Property Market 2015

The_Conductor

How do the prices compare to other properties in the general area?

Santy2015

The_Conductor wrote:

How do the prices compare to other properties in the general area?

in the Kanturk/Mallow area your looking at between 90k and 120k for a 3 bed semi and 120k/180k for a 4 bed. Kanturk wouldn't be as popular in terms of a commuter town as mallow though.

TheDriver

There's a massive difference between kanturk and mallow both in price and other factors. Then there are huge differences within mallow town. Clonmore seems to make 200-220 for a 4 bed semi while estates by aldi are really cheap tho for a reason. Detached houses of decent size that are not stuck in corner of castlepark are hard to come by. In kanturk, one estate is literally falling down with massive subsidence cracks

The_Conductor

Santy2015 wrote: »

in the Kanturk/Mallow area your looking at between 90k and 120k for a 3 bed semi and 120k/180k for a 4 bed. Kanturk wouldn't be as popular in terms of a commuter town as mallow though.

k- so, relatively speaking, given these are mid-terraces- you are being asked to pay a premium to other property types in the area (not a massive premium though- and while the increase in asking of 27% is enormous- the property would appear to have been underpriced at the outset).

If its now within an arses roar of asking for superior properties- most normal people would decide to go for different property- and in turn, these should come down to economic levels again?

Santy2015

The_Conductor wrote:

If its now within an arses roar of asking for superior properties- most normal people would decide to go for different property- and in turn, these should come down to economic levels again?

true, I can't see them staying at that price. Dun an Oir is the estate that's crumbling at the front, they're due to be demolished soon I think. I wouldn't live there anyway regardless of the house price

handlemaster

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/number-of-homes-being-built-in-dublin-falling-1.2404098

Properties been built in dublin down year on year. When it should be going the other way. Prices will not be coming down

forgot_it_all

Rew wrote: »

Prices in the whole country have been coming up for 2 years

prices in limerick have only started rising since the summer of 2014 , some say its pulling back a bit in limerick too

forgot_it_all

it appears from looking at the property market here that provided a town is within fifty miles of the capital , it doesnt matter how limited that town is , houses are more expensive than in other cities with populations several times larger

a house in maynooth , newbridge , trim , navan , is around fifty grand dearer than in limerick city , now maybe this is entirely to be expected but it suggests to me that dublin is viewed as the only show in town economically going forward , or is limerick just uniquely weak economically ?

Villa05

Limerick is coming back strong economically. Take a drive around Raheen and Castletroy industrial estates, tumbleweed there 5 years ago, different story now l. Premises that were empty during the boom are now occupied.
Hamilton house 3 just completed and full, ethicon up and running. Regeneron now bringing r and d as well as manafacturing.

OfflerCrocGod

handlemaster wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/number-of-homes-being-built-in-dublin-falling-1.2404098

Properties been built in dublin down year on year. When it should be going the other way. Prices will not be coming down

Apart from one month 2015 has had more house completions nationally.
2014 676 611 803 766 1,085 891 992 782 1,183 1,007 1,031 1,189 11,016
2015 693 836 1,100 946 991 1,059 1,120 949 1,220 8,914


Also note.

The drop in the number of homes completed this year in Dublin is down to a particularly poor performance in two local authority areas – Dublin city and South Dublin.

So where property prices are too high for people to buy with the new CB rules building has slowed down. While where they can afford to buy...

Fingal fared considerably better, pulling up the Dublin average with 833 homes built, up from 561 to September last year

Also no mention of building in Meath and the other commuting counties. The spreadsheet from the department is a mess so I couldn't find that information but there are more houses being build in the rest of the country compared to last year and it's not outrageous to presume they are being built in the Dublin commuter towns.

I'm not saying prices will go down but neither is it a foregone conclusion that prices will go up either. It might just be that people will have to buy elsewhere because they simply can't afford South Dublin.

The_Conductor

I'd dispute the suggestion that more properties are being built in 'commuter towns' for Dublin workers. Over the past 2-3 years- the predominant building in 'commuter towns' has been completion of projects abandoned when the bubble burst- and not breaking new ground on projects. Also- the term commuter town is a much abused term- and is commonly understood to include a wide arc around Dublin- encompassing the rail towns as far as the border in north Dublin/Meath/Louth, Navan and its satellite towns (including some sizeable Cavan towns (Bailieboro for example), Maynooth out west (which despite a number of developments ongoing and some recent rezonings- is desperately short of accommodation), Naas/Newbridge- Portlaois/Portarlington, Arklow/Wicklow/Blessington etc (and if you factor in the trainline- there are a few developments in Wexford again- selling themselves as being within 75 minutes of Dublin city centre)........

