Property Market 2020

darlett · 23-04-2020 10:56am

Jesus Christ. Have been trying to position myself to buy a house for 3 years saving deposit and was finally getting in the zone meeting broker etc pre-covid. Come here regularly looking for pointers, information is power and that. Wondering is now the time to strike with a reduced bid or two, or should one wait a year until the arse potentially falls out of the country and the market?!

But today? I mean yes, there's usually(read always) a few quare agendas in here fair enough, you attempt to read between the lines, but it has to be said the biscuit has truly been taken by attempting to solve the Irish housing crisis by commandeering a few golf courses and/or the Aviva? :pac: FML, seems After Hours needs higher fences to stop their escapees getting loose. That there Phoenix Park would surely take a well planned town or two.

Cuddlesworth · 23-04-2020 10:57am

fliball123 wrote: »

I wonder if the powers that be could allow owners of commercial spaces the option to redesign and use it as residential it might be a way to help the housing crisis, obviously some spaces wont be suitable but some would

Or you could just tax them based on the value of the property, regardless of use, to make land banking a risky venture and remove the profit from it. Value which is created primarily by the tax payer, not the owner. Taxation would cause property prices to stall, as there would be a correction between the value of a properly and the ongoing cost.

kevinc565 · 23-04-2020 11:00am

farm in the suburbs. residents complained to no avail i think.

https://marlet.ie/portfolio/green-acres/

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:01am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Or you could just tax them based on the value of the property, regardless of use, to make land banking a risky venture and remove the profit from it. Value which is created primarily by the tax payer, not the owner. Taxation would cause property prices to stall, as there would be a correction between the value of a properly and the ongoing cost.

Why remove the profit from this. Why are you looking to punitively punish people who have an asset one which someone somewhere has paid good cash for at some stage. So hows about before we do what you ask you hand over all your wage as a tax on your profits and you can live off the same money people get on the dole. Why bother trying to better yourself and try to get ahead when people like you are looking to jump on your back and trying to slow you down or stop you altogether??

eagle eye · 23-04-2020 11:03am

Shut down golf courses, forced cheap sale of lands? If you want that sort of stuff I'm sure there's some fascist dictatorship running some country you can move to.

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:05am

eagle eye wrote: »

Shut down golf courses, forced cheap sale of lands? If you want that sort of stuff I'm sure there's some fascist dictatorship running some country you can move to.

Some fecking crazy suggestions going on in here. The lefties in this country are going to ruin any kind of recovery as if someone even starts getting ahead their will a 100% tax target put on their backs but all for the greater good its getting to cult levels now someone get the cool aid quick and let the lefties drink it

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:10am

pearcider wrote: »

Your pointless comments on this thread say a lot more about you than me. Of course the property bulls will always try and shut down debate especially when all the evidence is stacked against them.

I dont think they have shut down the debate, you have had your opinion that prices are going to drop anywhere from 30% to 50% and people have not agreed with you. I have said property will drop but no where near what your outlining and you consider me a bull simply because I was outlining the fact that the supply side was coming down as well and pointing out that the game is still supply vs demand. I have agreed that the oncoming recession/depression will bring prices down but the person buying will be buying the best from a bad bunch and no one not you or I or anyone else knows what way property prices will be in 3/6 or 12 months time as the pandemic is unprecedented and unpredictable. What happens if tomorrow a vaccine is found and within the matter of a month its cleared or what happens if lockdown remains in place for 3 - 5 years? Too many variables and moving parts to be giving advice to anyone buying or selling to be honest

Tallback · 23-04-2020 11:10am

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't think the market has had a chance to crash.

Judging by my own anecdotal evidence, there's about 70% drop in property listings. Buyers and sellers are keeping their powder dry for the time being.
That said, I spoke to my solicitor who told me her twenty or so clients were proceeding with purchase, but they have a longer term outlook and were much further in the process than me. Since I enlisted her services 6 weeks ago, no one else has called her regarding purchases.

