Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Ireland should stop selling houses to non residents

13

Comments

  • #62
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    chuchuchu wrote: »
    I was thinking of how expensive it is to buy a house/apt in Dublin. When you factor in that a morgage can be only 3.5 times a persons salary and the average salary is 45000

    There are new build houses for sale in Dublin at 280k. A couple only need a joint income of 72k to buy such a house and a deposit of 14k. Definitely not a problem for a couple.


  • #63
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    ted1 wrote: »
    It costs about 250k in labour and parts to build a 3 bed.

    That’s with out land. If land was cheap I’d have a massive garden.

    250k to build your average 3 bed semi-detached house of approx 110sqm? What are you basing this on?

    Outside Dublin this is definitely not true. Miles off the mark.

    In Dublin. Equally not true. There are new build 3 bed semi detached houses for sale in Dublin at 280k. So the developer is spending 250k to build it without the land cost?

    Worth a read https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108061964&postcount=152


  • #64
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,001 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Land costs, planning costs, materials costs, labour costs, insurance costs, I suspect all have increased.

    If builders were able to make big profits on residential units, I suspect there would be more being built.

    This article is not recent, but it outlines some of costs:

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


  • #65
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    rosmoke wrote: »
    I honestly think the land it's the problem, I wanna buy land in the country side, build my own house, grow my own vegetables and work from home, my job allows me to do that.
    But I can't because of stupid stupid and also deemed illegal by EU 'local needs'. So I have to stay in the city, make more money because expenses are higher and effectively drive the prices up for others who actually need to stay in the city.


    Not true. Not every area has local needs rules. Which I think under european law is illegal anyway. But you like every Tim Dick and Harry want to only live in a certain area. Well you cant unless you pay the market rate for that area.


  • #66
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Land costs, planning costs, materials costs, labour costs, insurance costs, I suspect all have increased.

    If builders were able to make big profits on residential units, I suspect there would be more being built.

    This article is not recent, but it outlines some of costs:

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

    Do you have any concrete figures to show it costs 250k on labour and materials to build your average 3 bed semi detached.

    Developers are building more new houses year on year. Of course they are making a decent profit. It should never be about making a big profit - sustainable development without boom and bust cycle.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    voluntary
    Registered Users Posts: 871 ✭✭✭voluntary


    metricspaces wrote: »
    Do you have any concrete figures to show it costs 250k on labour and materials to build your average 3 bed semi detached.

    Developers are building more new houses year on year. Of course they are making a decent profit. It should never be about making a big profit - sustainable development without boom and bust cycle.

    "The surveyor firm’s figures show the pure construction cost of an average estate home now runs at between €1,260 a sq m to €1,610 a sq m.

    Linesight bases its calculation on a 100sq m (1,076sq ft) dwelling, implying a total building cost of €126,000 to €161,000 for the average family home.

    Rising wages, fuelled by demand for workers, and more expensive raw materials, have pushed the cost of building a home up by 7.5 per cent over the past year from the €117,000 to €150,000 range."

    https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/who-d-be-a-listed-irish-housebuilder-in-this-market-1.3622009

    "The data shows a similar rate of growth in the cost of building apartments, from €2,200 a sq m last year to €2,380 a sq m now."


  • #68
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    voluntary wrote: »
    Linesight bases its calculation on a 100sq m (1,076sq ft) dwelling, implying a total building cost of €126,000 to €161,000 for the average family home."

    Sounds more accurate. Nowhere near 250k.


  • #69
    Old diesel
    Registered Users Posts: 5,786 ✭✭✭Old diesel


    You have to allow land cost, development levies, VAT etc.

    Those quick add up - plus market forces.

    Developers margin is required to be 20 to 25 percent by the banks lending to developer.

    Hugh Brennan under the Co Op model was able to deliver 3 beds in Ballymun at 180 k because he was able to....

    Pursuade lender to allow a 5 percent margin (meaning a price reduction on the home)...

    Got DCC on board and they allowed him have the land for 1 k.

    DCC also allowed the development levy to be waived - that is 8 k I think according to Hugh.

    Shows the significant non building costs that quickly add up.


  • #70
    Touchee
    Registered Users Posts: 124 ✭✭Touchee


    metricspaces wrote: »
    There are new build houses for sale in Dublin at 280k. A couple only need a joint income of 72k to buy such a house and a deposit of 14k. Definitely not a problem for a couple.

    Where are these new build houses in Dublin? Honest question!
    Thanks!


