General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

is_that_so · 18-09-2019 6:00pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

Its not a tax case

Its a state aid case

Yeah and the assertion that the favourable agreement (AKA State aid) allowed Apple to pay a much better rate.

blanch152 · 19-09-2019 4:50pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Funnily enough it cites DCC a number of times. A comment on local government with a nod to national issue. Nothing to try shut down, mostly on DCC alright Marko. Got a dig in at SF though, kudos.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can solve the housing crisis. Well I know a man who can.
I've been told numerous times that the state/LA's paying for builds to use as social, (to be rented out based on income) or affordable housing (to be sold at profit) wouldn't work because it is so expensive to build there's no money in it.
Well this man here is due to be making profit off public land. We should hire him to government post haste.

Not to mention gaining 'preferred bidder' status despite a shady record

Well done Matt. SF-led city council exposed for giving preferred bidder status to businessman with a shady record.

I am not as outraged as you, as glad to see houses are being built.

James Brown · 19-09-2019 8:01pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well done Matt. SF-led city council exposed for giving preferred bidder status to businessman with a shady record.

I am not as outraged as you, as glad to see houses are being built.

Ah man, I thought I'd get a rest from you. I've not posted here in a while. You already commented on this. Did you go off and have a think about it and come back for more?

It's not a SF led council Blanch. It's actually a FF heavy one and FG have one more than SF on it. But it doesn't matter Blanch does it, unless you want to score points or something? As I said when I posted, I've been told there's no profit in building homes, (relating to state built social/affordable housing). Was showing this lad will be doing well. I also mentioned he got preferred bidder status despite his record, yes.
It's a DCC story relating to the national housing crisis. Why shut that down with your usual nonsense?
I don't vote SF much. I give the odd nod, (I've likely given more support to Fine Gael over the years). I don't come on here looking to burn you with comments on the Greens, I couldn't be arsed.
If you've no interest in the article I referenced, why comment at all? If you've been following you'll know more houses people can't afford won't help. A Noonan-esque vulture fund might buy them up and the tax payer can pay renting them I suppose.
Look, I'll mention FG as much as I mention the Labour party after the next election, should they lose, unless of course they prop up a FF government. This isn't even a FG or government article but it relates to previous conversations on the housing crisis.

L1011 · 19-09-2019 9:24pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Well done Matt. SF-led city council exposed for giving preferred bidder status to businessman with a shady record.

I am not as outraged as you, as glad to see houses are being built.

SF were nearly wiped out in Dublin and no longer control DCC. Not sure when he got that status but it could be reverted.

Mongfinder General · 20-09-2019 1:32pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They've already said its a No Deal Brexit budget, so no giveaways, keep the exchequer filled to deal with the fallout in case No Deal happens.

I dare FF to call for a giveaway, remind everyone who we are dealing with and how they haven't changed since the 70s.

The public would lap it up. Most of us can't see beyond our own pay packets. Invisible taxes like vat, customs/excise, sugar tax are for somebody else to pay. Some of us think that we can just cut back on petrol or alcohol to avoid paying taxes so the general preference is just to hit these.

Once again, FG resort to hitting the easy target, the Paye worker. And as we can now see, Varadkar's talk of a €50k entry point to the top rate of tax is horse ****. They are bereft of any innovative thinking when raising revenue. Voters will always take the populist route.

markodaly · 20-09-2019 4:14pm

L1011 wrote: »

SF were nearly wiped out in Dublin and no longer control DCC. Not sure when he got that status but it could be reverted.

The deal was done pre last Local elections.
Therefore the SF dominated DCC have some questions to answer for here.

blanch152 · 20-09-2019 5:44pm

markodaly wrote: »

The deal was done pre last Local elections.
Therefore the SF dominated DCC have some questions to answer for here.

That was obvious to anyone who read up on the issue, but too many didn't.

James Brown · 20-09-2019 7:26pm

markodaly wrote: »

The deal was done pre last Local elections.
Therefore the SF dominated DCC have some questions to answer for here.

And that changes the facts of the article how? There is still a developer going to make a fortune when the council sign off. They haven't yet by the way. It's in the article. But I couldn't care less if Bobby Sands himself stamped the approval.

blanch152 wrote: »

That was obvious to anyone who read up on the issue, but too many didn't.

Again, what has that got to do with the article and my comments on it relating to housing?

A Bartra spokesman said: "The procurement process is not yet complete. There are many hurdles still to be completed. As the preferred bidder our plan was deemed to most economically advantageous by the city council."

What did I win?

Podge_irl · 20-09-2019 9:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And that changes the facts of the article how? There is still a developer going to make a fortune when the council sign off. They haven't yet by the way. It's in the article. But I couldn't care less if Bobby Sands himself stamped the approval.

The developer isn't going to be building council housing so I fail to see the relevance.

James Brown · 23-09-2019 2:50pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

The developer isn't going to be building council housing so I fail to see the relevance.

If you read my comment it was regarding how I've been told on here that their is no profit to be made building houses, (regarding the LA's/State hiring contractors/developers for building our own for use as social). Here we have a developer set to make a fortune building and on public land, (currently). Also it's likely the tax payer will be paying for the LA/state to use some as social housing once completed. Also part of the developers pitch was he'd have some as affordable, starting at 700,000 I believe.

blanch152 · 23-09-2019 5:00pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you read my comment it was regarding how I've been told on here that their is no profit to be made building houses, (regarding the LA's/State hiring contractors/developers for building our own for use as social). Here we have a developer set to make a fortune building and on public land, (currently). Also it's likely the tax payer will be paying for the LA/state to use some as social housing once completed. Also part of the developers pitch was he'd have some as affordable, starting at 700,000 I believe.

