General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

garhjw

Sam Russell wrote: »

There are also plenty of bogus 'up for sale' properties that are back looking for tenants at much higher rents after a very short interval.

Properties in negative equiyty are far fewer than before. Why sll the property if it is in negative equity?

What’s a bogus for sale sign got to do with a property owner exercising his right to sell his property and if the way to get the best price is to sell with vacant possession?

A property may not be in negative equity now but if such a reg was introduced it would / could be depending on the drop in value. If it goes back into negative equity then you can’t sell.

abcabc123123

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is simply not true:

It is true, as evidenced by the many different ways the government/the state intervenes in the housing market. They've shown themselves willing to explore different solutions; it's the opposition who are ideologically wed to a single solution.

About the only short term fix the government can apply that will have any sort of rapid positive effect is to clamp down on investors using residential properties as hotels via airbnb. They are doing this and provided it's actually enforced, should be a relatively quick win to bring some properties back into the rental or sale market.

However suggestions like rent freezes, eviction restrictions are full of unintended negative consequences. For sure Ireland has work to do to provide longer term security/stability for renters, but it can't/shouldn't be done in a rushed attempt to lessen the crisis as it won't work. The crisis is caused by a lack of supply, and changing that is the only real way to end the crisis, so therefore the problem is the rate of building. It's too slow, and there's been very little discussion that I can see on how to speed it up.

The government stepping in and 'building social' doesn't increase the build rate, it just changes the owner at the end - the person who gets the house gets saved and the person who misses out on it has an even smaller pool of houses in the private market to chase. Throwing public money at the problem isn't going to magic new builders/architects/planners/contractors out of thin air, although I suppose it'd drive up prices across the board, which might attract more of them to move to the country.

We need a bigger construction industry, and even now the # of tradesmen apprenticeships is far too low. I suppose streamlining planning and procurement laws to reduce the build times (I see a guy from DCC was saying the average time for a 100 home social development is 5 and a half years) could be a possibility, although the government has already said they've looked at the latter and struggled to find any improvements.

Sam Russell

garhjw wrote: »

What’s a bogus for sale sign got to do with a property owner exercising his right to sell his property and if the way to get the best price is to sell with vacant possession?

A property may not be in negative equity now but if such a reg was introduced it would / could be depending on the drop in value. If it goes back into negative equity then you can’t sell.

What is bogus is evicting a tenant on the pretense of selling the property, and then putting back looking for a new tenant at a huge greatr rent.

Why sell a property in negative eqyuity in a rising market? How many properties are in such a condition?

garhjw

Sam Russell wrote: »

What is bogus is evicting a tenant on the pretense of selling the property, and then putting back looking for a new tenant at a huge greatr rent.

Why sell a property in negative eqyuity in a rising market? How many properties are in such a condition?

Why have you changed the subject? I’m only talking about people who want to actually sell their property.

Re read my posts about negative equity.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Is military style camps in the curragh the norm when declaring national emergency situations?

I'm still not with your sentiments tbh.


You say it's a joke, but it would seem pretty much every political party in D.E are calling for this, which would prob place you well within a minority, and perhaps the jokes on you?

Populist politics infecting them all, you can tell that there is an election in the air.

Passing a motion in the Dail is worthless, passing a motion in the Dail to declare housing an emergency is equivalent to just laughing at the problem for all the good it will do. Those opposition parties who are in favour of this, why don't they just bring down the government and put themselves in and sort the problem out if they all just agree?

Idbatterim

Meh. If they want to provide masses of units quickly. Allow log cabins for a period of five years and review it then... three bed log cabins can be bought on donedeal for ten thousand for the cabin. companies on donedeal are already offering finance on them, 18k for a finished one bed all in. Luxury compared to the huge amount of hovels going in many of bricks and mortar built houses ...

https://abnb.me/TG7bllhYIQ

Detached properties with a garden, ideal!

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

Meh. If they want to provide masses of units quickly. Allow log cabins for a period of five years and review it then... three bed log cabins can be bought on donedeal for ten thousand for the cabin. companies on donedeal are already offering finance on them, 18k for a finished one bed all in. Luxury compared to the huge amount of hovels going in many of bricks and mortar built houses ...

https://abnb.me/TG7bllhYIQ

Detached properties with a garden, ideal!

Another crazy proposal.

Now where will you build these log cabins, with connections to electricity and water supplies, with roads and schools, access to public transport?

Oh, and room for a trampoline.

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Another crazy proposal.