  • #71
    seasidedub
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    Touchee wrote: »
    Where are these new build houses in Dublin? Honest question!
    Thanks!

    Generally they won't be in parts of Dublin people aspire to live in.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    rosmoke wrote: »
    But if I can't build my dream house, I'm gonna have to rent or outbid others, subsequently driving up prices.
    And if you're asking why? It's because wife needs a job too so that we can afford to emigrate later to fulfil our dream.

    This is weird logic. You seem to want to build cheaply on a green field site, not to live there, but to build up a bit of capital, flog it on at a multiplier of cost and emigrate?? Speculator? Maybe just skip the first bit? But if you do want to live in rural area, buy an older house and renovate & extend. Loads of choice. That’s what we did.


  • #73
    Anteayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 886 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    The issue is this is a problem across Europe. It should be tackled at EU level. You’ve major protests kicking off in cities like Berlin where people feel they’re being priced out of the rental market by speculators.

    There a balance to be struck and that has not been happening.


  • #74
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    Touchee wrote: »
    Where are these new build houses in Dublin? Honest question!
    Thanks!

    https://www.daft.ie is your friend!


  • #75
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    seasidedub wrote: »
    Generally they won't be in parts of Dublin people aspire to live in.

    Is it a crises if people can afford a house in a county they want to live in but cannot afford a house in the precise area they aspire to live in? I'd suggest the problem is more around peoples unreasonable expectations.


  • #76
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    Old diesel wrote: »

    Hugh Brennan under the Co Op model was able to deliver 3 beds in Ballymun at 180 k because he was able to.....

    Excellent example. Which shows the Gov could build social houses for far less than 180k on state land. Out of that 180k a large chunk of it comes back to the state via taxes and various fees, which means the real cost to the state is much less than 180k.

    Yet the Gov prefers to spend figures like 1800 a month housing families in private sector. In 8 years that covers the cost of building a house (and in reality much less than 8 years as it wouldnt cost the state 180k to build). Strange use of our money!


  • #77
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    metricspaces wrote: »
    Excellent example. Which shows the Gov could build social houses for far less than 180k on state land. Out of that 180k a large chunk of it comes back to the state via taxes and various fees, which means the real cost to the state is much less than 180k.

    Yet the Gov prefers to spend figures like 1800 a month housing families in private sector. In 8 years that covers the cost of building a house (and in reality much less than 8 years as it wouldnt cost the state 180k to build). Strange use of our money!

    I thought the reason he could build for 180k was that all the extra taxes and levies were waived? So the actual cost to government would be about the same.

    And, the government gets a fair chunk of the rent back in taxes from most private landlords. It’s only the REIT that don’t pay taxes in rental income.


  • #78
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    amcalester wrote: »
    I thought the reason he could build for 180k was that all the extra taxes and levies were waived? So the actual cost to government would be about the same.

    And, the government gets a fair chunk of the rent back in taxes from most private landlords. It’s only the REIT that don’t pay taxes in rental income.

    Projects like https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/0710/889171-affordable-housing-scheme/ the Gov do not own the property. The reason for the 180k is down to both the state waiving fees and the developer taking a modest profit.

    Social housing should be state owned, then they own an asset, and aren't forever at the mercy of private landlords and lining their pockets.

    The state sold off large amounts of social housing stock over the last decades by letting people living in them buy them for nominal sums. Which makes no sense, the stock should be rotated so as one generation progresses they can be downsized to a smaller social property and a new family who needs a house can make better use of the house.


  • #79
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    The reason these could be sold so inexpensively was because the government subsidized them by providing free land which was used as bank collateral and by not charging the usual planning charges. The developer didn’t need to make any profit on the development because he carried basically no risk. He could make his money on the building. Developer also says he didn’t build up much capital to invest in the next project.

    This is not necessarily a bad thing. But you have to recognize that this was a subsidy from the government to a small group of home purchasers. If all housing were subsidised by €100k houses would be cheaper from all sectors not just co-ops.


  • #80
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    The main thing it shows is that the State could build 3 bed homes for a max cost of 180k, real cost will be significantly less as they'll get a large portion of the 180k back in taxes, between 90k to 180k maybe?

    They would see payback based on current rent rates in the range of 4 to 8 years?

    Question is why the don't make this capital investment but instead decide to line the pockets of private investors.


  • #81
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It is true that we as a society have adequate wealth to build houses. Everything you say is also true if you had the private sector build the houses.