I am sure that you are aware that the unions have a deal with the Government that all staff are permanent. That means that the cost of a local authority building social housing includes the cost of keeping the builders/electricians/plumbers etc. on permanent contracts for the rest of their working life. That makes the cost uneconomical. Such are the basic facts.

James Brown · 23-09-2019 5:49pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I am sure that you are aware that the unions have a deal with the Government that all staff are permanent. That means that the cost of a local authority building social housing includes the cost of keeping the builders/electricians/plumbers etc. on permanent contracts for the rest of their working life. That makes the cost uneconomical. Such are the basic facts.

Not at all. Completely wrong. Councils have building inspectors and the like who oversee and check contractor work on behalf of the council. If you need a plumbing issue sorted the council call a private contractor to carry it out.
Most councils have maybe three or four staff involved in such activities including a clerk.
The LA's/state hire contractors all the time.

Podge_irl · 23-09-2019 7:29pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you read my comment it was regarding how I've been told on here that their is no profit to be made building houses, (regarding the LA's/State hiring contractors/developers for building our own for use as social). Here we have a developer set to make a fortune building and on public land, (currently). Also it's likely the tax payer will be paying for the LA/state to use some as social housing once completed. Also part of the developers pitch was he'd have some as affordable, starting at 700,000 I believe.

You've been told there is no profit in councils building affordable/council housing. This person won't be doing that, he will be building private housing in which there is a lot of profit. If the council is selling it off at market rates, then really what is the point?

James Brown · 23-09-2019 8:12pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

You've been told there is no profit in councils building affordable/council housing. This person won't be doing that, he will be building private housing in which there is a lot of profit.

No, again, I was told it was too expensive to build so there was no profit in it. This man will be doing alright out of it.
My point is instead of building we are enabling others to build and we'll likely be buying or renting off them when construction is complete.

Podge_irl wrote: »

If the council is selling it off at market rates, then really what is the point?

They don't and people would get housed.
Affordable housing is when homes are sold at a profit, but at a rate affordable to those within a set income bracket, who cannot afford a home at market rate.

blanch152 · 24-09-2019 3:59pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not at all. Completely wrong. Councils have building inspectors and the like who oversee and check contractor work on behalf of the council. If you need a plumbing issue sorted the council call a private contractor to carry it out.
Most councils have maybe three or four staff involved in such activities including a clerk.
The LA's/state hire contractors all the time.

So the LAs should tender out to get the work done?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can solve the housing crisis. Well I know a man who can.
I've been told numerous times that the state/LA's paying for builds to use as social, (to be rented out based on income) or affordable housing (to be sold at profit) wouldn't work because it is so expensive to build there's no money in it.
Well this man here is due to be making profit off public land. We should hire him to government post haste.

Not to mention gaining 'preferred bidder' status despite a shady record

But when they do, you criticise them?

Strange.

James Brown · 25-09-2019 1:35pm

blanch152 wrote: »

So the LAs should tender out to get the work done?

Yes, like they do currently. I genuinely can't believe this is news to you. We've gone over it time and again. We are not talking giving trowels to clerical officers, no.

blanch152 wrote: »

But when they do, you criticise them?

Strange.

Strange if you are pretending you don't get my point in an effort to score points. If you disagree, just disagree.

My issue is we are selling public land in the hopes the private market will ease the crisis, which hasn't worked so far.
We should be building our own affordable and social housing not buying at market rates to use as social or depending on the private market to supply affordable or rentals while in this worsening crisis.

Podge_irl · 25-09-2019 1:53pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My issue is we are selling public land in the hopes the private market will ease the crisis, which hasn't worked so far.
We should be building our own affordable and social housing not buying at market rates to use as social or depending on the private market to supply affordable or rentals while in this worsening crisis.

I think they are selling public land just to sell public land that they aren't using and make some money out of it. Unless you mean more generally.

I really don't understand your logic on this anyway. That a private developer is able to make a profit by building and selling full price lots does not reflect anything on a council's ability to make money on tendering out to build social and affordable housing.

James Brown · 25-09-2019 2:15pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think they are selling public land just to sell public land that they aren't using and make some money out of it. Unless you mean more generally.

I really don't understand your logic on this anyway. That a private developer is able to make a profit by building and selling full price lots does not reflect anything on a council's ability to make money on tendering out to build social and affordable housing.

I'd suggest building social housing.

For the third time, likely last, I was told there's no money in building. This lad looks like he'll do well out of it.

Podge_irl · 25-09-2019 3:24pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd suggest building social housing.

For the third time, likely last, I was told there's no money in building. This lad looks like he'll do well out of it.

When?

Please point to where this happened as I don't recall suggestions that LAs tender out for building private, full price dwellings on their unused land ever really coming up but maybe I missed it. And I can't imagine anyone ever suggested that all the housing developers out there do it at a loss for their sheer love of the industry. I mean, it's self-evident that you can make money building houses in general, otherwise no one would do it.

James Brown · 25-09-2019 5:54pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

When?

Please point to where this happened as I don't recall suggestions that LAs tender out for building private, full price dwellings on their unused land ever really coming up but maybe I missed it. And I can't imagine anyone ever suggested that all the housing developers out there do it at a loss for their sheer love of the industry. I mean, it's self-evident that you can make money building houses in general, otherwise no one would do it.

Never said such a thing. You certainly missed my comments.

Numerous times it has come up that there's no profits in building and like you I have put forward the same query. Was also told we'd not enough builders yet that man seems to have sourced the trades people.