Now where will you build these log cabins, with connections to electricity and water supplies, with roads and schools, access to public transport?

Oh, and room for a trampoline.

Eh in people’s back gardens! As they having been doing for a few years now. Was looking at a few over the past few weeks. These log cabin companies are being inundated with demand. Or you can wait for a few more years of government inaction. I get the impression this housing crisis doesn’t effect you at all blanch. Good for you. But many aren’t so lucky and living in this banana republic, better taking action into your own hands if possible...

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Another crazy proposal.

Now where will you build these log cabins, with connections to electricity and water supplies, with roads and schools, access to public transport?

Oh, and room for a trampoline.

Do you mind me asking your your proposal on solving this crisis ? My suggested emergency measure, one of them, can provide units nearly instantaneously at a pittance ... utilizing existing sites and infrastructure...

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

Do you mind me asking your your proposal on solving this crisis ? My suggested emergency measure, one of them, can provide units nearly instantaneously at a pittance ... utilizing existing sites and infrastructure...

I have set them out many times in this thread already.

What existing sites and infrastructure would you use? Schools? Hospitals?

FreudianSlippers

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Homeless crisis is an emergency, concedes Varadkar


Was Leo at a stunt too?

Yes. Anyone that calls this homelessness issue an "emergency" is guilty of it.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

Problems can only be solved by finding the source and dealing with each aspect.

Homeless people - where are they coming from?

There are those being evicted from tenancies because the landlord is 'requiring the property for his own use' which may be bogus.

In most cases, no. Small-time private letting is not profitable and an onus on the landlord. Because of the crazy prices they are frequently giving these properties to their children.

There are those who are suffering a large increase in rent that they cannot afford.

That's the market - I'm not sure what you suggest we do to curtail this other than communism?

There are those who have outgrown there current accommodation due to changes in family - children etc.

Don't have a bunch of kids you can't afford.

There are those that are made homeless because of family breakup.

I'd be interested to know what you're referring to specifically here. To my knowledge there's very little stats in relation to this other than in relation to drug addiction.

There are those who decide to become homeless for other reasons, such as moving from rural to city for job or other reason.

Wait. You're saying there are people living in houses in rural areas who are like "I'm gonna move to the big schmoke and live on the streets and work at google"? Like... maybe don't do that?!

There are those who are recent immigrants who cannot find appropriate accommodation.

Everyone in asylum.

There are no valid statistics that suggest where these numbers have come from such that valid strategies can be applied to solve the problems.

hm.... huh?

1. All rental rates should be on a register with the Private Tenancies Board, so that changes in rent can be tracked.

Yep

2. Evictions for any reason other than non-payment of rent, or antisocial behaviour should be illegal - at least for a period.

What's the penalty? You want to force people into being landlords if they choose to not be; that's a really slippery slope.

3. Rent rises should be stopped for a period, such as two or three years.

Ok. Let's stop increase in prices related to property then too. A socialist utopia!

4. Non-payment of rent or antisocial behaviour should be fast tracked through the courts and not allowed to drag on. Landlords should be able to recoup unpaid rent through garnering from their income - wages or social welfare.

Agreed.

5. Offers of adequate accommodation should be sufficient to remove the person from the homeless list.

Agreed. Also same should apply to social housing list

It is essential to stop people becoming homeless in the first place.

Really a cute idealistic idea, but impossible in reality.

FreudianSlippers

Idbatterim wrote: »

Eh in people’s back gardens! As they having been doing for a few years now. Was looking at a few over the past few weeks. These log cabin companies are being inundated with demand. Or you can wait for a few more years of government inaction. I get the impression this housing crisis doesn’t effect you at all blanch. Good for you. But many aren’t so lucky and living in this banana republic, better taking action into your own hands if possible...

So we just take over people's back gardens and house homeless drug addicts there?

marno21

Something badly needs to be done also to tackle NIMBYism for a number of reasons:

1. Local authorities are making decisions on projects and they are being roundhouse referred to An Bord Pleanala by appeal. An Bord Pleanala are absolutely swamped at the minute and this is severely delaying projects.

2. Strategic infrastructure projects being targeted by NIMBYs (M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy, Metrolink) or people with vested interests and policitians getting involved to score cheap political points. Some of these projects are badly needed either to service land for housing or in the case of the M28 in Cork, to facilitate the moving of port operations to open up city centre land for dense, accessible housing.

3. There badly needs to be a rethink of how much individual interest is afforded vs. national interest. What's more important, a Metro system to open up vast swathes of land for housing, remove cars off the M50 and improve journey times in Dublin or Michael McDowell not having some civil works in his neighbourhood?