We really are back to the bad old days again.........

House completions may be up nationally year on year- from a low base- and to overall figures less than a quarter of our national needs. Dublin completions- where its estimated we need between 25000 and 30000 residences per year- are not.

With the exception of the large development in South Dublin- with its useful Luas spur- which if it is sent back to the drawing board could contain >20,000 units in its own right- there are no big developments coming on stream imminently.

The increase in numbers nationally- are driven by once-off dwellings in rural/remote areas- which while they might be perfect for some people- are hardly a response to our critical need for accommodation in the Dublin area.

Fulltime employees of several multinationals operating in the Dublin area- are now habitually living in hotels- and pre-existing employees are being urged to offer bedrooms to new staff. Things are that critical. Lack of accommodation is driving employment- and tax income- away from this jurisdiction.

OfflerCrocGod

I'm not saying that there are enough houses being built in Dublin, I'm pointing out that the places that are most affected are places which are unaffordable by people at current prices. Developers wont build houses people can't afford.

Which means one of two things, credit will have to be increased for purchases in South Dublin at current prices or current prices will have to come down.

The_Conductor

Personally I think a multi-pronged approach should be taken.

1. The income multiple for lending- should vary- aka someone earning 200k is more capable of ascribing 40% of their net income to mortgage repayments- than is someone on 50k. Those on higher incomes should be ascribed greater leeway to borrow more- within reason- I don't think the income multiple should be abolished- simply that it should feature different maximum levels for different income levels.

2. Forget about developers and their inability or unwillingness to build. Local Authorities need to grasp the mettle- and replace all of the housing stock that they allowed be sold off since the 1970s.

3. A carrot and fork approach needs to be taken by authorities with respect of current land banks etc- aka- favourable tax treatment if the land is built on within X amount of time after a rezoning- tappering into a holding tax after a defined period (lets say 4 years for arguments sake). So- once land is zoned- or after the establishment date of the legislation- you have 4 years to build- or else face an annual land tax on undeveloped (or land with unfinished developments).

4. A carrot approach towards those letting rooms under the let-a-room scheme- vastly increasing the allowable gross income before it becomes taxable- perhaps as high as 25k- so as to release as many spare bedrooms as humanely possible onto the market.

5. Both a fast track planning- but also a root and branch reform of our planning regulations- so planning permission becomes a formality once set criteria are reached (such as access to public transport, schooling, shops etc- and the development being in keeping with the nature of the area).

6. Do away with 40 different sets of local laws and bylaws- codify a sane set of rules- and make every single local authority apply them in a consistent and coherent manner.

7. Abolish habitual residence rules etc- which are in breach of EU directives in any case.

8. Acknowledge that people want to live in specific areas- and provide the infrastructure they need. It is not feasible to provide universal services everywhere- but the bulk of service provision has to factor where the population densities are. Currently- parochial politics- inversely assist some areas but not others- so you have some schools in some areas- with 1:5 staff pupil ratios- versus 1:30 or higher, elsewhere.

9. Current landlords- either the government want them to provide a service- or they don't. Crucifying them with taxes and onerous regulation on the one hand- while blaming them for a fall in the gross number of properties let in the country- is not a coherent policy- and is only exacerbating a rush to the exit for landlords- who can't justify remaining in business. On the one hand this increases the supply of property for sale- but on the other hand- it reduces the availability of rental property. This has reached epidemic proportions esp. in West Dublin- but also some suburbs of Cork and Galway.

10. Not everyone can afford property- nor should they aspire to own property- they should however be assisted to find accommodation suitable to their needs, where they can live on a longer term basis- however, this is not necessarily going to be within easy reach of Dublin city centre- and it must include a massive element of all the local authorities providing vast numbers of new council properties- built to high standards- such that people will actually want to live in them (which I can't say concurs with Dublin City Council's proposals to relax the rules on minimum property sizes).