If developers can make a profit building to sell or rent out, the LA's/state can build in the least for a smaller profit on affordable housing sales.
The sad thing is there's a strong possibility we'll be buying or renting some of these properties once completed.

tobsey · 25-09-2019 6:22pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We should be building our own affordable and social housing not buying at market rates to use as social or depending on the private market to supply affordable or rentals while in this worsening crisis.

No we shouldn’t. We did that lots of times and ended up with hellholes that were a living nightmare for the decent people in the areas. They ended up seriously disadvantaged with high crime rates and low education rates. It was only after the private purchase schemes that allowed those renting to buy the property that we’ve seen the so called gentrification of the areas and they are now showing an improvement in quality of life for the residents. If we built social housing developments again the same things would happen.

You could argue that if we invested further in the new social housing developments to provide better services and supports we could prevent the issues of the past, however that would simply add to the overall cost and negate any savings achieved by having them built and owned by the state.

James Brown · 25-09-2019 7:48pm

tobsey wrote: »

No we shouldn’t. We did that lots of times and ended up with hellholes that were a living nightmare for the decent people in the areas. They ended up seriously disadvantaged with high crime rates and low education rates. It was only after the private purchase schemes that allowed those renting to buy the property that we’ve seen the so called gentrification of the areas and they are now showing an improvement in quality of life for the residents. If we built social housing developments again the same things would happen.

You could argue that if we invested further in the new social housing developments to provide better services and supports we could prevent the issues of the past, however that would simply add to the overall cost and negate any savings achieved by having them built and owned by the state.

We did that lots of times and it improved the lives of many in much the manner you describe above.
As a tax payer it makes more sense to me to go the social/affordable route. A lot of the criticism comes from those who'll spout 'free house' and go on paying private enterprise. Such views are cutting your nose to spite your face IMO.

We would have such problems for any new housing and they would need be addressed any way. Renting from private landlords/companies or buying at market rate to use as social or paying hotels is not the way to continue. And I'd suggest the year on year worsening crisis backs up that assertion.

beggars_bush · 26-09-2019 11:09am

If you sell the public land it is gone out of our ownership for ever and into private hands

Build social and affordable houses/apartments on the site and so what if you don't make a profit. Are all public schemes now meant to turn a profit?

Think of all the social housing built in the 60s and 70s. Was profit making a consideration in that?

abcabc123123 · 26-09-2019 11:45am

We should be building public rather than social housing, ie housing should be provided by the state but be available to everyone. Public housing should be mixed income rather than low income.

markodaly · 26-09-2019 1:04pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If developers can make a profit building to sell or rent out, the LA's/state can build in the least for a smaller profit on affordable housing sales.
The sad thing is there's a strong possibility we'll be buying or renting some of these properties once completed.

Oh, great this chestnut again.

Tell me, who will build these houses for the Local Authorities or the State? School children?

markodaly · 26-09-2019 1:12pm

beggars_bush wrote: »

If you sell the public land it is gone out of our ownership for ever and into private hands

Build social and affordable houses/apartments on the site and so what if you don't make a profit. Are all public schemes now meant to turn a profit?

Think of all the social housing built in the 60s and 70s. Was profit making a consideration in that?

People hark back to the times when we built lots of houses in past generations, but things have changed.

For one, a lot of the land that the state used is gone. Places like Ballyfermot cannot be rebuilt again, because they are already built up.
Secondly, the requirements and standards of new houses are much much higher
than the typical two up two down type of houses that were built previously.

People today, will not be satisfied to move into a old style 1930's two up/two down a house with no central heating, double glazing and a tiny bathroom.

From the figures banded about, it costs minimum €200,000 euro to build a typical bog standard 3 bed semi.
The costs are massive so its not cheap whatever way you cut it.

Dytalus · 26-09-2019 1:24pm

markodaly wrote: »

From the figures banded about, it costs minimum €200,000 euro to build a typical bog standard 3 bed semi.
The costs are massive so its not cheap whatever way you cut it.

Indeed. The ESRI's report which came out today even mentions housing in its conclusion at the end. Ireland has failed to provide adequate affordable housing to its people, but one of the biggest reasons is cost - they specifically say the cost of building needs to be brought down. In particular, it seems it's the cost of land they point to, not the cost of building.

Ultimately, a greater level of housing supply is required for the given level of house prices. This is particularly the case when one observes the recent work by Bricongne et al. (2019) which indicates that Irish house prices, when adjusting for dwelling size, are amongst the highest in the European Union. Increasing supply requires that the cost of producing a house in
the Irish market needs to be reduced. In particular, the high price of development land needs to be addressed with the introduction of the recent site tax a welcome but preliminary first step.

-ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary, Page 63

Local authorities, which are not actively seeking profits, might be somewhat cheaper than private industry which is. But if the biggest factor in the lack of housing (in particular, affordable housing) is the cost of land and development, then that's a problem that faces the LAs just as much as private developers.

James Brown · 26-09-2019 2:27pm

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, great this chestnut again.

Tell me, who will build these houses for the Local Authorities or the State? School children?

Yes, Greta Thunberg and an Irish contingent of plucky pre-school labourers.

markodaly wrote: »

People hark back to the times when we built lots of houses in past generations, but things have changed.

For one, a lot of the land that the state used is gone. Places like Ballyfermot cannot be rebuilt again, because they are already built up.
Secondly, the requirements and standards of new houses are much much higher
than the typical two up two down type of houses that were built previously.

This was kicked off by an article where DCC was, (was mind not has) to sell off public land and for building houses no less.

markodaly wrote: »

People today, will not be satisfied to move into a old style 1930's two up/two down a house with no central heating, double glazing and a tiny bathroom.