Good loser

abcabc123123 wrote: »

It is true, as evidenced by the many different ways the government/the state intervenes in the housing market. They've shown themselves willing to explore different solutions; it's the opposition who are ideologically wed to a single solution.

About the only short term fix the government can apply that will have any sort of rapid positive effect is to clamp down on investors using residential properties as hotels via airbnb. They are doing this and provided it's actually enforced, should be a relatively quick win to bring some properties back into the rental or sale market.

However suggestions like rent freezes, eviction restrictions are full of unintended negative consequences. For sure Ireland has work to do to provide longer term security/stability for renters, but it can't/shouldn't be done in a rushed attempt to lessen the crisis as it won't work. The crisis is caused by a lack of supply, and changing that is the only real way to end the crisis, so therefore the problem is the rate of building. It's too slow, and there's been very little discussion that I can see on how to speed it up.

The government stepping in and 'building social' doesn't increase the build rate, it just changes the owner at the end - the person who gets the house gets saved and the person who misses out on it has an even smaller pool of houses in the private market to chase. Throwing public money at the problem isn't going to magic new builders/architects/planners/contractors out of thin air, although I suppose it'd drive up prices across the board, which might attract more of them to move to the country.

We need a bigger construction industry, and even now the # of tradesmen apprenticeships is far too low. I suppose streamlining planning and procurement laws to reduce the build times (I see a guy from DCC was saying the average time for a 100 home social development is 5 and a half years) could be a possibility, although the government has already said they've looked at the latter and struggled to find any improvements.

Excellent post.


A lot of the interventions in the housing/rental market are based on stupid arguments by vested interests such as politicians/socialists/architects/academics/the welfare crews. Many of the proposals are merely the transference of the problem/benefit from citizen A to citizen B, zero sum games. For instance when a tenant is evicted it frees the unit for others; when a house is emptied to sell it others will come in; when a bank/vulture fund takes a house it will add to the supply in the market; when expensive houses are built and occupied houses further down the chain will be released.


Anecdotally, recently, I know a case of a house which was tenanted for 16 years; the owner gave notice to quit because there had been a succession of 4x4 year tenancies and if any other tenancy was given the occupants would be entitled to a life tenancy.

blanch152

marno21 wrote: »

Something badly needs to be done also to tackle NIMBYism for a number of reasons:

1. Local authorities are making decisions on projects and they are being roundhouse referred to An Bord Pleanala by appeal. An Bord Pleanala are absolutely swamped at the minute and this is severely delaying projects.

2. Strategic infrastructure projects being targeted by NIMBYs (M28 Cork-Ringaskiddy, Metrolink) or people with vested interests and policitians getting involved to score cheap political points. Some of these projects are badly needed either to service land for housing or in the case of the M28 in Cork, to facilitate the moving of port operations to open up city centre land for dense, accessible housing.

3. There badly needs to be a rethink of how much individual interest is afforded vs. national interest. What's more important, a Metro system to open up vast swathes of land for housing, remove cars off the M50 and improve journey times in Dublin or Michael McDowell not having some civil works in his neighbourhood?

On the issue of NIMYism, it was good to hear Newstalk this morning calling out the Sinn Fein spokesperson on the contrast between their pontificating at national level about housing and their blocking of housing development at local council level.

In response, we got the usual half-truths and evasion from the SF spokesperson where they said that they had never objected to social and affordable housing (leaving clear that they had objected to other housing). Unlike other political parties which have no ideological opposition to any solution, SF only want a particular solution and are blocking other solutions. Nor surprised at them.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

On the issue of NIMYism, it was good to hear Newstalk this morning calling out the Sinn Fein spokesperson on the contrast between their pontificating at national level about housing and their blocking of housing development at local council level.

In response, we got the usual half-truths and evasion from the SF spokesperson where they said that they had never objected to social and affordable housing (leaving clear that they had objected to other housing). Unlike other political parties which have no ideological opposition to any solution, SF only want a particular solution and are blocking other solutions. Nor surprised at them.

There's an interesting comment he from a FF TD, he seems tone pointing out SFs hypocrisy whhenit comes to housing.
http://www.darraghobrien.ie/news/fine-gael-sinn-fein-alliance-blocks-state-led-affordable-housing-scheme-for-fingal-families

James Brown

It's very straightforward. The government is investing tax payer monies into the private market. This draws in vulture funds and other property speculators including TD's.
This drives up pricing and costs to buy or rent.
Then the tax payer needs help and the government and la's rent and buy off the vulture funds and speculators and around we go with the surplus put up in the Gresham on the tax payers coin.
That is your crisis right there.