We went sale agreed on a property in Jan with a target May close (for vendor reasons). Our current thinking is to proceed as although there is likely to be property price drops, my sense is that these will take some time to manifest, and possibly greater than a year for suitable/attractive homes. In the first instance sellers will either maintain their existing pricing or just withdraw from the market - leading imho to a bit of a standoff for a while.

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:13am

Tallback wrote: »

We went sale agreed on a property in Jan with a target May close (for vendor reasons). Our current thinking is to proceed as although there is likely to be property price drops, my sense is that these will take some time to manifest, and possibly greater than a year for suitable/attractive homes. In the first instance sellers will either maintain their existing pricing or just withdraw from the market - leading imho to a bit of a standoff for a while.

A lot of properties are being stiffened off and this will continue for the foreseeable future the majority of properties that will come on stream in the next year will be BtL where the owner is right in the crapper.

Hubertj · 23-04-2020 11:19am

pearcider wrote: »

Your pointless comments on this thread say a lot more about you than me. Of course the property bulls will always try and shut down debate especially when all the evidence is stacked against them.

bull and bear bol*ox.... that says plenty about you. You seem to call anyone who disagrees with you a bull while you spout a load of "opinions" as "facts".

Property prices will obviously fall, nobody is arguing that. Your just some lad posting on boards to make themselves feel big. If that helps you then enjoy

Tallback · 23-04-2020 11:24am

fliball123 wrote: »

A lot of properties are being stiffened off and this will continue for the foreseeable future the majority of properties that will come on stream in the next year will be BtL where the owner is right in the crapper.

Yeah - that's our sense of it, it took us a while to find a house that we were happy with even in the "normal" market.

So - we might get a cheaper house but I think it would be in the medium term i.e. 1-3 years. On top of which there's always the risks around getting and maintaining mortgage approval - which reduces flexibility.

I'm fairly sure that asking for any meaningful reduction in price will just collapse the sale.

So, we'll prob proceed with our eyes open as much as possible.

Villa05 · 23-04-2020 11:27am

GreeBo wrote:

Singapore is your comparison? Do you know what most people live in in Singapore? It's not a house anyway.

GreeBo wrote:

Also the question was where would we build all theses houses in Dublin? High density belongs in city centres, not in suburbs, or bloody golf courses.

I suggest that you read my post before responding. The article posted answers all your questions, and gives clues as to why it has not happened to date

I never mentioned golf course or stadia nor did I compare anything to Singapore

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:27am

Tallback wrote: »

Yeah - that's our sense of it, it took us a while to find a house that we were happy with even in the "normal" market.

So - we might get a cheaper house but I think it would be in the medium term i.e. 1-3 years. On top of which there's always the risks around getting and maintaining mortgage approval - which reduces flexibility.

I'm fairly sure that asking for any meaningful reduction in price will just collapse the sale.

So, we'll prob proceed with our eyes open as much as possible.

Well if its a house that your happy to see negative equity in it for a few years and one which you will live out your days in then good luck with it but I would be trying to delay it as long as possible as if property does take a huge nose dive you might save yourself a fortune

JimmyVik · 23-04-2020 11:30am

Everybody always wants to tax someone else for their own benefit.
Usually when you see someone spouting about taxing something or someone, you will find that its for their personal gain and of course they wont be the ones taxed with their suggestion.

Best ignored tbh

Tallback · 23-04-2020 11:38am

fliball123 wrote: »

Well if its a house that your happy to see negative equity in it for a few years and one which you will live out your days in then good luck with it but I would be trying to delay it as long as possible as if property does take a huge nose dive you might save yourself a fortune

How long to delay realistically though on this sale (which is in a chain)?

Do you anticipate a "nose dive" within 1-3 months?

I appreciate the point about potentially saving a fortune - but to achieve that it might be necessary to delay life for a couple of years at a minimum. Looking at the CSO pricing data, it took 15 months + for prices to drop 25% during the last crash and almost 5 years from peak to trough.

eagle eye · 23-04-2020 11:42am

Tallback wrote:

Do you anticipate a "nose dive" within 1-3 months?

I project early to mid-July, that's when all second quarter report numbers and projections based off of them become available.