I could go on and on.
We need an all encompassing approach- but we need to be cognisant of the simple fact- many companies want to locate in specific areas- for their own reasons. West Cork- may manage to attract some multinationals- and their multilingual staffing needs- in ways that Dublin can- but the vast majority of the rest of the country- is pissing in the wind if they think throwing money at employment will convince a multinational to move to Westport (chosen at random).

We have one major city- and possibly 3 minor cities- who have the significant mass necessary to attract certain types of employment- other towns and cities- need to focus on their strong points- and quit spending silly money tearing lumps out of other counties- we really are our own worse enemies.

At the root of all of this- I would argue- is parochial politics. Once people assume that their man or woman in the Dáil or Seanad- is going to deliver bacon to them- you have a lost cause- before you do anything at all.

Greyian

The_Conductor wrote: »

Personally I think a multi-pronged approach should be taken.

1. The income multiple for lending- should vary- aka someone earning 200k is more capable of ascribing 40% of their net income to mortgage repayments- than is someone on 50k. Those on higher incomes should be ascribed greater leeway to borrow more- within reason- I don't think the income multiple should be abolished- simply that it should feature different maximum levels for different income levels.

While the current income multiple is based on gross income, due to our progressive tax system it actually does allow for higher earners to use a larger portion of their net income for mortgage repayments.

Someone on 50k can borrow 175k. Over a 35 year term, at 4% interest rates, that would have a monthly repayment of €774.86. In 2016, a person on €50,000/year will have net monthly take-home of €3,000 (this assumes no pension contributions). This means that someone on €50k can take out a max mortgage with repayments at 26% of net income per month. If interest rates were to jump 2% (stress testing), this would put the monthly repayment at €997.83, or just a tiny bit under 1/3rd of their monthly take home pay.

Someone on 200k can borrow 700k. Over a 35 year term, at 4% interest rates, that would have a monthly repayment of €3099.42. In 2016, a person on €200,000/year will have net monthly take-home of €9043/month (assuming no pension contributions). This means that someone on €200k can take out a mortgage with repayments of 34.2% of net income per month. If interest rates were to jump 2% (stress testing), this would put their monthly repayment at €3991.33, or over 44% of their monthly take home pay.

The fact that the income multiple is based on gross incomes means that higher earners can actually take out a mortgage which utilises more of their net pay to repay.

The_Conductor wrote: »

4. A carrot approach towards those letting rooms under the let-a-room scheme- vastly increasing the allowable gross income before it becomes taxable- perhaps as high as 25k- so as to release as many spare bedrooms as humanely possible onto the market.

It would probably also be necessary to set a limit per room as well. Currently, owner occupiers can get up to €12k/year, but to do so they'd need to rent out 2+ rooms (who in their right mind would pay €1k/month for a room in an owner-occupied property). This means that properties with more than 1 room will generally be at 500/room (so 1k per month or 12k per year). If we raise the limit, its possible we'd just see those properties raising their prices to 600 or 700 per room per month, which would actually harm people looking to rent them massively.

I Am The Law

The_Conductor wrote: »

At the root of all of this- I would argue- is parochial politics. Once people assume that their man or woman in the Dáil or Seanad- is going to deliver bacon to them- you have a lost cause- before you do anything at all.

Parochial politics is one thing but combine that with short term politcal gain and the tendency to create policy purely based on the electoral cycle. This IMO is the single biggest obstacle to any form of progress in this country. Two quotes from the article below,

He said the Central Bank rules are probably the right long-term policy, but short-term "we are paying a heavy price, with people falling out of the rental sector. This is what I was fearful of when the rules came in," he said.

Mr Kelly has also lashed out at Government officials who he said "need to wake up" to the crisis, accusing many of them of being out of touch.

Mr. Kelly is the Enviorment Minster and would appear to have an amazing ability to balance him self on a fence. Full article, http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/central-bank-has-wrecked-house-market-for-all-buyers-34138559.html

Santy2015

I can't see the Central Bank changing the rules. Especially the lower end with the 10 percent for FTB, I definitely think those who are earning a high wage should be given some leeway and maybe a grant to restore some houses that are run down etc, I'd love to buy a house on the cheap and then proceed to actually knock it or gut it and rebuild but that would require remortgaging which I'm not too sure on.

