Ireland's Property Crisis - RTE (3rd April and 10th April)

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

Anyone see these 2 shows? One last Monday night and the finale last night. I thought they were great albeit depressing. Surprised there's no thread either here or in the Television forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGCp0V6sEJo

DubCount

I think "depressing" just about sums it up. Homeless people trying to get emergency accommodation from a system that might or might not work, spiraling bids on properties for sale, people falling behind on their mortgage and facing eviction. My personal highlight was the sight of more people coming to view a 1 bedroom rental apartment than could actually fit in the property at the one time.

Overall, I also found it depressing that there was only limited coverage on what could be done to improve supply. The issues with social housing, rental cost and house price inflation all come back to a lack of supply. Showing the symptoms is one thing, providing the cure is another. I guess a program about building regulations, the red tape around planning or the availability and cost of finance for developers just isn't going to get the viewing numbers.

pearlll

advice please, have you ever heard of not being allowed to bid higher, was recently told I couldn't place a higher bid as the seller was happy with the other bidders bid. is this not strange, would a seller not want as much as possible?

DubCount

pearlll wrote: »

advice please, have you ever heard of not being allowed to bid higher, was recently told I couldn't place a higher bid as the seller was happy with the other bidders bid. is this not strange, would a seller not want as much as possible?

The seller may give priority to a buyer who is in a position to move quickly, or be flexible on a closing date etc.. A bid from a cash buyer for example may be better than a bid for €1000 more that involves a chain and a mortgage.

jaded_runner

sometimes the estate agent has a preferred buyer though they would never openly admit it so i doubt this is the case in this scenario

DubCount

DubCount wrote: »

I think "depressing" just about sums it up. Homeless people trying to get emergency accommodation from a system that might or might not work, spiraling bids on properties for sale, people falling behind on their mortgage and facing eviction. My personal highlight was the sight of more people coming to view a 1 bedroom rental apartment than could actually fit in the property at the one time.

Overall, I also found it depressing that there was only limited coverage on what could be done to improve supply. The issues with social housing, rental cost and house price inflation all come back to a lack of supply. Showing the symptoms is one thing, providing the cure is another. I guess a program about building regulations, the red tape around planning or the availability and cost of finance for developers just isn't going to get the viewing numbers.

My highlight was the woman living in the bedsit with a glorified ladder to a bed over the kitchen...for €550pm

Wanderer78

It's time for us to forget about 'market equilibrium models', our housing and homeless situation is a prime example of their failure. I'm disgusted, angered, appalled and embarrassed that this is happening in our country today. In all our new found 'wealth', we can't provide houses for our people? Something is very wrong, we should be ashamed of ourselves to allow this to happen. I wish those that now find themselves homeless the very best.

jaded_runner

our level of homelessness in dublin is lower than that of stockholm

while its a personal tragedy for anyone who is homeless , its important to remember the media here is entirely left wing and never met a hard luck story it didnt think needed a weeks worth or reporting on

robp

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's time for us to forget about 'market equilibrium models', our housing and homeless situation is a prime example of their failure. I'm disgusted, angered,  appalled and embarrassed that this is happening in our country today. In all our new found 'wealth', we can't provide houses for our people? Something is very wrong, we should be ashamed of ourselves to allow this to happen. I wish those that now find themselves homeless the very best.

Sadly every country has this problem. Germany, France or Sweden are not immune to this issue. We already have some of the highest proportion of social housing in Europe

The speed-dating type event for landlords and prospective tenants to meet :eek: I almost chocked on my tea.

godtabh

Wanderer78 wrote: »

It's time for us to forget about 'market equilibrium models', our housing and homeless situation is a prime example of their failure. I'm disgusted, angered, appalled and embarrassed that this is happening in our country today. In all our new found 'wealth', we can't provide houses for our people? Something is very wrong, we should be ashamed of ourselves to allow this to happen. I wish those that now find themselves homeless the very best.

I don't know much about economics but the lectures I did turn up to suggested that government interventions rarely work. The market itself finds a way. It comes down to supply and demand. The government is impacting both.

Planning is holding up a lot of development.

Tax is a third of the house costs.

Deal with them and you would see houses built quickly

seamus

Only dipped in and out of last night's show, but one thing that struck me was that two of the stories they were looking at, were people shopping for properties when they weren't even resident. That is, people looking to buy property who have no need for it. Perhaps they were thinking to buy it, rent it for a while and then they'd have somewhere to live when they move home. But ultimately what they're doing is squeezing out Irish residents.

As a short-term measure should we look at levying punitive taxation on purchases or even rentals by non-residents? That is, a 20-30% stamp duty on the purchase, or 60/70% tax rate on rental income for new non-resident landlords?

Make it incredibly unprofitable for foreign investors to pump money into Irish property and we might, at least for the short-term be able to slow down price growth and free up some properties.

Graham

seamus wrote: »

As a short-term measure should we look at levying punitive taxation on purchases or even rentals by non-residents? That is, a 20-30% stamp duty on the purchase, or 60/70% tax rate on rental income for new non-resident landlords?