James Brown

I see Naughten is at it again but only briefly..

The Minister for Communications has confirmed that he attended a dinner in New York hosted by the head of the bid for the National Broadband Plan, at which issues relating to the bid were briefly discussed.

Speaking on RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Denis Naughten said he and a number of his officials attended an event hosted by David McCourt, chairman of private investment firm Granahan McCourt.

The last remaining bidder for the NBP, a consortium led by Granahan McCourt, submitted its tender in mid-September. It was originally led by Enet but has now been reconfigured.

The consortium now includes Actavo, which is controlled by businessman Denis O'Brien, and Nokia.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/1004/1000861-national-broadband/

Fair play to Mr, O'Brien. Sure he's able to turn his hand to anything and FG will throw tax payer money at him.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The government is investing tax payer monies into the private market.

You continue to ignore the fact that I've shown you a few times that they actually aren't - it's going to be market money and some profit from NAMA.

This draws in vulture funds

No, it actually doesn't. I'd invite you to explain this one...

and other property speculators including TD's.

Random speculation about the TDs aside, by "property speculators" you mean builders? Builders building houses. Houses we need.

This drives up pricing and costs to buy or rent.

No it doesn't. If we can increase supply at lower costs then it (at worst) levels off prices.

Then the tax payer needs help and the government and la's rent and buy off the vulture funds and speculators and around we go with the surplus put up in the Gresham on the tax payers coin.

Massive jump into lala land here. You're mashing up a bunch of different sectors of building and funding and just making things up.

That is your crisis right there.

The only crisis I see here is a complete lack of understanding of the markets, construction and reality.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I see Naughten is at it again but only briefly..



Fair play to Mr, O'Brien. Sure he's able to turn his hand to anything and FG will throw tax payer money at him.

When did the independent Denis Naughten join FG?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's very straightforward. The government is investing tax payer monies into the private market. This draws in vulture funds and other property speculators including TD's.
This drives up pricing and costs to buy or rent.
Then the tax payer needs help and the government and la's rent and buy off the vulture funds and speculators and around we go with the surplus put up in the Gresham on the tax payers coin.
That is your crisis right there.

Gobbledly gook again.

If the Government contracts out the building of social housing as Matt wants, who will profit? Why, the contractors in the private sector as the Government hasn't the capacity to build them.

Will the private sector add a premium because of the sheer incompetence of local authorities at running procurement competitions? You can bet your bottom dollar they will.

What will the end result be? The Government will be building houses at a greater cost than the private sector and will be running them at a loss thanks to the inability of local authorities to collect rent and the propensity of high maintenance costs.

Edward M

blanch152 wrote: »

When did the independent Denis Naughten join FG?

He left FG, we all know that.
Its strange though when you look at the broadband issue to see all the potential investors that have pulled out.
You'd have to question why, and then you see the DOB name involved in a contract bid with FG at the helm, 2+2 could easily become five and you'd realise your maths aren't going to add up so why bother?

James Brown

Coveney says Naughten has nothing to do with awarding the contract. Denis O'Brien will no doubt get it. I believe he's the only business man on the planet as he seems to be the only option usually. Odd that.
So even if it turns out not to be a great deal for the tax payer it's tradition for FG to award him state conteacts it seems. Even If he's not in the particular field. From cellular phones to water meters to broadband.
If Naughten's behaviour is to be seen as so Noonan/Cerberus level inappropriate that its mentioned he's not FG, It's a pity some party, say FG? don't rap his knuckles for getting caught out twice but sure it's always someone else responsibility isn't it?
Now all we need is Mr. O'Brien to show an interest in building social housing and we're set.
I would think any Fine Geal members and suppoerters would need take a good look at themselves.

VonZan

Edward M wrote: »

He left FG, we all know that.
Its strange though when you look at the broadband issue to see all the potential investors that have pulled out.
You'd have to question why, and then you see the DOB name involved in a contract bid with FG at the helm, 2+2 could easily become five and you'd realise your maths aren't going to add up so why bother?

The contracts are unworkable. Providing broadband to rural areas has a much higher cost per household. When these costs cannot be passed down to the consumer then the contract becomes impractical.