DublinDilbert

Santy2015 wrote: »

I can't see the Central Bank changing the rules. Especially the lower end with the 10 percent for FTB, I definitely think those who are earning a high wage should be given some leeway and maybe a grant to restore some houses that are run down etc, I'd love to buy a house on the cheap and then proceed to actually knock it or gut it and rebuild but that would require remortgaging which I'm not too sure on.

I wouldn't like to see it, but to be honest nothing would surprise me with this government. I wouldn't be surprised if the builders are actually holding off supply, knowing the government will come under pressure approaching the next election (feb/march) to make some changes.

Its grand saying people on higher incomes should be given more money, but its the 20% deposit which is stopping many of these people. If with a high income they can't save a decent deposit, something is wrong. Also how sustainable is their €100K/year job?

The €350K + segment of the market has stalled. The only houses being built by developers this year were in this segment. I don't know of any houses being built in the €200-250K segment.

If anyone wants to see what's happening look at the asking prices falling, this is just for Dublin:-
http://www.collapso.net/Sale-Property/Price-Changes.php?county=dublin&region=

forgot_it_all

OfflerCrocGod wrote: »

I'm not saying that there are enough houses being built in Dublin, I'm pointing out that the places that are most affected are places which are unaffordable by people at current prices. Developers wont build houses people can't afford.

Which means one of two things, credit will have to be increased for purchases in South Dublin at current prices or current prices will have to come down.

i doubt prices comes down that much , the economy is bigger in dublin today than it was at the height of the boom ( granted everywhere else bar cork city and galway city is weaker ) and the high skilled members of the workforce are pulling away from the rest of us , i see dublin pulling away from the rest of the country like happened in the uk with london , houses in dublin are not especially expensive by european capital standards , wages are much higher in dublin than in most european capitals if you exclude london

the bottom was over shot in the capital by an absurd amount and the crash economically ( not house prices ) was over exaggerated

gosplan

DublinDilbert wrote: »

I wouldn't like to see it, but to be honest nothing would surprise me with this government. I wouldn't be surprised if the builders are actually holding off supply, knowing the government will come under pressure approaching the next election (feb/march) to make some changes.

Its grand saying people on higher incomes should be given more money, but its the 20% deposit which is stopping many of these people. If with a high income they can't save a decent deposit, something is wrong. Also how sustainable is their €100K/year job?

The €350K + segment of the market has stalled. The only houses being built by developers this year were in this segment. I don't know of any houses being built in the €200-250K segment.

If anyone wants to see what's happening look at the asking prices falling, this is just for Dublin:-
http://www.collapso.net/Sale-Property/Price-Changes.php?county=dublin&region=

Am I reading that collapso log correctly?

Is that 60+ price drops between 21 and 24th in Dublin?

DublinDilbert

gosplan wrote: »

Am I reading that collapso log correctly?

Is that 60+ price drops between 21 and 24th in Dublin?

Sometimes you get two hits for the same property as it shows drops on my home and daft. Also the number beside the entry shows how many drops there has been. But that trend has been on going since the beginning of the summer.

TSQ

The_Conductor wrote: »

Personally I think a multi-pronged approach should be taken.

1. The income multiple for lending- should vary- aka someone earning 200k is more capable of ascribing 40% of their net income to mortgage repayments- than is someone on 50k. Those on higher incomes should be ascribed greater leeway to borrow more- within reason- I don't think the income multiple should be abolished- simply that it should feature different maximum levels for different income levels.

2. Forget about developers and their inability or unwillingness to build. Local Authorities need to grasp the mettle- and replace all of the housing stock that they allowed be sold off since the 1970s.

3. A carrot and fork approach needs to be taken by authorities with respect of current land banks etc- aka- favourable tax treatment if the land is built on within X amount of time after a rezoning- tappering into a holding tax after a defined period (lets say 4 years for arguments sake). So- once land is zoned- or after the establishment date of the legislation- you have 4 years to build- or else face an annual land tax on undeveloped (or land with unfinished developments).

4. A carrot approach towards those letting rooms under the let-a-room scheme- vastly increasing the allowable gross income before it becomes taxable- perhaps as high as 25k- so as to release as many spare bedrooms as humanely possible onto the market.

