Property Market 2015

Zamboni

The Spider wrote: »

But they wouldn't from 31,000 people being reposessed, fail to see how it's patriotic making people homeless, if they can't afford to pay their mortgage then they certainly can't afford to pay high rents, so either the government subsidises their mortgage or pays their rent, either way the taxpayer pays for it.

Patriotic is doing whats best in the interest of all the people. Not 31,000.

The Spider

The_Conductor wrote: »

And if they give 31,000 people a special deal- they'll have everyone else clamoring for their blood. Why bother paying your mortgage- if your neighbour is getting a debt write-off/write-down.......

Its a damned if you/damned if you don't situation. By rights the government should bow out, and allow market economics take their toll. This can has been kicked down the road as far as possible- unfortunately the day when it will have to be dealt with, is fast approaching.

The current situation- where new borrowers are going to be paying for the profligacy of an older generation- is only going to foster resentment on a massive scale. If someone managed to get younger people out to vote- there would be a bloodbath.......

Agreed, however like it or not in general renters are less likely to vote for the simple reason that in general it's transient people tend to move after a year, two at most. They then have to re register in their new location not saying people don't do it but a lot would look on it as additional hassle.

The other side is no government will survive making families homeless, I know there's a lot of people around these parts saying they shouldn't have bought, over extended etc, but the fact is in 2005-2007 as in today if you were a certain age, ie mid thirties and you wanted a house for your family you had to buy other wise getting a mortgage would have been more difficult.

It's debatable about how you can blame individuals for buying a home when all of Irish society encouraged it, from advertising to TV shows and society has to take some responsibility for that.

The Spider

Zamboni wrote: »

Patriotic is doing whats best in the interest of all the people. Not 31,000.

How so? either way if the houses are repossessed the government will have to pay the dispossesed's rental costs, so it's either pay some of the mortgage and leave them in the house, or repossess it and take on the cost of housing anyway.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I'm in favor of repossession in cases of won't pay, but on a purely practical level where would these people and their families go? We are constantly hearing how the social housing scheme is pushed to its limit already, an extra 31K families would surely make the system collapse. In that sense I don't see Enda and co. pushing for repossessions.

The_Conductor

What about personal responsibility?
People are very quick to look for scapegoats.

The media were hyping property....... my bank offered me 600k....... I was 34......... any property I was looking at wasn't suitable for kids..........

Its all- blame someone else.

Also- Irish people have almost a unique expectation of entitlement to own property. In a global context we are quite unique in that respect. Any by god- good luck to anyone who tried to take keys to 'my' house........

NAMA was a disaster in many respects- not least in that it there is an expectation among the lesser intelligent members of the community that there should be a reciprochal scheme for the little people. Well- Leona Helmsley for all her sins had some valid observations. And the Irish have this attitude that someone else should pay- the 'someone' seems to be a magic money tree that can just be shaken. There is zero cognisance that ultimately someone has to pay for any largess- be it the tax payer- or future borrowers from lending institutions (or most probably a bit of both).

There is an onus on the government to house people. However- this 31,000 have no rightful or reasonable expectation that they be allowed keep dwellings that they are unable to pay for. The government needs to commence construction of social housing- and move away from its model of helping people stay in unaffordable housing, while consecutively, abdicating its housing responsibilities to the private sector.

The Spider

The_Conductor wrote: »

What about personal responsibility?
People are very quick to look for scapegoats.

The media were hyping property....... my bank offered me 600k....... I was 34......... any property I was looking at wasn't suitable for kids..........

Its all- blame someone else.

Also- Irish people have almost a unique expectation of entitlement to own property. In a global context we are quite unique in that respect. Any by god- good luck to anyone who tried to take keys to 'my' house........

NAMA was a disaster in many respects- not least in that it there is an expectation among the lesser intelligent members of the community that there should be a reciprochal scheme for the little people. Well- Leona Helmsley for all her sins had some valid observations. And the Irish have this attitude that someone else should pay- the 'someone' seems to be a magic money tree that can just be shaken. There is zero cognisance that ultimately someone has to pay for any largess- be it the tax payer- or future borrowers from lending institutions (or most probably a bit of both).

There is an onus on the government to house people. However- this 31,000 have no rightful or reasonable expectation that they be allowed keep dwellings that they are unable to pay for. The government needs to commence construction of social housing- and move away from its model of helping people stay in unaffordable housing, while consecutively, abdicating its housing responsibilities to the private sector.

All valid points, as I've said before I didn't buy in the bubble as it was pretty obvious to me at the time, however I was younger then without kids, now that I'm married, kids and all that, I can say that if I was in that situation in the boom, I would've done whatever I could to buy, putting down roots becomes very important.