    The problem is that although we have the wealth, we haven't really got enough capacity to build at the moment. We haven't really planned forward to allow it. We don't have the labour, and the labour won't move here because we can't give the labour housing. We don't have the plans and the shovel-ready projects in place.

    (Your figures are not exactly right. You are referring to the cash outflow, not the cost. The land is worth something. You can't just rate it as being free because you happen to already own it. Also the upgrade to local services to support new housing (roads, public space, etc) is not free. The government has to pay for it. A large proportion of the materials are imported and very little of the labour is paying the higher rate, so you wouldn't get back anything like that in taxes.)

    If you started building public sector housing in the current mess, it wouldn't necessarily mean that more housing would be built. The problem is that you are drawing from a limited pool of skills. If you suddenly ramp up public sector provision, it will quite likely result in a reduction in private sector provision as a result of driving up the cost of labour.

    The answer to this is really medium and long term planning. We do need some sort of interim response too.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    metricspaces
    Registered Users Posts: 793 ✭✭✭metricspaces


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    The answer to this is really medium and long term planning. We do need some sort of interim response too.

    Agree. This is the key - medium to long term planning with the Gov devising a strategy to build and own social housing of various types to fit peoples needs throughout their life. But I've yet to hear such a plan from Eoghan Murphy.


  • #83
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    metricspaces wrote: »
    Agree. This is the key - medium to long term planning with the Gov devising a strategy to build and own social housing of various types to fit peoples needs throughout their life. But I've yet to hear such a plan from Eoghan Murphy.

    Medium- and long-term capacity planning really applies to all sectors, not just the 'social' sector.

    As an example of what goes on in other sectors of the economy where long-term planning is required, there is a formal capacity planning mechanism for electricity generation. The government just doesn't leave it up to chance that there will be enough generation capacity available in 2025. But it doesn't mean that the government owns a large proportion of the generation plants (though it owns some through semi-states).

    There are all sorts of problems in our housing, not just quantity. In the future, we will find that the quality of the housing is a big problem, and that older housing units are not being refurbished adequately. We need to plan for dealing with these problems across the entire housing sector. It's not just a public sector thing.


  • #84
    Touchee
    Registered Users Posts: 124 ✭✭Touchee


    metricspaces wrote: »
    https://www.daft.ie is your friend!

    Right, as expected, not that many, chance of buying a new build for €280k is slim to none.

    Unless if by Dublin you mean Portlaoise or something like that.


  • #85
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,254 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    metricspaces wrote: »
    There are new build houses for sale in Dublin at 280k. A couple only need a joint income of 72k to buy such a house and a deposit of 14k. Definitely not a problem for a couple.

    Earning 72k and living in a place like finglad. Is t exactly a life goal. Sure your neighbour on
    RSA/HAP
    JSA
    Single parents
    Back to school allowance
    Medical cards
    Buggy allowance
    Home heating allowance
    Christmas bonus
    Free upgrading of windows to double glazing etc
    Will be laughing at you as you head off for your days work.


  • #86
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,254 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    metricspaces wrote: »
    Projects like https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/0710/889171-affordable-housing-scheme/ the Gov do not own the property. The reason for the 180k is down to both the state waiving fees and the developer taking a modest profit.

    Social housing should be state owned, then they own an asset, and aren't forever at the mercy of private landlords and lining their pockets.

    The state sold off large amounts of social housing stock over the last decades by letting people living in them buy them for nominal sums. Which makes no sense, the stock should be rotated so as one generation progresses they can be downsized to a smaller social property and a new family who needs a house can make better use of the house.

    As they are not being sold you could probably add 23% on to what the private market would pay. I also reckon that they are still being subsided


  • #87
    seasidedub
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    In terms of social housing and solving the homeless crisis, I doubt selling to non-residents be they individuals or companies will make much difference.

    Social housing was sold off at very reduced prices. You then had people having a valuable asset for which they had not worked as hard or in the same way as those who had to buy privately. This was not fair. Those houses could, and were, later sold - a former county council house on Convent Rd. in Dalkey was sold for about 700k a few years ago, something very, very wrong with that.

    The way to make social housing work is to have serious limitations on it - it should not ever be sold to tenants, but should always remain in the hands of the authorities. If the housing is of a size which was suitable for a largish family, when they have left, the presumably late middle-age couple or parent should be made move to smaller housing and the previous house given to a family for whom it is suitable. There should be no right of adult children to stay in the home and "inherit" tenancy. They go on the housing list like anybody else. If the occupiers "move up" in the world - better jobs etc., then they should be charged increasing rents, and if they earn the average industrial wage they should have to pay market rent.

