40k Euro available for repairs/upgrades for empty properties to be used for social ho

mel123

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It will take 40 years because the capacity isn't in the economy to build the required number of houses without overheating it.

Land, followed by labour, then materials make up the cost of a house. The reason building houses is expensive is because we insist on low density housing and pay in construction is high.

The only way to get costs down is to increase density and reduce pay

Disagree with you here. One solution is for our government to provide incentives for builders to actually build and stop with all these crazy costs and double taxations. It was cheaper per square foot to build ten years ago than it is now.
Building doesn't have to be done by all these large tycoon companies, the small time builders have been run out of the market.

Dublin is booming at the moment, there is no way tradies will be getting reduced pay. Have you seen the skyline and amount of cranes in Dublin City? I think the last time I checked (not counted Lol, got the number from someone in construction) it was in somewhere around 80.

Just personally speaking, I like low rise Ireland. I do agree however we probably do need to build up a bit. That's just my personal opinion.

the_syco

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

A property tax on vacant units would be a viable solution. It would force people to do them up or sell them.

pilly wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself there. How can an empty property be a cash cow?

By waiting for the market to improve before they sell it, it becomes a cash cow that you sell to retire on.

pilly wrote: »

Also, this is about speed, they simply can't build the level of houses we need right now quickly.

So they won't try to build them, and the problem continues to be a problem.

Graham wrote: »

We're retired, we've contributed/worked all our life and now you want to tax us out of our home.
It's forcing people out the family home.

It's pretty much this. You get a mortgage, pay it off before you retire, and when you retire the government would then want you to sell it and move somewhere elsewhere that your neighbours are not there.

Taxing empty houses; fine, no issue with this, but it's seemingly "tax everything or nothing" that gets a lot of people to reject this idea.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The only way to get costs down is to increase density and reduce pay

Reduce pay gets reduced spending, which probably gets reduced tax intake, and less funds to build things.

They could build it now, but as people seemingly want the houses in "good areas", the people that live in the good areas don't want them.

The_Conductor

mel123 wrote: »

We as a nation find faults in everything our government do - I'm sure every country does.

To me, what it seems the council are trying to do is two things, one, minimalise homelessness which they are getting very heavily critised for, and two, as in this particular article, get rid of derelict properties in rural towns. We have to remember, the boom is mostly in Dublin. Many small towns across Ireland are struggling and never recovered from the recession. If we forget about giving out about landlords, if it's getting property back on the market it has to be a good thing IMO.

Dublin City Council are doing their own deals all over Dublin at the moment, be it buying up hotels, warehouses, doing deals with LL's before properties are even built.

I'm completly guilty of it myself, but it seems they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

While I agree with what you're saying to a certain extent two things.

1. The 'boom' as it is- is largely smoke and mirrors. Its a few select sectors- it is not across the board- and of the 10 employment blackspots nationally, 6 of them, including the two worst, are in Dublin local authority areas.

2. Derelict houses and dwellings in rural towns- are not going to solve anything. There is a good reason they're derelict- people don't want to live there. Homeless people gravitate, unerringly, to the centres of population- over 80% of all homelessness is in Dublin- the remainder is split between Cork, Galway and a few other centres (Sligo has recently started featuring in the stats- though I'm not clear how/why).

3. We have significant numbers of vacant, non-derelict, properties nationally- that owners could in theory be incentivised to let to local authorities- however, this hasn't happened. How/why- should derelict properties be any different?

4. Even the homeless have their preferences as to where they would like to live. Giving them a house in Clare- won't stop them living out of a car at a graveyard in Cork City (as per an Examiner story last week- I'll see if I can find you a link). Sprinkling 40k loans nationally like fairy dust- to bring derelict properties back into a habitable state- is an exercise in futility. We need property where people want to, or are willing to live- not necessarily somewhere there is a derelict property.........