Make it incredibly unprofitable for foreign investors to pump money into Irish property and we might, at least for the short-term be able to slow down price growth and free up some properties.

Can't see it some how. You'd be accused of punishing all those unfortunates forced to move abroad seeking employment who are renting out their family home while they're away.

quadrifoglio verde

seamus wrote: »

Only dipped in and out of last night's show, but one thing that struck me was that two of the stories they were looking at, were people shopping for properties when they weren't even resident. That is, people looking to buy property who have no need for it. Perhaps they were thinking to buy it, rent it for a while and then they'd have somewhere to live when they move home. But ultimately what they're doing is squeezing out Irish residents.

As a short-term measure should we look at levying punitive taxation on purchases or even rentals by non-residents? That is, a 20-30% stamp duty on the purchase, or 60/70% tax rate on rental income for new non-resident landlords?

Make it incredibly unprofitable for foreign investors to pump money into Irish property and we might, at least for the short-term be able to slow down price growth and free up some properties.

It could potentially hamper future supply levels, as less new builds may be constructed.

What needs to be done is bringing down the cost of building new builds.
It's all well and good having 25000 coming inattentive by 2020 or whenever it's projected, but a lot of normal couples can't afford to buy at these levels.

What needs to be done is examine how we can build housing at a price point where it's sustainable long term. Where a developer can make a profit but without the purchaser getting in over there necks in debt.

In 1980 my dad bought a 3 bed new build house in leixlip. It cost 22000. It was less than 3X his salary. The developer made a profit on it as well.
A single person on 55K would struggle to buy a 3 bed new build in the north Kildare area today.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

seamus wrote: »

Only dipped in and out of last night's show, but one thing that struck me was that two of the stories they were looking at, were people shopping for properties when they weren't even resident. That is, people looking to buy property who have no need for it. Perhaps they were thinking to buy it, rent it for a while and then they'd have somewhere to live when they move home. But ultimately what they're doing is squeezing out Irish residents.

As a short-term measure should we look at levying punitive taxation on purchases or even rentals by non-residents? That is, a 20-30% stamp duty on the purchase, or 60/70% tax rate on rental income for new non-resident landlords?

Make it incredibly unprofitable for foreign investors to pump money into Irish property and we might, at least for the short-term be able to slow down price growth and free up some properties.

if Vancouver and London can't stop foreign non-resident landlords, I doubt we can. I do agree it's a worldwide problem though.

Zascar

Any time I fly in a plane over Dublin it boggles my mind how much green fields there are but no one building houses. Wicklow is notoriously impossible to build a house unless you are born there and even still its hard. Why cant they let people sell off land and let people build houses ffs?

ThisRegard

Who's going to provide the infrastructure etc for development in such remote areas? You often hear of people turning down social housing because it's on the wrong side of cities to where they want.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

ThisRegard wrote: »

You often hear of people turning down social housing because it's on the wrong side of cities to where they want.

And that is wrong. People shouldn't be allowed to turn down social housing offered to them within a reasonable distance from the area they're from. Fair enough, I can see why a single mum from North Dublin would turn down social housing in Cavan but I can't see why someone in a similar position from should be able to turn down a place in West Dublin when you have people from the same area having to move to Mullingar or Navan and commute into work because they can't afford to rent or buy in Dublin.

MyPeopleDrankTheSoup

back to the show, did anyone see the galway auction in 1st episode? a 2 bed townhouse went for €307k! it blew my mind, i lived on that street in 2006 and while it's a great location for young people, the houses are grubby.

the house i lived in in 2006 sold for €160k in 2014 and that was 5 bedrooms! http://www.daft.ie/price-register/galway/galway-city/st-josephs-avenue/

so in the less than 3 years, prices nearly doubled for a smaller townhouse

georgiecasey

georgiecasey wrote: »

back to the show, did anyone see the galway auction in 1st episode? a 2 bed townhouse went for €307k! it blew my mind, i lived on that street in 2006 and while it's a great location for young people, the houses are grubby.

the house i lived in in 2006 sold for €160k in 2014 and that was 5 bedrooms! http://www.daft.ie/price-register/galway/galway-city/st-josephs-avenue/

so in the less than 3 years, prices nearly doubled for a smaller townhouse

Yeah that one made me physically grimace. My family sold a 4 bed house in South Dublin in 2012 for 225k...

Walter H Price

Was looking at buying in the next 12 to 18 months but to be honest think will hold off now , no issue with deposit or getting a decent mortgage but theirs literally no value in the market completely over inflated as soon as building starts again it will drop back.

Going to rent one of my Aunt and Uncles properties for the next 2 - 3 years see if the value improves a bit if not my Fiances stock will vest and will have tidy little cash lump sum to boost our prospects.

ongarboy

Walter H Price wrote: »

Was looking at buying in the next 12 to 18 months but to be honest think will hold off now , no issue with deposit or getting a decent mortgage but theirs literally no value in the market completely over inflated as soon as building starts again it will drop back.

Going to rent one of my Aunt and Uncles properties for the next 2 - 3 years see if the value improves a bit if not my Fiances stock will vest and will have tidy little cash lump sum to boost our prospects.