Anyone getting involved at this stage is no doubt doing a favour to the government with an election looming. The costs simply don't add up for it to be anything else. No doubt some goodwill will work it's way into the hands of whoever gets rid of this mess for the government.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Coveney says Naughten has nothing to do with awarding the contract. Denis O'Brien will no doubt get it. I believe he's the only business man on the planet as he seems to be the only option usually. Odd that.
So even if it turns out not to be a great deal for the tax payer it's tradition for FG to award him state conteacts it seems. Even If he's not in the particular field. From cellular phones to water meters to broadband.
If Naughten's behaviour is to be seen as so Noonan/Cerberus level inappropriate that its mentioned he's not FG, It's a pity some party, say FG? don't rap his knuckles for getting caught out twice but sure it's always someone else responsibility isn't it?
Now all we need is Mr. O'Brien to show an interest in building social housing and we're set.
I would think any Fine Geal members and suppoerters would need take a good look at themselves.

As per usual, the standard mix of half-truth, rumour and fantasy form the basis of your opinion.

I had a look at this Actavo company on their website:

https://actavo.com/network/telecoms/

In particular, I looked at their telecoms/broadband experience. It seems that they have "been a partner to Virgin Media Ireland (& its predecessors) for 25 years. We are responsible for upgrade of HFC network since 2006. We have brought 250,000 homes up to Triple Play standard"

Whether O'Brien bought this company, or quietly owned it for years, it certainly seems to have the experience of building broadband networks. Why some believe it couldn't or shouldn't be a contender to build the rural broadband network is just silliness.

As for O'Brien the man, I am on record that his decision to leave the country to avail of tax residency in Portugal was cowardly and inexcusable. His media ownership is also unsettling. But that is the man, not the business. Some would do well to separate their hatred for all things FG and O'Brien from a discussion of what is best for the country.

FreudianSlippers

blanch152 wrote: »

As per usual, the standard mix of half-truth, rumour and fantasy form the basis of your opinion.

I had a look at this Actavo company on their website:

https://actavo.com/network/telecoms/

In particular, I looked at their telecoms/broadband experience. It seems that they have "been a partner to Virgin Media Ireland (& its predecessors) for 25 years. We are responsible for upgrade of HFC network since 2006. We have brought 250,000 homes up to Triple Play standard"

Whether O'Brien bought this company, or quietly owned it for years, it certainly seems to have the experience of building broadband networks. Why some believe it couldn't or shouldn't be a contender to build the rural broadband network is just silliness.

As for O'Brien the man, I am on record that his decision to leave the country to avail of tax residency in Portugal was cowardly and inexcusable. His media ownership is also unsettling. But that is the man, not the business. Some would do well to separate their hatred for all things FG and O'Brien from a discussion of what is best for the country.

Actavo is SiteServ - it's just a rename. However, your point still stands; the company has decades of experience in networks and structural infrastructure.

I'm sure Matt never frequented a Topaz in his life ever either because, sure... what does O'Brien know about fuel!? :rolleyes:

James Brown

VonZan wrote: »

The contracts are unworkable. Providing broadband to rural areas has a much higher cost per household. When these costs cannot be passed down to the consumer then the contract becomes impractical.

Anyone getting involved at this stage is no doubt doing a favour to the government with an election looming. The costs simply don't add up for it to be anything else. No doubt some goodwill will work it's way into the hands of whoever gets rid of this mess for the government.

That's not believable. When a business puts themselves in the running for a contract, they have a very good idea of what they are tendering for.
The idea that any consortium, with Naughton's/FG's ear or not is doing it as a favour is beyond ridiculous.
Nokia and O'Brien are doing us a solid? The problem with Naughton's 'inappropriate behaviour' is it gives the impression some consortium got the inside track and the others bowed out. I don't believe that for one minute... but that's how it could look to someone besides myself I suppose, when you've inappropriate behaviour and ministers.
Broadband will not win or lose any election IMO.

You are suggesting they take a bad deal with a guarantee of a hum dinger down the road? Great use of tax payer monies.

EDIT:
In fact, if that is the case and whomever takes a hit with the promise of a fat contract down the road, were the others offered same? If not, that's a problem.

FreudianSlippers

A lot of companies looked at this tender and in the end none of them went for it (IIRC the last group backed out late in the day) - that only leaves the explanation that the cost-benefit is bad.

It's irrelevant to even have this conversation with Matt though, as he's a staunch communist who believes that the state should do everything themselves and companies should act out of the kindness of their hearts.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's irrelevant to even have this conversation with Matt though, as he's a staunch communist who believes that the state should do everything themselves and companies should act out of the kindness of their hearts.

Banned for personal abuse.