5. Both a fast track planning- but also a root and branch reform of our planning regulations- so planning permission becomes a formality once set criteria are reached (such as access to public transport, schooling, shops etc- and the development being in keeping with the nature of the area).

6. Do away with 40 different sets of local laws and bylaws- codify a sane set of rules- and make every single local authority apply them in a consistent and coherent manner.

7. Abolish habitual residence rules etc- which are in breach of EU directives in any case.

8. Acknowledge that people want to live in specific areas- and provide the infrastructure they need. It is not feasible to provide universal services everywhere- but the bulk of service provision has to factor where the population densities are. Currently- parochial politics- inversely assist some areas but not others- so you have some schools in some areas- with 1:5 staff pupil ratios- versus 1:30 or higher, elsewhere.

9. Current landlords- either the government want them to provide a service- or they don't. Crucifying them with taxes and onerous regulation on the one hand- while blaming them for a fall in the gross number of properties let in the country- is not a coherent policy- and is only exacerbating a rush to the exit for landlords- who can't justify remaining in business. On the one hand this increases the supply of property for sale- but on the other hand- it reduces the availability of rental property. This has reached epidemic proportions esp. in West Dublin- but also some suburbs of Cork and Galway.

10. Not everyone can afford property- nor should they aspire to own property- they should however be assisted to find accommodation suitable to their needs, where they can live on a longer term basis- however, this is not necessarily going to be within easy reach of Dublin city centre- and it must include a massive element of all the local authorities providing vast numbers of new council properties- built to high standards- such that people will actually want to live in them (which I can't say concurs with Dublin City Council's proposals to relax the rules on minimum property sizes).

I could go on and on.
We need an all encompassing approach- but we need to be cognisant of the simple fact- many companies want to locate in specific areas- for their own reasons. West Cork- may manage to attract some multinationals- and their multilingual staffing needs- in ways that Dublin can- but the vast majority of the rest of the country- is pissing in the wind if they think throwing money at employment will convince a multinational to move to Westport (chosen at random).

We have one major city- and possibly 3 minor cities- who have the significant mass necessary to attract certain types of employment- other towns and cities- need to focus on their strong points- and quit spending silly money tearing lumps out of other counties- we really are our own worse enemies.

At the root of all of this- I would argue- is parochial politics. Once people assume that their man or woman in the Dáil or Seanad- is going to deliver bacon to them- you have a lost cause- before you do anything at all.

Lots of good suggestions there: but does anyone else suspect that one reason local authorities were keen to sell off housing stock is because of the ongoing cost of maintaining properties on which they were never going to get a realistic rent and which were therefore going to remain a recurring and - as properties age - an increasing drain on local authority finances? Why should people lucky enough to win the lottery of a council house be entitled to a lifetime of cheap rent and free maintenance etc v. someone three streets over who has to make sacrifices in order to save for a deposit and repay a mortgage on commercial terms. Local authority rents should be fair and affordable, but at the very least pay the cost of managing and maintaining property, and ideally should return a surplus to enable the financing of future house building.

The_Conductor

TSQ wrote: »

Lots of good suggestions there: but does anyone else suspect that one reason local authorities were keen to sell off housing stock is because of the ongoing cost of maintaining properties on which they were never going to get a realistic rent and which were therefore going to remain a recurring and - as properties age - an increasing drain on local authority finances? Why should people lucky enough to win the lottery of a council house be entitled to a lifetime of cheap rent and free maintenance etc v. someone three streets over who has to make sacrifices in order to save for a deposit and repay a mortgage on commercial terms. Local authority rents should be fair and affordable, but at the very least pay the cost of managing and maintaining property, and ideally should return a surplus to enable the financing of future house building.

Don't give them a life time tenure. Give them a 10 year non-renewable lease- before the elapse of which they are expected to home themselves- however, at the elapse of which- if their finances still do not allow them to house themselves- they are forced to move to another location (i.e. you can't hog a house for life).

Local authority rents do need to be fair and affordable- however, they should be structured in such a way as to provide medium, as opposed to longer term, housing to people in need- with a reasonable expectation- and a carrot and stick approach- such that they have to move at the end of 10 years, come what may.

El_Dangeroso

The_Conductor wrote: »

Don't give them a life time tenure. Give them a 10 year non-renewable lease- before the elapse of which they are expected to home themselves- however, at the elapse of which- if their finances still do not allow them to house themselves- they are forced to move to another location (i.e. you can't hog a house for life).