    I accept this might sound harsh - but a person in social housing is getting something for either free or very cheaply, something which others need to work and save and sacrifice very hard for. So I make no apologies for saying that there should be limits.

    For anyone who says social housing is not free - if you are paying the rent out of your social security then it is free. You have not worked for the money either way. If you are on low wages (which may certainly be due to difficult circumstances - disability, needing to be a carer etc.) you still have to accept you are getting a reduced rent, so you are getting a portion of your housing needs for free.

    By implementing changes like these we could ensure that social housing rotates properly and stays in the system.

    If you were brought up in social housing and went to University and are now an Accountant/Doctor/IT specialist you should not be able to stay in that house, buy it, inherit it or sell it. If you were brought up in it and are on the dole with 7 kids by 3 different partners, you also should not have any particular right to it just because you lived there - you go on the list.


  • #88
    oceanman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,742 ✭✭✭oceanman


    seasidedub wrote: »
    In terms of social housing and solving the homeless crisis, I doubt selling to non-residents be they individuals or companies will make much difference.

    Social housing was sold off at very reduced prices. You then had people having a valuable asset for which they had not worked as hard or in the same way as those who had to buy privately. This was not fair. Those houses could, and were, later sold - a former county council house on Convent Rd. in Dalkey was sold for about 700k a few years ago, something very, very wrong with that.

    The way to make social housing work is to have serious limitations on it - it should not ever be sold to tenants, but should always remain in the hands of the authorities. If the housing is of a size which was suitable for a largish family, when they have left, the presumably late middle-age couple or parent should be made move to smaller housing and the previous house given to a family for whom it is suitable. There should be no right of adult children to stay in the home and "inherit" tenancy. They go on the housing list like anybody else. If the occupiers "move up" in the world - better jobs etc., then they should be charged increasing rents, and if they earn the average industrial wage they should have to pay market rent.

    I accept this might sound harsh - but a person in social housing is getting something for either free or very cheaply, something which others need to work and save and sacrifice very hard for. So I make no apologies for saying that there should be limits.

    For anyone who says social housing is not free - if you are paying the rent out of your social security then it is free. You have not worked for the money either way. If you are on low wages (which may certainly be due to difficult circumstances - disability, needing to be a carer etc.) you still have to accept you are getting a reduced rent, so you are getting a portion of your housing needs for free.

    By implementing changes like these we could ensure that social housing rotates properly and stays in the system.

    If you were brought up in social housing and went to University and are now an Accountant/Doctor/IT specialist you should not be able to stay in that house, buy it, inherit it or sell it. If you were brought up in it and are on the dole with 7 kids by 3 different partners, you also should not have any particular right to it just because you lived there - you go on the list.
    what political party do you think is going to roll with that?


  • #89
    seasidedub
    Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    None. Nobody has the balls. They'd be slammed as right wing fascists, when actually this is the opposite, keeping social housing in circulation for those who need it is true social justice. Giving the size people need and moving them around to facilitate others needs is simply fair play. If you paid for your own 4 bed detached in D4 then, grand, stay in it forever if you fancy. But if you got a free or cheap ride for 30 years and the kids are gone, you need to go so a family can get it. That is justice.


  • #90
    kravmaga
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭kravmaga


    chuchuchu wrote: »
    I was thinking of how expensive it is to buy a house/apt in Dublin. When you factor in that a morgage can be only 3.5 times a persons salary and the average salary is 45000. Then for example a 3 bed house should cost about 200000 including the deposit. But I dont understand how the house prices are like double that price, I mean who could aford it?!

    Then I read stories of foreign investment companies buying up the housing stock and apartment blocks here, which is very discouraging and inflates the prices. Wouldnt it be best for the goverment to pass legislation to ban sales to non Irish residents? As what was done in recently in New Zealand, at least until the housing crisis has past and until they are enough houses been built to keep the prices in check.


    The average industrial salary in Ireland is 35k not 45 k, need to get your facts right


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    mickoneill31
    Registered Users Posts: 855 ✭✭✭mickoneill31


    kravmaga wrote: »
    The average industrial salary in Ireland is 35k not 45 k, need to get your facts right

    From the CSO it says that the average salary of full time employees is €45,611

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-syi/psyi2017/econ/earn/

    If you include part time employees the average salary goes down to €36,919


Advertisement