Sez you. If that's all was on the table that would be a case of like it or lump it once health and safety is met, (unlike some private builds).

markodaly wrote: »

From the figures banded about, it costs minimum €200,000 euro to build a typical bog standard 3 bed semi.
The costs are massive so its not cheap whatever way you cut it.

State/LA would own a house and sell at a small profit or rent out, either would be cheaper than paying for rentals to private concerns or hotels or buying for 350,000+ to use as social.

markodaly · 26-09-2019 3:50pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes, Greta Thunberg and an Irish contingent of plucky pre-school labourers.

Bad satire aside, you admit that those building these 'cheap' houses will be the same builders, contractors and developers that build private housing.

So, why would they do it for the state cheaper?
Where is your savings coming from? The only saving to be had is by building on public land.

This was kicked off by an article where DCC was, (was mind not has) to sell off public land and for building houses no less.

You mean the SF dominated DCC council made a deal with a private developer to develop a site and provide housing? What part exactly do you object to and have you written to your local SF counselor about this?

Sez you. If that's all was on the table that would be a case of like it or lump it once health and safety is met, (unlike some private builds).

Ah bingo! It is no longer possible to build these houses unless you want to roll back piles of legislation in regards to building standards and energy conservation.
By all means, lobby your local TD or councilor for this.

State/LA would own a house and sell at a small profit or rent out, either would be cheaper than paying for rentals to private concerns or hotels or buying for 350,000+ to use as social.

Why would it be cheaper? Give us the exact breakdown of the savings here in terms of breakeven costs to provide housing, or are you fluffing your lines again.

If it was that cheap to develop these types of houses, why didn't the SF dominated DCC do this for its last 5-year term.
I think you have no clue about construction or housing.

James Brown · 26-09-2019 4:48pm

markodaly wrote: »

Bad satire aside, you admit that those building these 'cheap' houses will be the same builders, contractors and developers that build private housing.

So, why would they do it for the state cheaper?
Where is your savings coming from? The only saving to be had is by building on public land.

I gave it the seriousness it was due.
Never said cheaper. Been over this before.
You pay me to build I get 200,000, (includes wages for me, labour, taxes, materials.) you get a house.
OR
I build for 200,000, sell to you for 350,000.

Building is cheaper than buying at market.
The builders would be paid the exact same wages regardless of who they are building for. This is very basic. That's why people have a career in both building to sell and building for others.

markodaly wrote: »

You mean the SF dominated DCC council made a deal with a private developer to develop a site and provide housing? What part exactly do you object to and have you written to your local SF counselor about this?

Oh FFS...
Firstly who cares if it were SF led? Secondly no they did nae. It's not yet approved. Did you read the article or following comments? At least Blanch shied off on the SF led thing.

I am pointing out that you can make money building. I am pointing out that this builder found bricklayers to build and is going to do so on public land. Public land you said we didn't have not two comments ago by the way.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah bingo! It is no longer possible to build these houses unless you want to roll back piles of legislation in regards to building standards and energy conservation.
By all means, lobby your local TD or councilor for this.

Nonsense. Calling out your silly comment on the two up two down. People would jump at it also if that's all that's on the table for social housing, that's all that's on the table.

markodaly wrote: »

Why would it be cheaper? Give us the exact breakdown of the savings here in terms of breakeven costs to provide housing, or are you fluffing your lines again.

To build a house for taxes, materials, wages etc, lets say 200,000, using your figures. You get a house built and paid for for 200,000.
OR
You buy the same type of house for let's say 350,000 on the market.

Developers build to sell.
Developers take on contracts to build for others.

Are we going to buy the NCH once it's built?

markodaly wrote: »

If it was that cheap to develop these types of houses, why didn't the SF dominated DCC do this for its last 5-year term.
I think you have no clue about construction or housing.

Or the FF/FG before them, who knows? Maybe some nice sweet deals for Noonan affiliated vulture funds? We can but hope things change with this FF/FG led DCC right?
I know basic math and likely more about houses than you and based on your questions certainly a hell of a lot more about how commerce works.

James Brown · 26-09-2019 6:06pm

Dytalus wrote: »

Indeed. The ESRI's report which came out today even mentions housing in its conclusion at the end. Ireland has failed to provide adequate affordable housing to its people, but one of the biggest reasons is cost - they specifically say the cost of building needs to be brought down. In particular, it seems it's the cost of land they point to, not the cost of building.

-ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary, Page 63

Local authorities, which are not actively seeking profits, might be somewhat cheaper than private industry which is. But if the biggest factor in the lack of housing (in particular, affordable housing) is the cost of land and development, then that's a problem that faces the LAs just as much as private developers.

All true but doesn't take away from the fact that building is cheaper than buying or hotels or renting etc.

Idbatterim · 26-09-2019 6:34pm

All true but doesn't take away from the fact that building is cheaper than buying or hotels or renting etc.

yeah, assuming they dont give the properties away for nothing like in the past! :rolleyes:

James Brown · 26-09-2019 6:53pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah, assuming they dont give the properties away for nothing like in the past! :rolleyes:

The Tenant purchase scheme?
Ironically I know many who grew up in previously owned council houses who begrudge anyone getting a 'foreva' home today.

I think after spending decades paying rent an option to buy at a reduced rate is fair enough but maybe not while we've a housing crisis.

beggars_bush · 26-09-2019 11:02pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The Tenant purchase scheme?
Ironically I know many who grew up in previously owned council houses who begrudge anyone getting a 'foreva' home today.

I think after spending decades paying rent an option to buy at a reduced rate is fair enough but maybe not while we've a housing crisis.

Selling off the housing stock has contributed to the problem
Also not building any housing for a few decades

markodaly · 27-09-2019 8:33am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Never said cheaper.