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:44am

Tallback wrote: »

How long to delay realistically though on this sale (which is in a chain)?

Do you anticipate a "nose dive" within 1-3 months?

I appreciate the point about potentially saving a fortune - but to achieve that it might be necessary to delay life for a couple of years at a minimum. Looking at the CSO pricing data, it took 15 months + for prices to drop 25% during the last crash and almost 5 years from peak to trough.

Not sure to be honest and anyone stating otherwise does not know either..Both supply and demand is dwindling and the price of anything is always the basic economic premise of supply vs demand but with property you have to consider the whole credit side as in its availability.

What I would say is give it 2/3 months if you can, at least you will know if we are on our uppers and corona is gone even temporarily also it might give the sellers a bit of perspective as if the sh1t hits the fan they may be more willing to give you a discount at the very least you could ask the worst they can say is no.

I wouldn't take too much analysis from the last crash and apply it here as every crash is different. Already we are looking at higher unemployment then the last one but no one knows how long this level will remain. There will be other indicators such as rental reports which will tell us if property has started dropping for anger or not.

Good luck with it and let the boardies know how your going with it

ELM327 · 23-04-2020 11:45am

Hubertj wrote: »

bull and bear bol*ox.... that says plenty about you. You seem to call anyone who disagrees with you a bull while you spout a load of "opinions" as "facts".

Property prices will obviously fall, nobody is arguing that. Your just some lad posting on boards to make themselves feel big. If that helps you then enjoy

Arent we all

:D:D
But I do agree, Bull and Bear nonsense is not relevant if you're buying a (god I despise this term) FOREVER HOME

Hubertj · 23-04-2020 11:45am

pearcider wrote: »

I will continue posting my opinions on the property market. That is the point of the the thread after all.

Your opinion of me means nothing to me.

so they are opinions now and not facts. Thank you for clarifying. I also agree that my opinion of you should not matter to you or anyone else. That is very important on the internet.

pearcider · 23-04-2020 11:47am

Hubertj wrote: »

bull and bear bol*ox.... that says plenty about you. You seem to call anyone who disagrees with you a bull while you spout a load of "opinions" as "facts".

Property prices will obviously fall, nobody is arguing that. Your just some lad posting on boards to make themselves feel big. If that helps you then enjoy

Your personal attacks on me are just childish as well as totally off topic and pointless.

I will continue to post my opinions on the property market on this thread and your silly posts do not deter me in the slightest.

Dwarf.Shortage · 23-04-2020 11:48am

eagle eye wrote: »

I project early to mid-July, that's when all second quarter report numbers and projections based off of them become available.

I think there'll be an element of the phoney war to that report, there's no market to make deductions from. I agree that usually that would be key data but with no viewings and negligible numbers of transactions I can't see that report being very illuminating.

SozBbz · 23-04-2020 11:49am

pearcider wrote: »

Your personal attacks on me are just childish as well as totally off topic and pointless.

I will continue to post my opinions on the property market on this thread and your silly posts do not deter me in the slightest.

Its not a personal attack, stop being dramatic.

I too find the whole constant Bull/Bear thing tiresome at best. Stop trying to make it a thing - no one else is having it.

pearcider · 23-04-2020 11:52am

Hubertj wrote: »

so they are opinions now and not facts. Thank you for clarifying. I also agree that my opinion of you should not matter to you or anyone else. That is very important on the internet.

The facts I am referring to are for example the central banks actions of blowing up this insane asset bubble. Or the rising number of properties to rent. Lower prices and rents will be a good thing in the long run as the growth of the rentier class has been disastrous for both the real economy and social cohesion in the western world.

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 11:57am

pearcider wrote: »

The facts I am referring to are for example the central banks actions of blowing up this insane asset bubble. Or the rising number of properties to rent. Lower prices and rents will be a good thing in the long run as the growth of the rentier class has been disastrous for both the real economy and social cohesion in the western world.