We need large quantities of residential accommodation on an ongoing basis in our major urban centres. Good luck to anyone who sees this as a scheme for repopulating rural Mayo/Leitrim (pick a back end of nowhere of your choice).

I accept it is an example of someone thinking outside of the box- which is to be welcomed- however, just because you come up with an idea that no-one else has articulated- does not mean its a good idea.

What happens to all these 40k loans when the owners discover no-one wants to live in the arse-end of nowhere- which is why the property became derelict in the first place?

Edit: oops- think I went over 2 things.........

wordofwarning

mel123 wrote: »

Disagree with you here. One solution is for our government to provide incentives for builders to actually build and stop with all these crazy costs and double taxations. It was cheaper per square foot to build ten years ago than it is now.

It is seriously questionable if making building cheaper would increase supply. Developers are hoarding site, as there is often more money to be made sitting on a site for a few years than building it, developing it and moving onto the next project. Look at this site in Dublin, where someone paid €4.5m in 2013 and sold it for €18m this year.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glasnevin-site-makes-close-to-18m-1.2991075

Reducing 'double taxation and crazy costs' would have just increased the value of the site. Penalise developers who are hoarding sites with intention to build on them. Why develop a site today, when it may double in value in 2-3 years?

mel123 wrote: »

Building doesn't have to be done by all these large tycoon companies, the small time builders have been run out of the market.

Small builders have been run out of the market, as a lot of them were building horrific quality homes. The new PLCs and new developers are building, nice warm homes with quality materials. They are some farmer turned developer who really should have stayed a farmer

mel123 wrote: »

Just personally speaking, I like low rise Ireland. I do agree however we probably do need to build up a bit. That's just my personal opinion.

We definitely need to build up. Dublin sprawling needs to stop. Dubliners want to live in the City, not some farming village in Cavan and commute 90 mins each way to work in Dublin each day. We have no choice but to build up.

Although social housing needs to be low rise, as high rise social housing has yet to work in any country

Graham

the_syco wrote: »

It's pretty much this. You get a mortgage, pay it off before you retire, and when you retire the government would then want you to sell it and move somewhere elsewhere that your neighbours are not there.

Who suggested anyone should be forced to sell anything?

the_syco wrote: »

Taxing empty houses; fine, no issue with this, but it's seemingly "tax everything or nothing" that gets a lot of people to reject this idea.

So just new builds and empty houses should fund local services?

pilly

The_Conductor wrote:

2. Derelict houses and dwellings in rural towns- are not going to solve anything. There is a good reason they're derelict- people don't want to live there. Homeless people gravitate, unerringly, to the centres of population- over 80% of all homelessness is in Dublin- the remainder is split between Cork, Galway and a few other centres (Sligo has recently started featuring in the stats- though I'm not clear how/why).

I agree somewhat but I drive through Cork all the time and there are derelict properties all over the place, not sure why.

Maybe the government need to find out why these places are derelict.

Used to be quite a few around Dublin city too but admittedly I'm not in Dublin very often anymore.

Tigerandahalf

pilly wrote: »

I agree somewhat but I drive through Cork all the time and there are derelict properties all over the place, not sure why.

Maybe the government need to find out why these places are derelict.

Used to be quite a few around Dublin city too but admittedly I'm not in Dublin very often anymore.

Many places are derelict because they have been inherited after the owner died. 2nd/3rd cousins inherit the property (sometimes without a will being in place which probably holds things up) and perhaps can't decide amongst themselves what to do. One cousin might not have the money to renovate or might not agree to sell and thus the whole thing gets held up.

There are many derelict houses in towns and villages that should be just knocked. They are old stone and poorly insulated. For a business to rent them out the heating costs would be big.

I see a lot of old or derelict houses in towns and villages and I don't know why there aren't enforcement orders for the exterior to be maintained to a decent standard. Even force them to put a coat of paint on it. Again if there was a property tax put on these vacant units maybe not as many would be vacant.

The same for land being hoarded by developers.