You did.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If developers can make a profit building to sell or rent out, the LA's/state can build in the least for a smaller profit on affordable housing sales.

A smaller profit = cheaper.

You pay me to build I get 200,000, (includes wages for me, labour, taxes, materials.) you get a house.
OR
I build for 200,000, sell to you for 350,000.

Well taking aside that your numbers are off the wall, again I ask, who is doing the building for you, and I mean you as in the Local Authority or the State?

Building is cheaper than buying at market.

It depends. Certainly not around in many rural locations.

I am pointing out that you can make money building. I am pointing out that this builder found bricklayers to build and is going to do so on public land. Public land you said we didn't have not two comments ago by the way.

Yes, you can make money building but it is largely location dependent. If you are building houses and selling them for €500,000 each then dare I say it you are making money, land costs being factored in.

What you are falsely inferring though is that the LA's can conjure up some magic trick and get all these houses built for next to nothing and we sell them to people of average or below-average means for a song.

Nonsense. Calling out your silly comment on the two up two down. People would jump at it also if that's all that's on the table for social housing, that's all that's on the table.

Nonsense is it?
Again, you show yourself as clueless.

Here is the link to the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive of 2010 (EPBD)
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-of-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive

It stipulates the regulation and energy efficiency required to build any new home.
It is impossible for LA's to build the old two up/two down style of housing we once built in the 30's or 50's , as it would against EU Law to do so.

There are new rules kicking in next year, which raises the bar even more. All homes will need to be A3 BER standards minimum with a move to A1. 10 years ago, you could build C3 or D rated homes. That is how much higher the requirement is.
This adds costs to a house but saves energy and fuel into the future.

Dont like it? Then I suggest you write to your MEP or campaign for Irexit.

To build a house for taxes, materials, wages etc, lets say 200,000, using your figures. You get a house built and paid for for 200,000.
OR
You buy the same type of house for let's say 350,000 on the market.

Your numbers are off the wall.

According to the Linesight, the hard cost of building a 100sqm home in 2018 was between €126,000 and €161,000. Cheap you might say, but that is only half the story.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cost-of-building-a-new-family-home-rose-7-5-in-past-year-1.3624692?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fconstruction%2Fcost-of-building-a-new-family-home-rose-7-5-in-past-year-1.3624692

That figure only accounts for the raw materials and the wages for labour. It is also ex-VAT which is 13.5%

We also need to add other costs to this, as the 'soft' costs.

Land (very expensive at the moment)
VAT (13.5%)
Finance costs (developers dont get free money)
Levies (which goes to the LA's)
Professional Fees
Sales/Marketing
Margin at about 11%

This means the it pushes up the cost of an average home to €330,000 in the greater Dublin area.
Taking out the Margin at 11%, that is no profit-taking for the developer you are still talking about €300,000
If you got free land you can reduce this down to about €240,000

So, to build a house with FREE land and the developer doing it with no profit in mind you pay €240,000

That is the bottom line, of and the figures I used are 3 years old (circa 2016), so are probably 20% lower than today, so in 2019 its really nearer the €275,000

https://www.newstalk.com/news/heres-how-much-it-costs-to-build-a-house-597037

I know basic math and likely more about houses than you and based on your questions certainly a hell of a lot more about how commerce works.

I sincerely doubt it, but believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

markodaly · 27-09-2019 8:40am

Some more tidbits on this.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/the-myth-of-our-housing-market-1.3961731

It costs about €180,000 to build an average family home. That excludes the builder’s profit, the cost of the land used, and State taxes and levies, which all push up prices.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cost-of-rebuilding-homes-now-back-at-boom-time-levels-1.4019945

The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland’s (SCSI) annual house rebuilding cost guide suggests the cost of rebuilding a three-bed semi-detached home in Dublin is now €207,669, which is almost the same as it was in 2008.

These figures are not including land costs or the various associated taxes/levies.

That is why the average cost of a home in Ireland, is near the €300,000 mark and not the €200,000 mark

Some people here and in the media like to peddle myths that we as a nation can just click our fingers and build 50,000 homes in a year or two and sell them on for under €200,000 or such nonsense.

The only way to even approach this figure is to give land away for free.

Hotblack Desiato · 27-09-2019 12:39pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sez you. If that's all was on the table that would be a case of like it or lump it once health and safety is met, (unlike some private builds).

Whoopee! Let's build a ghetto! What could possibly go wrong!

When we built markedly substandard homes (mostly but not exclusively flats) in the past that only the most desperate / indigent local authority tenants would live in, it didn't end at all well.

These shoddy properties also cost a fortune to maintain and had a short life. They're all knocked or being very expensively rebuilt from a bare shell.

James Brown · 27-09-2019 2:21pm

markodaly wrote: »

You did.

A smaller profit = cheaper.

Apologies, I'll make it simpler.
Cost is the cost to do something. In this case build a house. You pay the cost of wages, materials, taxes etc. You end up with a house you paid to be built and all involved got paid. That's the cost of building a house.
Now once you have that house you can sell it at market rates for as much as you can get or you can sell it above cost, making a smaller profit.
Profit is the gain you make over and above the cost.
If you are the council or state you can sell to people at a smaller profit because you are trying to supply affordable housing, by keeping the price lower than the average market rate.
So by the council/state taking a smaller profit, the house price is cheaper for the buyer. The cost is unchanged and if the house is sold at market rate or cheaper, this doesn't effect the cost and all concerned get paid the same.
So if you pay someone the cost to build you a house, how much you sell if for will not effect the cost, wages paid etc. of the build.
So paying to have a house built is cheaper than buying a house off someone else who built a house and is looking to make as much profit as they can.

markodaly wrote: »

YWell taking aside that your numbers are off the wall, again I ask, who is doing the building for you, and I mean you as in the Local Authority or the State?