People have either agreed with your facts or brought other proof to bare against them or to counter them but when someone gives you a fact that doesn't adhere to your private agenda you start with the bear bull stuff instead of trying to dispute or find evidence against it

Villa05 · 23-04-2020 12:00pm

fliball123 wrote:

The point is someone owns that land someone at some time had to pay for it. Why should they give it up for the greater good and you or I not give up anything that we have spare? why just a levy for vacant land why not a levy for when your not living in your gaff.. A levy when you go on holidays? Why not a levy on your car when your not using it. Is it a case of you don't have a vacant site so we should tax that?? Everyone everywhere wants the other person to pay and this is a simple case of it

The concept is quiet simple, a vacant site levy is there to discourage development land hoarding which is a problem. It is inefficient use of land

Taxing inefficiency is much more beneficial to the economy than taxing work.
Your argument amounts to throwing the toys out of the pram to get your way

fliball123 wrote:

Why remove the profit from this. Why are you looking to punitively punish people who have an asset one which someone somewhere has paid good cash for at some stage. So hows about before we do what you ask you hand over all your wage as a tax on your profits and you can live off the same money people get on the dole. Why bother trying to better yourself and try to get ahead when people like you are looking to jump on your back and trying to slow you down or stop you altogether??

Again with regard to agricultural land as we have said before there is plenty of agricultural land in the country. Using land for agriculture where there is a dire need for housing/commercial property is inefficient use of an asset.
Agri land values are highly inflated as result of subsidies from the EU.

Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure

Dwarf.Shortage · 23-04-2020 12:06pm

Villa05 wrote: »

Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure

I agree but it's important to take a holistic view of what it does to their operation. It's all well and good saying we need 4 acres for a public project, market value is €40k here's €50k.

But if losing that 4 acres splits their land in two or in some other way compromises and makes much more difficult the running of their farm they need to be compensated for that too.

GreeBo · 23-04-2020 12:06pm

ittakestwo wrote: »

Its shocking how Elm golf club in D4, miltown golf club in D6 and clontarf are still being used in this wasteful way. All of these golf clubs are cycling/walking distance from town and also have the dart/luas lines running contiguous with thier perimeters.

Go there on weekday and you might see a few old farts waddling around them yet they could be used for thousands of dwellings. The need to be moved out the N11/M1 into places like Wicklow and Meath

There also not public spaces. If you go onto them you are trespassing if your not a member so nobody can start "we need green space" argument with private gold clubs. Dun Laoghaire council very successfully turned Dun Laoghaire golf club into high density housing so why aren't others.

Firstly we don't have the infrastructure to get more people from the likes of Milltown into town.
Secondly, as I said earlier, how much do you reckon any home built on a golf course in your suggested locations is going to cost?

Remind me how much those houses in Dun Laoghaire cost?
The cheapest I cant find in Cualanor is a 1 bed apartment for €330,000.
With prices over 800K for others.

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 12:09pm

Villa05 wrote: »

The concept is quiet simple, a vacant site levy is there to discourage development land hoarding which is a problem. It is inefficient use of land

Taxing inefficiency is much more beneficial to the economy than taxing work.
Your argument amounts to throwing the toys out of the pram to get your way

Again with regard to agricultural land as we have said before there is plenty of agricultural land in the country. Using land for agriculture where there is a dire need for housing/commercial property is inefficient use of an asset.
Agri land values are highly inflated as result of subsidies from the EU.

Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure

Ok so does that mean that when your in work and your inefficient like making a personal phone call or playing Tetris or logging onto boards and coming up with ridiculous taxes can the government tax you 100% for this or for any other inefficiencies going on in your life.

Hows about we go through each employee and tax them as per their inefficiencies instead of what they earn? Thats in effect what your doing here with land/property.

My argument is your forgetting that someone somewhere had to pay for the land and the cash used to pay would of been subject to them working, hense the money paid to buy the land is after tax money so that's one lot of tax paid, they would of had to stamp duty and VAT on certain land sites. If the person wants to sell they will also have to pay capital gains on any profit made on it. In my opinion the person who owns the land has already contributed regardless of their being an inefficiency there or not. Like I say lets start with your wage and tax you on your inefficiency and see how we go as if the criteria is inefficiency surrender yourself up first for the greater good.