I know a lot of people around here rent and have kids, but the motivation is the same they want a cheaper house so they can settle down with the family.

A lot of people who bought were in the same boat and lets not forget actively encouraged by the government of the time, it was Irelands policy to buy and sell houses.

Most people get their information from newspapers, tv and the government, so how is it a surprise that they went and bought?

As to social housing, I agree with this it's the governments responsibilty however it would have to be tackled differently, large estates lead to social problems any social housing needs to be dispersed through more established areas.

Of course this brings you back to the unfairness argument, you have a house occupied by people on social housing in the leafy suburbs next to someone who has a mortgage of 800,000 and they'll be out on the streets in no time.

So either way no matter what way you cut it, it's going to be unfair on someone.

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

But they wouldn't from 31,000 people being reposessed, fail to see how it's patriotic making people homeless, if they can't afford to pay their mortgage then they certainly can't afford to pay high rents, so either the government subsidises their mortgage or pays their rent, either way the taxpayer pays for it.

Ah, no. They just move to somewhere the rents are more affordable...i.e can't afford that nice gaff in Rathfarnham anymore, then say hello to County Kildare or even Laois

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

How so? either way if the houses are repossessed the government will have to pay the dispossesed's rental costs,

No they won't. Unemployment is down to under 10% and falling.
How many in arrears have jobs but just can't afford the current mortgage. They could however, afford rent in a different area.

Repossessions does not automatically = taxpayer funding a new house somewhere else

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

Ah, no. They just move to somewhere the rents are more affordable...i.e can't afford that nice gaff in Rathfarnham anymore, then say hello to County Kildare or even Laois

That goes back to the social housing argument where you end up creating ghettos, look at Ballymun when they moved loads of people outthere in the 60's, wont fly I'm afraid and it's certainly not a vote winner.

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

No they won't. Unemployment is down to under 10% and falling.
How many in arrears have jobs but just can't afford the current mortgage. They could however, afford rent in a different area.

Repossessions does not automatically = taxpayer funding a new house somewhere else

How would they get to work? Petrol costs etc.

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

That goes back to the social housing argument where you end up creating ghettos, look at Ballymun when they moved loads of people outthere in the 60's, wont fly I'm afraid and it's certainly not a vote winner.

How so...is there only social housing in Kildare and Laois!!!! Nothing for rent and then commute to work from there

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

How would they get to work? Petrol costs etc.

Ah come on, your bluffing now. Loads of people commute from Kildare and Laois every day to jobs from housing they can afford.

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

How so...is there only social housing in Kildare and Laois!!!! Nothing for rent and then commute to work from there

I've seen it happen down in my neck of the woods, I live in Gorey but Courtown has massive social issues because of a lot of people who moved down from Dublin, who actually bought houses in the boom.

It used to be a small little village but now it has big estates (for courtown) of socially disadvantaged people.

Oh and I know something about commuting and petrol costs, not cheap.

jay0109

Spider- there's no debating with you.

Rent/mortgage in the country + commuter costs = fraction of high celtic tiger era mortgage in leafier parts of Dublin (I'm generalising here, as you are in your responses)
The people we are talking about here, who have mortgages, jobs etc, are in the whole only going to add to any area they move into down the country. I'm not talking about emptying out the likes of Ballymun and sending them all to Naas.

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

Spider- there's no debating with you.

Rent/mortgage in the country + commuter costs = fraction of high celtic tiger era mortgage in leafier parts of Dublin (I'm generalising here, as you are in your responses)
The people we are talking about here, who have mortgages, jobs etc, are in the whole only going to add to any area they move into down the country. I'm not talking about emptying out the likes of Ballymun and sending them all to Naas.

I've moved to the country myself, so I absolutely agree it's possible and from my point of view much more preferable to living in Dublin, however I'm not from Dublin and all our family support is in the south east so it makes sense for us, but I also know the costs of commuting to Dublin and you're looking at about 400ish a month depending on the car, that's just petrol.

However I don't think people who are from Dublin are going to jump at the chance to live in Laois, some might but the majority won't.

I honestly don't even know how it would work, 'we're repossessing your house in rathfarnham, but we have alternative accommodation in Laois'

You can see how that would be a problem, however people who can afford to pay their mortgages and have stopped shouldn't be given any time, but my reckoning is that those who can pay are paying, those who can't aren't.