I got the 200,000 off you Marko.
Pay a contractor to build. See above. People make a good living building for other people. If you wanted to build a house on some land what would you do? Likely hire a building contractor. The state/LA does/did/would do the same.

markodaly wrote: »

YIt depends. Certainly not around in many rural locations.

That's unlikely. If that were true nobody would ever build anything anywhere and would just buy houses built by...the faeries?

markodaly wrote: »

YYes, you can make money building but it is largely location dependent. If you are building houses and selling them for €500,000 each then dare I say it you are making money, land costs being factored in.

What you are falsely inferring though is that the LA's can conjure up some magic trick and get all these houses built for next to nothing and we sell them to people of average or below-average means for a song.

Last time. The cost would be basically the same. The council/LA choosing to take a smaller profit on sale would be the difference in price.

Cost
noun
an amount that has to be paid or spent to buy or obtain something.

Profit
noun
a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

markodaly wrote: »

Nonsense is it?
Again, you show yourself as clueless.

I contend if offered a two up, two down council house, people would jump at it.

markodaly wrote: »

Here is the link to the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive of 2010 (EPBD)
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-of-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive

It stipulates the regulation and energy efficiency required to build any new home.
It is impossible for LA's to build the old two up/two down style of housing we once built in the 30's or 50's , as it would against EU Law to do so.

There are new rules kicking in next year, which raises the bar even more. All homes will need to be A3 BER standards minimum with a move to A1. 10 years ago, you could build C3 or D rated homes. That is how much higher the requirement is.
This adds costs to a house but saves energy and fuel into the future.

Dont like it? Then I suggest you write to your MEP or campaign for Irexit.

I said once health and safety is met. It's unfortunate I have to spell everything out. A two up, two down house built to current standards. How's that?

markodaly wrote: »

Your numbers are off the wall.
...

I sincerely doubt it, but believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

Again, I got the number of 200,000 off you.
In any case regardless of the cost, it's in the sale that the price becomes relevant. People sell for profit. If the LA/state sold for less profit, the house price would be cheaper. Remember we covered the difference between cost and profit earlier? The cost is the same if I built a house to sell or the council built a house to sell. The difference is I want to make as much profit as I can, the council can opt to sell at a lower profit to keep the price cheaper.

James Brown · 27-09-2019 2:32pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whoopee! Let's build a ghetto! What could possibly go wrong!

When we built markedly substandard homes (mostly but not exclusively flats) in the past that only the most desperate / indigent local authority tenants would live in, it didn't end at all well.

These shoddy properties also cost a fortune to maintain and had a short life. They're all knocked or being very expensively rebuilt from a bare shell.

All very exciting points.
I'd suggest we don't build a ghetto.

If I lived in a slum I'm sure it would have seemed like luxury to me at the time.

No. I know thousands of these homes personally, that were built in the 1930's and onward, still being lived in.
Some for sure but you are being very broad and anecdotal.

We could continue paying rent to private companies, buying at market rates to use as social housing and availing of hotels while we watch the crises worsen I suppose. Only money.

Building social housing is cheaper than buying houses at market rates, (cost + profit) to use as social housing.

markodaly · 27-09-2019 3:10pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If I lived in a slum I'm sure it would have seemed like luxury to me at the time.

Have you ever seen an Irish slum?
Me neither. I have seen slums though, in the likes of Africa, Asia and South America.

No. I know thousands of these homes personally, that were built in the 1930's and onward, still being lived in.

Do these houses greet you personaly in the mornings? :pac::o

markodaly · 27-09-2019 3:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Now once you have that house you can sell it at market rates for as much as you can get or you can sell it above cost, making a smaller profit.
Profit is the gain you make over and above the cost.

The margin here is anything from 8-12%.
So your €330,000 semi-D bog-standard house in greater Dublin, can be 'built' for around €300,000.

However, why would a developer build something for no profit?

If you are the council or state you can sell to people at a smaller profit because you are trying to supply affordable housing, by keeping the price lower than the average market rate.

Again, who is building the house? A developer is not going to agree to build a house just to break-even.
If you want the state or the LA to become the developer as well that is a whole new ball game and something that could be well illegal under EU law.

I got the 200,000 off you Marko.
Pay a contractor to build. See above. People make a good living building for other people. If you wanted to build a house on some land what would you do? Likely hire a building contractor. The state/LA does/did/would do the same.

Yes, and they the contractor/builder/developer will have their profit margin built into the quote they give to the LA. There is no real substantive savings here, unless the land is given away.

That's unlikely. If that were true nobody would ever build anything anywhere and would just buy houses built by...the faeries?

Clearly you have a short memory. You can buy a house in many places of the country for less than €100,000, which is less than the building costs. We had this crash in 2008 if you dont remember. :rolleyes:

Last time. The cost would be basically the same. The council/LA choosing to take a smaller profit on sale would be the difference in price.

Again, why would a developer or builder not build with a profit margin built into their quote or tender? These people are not going to work for anything. It does not matter if its a private build or a public build, the developer will tender and quote the same. The LA will pay the going rate for new homes. You seem to think there is some magic sauce at play here when there is not.

The only magic sauce is free land or some tax incentives given via the state.

I contend if offered a two up, two down council house, people would jump at it.

If built to 2019 standards, sure but they will be much more expensive to build than the 1930's variety. In other words, you have no idea on the costs of building a new house.

I said once health and safety is met. It's unfortunate I have to spell everything out. A two up, two down house built to current standards. How's that?

More expensive for sure.

Again, I got the number of 200,000 off you.