Also by your inefficiency analogy every single or double story house in the country should be knocked down and rebuilt with 20 stories built and you can get your space back but with a couple of hundred people living on top. We are all about efficiency after all.

jrosen · 23-04-2020 12:10pm

Dont we already had a land hoarding levy/tax?

Im pretty sure months back I saw something on TV talking through vacant land and how a huge % of it is not actually suitable for residential development. An empty field doesnt necessarily mean X number of houses.

We also need to take into account the infrastructure of the local communities. We may need more houses but what we dont need is building for the sake of it, kids with no outside space, poor public transport, no schools places.

Villa05 · 23-04-2020 12:40pm

Dwarf.Shortage wrote:

But if losing that 4 acres splits their land in two or in some other way compromises and makes much more difficult the running of their farm they need to be compensated for that too.

There have been allowances made for such issues, when driving in the countryside you will often see a tunnel under a road for livestock crossing just as an example. There is a process for resolving these issues

fliball123 wrote:

Ok so does that mean that when your in work and your inefficient like making a personal phone call or playing Tetris or logging onto boards and coming up with ridiculous taxes can the government tax you 100% for this or for any other inefficiencies going on in your life.

Your employer deals with those issues

fliball123 wrote:

Hows about we go through each employee and tax them as per their inefficiencies instead of what they earn? Thats in effect what your doing here with land/property.

How much extra rent or how much extra is an employee paying for their house because of inefficient use of land. A worker is adding value to the economy, idle land is not

We're they not paying increased accommodation costs they could use the money in local services creating more value and sustainable employment

fliball123 wrote:

My argument is your forgetting that someone somewhere had to pay for the land and the cash used to pay would of been subject to them working, hense the money paid to buy the land is after tax money so that's one lot of tax paid, they would of had to stamp duty and VAT on certain land sites. If the person wants to sell they will also have to pay capital gains on any profit made on it. In my opinion the person who owns the land has already contributed regardless of their being an inefficiency there or not. Like I say lets start with your wage and tax you on your inefficiency and see how we go as if the criteria is inefficiency surrender yourself up first for the greater good

Salaries are taxed more than anything else In the country, despite adding value to the economy.

Idle or underutilised land is a drag on the economy. If you don't want to use the land don't buy it then you don't have to pay the vacant site tax

If the land is under utilised its logical and sensible to offer market value plus a premium for that land where there is a much greater need and benefit for wider society

fliball123 · 23-04-2020 12:43pm

Villa05 wrote: »

The concept is quiet simple, a vacant site levy is there to discourage development land hoarding which is a problem. It is inefficient use of land

Taxing inefficiency is much more beneficial to the economy than taxing work.
Your argument amounts to throwing the toys out of the pram to get your way

Again with regard to agricultural land as we have said before there is plenty of agricultural land in the country. Using land for agriculture where there is a dire need for housing/commercial property is inefficient use of an asset.
Agri land values are highly inflated as result of subsidies from the EU.

Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure

Villa05 wrote: »

There have been allowances made for such issues, when driving in the countryside you will often see a tunnel under a road for livestock crossing just as an example. There is a process for resolving these issues

Your employer deals with those issues

How much extra rent or how much extra is an employee paying for their house because of inefficient use of land. A worker is adding value to the economy, idle land is not

We're they not paying increased accommodation costs they could use the money in local services creating more value and sustainable employment

Salaries are taxed more than anything else In the country, despite adding value to the economy.

Idle or underutilised land is a drag on the economy. If you don't want to use the land don't buy it then you don't have to pay the vacant site tax

If the land is under utilised its logical and sensible to offer market value plus a premium for that land where there is a much greater need and benefit for wider society

Also by your inefficiency analogy every single or double story house in the country should be knocked down and rebuilt with 20 stories up and you can get your space back but with a couple of hundred people living on top. We are all about efficiency after all.