Local authority rents do need to be fair and affordable- however, they should be structured in such a way as to provide medium, as opposed to longer term, housing to people in need- with a reasonable expectation- and a carrot and stick approach- such that they have to move at the end of 10 years, come what may.

I agree with the general principle of that, but we do need to be careful about disturbing established communities. One of the biggest social disasters in Ireland in the last century was the demolishing of tenement communities. Although the buildings were completely unsuitable to habitation, there were tight knit communities there, which are self policing far better than a hundred garda stations. The communities were scattered to the four winds and we're still dealing with the fall out from that.

Don't underestimate the affect of providing stability to people long term so they feel like they belong to somewhere. If you think deprived areas are bad now, they could be a lot worse.

TSQ

The_Conductor wrote: »

Don't give them a life time tenure. Give them a 10 year non-renewable lease- before the elapse of which they are expected to home themselves- however, at the elapse of which- if their finances still do not allow them to house themselves- they are forced to move to another location (i.e. you can't hog a house for life).

Local authority rents do need to be fair and affordable- however, they should be structured in such a way as to provide medium, as opposed to longer term, housing to people in need- with a reasonable expectation- and a carrot and stick approach- such that they have to move at the end of 10 years, come what may.

Can't say I agree with that entirely - I think provision of affordable (as opposed to dirt cheap) family homes for life, by local authorities, is a reasonable use of resources. Look at London where people in low-paid and even well paid work (which includes essential staff like carers and teachers) are driven further and further out of the city, the victims of property speculation and shortages. Am just saying there should be an economic rent, where people pay their way and the local authority can afford to maintain and add to the housing supply without massive negative budgetary consequences. With proper planning, empty nesters could be relocated to smaller properties in their own area to free up homes for families. If the govt became involved in building homes, as it did in the 1950's, increased supply would also drive down private rents, so a win win situation all round.

The_Conductor

Established communities?
Why are we trying to create an established community?
We certainly aren't assisting those who are managing to house themselves- to live in particular areas, near family or friends, near schools they're interested in etc etc. I don't think we should discriminate against those reliant on social housing- however, I also don't think that they should have rights, that someone who is allegedly better off than they, doesn't have.

By putting a term limit in a particular property- we are putting a little pressure on the resident of the council property- to attempt to house themselves. If they can't live in the same area- I'm sorry, thats tough- thats a bridge that the rest of us have to cross.

Living close by family- and near our centres of support- is a luxury- not a right- and its a luxury that few people who actually manage to house themselves- have.

Sadler32

Finally got back on the property ladder this month, for the first time in 3 years. I have been renting up til now, saving a deposit and looking for the right house.
I thought I had a great budget, in fact it wasnt that good. Alot of houses I looked at needed alot of work or would be arkward to get to work, all the usual stuff.

Also trying to find a house that was future proof, so that we can grow as a family without having to move was tricky.

We found the house in August, actually lucky enough to see it the day it came on the market. Put an offer in. Abit of too and fro, but it was excepted within 2 weeks.
It has taken up to now to get it sorted. The house was vacant as the owners were moving to another property, all bills etc were up to date, all paperwork was in order. My solicitor I have always worked with so I know it wasnt him holding things up, but he couldnt tell me why it took so long.



Anyway we are moving in over the next couple of weeks and I am so glad thats over, wont want to move again, well at least for a very long time...

El_Dangeroso

The_Conductor wrote: »

Established communities?
Why are we trying to create an established community?
We certainly aren't assisting those who are managing to house themselves- to live in particular areas, near family or friends, near schools they're interested in etc etc. I don't think we should discriminate against those reliant on social housing- however, I also don't think that they should have rights, that someone who is allegedly better off than they, doesn't have.

By putting a term limit in a particular property- we are putting a little pressure on the resident of the council property- to attempt to house themselves. If they can't live in the same area- I'm sorry, thats tough- thats a bridge that the rest of us have to cross.

Living close by family- and near our centres of support- is a luxury- not a right- and its a luxury that few people who actually manage to house themselves- have.

I know exactly what you mean, but the thing is we all pay when the poorest are left to become alienated from the society they live in.