Piriz

If the government intend to bail out the arrears mortgages in 'family homes' what would the banks most likely do with the mortgages in arrears which are not 'family homes'? Would repossessions on these likely be swifter or what might happen?

johnp001

Piriz wrote: »

If the government intend to bail out the arrears mortgages in 'family homes' what would the banks most likely do with the mortgages in arrears which are not 'family homes'? Would repossessions on these likely be swifter or what might happen?

I would imagine that anyone who bought a home with a BTL mortgage which is now in arrears (or which they now plan to put into arrears to avail of the "Noonan Put" on mortgage debt) would now claim there had been a change of circumstances and that it is now their family home.

jay0109

The Spider wrote: »

I've moved to the country myself, so I absolutely agree it's possible and from my point of view much more preferable to living in Dublin, however I'm not from Dublin and all our family support is in the south east so it makes sense for us, but I also know the costs of commuting to Dublin and you're looking at about 400ish a month depending on the car, that's just petrol.

However I don't think people who are from Dublin are going to jump at the chance to live in Laois, some might but the majority won't.

I honestly don't even know how it would work, 'we're repossessing your house in rathfarnham, but we have alternative accommodation in Laois'

You can see how that would be a problem, however people who can afford to pay their mortgages and have stopped shouldn't be given any time, but my reckoning is that those who can pay are paying, those who can't aren't.

You can get a commuter train ticket for 2k or less with Taxsaver. That could suit a lot of people who'd have to move. Portlaoise/Portarlington to Heuston is less than an hour, Kildare even shorter.

Plus, as you well know, when their house is repossessed, it's not the job of Govt to tell people where they have to go next. They were adult enough to sign a mortgage contract, they can be adult enough to find alternative,affordable accommodation.

You seem to have no problem with people who are looking to buy now having to do so in the likes of Laois and Kildare and then commute, while the 'bed blockers' in Dublin get a free pass....just because they are a couple of years older for example and thus bought their house sooner!

MayBea

jay0109 wrote: »

You seen have no problem with people who are looking to buy now having to do so in the likes of Laois and Kildare and then commute, while the 'bed blockers' in Dublin get a free pass....just because they are a couple of years older for example and thus bought their house sooner!

Having friends commuting daily from Kildare to Houston Station I can say it's feasible - total journey time is 35 mins only.
At the same time another friend commutes from Northampton to London (50 mins on a train), she is not complaining either. One lives where one can afford to.

The Spider

jay0109 wrote: »

You can get a commuter train ticket for 2k or less with Taxsaver. That could suit a lot of people who'd have to move. Portlaoise/Portarlington to Heuston is less than an hour, Kildare even shorter.

Plus, as you well know, when their house is repossessed, it's not the job of Govt to tell people where they have to go next. They were adult enough to sign a mortgage contract, they can be adult enough to find alternative,affordable accommodation.

You seen have no problem with people who are looking to buy now having to do so in the likes of Laois and Kildare and then commute, while the 'bed blockers' in Dublin get a free pass....just because they are a couple of years older for example and thus bought their house sooner!

I think you'll find that I have no say in government policy, but I did predict no mass repossessions, it's not whether I have no problem with something, it's the political reality, they won't repossess houses before an election, and it's highly doubtful that the next government will either.

Prepared to be proven wrong, but I don't think I will be.

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

I've moved to the country myself, so I absolutely agree it's possible and from my point of view much more preferable to living in Dublin, however I'm not from Dublin and all our family support is in the south east so it makes sense for us, but I also know the costs of commuting to Dublin and you're looking at about 400ish a month depending on the car, that's just petrol.

However I don't think people who are from Dublin are going to jump at the chance to live in Laois, some might but the majority won't.

I honestly don't even know how it would work, 'we're repossessing your house in rathfarnham, but we have alternative accommodation in Laois'

You can see how that would be a problem, however people who can afford to pay their mortgages and have stopped shouldn't be given any time, but my reckoning is that those who can pay are paying, those who can't aren't.

So let me get this straight, you have no problem telling a first time buyer to move to a commuter county and have often advised people on this thread to 'wake up' and start moving out.

But to ask a person not paying their mortgage to do the same, Oh the horror!

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

So let me get this straight, you have no problem telling a first time buyer to move to a commuter county and have often advised people on this thread to 'wake up' and start moving out.

But to ask a person not paying their mortgage to do the same, Oh the horror!

No sense getting all annoyed or 'trying to catch me out' there's a big difference between someone who hasn't bought and is thinking about it finding that they can only afford a commuter county so that's the only option they can take if they want to buy, to a family living in a house for over ten years with the kids in school and all, that goes with that, and taking the house off of them and telling them to uproot their lives and move down the country.