Donald Trump · 23-04-2020 12:47pm

fliball123 wrote: »

The point is someone owns that land someone at some time had to pay for it. Why should they give it up for the greater good and you or I not give up anything that we have spare? why just a levy for vacant land why not a levy for when your not living in your gaff.. A levy when you go on holidays? Why not a levy on your car when your not using it. Is it a case of you don't have a vacant site so we should tax that?? Everyone everywhere wants the other person to pay and this is a simple case of it

Hi, you are conflating two points.

Issue 1 is the seizing of agricultural land (at agricultural value plus a small premium) in order to hand it over to developers or the likes on Intel a la Thomas Reid. That should not be allowed. That is issue 1.

Issues 2, a levy on already zoned land is entirely different. Because it is that act of zoning which makes the land more valuable. It allows the right for that land to be used for a particular purpose. That is a discretionary, and often arbitrary, decision. Likewise, the decision not to allow other similar land to have that right, pushes up the value for the ones that do have it.

Let me give you a simple example. In the countryside a person could have an acre worth 10k and build a house on it. That led to "ribbon development" which people did not like. People say "we can't have ribbon development". Others say "we need to allow houses in rural areas". The compromise is a thing called rural clusters. A rural cluster is just a zoning applied to a field somewhere that allows for say 6 houses to be built there.

Now assume two people, Mick and Pat have equally suitable fields, both currently worth 20k. Mick gets a rural cluster zoning for his field and Pat does not. The reason Pat does not get his is that it is decided that one cluster is enough for demand in that area. Mick proceeds to advertise his 6 sites for 120k each. That is too expensive. Nobody buys a site. Mick doesn't care though. He knows that he now has the only rural cluster, and until all of his sites are sold, nobody in the area can build a house. Pat would be delighted to sell 6 sites in his field for 10k each, but he can't.

The state has in effect given Mick a licence to provide a service. That licence is worth a huge amount of money. He isn't providing it. He shouldn't be allowed to seek rent on it.

If the idea of a simple vacant site levy is repugnant to you then I would suggest an alternative that if a site is zoned residential, and it has not been built on within 10 years, then it should be deemed to be not needed and greenbelted.

Villa05 · 23-04-2020 12:50pm

fliball123 wrote:

Also by your inefficiency analogy every single or double story house in the country should be knocked down and rebuilt with 20 stories up and you can get your space back but with a couple of hundred people living on top. We are all about efficiency after all.

We will have to agree to disagree, I think

Donald Trump · 23-04-2020 12:55pm

Villa05 wrote: »

Offering a farmer market value + 25% for their land is hardly a punitive measure

No. This in no way solves any problem.

All you are simply doing is grabbing the land and handing it over to developers. Developers are already sitting on land and not developing it.

Most land which has any significant hope value is not in the hands of farmers. You should realise this. The land you see at the edges of big towns is already owned by developers. They may rent it out to farmers to use it but a lot is landbanked.

In talking about seizing agricultural land, they are talking about going out another step and allowing the developers to cheaply bank up the next layer of land. It will have no impact on the already developer-owned layer encircling those towns.

Do it at the source. Force the developers to develop what they have. This will in turn bring down prices along the chain. The price the end consumer has to pay and the price paid to the farmer. Allowing the land grab only facilitates the middle man (the developer) to seize it for cheap. He can then continue to sit on it for as long as he wants the same as he does now anyway............Even longer as he got it for cheap.......

JimmyVik · 23-04-2020 12:56pm

Dwarf.Shortage wrote: »

I agree but it's important to take a holistic view of what it does to their operation. It's all well and good saying we need 4 acres for a public project, market value is €40k here's €50k.

But if losing that 4 acres splits their land in two or in some other way compromises and makes much more difficult the running of their farm they need to be compensated for that too.

Good point.

If someone offered my father 1.25% the value of the field at the end of the garden he would take the hand off them. My mother , however would never allow it.

Some people have more than a financial attachment to something.

FVP3 · 23-04-2020 12:56pm

fliball123 wrote: »

I have dealt with your notion of taxes for landlords in a previous post and that it is a reasonable assumption the majority of landlords (non REITS or vultures) are paying 51% tax on rental profits.