I'm reminded of the scheme in a US city where they gave long term homeless people free housing, as in they owned the house/apartment outright from day one. Was that fair to all the people who had to save and pay their own mortgages/rent? No, but the city saved multiples of the cost in the accommodation in police and healthcare resources.

I also believe we should be doing more to allow strong communities to develop across all social strata. It shouldn't be either/or.

The_Conductor

TSQ wrote: »

With proper planning, empty nesters could be relocated to smaller properties in their own area to free up homes for families. If the govt became involved in building homes, as it did in the 1950's, increased supply would also drive down private rents, so a win win situation all round.

Big time.
There are loads of singletons and/or couples- living in family homes- some of whom have children who have gone to college or moved elsewhere- however, you have the parents hanging onto often larger family homes- which are wholly unsuitable to their now needs- however, they will not move- pretty much regardless of what you do.

There needs to be a root and branch reform of how we tax family homes- to try to encourage people to move to more suitable property later in life- after their families have outgrown particular properties. Holding onto properties- in the belief that children will come back and live in them when they inherit them- is clearly misguided (as evidenced by the large proportion of executor sales on the market).

However- this is just one plank in the equation that needs to be dealt with.

The_Conductor

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I know exactly what you mean, but the thing is we all pay when the poorest are left to become alienated from the society they live in.

At the moment- its the low to middle paid workers- who are alienated in society. I don't want any strata of society to be alienated- however- the flipside of alienating the workforce- as has happened- is come the next election- this country will be ungovernable. The traditional approach of politicians- has been to oil the squeeky wheels- those who make most noise- get their pet projects dealt with- those who are quiet- don't. Workers- who by definition tend to not have time to advocate their cases- have been ignored- and it is this group who are going to cause most trouble imminently- as despite them being mute on their issues- they do tend to vote.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I'm reminded of the scheme in a US city where they gave long term homeless people free housing, as in they owned the house/apartment outright from day one. Was that fair to all the people who had to save and pay their own mortgages/rent? No, but the city saved multiples of the cost in the accommodation in police and healthcare resources.

However- thats just a financial cost. We have had small scale trials of similar schemes here (notably by Dublin City Council)- which produced similar benefits to those you're suggesting. However- the point I was trying to make- is not that we should disenfranchise the recipients of council/local authority properties- however, that we should employ some manner of a carrot and stick approach to try and encourage them to wean themselves off state support if/when they are in a position to do so. If, after a period of 10 years, they are still unable to house themselves- I was not advocating tossing them out on the street- I was simply suggesting moving them to another property. I disagree with the concept of handing someone a house for life- housing them- fair enough- but in a manner that at least makes an attempt to encourage them into self sufficiency down the road.

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I also believe we should be doing more to allow strong communities to develop across all social strata. It shouldn't be either/or.

Sure we should allow strong communities to develop across all social strata. Its something that with the exception of people who are in long term council housing- we are not doing any longer. People do deserve to be better off for working though- there has to be a tangible benefit to doing a days work. Seeing your next door neighbour having a barbeque every evening on the back of the taxpayer- when you and partner are both working fulltime- and have nothing to show for it- and are away from your support networks- is hard to sell to Joe and Mary who are killing themselves just to stand still.

There does have to be equity in the system- there also has to be tangible benefit to working- and an incentive to those unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work- even long term- to try to better themselves- and become productive members of society again. There has to be a balance though- and at the moment- the balance is anything but fair.

Riverireland

The_Conductor wrote: »

Big time.
There are loads of singletons and/or couples- living in family homes- some of whom have children who have gone to college or moved elsewhere- however, you have the parents hanging onto often larger family homes- which are wholly unsuitable to their now needs- however, they will not move- pretty much regardless of what you do.

There needs to be a root and branch reform of how we tax family homes- to try to encourage people to move to more suitable property later in life- after their families have outgrown particular properties. Holding onto properties- in the belief that children will come back and live in them when they inherit them- is clearly misguided (as evidenced by the large proportion of executor sales on the market).

However- this is just one plank in the equation that needs to be dealt with.

I agree with regard to smaller houses for single people and retirees but there seems to be no planning for this. Eastbourne in the uk springs to mind, full of old folks. If older people are going to move out of an area they have lived in all Thor lives they need to know they are going somewhere safe.