Next governments affect on housing market

thomasdylan wrote: »

Are people so reactionary that after seeing a field hospital being constructed quickly in China they think the solution to Irelands housing problems are getting a load of Chinese construction companies in to build.

You can ignore human rights for workers and throw up a load of tofu dregs. Standards of building in China can be really poor and there have been loads of scandals about it.

Hang on! Look at our shoddy build practices here , lots of fire compliance issues , pyrite and often appalling build quality

Sheeps wrote: »

.... he's copying other European models of housing that have worked. Cost rental etc..

how does that work? Who actually builds the housing- can't be private developers they want a profit & if its government funded then is that not social housing?

Saudades wrote: »

I do agree that we should be looking at the existing construction capacity rather than a mass import, however, the student accommodation is needed though because without it the students would just be competing with regular renters for regular private property.

Student accommodation is being built because it can be built to a much more dense capacity than normal apartments. However, there are backlashes coming. UCD students seem upset at the announcement if recent rent hikes and the focus on providing “expensive” accommodation, ie private rooms with en suite bathrooms and 4-5 per kitchen living room. The suggestion was that more shared facilities should be provided to cut costs and make it more affordable. Having seen a nephew’s NY dorm, basically a 12x12 shared room with communal showers/toilets and limited other facilities (catering is in canteens), I can see that for many Irish students the current accommodation is a bit luxurious. Most teenagers would not, for example, have access to a fully private bathroom in their family homes, off campus accommodation would more likely be shared bedrooms etc, I can see the point.

Revised apartment planning rules might shift the pattern of development.

Sheeps wrote: »

Cost rental is where cheap credit is borrowed from Europe (at the moment with negative interest rates), and used to build homes on public land. The money borrowed is paid back in rent by tennants over the course of the credit agreement (equates to about €600-€800 per month).

Firstly, cheap credit comes from the bond markets, not Europe. They're willing to lend a certain amount, but they're going to be wary of lending to a SF government.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-08/irish-election-may-mark-a-good-time-to-exit-the-country-s-bonds

Secondly, rent collection from social housing tenants is a complete joke.
https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/

hmmm wrote: »

The French wealth tax which is similar raises about 2 billion a year. They have a population of 66 million people, so I expect an Irish one to raise 200 million max.

Plus I can't wait to see the outrage when SF asks farmers to sell 1% of their land, as if that was somehow possible.

From memory it excludes agricultural land

Why is everything in Ireland a variation of "We can't do that"
We need housing fixed and healthcare sorted, Neither of these will be sorted by flatly refusing to try anything new

The idea that rents are fallings has come from a headline from Daft that in my opinion was put out in a very disappointing manner by Ronan Lyons on behalf of daft in an effort to influence the election.

Rents fell over 3 months by a fraction of a percentage, in certain areas. None of those areas were population centres with any form of demand. If you read the same report, contrary to the headline of the report, rents have increased over 4% year on year in most cities and areas of high demand, including in rent pressure zones.

Rents are certainly not falling.

I have a lot of time for Ronan Lyons, but the report he produced during the election was severely disappointing behaviour as far as I'm concerned.

RandomViewer wrote: »

Both would seem a bit extreme for the Midlands,, I'd be thinking 6-700 would be enough for such a property .

then you haven't a clue about the rental situation outside the Pale

there are just no houses available to rent

Sheeps wrote: »

It absolutely can be private developers. There's no reason private developers can't make a profit from building cost rental houses on government contract. In particular if it's large scale. This kind of things happens all the time across the continent.

Social housing is means tested housing for people who cant afford it.

Cost rental is where cheap credit is borrowed from Europe (at the moment with negative interest rates), and used to build homes on public land. The money borrowed is paid back in rent by tennants over the course of the credit agreement (equates to about €600-€800 per month). The house functions like private rental unit (in that it's not means tested) only the council is the landlord. It's open to everyone, unlike social housing. It's often called the Vienna model of housing because something like 60% of all housing in Vienna is this model.

Council as landlord in an Irish context is something to be very wary about. Also bear in mind the European model is apartments not houses.

Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »

Most Dublin people lived and came from Public housing in the 70's,80's ,most people had good neighbours and lived relatively safe until the boom years hit.

Government support dropped off hughly ,gardai numbers dwindled ,lack of access to many sporting facilities , councils rehousing bad tenants in a rotation chain lead to the Crime ridding estates we are seeing now.

If Councils had a zero tolerance in re housing bad tenants and injected large funding to those/these estates we may of had a different outcome.

What utter nonsense. There was never that much social housing in Dublin to provide most of Dublin people with housing. Just looking at a map you will see the majority of housing in Dublin was privately built.

Before the boom years there was huge social issues in council areas. Joy riders in the 80s was a huge issue as was heroin. Certain areas were completely no go areas requiring them to redesign how the homes were most noticeably Dardale.