You didn't "deal with" anything. There is no landlord tax of 51%, there is an income tax for all.

All your arguments on this thread are badly thought out.

FVP3 · 23-04-2020 12:59pm

cnocbui wrote: »

They can do that, and while they are at it, might as well cap salaries and the price of cars and the price of clothes, and food and childcare and bring in 5 year economic plans and call the country the Union of Socialist Irish Counties.

Good of the country, my arse.

Thats literally a slippery slope argument. Literally.

Classical economists believe in land value taxes, which would also reduce the price of land. Its a government or local government decision that makes the land valuable to begin with by rezoning it.

FVP3 · 23-04-2020 1:01pm

Donald Trump wrote: »

No. This in no way solves any problem.

All you are simply doing is grabbing the land and handing it over to developers. Developers are already sitting on land and not developing it.

Most land which has any significant hope value is not in the hands of farmers. You should realise this. The land you see at the edges of big towns is already owned by developers. They may rent it out to farmers to use it but a lot is landbanked.

In talking about seizing agricultural land, they are talking about going out another step and allowing the developers to cheaply bank up the next layer of land. It will have no impact on the already developer-owned layer encircling those towns.

Do it at the source. Force the developers to develop what they have. This will in turn bring down prices along the chain. The price the end consumer has to pay and the price paid to the farmer. Allowing the land grab only facilitates the middle man (the developer) to seize it for cheap. He can then continue to sit on it for as long as he wants the same as he does now anyway............Even longer as he got it for cheap.......

Yeh I agree with that. A land tax on undeveloped land would help, something that could be adjusted in recessions and booms etc.

Villa05 · 23-04-2020 1:07pm

Donald Trump wrote:

All you are simply doing is grabbing the land and handing it over to developers. Developers are already sitting on land and not developing it.

Donald Trump wrote:

No. This in no way solves any problem.

Agreed
Only the state can issue a CPO, a CPO would not be issued unless there was a relatively immediate need, state takes ownership and either contracts out development or get existing resources to do it

ittakestwo · 23-04-2020 1:11pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Firstly we don't have the infrastructure to get more people from the likes of Milltown into town.
Secondly, as I said earlier, how much do you reckon any home built on a golf course in your suggested locations is going to cost?

Remind me how much those houses in Dun Laoghaire cost?
The cheapest I cant find in Cualanor is a 1 bed apartment for €330,000.
With prices over 800K for others.

Miltown golf club has the luas line beside it. You could also cycle into town within 10/15 mins. It's a perfect place to put a high density housing similar to Dun Laoghaire golf club.

They would be expensive given the location but it would have an effect on the whole market as the people buying/living there would not have to go somewhere else.

Ever at the end of a very long que for a supermarket checkout, then they open another till. Will only the people at the top of the que benefit from the extra till being opened?

old_house · 23-04-2020 1:11pm

FVP3 wrote: »

Its a government or local government decision that makes the land valuable to begin with by rezoning it.

...after having diminished the value before by restricting the possible uses. Government doesn't give value to anything, it just extracts value. Land has been traded long before "authorities" introduced formal rules and taxes.
I'm not necessarily against measures to make development land more affordable where needed, but that argument doesn't cut it.
Does anyone remember the development land windfall tax we had after the last recession? Did it work? Did it make housing cheaper? There must be data on this somewhere.

GreeBo · 23-04-2020 1:14pm

Villa05 wrote: »

I suggest that you read my post before responding. The article posted answers all your questions, and gives clues as to why it has not happened to date

I never mentioned golf course or stadia nor did I compare anything to Singapore

Singapore is dominated by high rise, low cost, heavily sibsdized and income restricted, small apartments.

Explain how that helps a housing problem in Ireland?

lomb · 23-04-2020 1:22pm

All these arguments are false. Property is in many cases cheaper than the rebuild cost. Ergo land has a zero value in many cases.

GreeBo · 23-04-2020 1:24pm

FVP3 wrote: »

The same number of people will be able to buy houses as houses would be cheaper. The opposite of what happens if you increase the length of the mortgage.