Yet you contend that a developer is making €150,000 of every build if they sell at €350,000. No builder is making those margins.

the cost is the same if I built a house to sell or the council built a house to sell. The difference is I want to make as much profit as I can, the council can opt to sell at a lower profit to keep the price cheaper.

Yes, the cost is the same, so that is why the cost to build a 3-bed semi house is about €300,000 in the greater Dublin region and that is without the developer making a profit. So good luck trying to get developers involved in your public housing schemes.... this is Ireland, not China where developers and builders cannot be forced to build houses for free essentially.

James Brown · 27-09-2019 3:54pm

markodaly wrote: »

Have you ever seen an Irish slum?
Me neither. I have seen slums though, in the likes of Africa, Asia and South America.

I take it you're having a laugh.
Why? Is it because we start building social housing in the 1930's? Is the fact we have more children homeless than we did ever in the history of the state related to the fact that we stopped building social housing in any great number?

markodaly wrote: »

Do these houses greet you personaly in the mornings? :pac::o

Good one.....
So the poster says they are mostly knocked or rebuilt, I disagree citing knowing thousands still in use and you resort to a little humour. Okay.

James Brown · 27-09-2019 4:11pm

markodaly wrote: »

The margin here is anything from 8-12%.
So your €330,000 semi-D bog-standard house in greater Dublin, can be 'built' for around €300,000.

However, why would a developer build something for no profit?

Are we no longer using your 200,000? Okay.
Same principle.
If the build costs 330,000, he'd likely sell it for as much more as he can get.
If we pay him to build, he gets 330,000. We sell above cost for a smaller profit.

I think what might be confusing you is that the cost to build includes his fee and the wages of the workers. So he's paid for organising the build and seeing it complete. What we do with the house after we pay him to build won't effect his fee. He's paid. Have you never paid someone to carry out a task? People will do work for money.

markodaly wrote: »

Again, who is building the house? A developer is not going to agree to build a house just to break-even.
If you want the state or the LA to become the developer as well that is a whole new ball game and something that could be well illegal under EU law.

Again? I've answered this 3 times Marko.
No a developer is not going to agree to build a house to break even Marko.

The state/LA has paid for thousands of houses to be built all over the country since the 1930's.
If you want a house built you are not a developer, you hire a developer and pay him for his time. You end up with a house.

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, and they the contractor/builder/developer will have their profit margin built into the quote they give to the LA. There is no real substantive savings here, unless the land is given away.

How do you seem to understand it correctly here, but not by the comment you made above?
There is savings. You are paying for the developers labour. Profits on the market are completely different. He'll charge what he likes to build and we'll either go with him or not. None of this has anything to do with the market price of buying a house. Two separate things.

When you buy a house on the market the builder is covering cost, (which included his wages and everybody else's wages) and looking to make as much extra, profit, over and above the cost. When we have a house built we only pay the cost.

markodaly wrote: »

Clearly you have a short memory. You can buy a house in many places of the country for less than €100,000, which is less than the building costs. We had this crash in 2008 if you dont remember. :rolleyes:

You showed me. Well done.

markodaly wrote: »

Again, why would a developer or builder not build with a profit margin built into their quote or tender? These people are not going to work for anything.

They do. They pay themselves a wage. It's worked into the quote. Plumbers fixing your sink do it ffs.

markodaly wrote: »

It does not matter if its a private build or a public build, the developer will tender and quote the same.

Exactly.

markodaly wrote: »

The LA will pay the going rate for new homes. You seem to think there is some magic sauce at play here when there is not.

The magic sauce is paying the cost of a build verses buying at market rates where sale profit above cost comes into play.

markodaly wrote: »

The only magic sauce is free land or some tax incentives given via the state.

At this point Marko I don't believe you are being genuine. You are either not getting it or not reading my comments and possibly not even your own.

blanch152 · 27-09-2019 5:28pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I contend if offered a two up, two down council house, people would jump at it.

I said once health and safety is met. It's unfortunate I have to spell everything out. A two up, two down house built to current standards. How's that?

I can't believe there are people out there calling for two-up two-down builds to address the housing problems in Dublin.

We need higher densities like that. Building two-up two-down is what got us into this problem.

blanch152 · 27-09-2019 5:32pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we no longer using your 200,000? Okay.
Same principle.
If the build costs 330,000, he'd likely sell it for as much more as he can get.
If we pay him to build, he gets 330,000. We sell above cost for a smaller profit.

I think what might be confusing you is that the cost to build includes his fee and the wages of the workers. So he's paid for organising the build and seeing it complete. What we do with the house after we pay him to build won't effect his fee. He's paid. Have you never paid someone to carry out a task? People will do work for money.

Ok, I will explain it you in simple words.

Builder is building houses and selling them. It costs €300,000 to build each one, and he sells them for €330,000, making a profit of €30,000 on each one.

Council comes along and asks him to build houses for them for €300,000, meaning he gets no profit. Builder laughs and keeps building his own houses.

Council beg him again. Builder thinks about it, and realises there is a hassle and extra cost to dealing with the council, probably around €10,000 per unit. He offers to build houses for the Council for €340,000, so he can keep his €30,000 profit.

What should Council do?

James Brown · 27-09-2019 6:26pm

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't believe there are people out there calling for two-up two-down builds to address the housing problems in Dublin.

We need higher densities like that. Building two-up two-down is what got us into this problem.

Just to catch you up, the comment was nobody would want them if offered. That is all. Also stopping building anything is what got us into this problem.

blanch152 wrote: »

Ok, I will explain it you in simple words.

Builder is building houses and selling them. It costs €300,000 to build each one, and he sells them for €330,000, making a profit of €30,000 on each one.