The difference being the first point is your decision to buy in a commuter county, you more than likely don't have kids in school (I know lots of people rent with kids in school, but for arguments sake FTB's are less likely).

or you can stay renting, either way you have no skin in the game.

The second option means you have no choice it's foisted upon you and you certainly have skin in the game, the bank/government takes your house tells you to uproot the family and feck off down the country.


Massive difference

El_Dangeroso

The Spider wrote: »

No sense getting all annoyed or 'trying to catch me out' there's a big difference between someone who hasn't bought and is thinking about it finding that they can only afford a commuter county so that's the only option they can take if they want to buy, to a family living in a house for over ten years with the kids in school and all, that goes with that, and taking the house off of them and telling them to uproot their lives and move down the country.

The difference being the first point is your decision to buy in a commuter county, you more than likely don't have kids in school (I know lots of people rent with kids in school, but for arguments sake FTB's are less likely).

or you can stay renting, either way you have no skin in the game.

The second option means you have no choice it's foisted upon you and you certainly have skin in the game, the bank/government takes your house tells you to uproot the family and feck off down the country.


Massive difference

I'm not trying to 'catch you out', as that would imply that it took any effort at all

I'm more finding the blatant hypocrisy of your contradicting views quite amusing and fascinating example of cognitive dissonance.

Brb off to buy a house way beyond my means only to whinge about later when I stop paying my mortgage.

The Spider

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

I'm not trying to 'catch you out', as that would imply that it took any effort at all

I'm more finding the blatant hypocrisy of your contradicting views quite amusing and fascinating example of cognitive dissonance.

Brb off to buy a house way beyond my means only to whinge about later when I stop paying my mortgage.

It's not hypocrisy, seriously I've pointed out the difference I find it funny how there's so many people around here keen to see families turfed out.

Now read the below carefully because you'll still be here this time next year talking about how you can't get that cheap SCD house because someone is living in it.

2015

1. Repossessions are not going to happen in any great magnitude, forget
about it if that's your logic for prices dropping.

2. Prices are not going to drop this year I said before we'll finish up 20%
higher than they are today.

3. The economy will continue to improve more jobs will be created and
wages will rise.

4. It will be difficult to increase supply in Dublin without property price rises.


Read the above, so speaketh The Spider.

OfflerCrocGod

"The housing commencement numbers suggest that we are addressing the house building demand slowly. Commencements more than doubled in 2014 from the previous year's numbers, but they are coming off an exceptionally low level and are down 90% on peak levels," he said.

"Under 9,000 projects were started last year. We need to be building about 30,000 to keep up with demand."

From the morning news. Good to hear that housing starts are picking up again, 90% below lunatic levels is not an interesting figure, the more interesting fact is that commencements doubled.

For prices to increase strongly we need either strong inflation, strong increase in credit or sentiment.

The whole world is short of inflation (demand) and I see little hope for increased credit or sentiment. It's all well and good that there is a shortage but to buy you still need

a) to decide you will take the plunge
b) the credit to be provided

Once commencements return to normal levels I imagine the market will be turned into quite a dull one. For one I can't wait.

The_Morrigan

The Spider - do not post in this thread again.

Thanks.

Piriz

Could the Banks go to the European Courts to fight any government policy that obstruct reposessions?

johnp001

The Spider wrote: »

Just on this, seems the government are now going to step in on any reposessions, if they let 31,000 go ahead say good luck to any chance of being reelected.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-battles-for-solution-to-mortgage-arrears-crisis-as-election-looms-1.2170310

That article doesn't say that the government are now going to step in on any repossessions.
The main thrust of it is that they are holding meetings next week to decide on a strategy.
The "definites" stated in the article are:
1. There will be a publicity campaign
2. There will be no change to the bank veto on insolvency deals
3. There will be a steep rise in repossessions

jay0109

Piriz wrote: »

Could the Banks go to the European Courts to fight any government policy that obstruct reposessions?

Do they want to?

Piriz

jay0109 wrote: »

Do they want to?

I guess they may not in many instances, however the banks have been using the veto and proceeding with repossessions and now the government want to remove the veto option from the banks so is it the case that the government are preventing the banks pursue debt / assets that they are legally entitled to do.
If a mortgage is in long term arrears the bank may be best off repossessing the house rather than be forced to take a subsidised payment from the government. The outstanding unpaid debt still exists. Do the government want all outstanding debt to be ignored or written off? Its complicated but I wonder what will happen legally. It seems the government intend on manipulating the laws to suit their agenda, the banks may not legally need to comply...and may take legal action against such measures.