Hmm. I don't think we'll see house prices fall or better value to be had for a long while so get used to renting at Auntie's!. Recent unemployment figures from last week show that the rate is the lowest since 2008 and that 50000 new jobs are being estimated to be created this year and growth rates for the next few years are all buoyant despite Brexit uncertainty.   That is a lot of additional people earning wages and eligible for mortgages that weren't this time last year. 
The new tax rebate offered to first time buyers and the relaxation of Central Bank lending criteria rules has also added 1000s of extra home buyers to the market that would previously been out of scope.  All of this combined with very slow levels of increased house building activity is only going to keep property prices increasing for a long while ahead.

dr.fuzzenstein

godtabh wrote: »

I don't know much about economics but the lectures I did turn up to suggested that government interventions rarely work. The market itself finds a way. It comes down to supply and demand. The government is impacting both.

Planning is holding up a lot of development.

Tax is a third of the house costs.

Deal with them and you would see houses built quickly

The problem is that the government (and the people) have never really caught on to the purpose of regulations.
In most countries regulation is a set of rules that ensures everything is, well, erm, regulated, so it runs smoothly and that transactions can go smooth and easy.
In Ireland, regulation is viewed as something foisted upon the country by a foreign oppressor that only serves to make everything difficult, expensive, awkward and time consuming. It has to be circumvented, ignored and perverted and from the other side is then used to punish and frustrate people.
It is an adversarial system where the people who wield it, are on a little power trip and the people who it applies to must somehow get one up on the other side.
That is the best case scenario, where someone actually bothered to enact a set of rules. Usually from a situation as before, where there is little to no regulation and a total free-for-all has led to fecal matter impacting a high RPM air oscillator and everything went to kack.
So regulation in Ireland is either on or off. Wait until the crisis will have reached epic proportions, and watch it all get thrown out.

And I laugh when I hear about "planning" in Ireland. A difficult, drawn-out and expensive process (to properly evaluate each application) that results in a countryside that looks like someone stuffed Monopoly houses up their nose and sneezed them at a map of Ireland...

Zascar

Zascar wrote: »

Any time I fly in a plane over Dublin it boggles my mind how much green fields there are but no one building houses. Wicklow is notoriously impossible to build a house unless you are born there and even still its hard. Why cant they let people sell off land and let people build houses ffs?

Whatever about building houses in Wicklow, why do we keep rejecting plans for high density living inside the M50.

This is the latest fiasco, where the planning permission for apartments in Sandyford have been thrown out for a series of convoluted reasons.

murphaph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever about building houses in Wicklow, why do we keep rejecting plans for high density living inside the M50.

This is the latest fiasco, where the planning permission for apartments in Sandyford have been thrown out for a series of convoluted reasons.

Yep. A development like that Sandyford one would be waved through in Berlin. Totally inoffensive. The minimum standards are already too high and pushing up the cost of apartments quite needlessly.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

Yep. A development like that Sandyford one would be waved through in Berlin. Totally inoffensive. The minimum standards are already too high and pushing up the cost of apartments quite needlessly.

That article really makes my blood boils.

"The local council also warned Ires Reit that any future planning application for the three-hectare site would need to address other "significant issues" related to landscaping, drainage, amenity and transport."

Its got the luas on its front door for flips sake. As for amenities, it doesnt get much better than sandyford. Gym, shopping centre, restaurants, hospital. Employment.

ThisRegard

But apart from the luas, which probably doesn't serve a huge lot that work in the area, Sandyford is a horror story for transport.

quadrifoglio verde

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever about building houses in Wicklow, why do we keep rejecting plans for high density living inside the M50.

This is the latest fiasco, where the planning permission for apartments in Sandyford have been thrown out for a series of convoluted reasons.

I laughed when I read one of the reasons

That it would detract from the visual dominance of the unfinished sentinel building.

Imagine how different Manhattan would be today, if they decided that no building could detract from the flatiron building.

Feck sake. Norman lords were building taller building 800 years ago than what's allowed in some parts of Dublin

PokeHerKing

Just tuning into this TV gold now! It's straight out of a Ross O'Carroll Kelly book!

C Montgomery Gurns II

Zascar wrote: »

Any time I fly in a plane over Dublin it boggles my mind how much green fields there are but no one building houses. Wicklow is notoriously impossible to build a house unless you are born there and even still its hard. Why cant they let people sell off land and let people build houses ffs?

Nearly as bad as when you hear about councils "acquiring" land, as if they don't own enough prime building land as it is. You could increase the housing stock on most LA built estates by a quarter given the amount of green space they have while still leaving plenty of it for recreation. They could surely even raise funds for social housing by selling off land they own in wealthier areas.

ThisRegard

C Montgomery Gurns II wrote: »

Nearly as bad as when you hear about councils "acquiring" land, as if they don't own enough prime building land as it is. You could increase the housing stock on most LA built estates by a quarter given the amount of green space they have while still leaving plenty of it for recreation. They could surely even raise funds for social housing by selling off land they own in wealthier areas.

In fill housing has destroyed many an estate by building on what were previously green areas.