They did rehouse problem tenants in Ballymun flats as most people refused so they got a house with a garden. They kept going down the list ending up with those that stayed wanting to leave due to the social issues.

This was nothing to do with Gardai deployment but creating a vast area of social housing that became ghettos. That was the mistake by the government.

SF want to repeat this mistake and ignore all the studies that show large social housing is a terrible idea. Worldwide reports and EU advice not to do this. A populist idea but anybody who actually looks into these things know how bad an idea it is. SF know this but don't care, I don't blame those who don't understand or bother reading up. I blame those that know and disregard the knowledge and experience.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What utter nonsense. There was never that much social housing in Dublin to provide most of Dublin people with housing. Just looking at a map you will see the majority of housing in Dublin was privately built.
Before the boom years there was huge social issues in council areas. Joy riders in the 80s was a huge issue as was heroin. Certain areas were completely no go areas requiring them to redesign how the homes were most noticeably Dardale.
They did rehouse problem tenants in Ballymun flats as most people refused so they got a house with a garden. They kept going down the list ending up with those that stayed wanting to leave due to the social issues.
This was nothing to do with Gardai deployment but creating a vast area of social housing that became ghettos. That was the mistake by the government.
SF want to repeat this mistake and ignore all the studies that show large social housing is a terrible idea. Worldwide reports and EU advice not to do this. A populist idea but anybody who actually looks into these things know how bad an idea it is. SF know this but don't care, I don't blame those who don't understand or bother reading up. I blame those that know and disregard the knowledge and experience.

Strange then that SF seem to draw so much support from those areas?

Was that as much to do with council areas being synonymous with unemployment areas?
The unemployment rate in the 1980s averaged 15%.

If the social housing had a mix within it of working people on lower incomes, retired people, etc wouldn't that go a long way to avoid the problems you mention?

Is the key mix private & social or is it the mix of tenants within the social housing?

Someone name checked the Vienna model earlier where the social housing is not just considered a dumping ground but something people are happy to live in and stay in rather than buying their own home.

Assetbacked wrote: »

What do I need to show you?

(1) SF themselves have said it is costed and works. I'm not in a position to go into hard figures.

(2) For me, a large party is needed in order to get stuff done. Therefore, I only see 3 options; SF, FF and/or FG.

There is hard evidence that FF are utterly incompetent (the crash) and evidence that FG do not have the ability to fix the housing crisis (rents are absolutely out of control and continuing to rise).

Accordingly, taking into account (1) and (2) above, SF may be able to do a better job of fixing the housing crisis (i.e. reducing house prices and rents) than the other two parties and there is no hard evidence to show they won't. It is a logical view to take.

The latest debate that the 3 main leaders had highlighted issues with SF manifesto.

Dont get me wrong, FG and FF manifesto are not air tight either but SF have the most abitious manifesto yet. I dont see any of their manifestos as achievable but the fact that SF was the most ambitious doesnt bode well for its success.


Rent freeze - How will this help the situation? Right now we have a major supply issue. Yes rent freeze will help current incumbents from rent increases but how can people actually find a house to rent if there is none to rent. We already have queues of upwards of 50people for one house. A rent freeze wont increase supply but more likely the opposite negative affect of decreasing supply. Again for ll that stay in the market, its great for them, but not so great for any people moving home or being evicted due to ll selling up.

Wealth tax - It has been proven not to work in several nations and doesnt bring in too much revenue compared to admin work and under declaration of assets. It also makes a lot of capital leave the country thus its missed revenue for ireland.

Remove tax loopholes for REITs. I dont like the REIT tax structure but i also understand, they are creating more rental properties and although they are only on the higher end, it still creates more supply and is very much needed in our rental crisis. If they start tinkering with the structure, investment will dry and up and guess what, less rental stock leads to a worse situation for renters.

Lets build loads of social housing - How? we are not a flush with cash and need to abide by EU laws on our bailout plan. There is also competitive laws we need to follow so dont see how practical this is. Others have also outlined the social consequences. The vienna model is nice but not every nation has the same cultural differences as ireland and that programme has been around for much longer than 5 years. I dont know how feasible it is in ireland.

The rental credit is the only option that was here in the past so not exactly a new train of thought but could go down well with voters yet not make supply of housing stock worse. This needs to be costed though and similar to FG manifesto to remove USC, it will be interesting to see how plausible it will be.

The thing that ircs me most is the fact that FG are getting blamed for 9 years in power while i would say at least half of this was during the worst recession we have seen where they were trying to clean up the mess that was created by others. It has only been the last 2-3 years where they did let the ball down slightly. I see it might be a trump scenario where he will get the credit for recovering the economy even though democrats were the real heroes.