Council comes along and asks him to build houses for them for €300,000, meaning he gets no profit. Builder laughs and keeps building his own houses.

Did you read my replies to Marko?
I pay builder to build me a house, it costs 330,000. I pay him. He goes home.

I pay builder 330,000 to build a house. I pay him. He goes home. I sell it for a much as I can get.

The council/state pays a builder 330,000 to build a house. They pay him. He goes home. The council sells it at a smaller profit to provider lower cost housing.

The 330,000 includes a wage for the builder. What He builds or for what purpose doesn't matter to him. He gets paid, costs, materials, a wage. When you call a plumber to put in a toilet. He charges you for the materials, and his time.
When you hire someone to build a house he charges you for the materials and his time.
If we build rather than buying at market, we save money because the market price will be higher than the build price.

blanch152 wrote: »

Council beg him again. Builder thinks about it, and realises there is a hassle and extra cost to dealing with the council, probably around €10,000 per unit. He offers to build houses for the Council for €340,000, so he can keep his €30,000 profit.

What should Council do?

The National Children's Hospital is not being built by a developer who will then put it up on daft.ie for sale.
He was contracted to build a hospital. He'll be paid for his time, materials wages etc. That's how the councils/state has built social/affordable housing in the past. We pay for the service of having houses built and pay the builder accordingly. This is school children level commerce.

27-09-2019 6:30pm

The NCH is a fine example of state construction with its tight budgets and sharply on time delivery.

James Brown · 27-09-2019 6:31pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

The NCH is a fine example of state construction with its tight budgets and sharply on time delivery.

Yeah, that's another story. Hardly ideal. TBF to the government neither the housing nor finance not health ministers were aware....

markodaly · 28-09-2019 7:39am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Are we no longer using your 200,000? Okay.
Same principle.
If the build costs 330,000, he'd likely sell it for as much more as he can get.
If we pay him to build, he gets 330,000. We sell above cost for a smaller profit.

The €330,000 is the selling price. Did you even read the links I posted? You would have educated yourself a little bit on this.

I think what might be confusing you is that the cost to build includes his fee and the wages of the workers. So he's paid for organising the build and seeing it complete. What we do with the house after we pay him to build won't effect his fee. He's paid. Have you never paid someone to carry out a task? People will do work for money.

Yeap, paid the €330,000. So again, where are the 'savings'?

No a developer is not going to agree to build a house to break even Marko.

Agree.

The state/LA has paid for thousands of houses to be built all over the country since the 1930's.
If you want a house built you are not a developer, you hire a developer and pay him for his time. You end up with a house.

Yes, you end up with a house. But again, where are the magical savings?

How do you seem to understand it correctly here, but not by the comment you made above?
There is savings. You are paying for the developers labour. Profits on the market are completely different. He'll charge what he likes to build and we'll either go with him or not. None of this has anything to do with the market price of buying a house. Two separate things.

When you buy a house on the market the builder is covering cost, (which included his wages and everybody else's wages) and looking to make as much extra, profit, over and above the cost. When we have a house built we only pay the cost.

You realise that the developer will tender at the market price?

You showed me. Well done.

https://www.daft.ie/roscommon/houses-for-sale/rooskey/4-riverwalk-rooskey-roscommon-2277932/
https://www.daft.ie/donegal/houses-for-auction/derrybeg/3-cul-na-toinne-magheraclogher-derrybeg-donegal-2273077/
https://www.daft.ie/mayo/houses-for-sale/crossmolina/17-abbeytown-crossmolina-mayo-2276052/

3 houses around the country, all 3 bed and all under €100,000. These are below cost prices.

markodaly wrote: »

These people are not going to work for anything. It does not matter if its a private build or a public build, the developer will tender and quote the same.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Exactly.

Right, so agree with me on that. So again I ask where is the saving coming from.
You harp on about less profit but I think you are getting confused about the term profit.

If a developer builds a house and sells it to Joe Bloggs for €330,000 this gives them about 10% profit.
If a LA approaches a developer to build houses, the developer will also sell the LA the house for same. The developer will not care who buys the house of them, they get paid regardless and will make their margin.

Now though the LA becomes the middle man as they now own a property which they need to sell on, and this adds an extra layer on top of the process. You are saying then that the LA will sell on that house to someone for 'less profit' which actually means they will sell it for more than the €330,000 they bought it from in the first place. Makes sense right?

So again, where are these magical savings coming from?

The magic sauce is paying the cost of a build verses buying at market rates where sale profit above cost comes into play.

Which ends up costing the LA the same price as the open market price to build and buy from a developer.

At this point Marko I don't believe you are being genuine. You are either not getting it or not reading my comments and possibly not even your own.

The common denominator here is yourself. I am not the only person here confused by your South Park gnome economic logic.

markodaly · 28-09-2019 7:53am

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I pay builder to build me a house, it costs 330,000. I pay him. He goes home.

I pay builder 330,000 to build a house. I pay him. He goes home. I sell it for a much as I can get.

The council/state pays a builder 330,000 to build a house. They pay him. He goes home. The council sells it at a smaller profit to provider lower cost housing.

Did anyone else chuckle at this?

How in god's name can a council sell a house for a profit but sell it at a loss?

If we build rather than buying at market, we save money because the market price will be higher than the build price.

The costs are the same, you even admit it yourself.

The National Children's Hospital is not being built by a developer who will then put it up on daft.ie for sale.
He was contracted to build a hospital. He'll be paid for his time, materials wages etc. That's how the councils/state has built social/affordable housing in the past. We pay for the service of having houses built and pay the builder accordingly. This is school children level commerce.

Yes, the NCH is a fine example of prudent financial cost savings by the state, isnt it?

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Comments