Yes, 50k new homes per year in total.

A push to have the council made resonsible for new builds, not acquistions, of social homes is really needed.

As far as the private market goes, I dont see how extending the RPZ nationwide and still capping rent increases at 2% or 3% is going to stimulate new investment.

The point of the review was to encourage investment and lift new build numbers as a result.

The "changes" havent really made the rental market any more attractive to private investment.

I believe the rent rise in line with inflation is capped at 2%. If inflation is 3%, the landlord can still only raise the rent by 2%.

Which means that following the changes, the 2% rent cap is still in place.

This won't encourage new investment as nothing has changed, from an investors point of view.

Before the new legislation was introduced, somebody planning on becoming a landlord could already charge what they like when they bring the property to market and could already raise rents by 2% annually.

Again, no change.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2075955/panic-tenerife-lanzarote-tourists-fear-safety

"A clampdown on illegal holiday lets is the latest in a series of moves that has left international tourists unsure if they're "welcome" in Spain. Holidaymakers have been caught offguard by the mass removal of illegal holiday lets in regions across the country, with Booking.com pulling over 4,000 illegal rental listings from its Spanish market this month, with the majority in the Canary Islands."

https://archive.ph/B4acD

Any chance illegal airbnbs in this country might get the same treatment?

The March 2026 change is only a proposal. It still needs legislation to exempt new builds from the 2% rent cap.

There will be a lot of push back against that change and it may well not happen.

Either way, it is not legislated for as things stand today and is only a proposal, which means the 2% rent cap of old still applies to everyone and will likely not encourage new investment, going forward.

I dont think landlords, especially large scale investors, will come onboard until the legislation is passed ( if it ever is).

No need to take the risk when there are plenty of other markets they can invest in without fear of rental caps.

I can't understand what you're advocating for here and how it would relieve the poster? They can afford the property they purchased and therefore don't need affordable housing. The core issue if I'm understanding it is the morality/emotional tension of one person paying for something that others get for free, i.e., the same units in the same location. How does more affordable housing change that? You seem to suggest that if the units are cheaper then OP wouldn't have the same issue but this doesn't stand to reason for me.

OP also pays for your hypothetical increased affordable housing via tax anyway, which further doesn't help to resolve any sense of unfairness and perhaps would make it worse.

@floorpie You are right about this:

"The core issue if I'm understanding it is the morality/emotional tension of one person paying for something that others get for free, i.e., the same units in the same location."

@timmyntc You are right about this:

"And I would much rather my taxes keep people from homelessness because the alternative is much higher homelessness and the crime and antisocial behaviour that brings.

Thats the price we pay for a functioning, (relatively) low crime society."

Some more detail from Anton Savage show last Sunday regarding the €1,000,000 social homes

Land owned/controlled by council

8million spent on 500 homes to date on procurement, planning, design

1 million per unit covers build, maintenance 25 years, return to council in pristine condition after 25 years.

Not sure why social housing/cost rental needs to a white glove service provided by developers that charge 15% risk, 20% margins and double digit cost of finance all covered by the taxpayer.

Most social housing applicants are working, a lower cost unfurnished unit would be far more appropriate with less maintenance and allow the state to do more with less. Doing more with less cools house and rent prices for taxpayers improves competitiveness

Additionally if one were to visit there local recycling centre and check out the white goods being dumped there in perfect working order. Can we not have a refurb facility at these locations and redistribute them to those most in need

@Villa05 A one bed unit was bought for 240k just after I bought my 3 bed for nearly 300k in 2021. That was a very high price for that unit. Other than that the prices before and after my purchase seem to have been in line with market prices. There is no evidence of any bulk buying on the PPR. It is a private development built in 1997. As second hand units come up for sale individually, they most often are bought by the council or by charities. I was told at the last AGM that the council owned about a third of the apartments. Charities seem to own or lease many too.

There are lots of things that give before wages rise and house drop. They are planning to change apartment sizes down. Houses can be split in 2 if big enough. People can choose to commute further especially now with WFH.