(The only possible problem is builders not building at lower prices )

Unless I have missed it, you havent explained how a 20 year mortgage makes houses cheaper.

Pablo_Flox · 23-04-2020 1:28pm

Tallback wrote: »

I appreciate the point about potentially saving a fortune - but to achieve that it might be necessary to delay life for a couple of years at a minimum.

I strongly agree.

Im paying 1,600 per month for a 1 bedroom apartment. If I was to delay purchasing a property for 2 years the price of a property would have to drop by 38k+ for me to break even; and if Im going to hold off I have no interest in breaking even, I want to improve on that. I would want the property to drop by at least 70k for it to have been a worthwhile gamble for me. I can not see properties dropping by that much - and even if they do I would expect most house's brought to the market to be the dregs of the barrel. Why would someone sell at a market low if they have even the slightest choice in the matter.

So its full steam ahead for me.

Donald Trump · 23-04-2020 1:30pm

Villa05 wrote: »

Agreed
Only the state can issue a CPO, a CPO would not be issued unless there was a relatively immediate need, state takes ownership and either contracts out development or get existing resources to do it

Tell that to Thomas Reid. He had to go to the High Court.

The state already can, and does, enact CPOs under current legislation. They have done so in the past too for housing (Ballyfermot in Dublin was built on CPO'd land in the 60's or whenever)

What they want to do now is a change that necessitates modifying the constitution. That should be enough to raise alarm bells that it is different. They want to be able to take the land for private developers.

fifth · 23-04-2020 1:31pm

Pablo_Flox wrote: »

I strongly agree.

Im paying 1,600 per month for a 1 bedroom apartment. If I was to delay purchasing a property for 2 years the price of a property would have to drop by 38k+ for me to break even; and if Im going to hold off I have no interest in breaking even, I want to improve on that. I would want the property to drop by at least 70k for it to have been a wothwile gamble for me. I can not see properties dropping by that much - and even if they do I would expect most house's brought to the market to be the dregs of the barrel. Why would someone sell at a market low if they have even the slightest choie in the matter.

Do its full steam ahead for me.

I am in the same boat.

After much to-ing and fro-ing in recent weeks about holding off..I've decided to continue with my purchase. I was hoping for a bigger discount, but have negotiated 6% and I'm content with that. It's either that or face renting for another year or two and hope supply of new builds picks up.

KaiserSochez · 23-04-2020 1:40pm

fifth wrote: »

I am in the same boat.

After much to-ing and fro-ing in recent weeks about holding off..I've decided to continue with my purchase. I was hoping for a bigger discount, but have negotiated 6% and I'm content with that. It's either that or face renting for another year or two and hope supply of new builds picks up.

I’m in a similar position. Wondering how you went about the negotiation? The vendor on mine was firm on their asking to begin with as I went in 5k less than asking and they came back with a no. That was a week ago. I was planning on seeing how things played out for a few weeks and maybe broaching the subject again...

Hubertj · 23-04-2020 1:54pm

lomb wrote: »

All these arguments are false. Property is in many cases cheaper than the rebuild cost. Ergo land has a zero value in many cases.

can you flesh this out a bit as i don't follow so don't know if i agree or disagree.

I understand that property can be cheaper than the rebuild cost but why does that mean land has 0 value?

Donald Trump · 23-04-2020 1:56pm

Pablo_Flox wrote: »

I strongly agree.

Im paying 1,600 per month for a 1 bedroom apartment. If I was to delay purchasing a property for 2 years the price of a property would have to drop by 38k+ for me to break even; and if Im going to hold off I have no interest in breaking even, I want to improve on that. I would want the property to drop by at least 70k for it to have been a worthwhile gamble for me. I can not see properties dropping by that much - and even if they do I would expect most house's brought to the market to be the dregs of the barrel. Why would someone sell at a market low if they have even the slightest choice in the matter.

So its full steam ahead for me.

Will you be getting a mortgage?

If so, be aware that if you pay off 1600 a month on that mortgage, you won't have paid off 38k of the capital outstanding within 2 years.

Property Market 2020

Comments