Property Market 2019

JJJackal

beauf wrote: »

Ok great. Not sure what that has to do with people having no choice except to do fraud.

you said: "That doesn't mean its someone else responsibility if I choose to act illegally."

I am stating it is other peoples responsibility

beauf

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In the past (say the 1940's -> 1970's) single people either lived at home, with extended family or else moved into digs (if they, for example, had to move from the countryside to the city). The idea of a woman living on her own, in particular, would have been particularly scandalous. These were the attitudes in the country when a lot of the current housing stock was being built.

What would be suitable accommodation for a single person? A purpose built one-bedroom apartment with a separate living and kitchen area. I've stayed in a few of these on the continent using Air Bnb and they were quite pleasant. Unfortunately, a lot of the apartments here are quite claustrophobic with low ceilings, small windows and minuscule balcony areas. A lot of these were churned out 15 years ago when the standards were more lax and the developers were marketing them as the first rung on the property ladder.

Sorry what happened 40~60 years ago is irrelevant. never mind this bluring and smearing of dates, history and religion across nearly 100yrs.

We went the tiny apartment route in the 90's 30~40yrs ago with the Section 23 tax relief. People wanted tiny and cheap and they got it. All building (not just apartments) was to a poor standard and almost no regulation, and it was abused by developers and the building industry. Is this really any different to today. Still no consumer protection from this cowboy industry. Too many vested interests. Its systemic in Ireland, and its still happening after all the old excuses of religion etc are a shadow of the past.

https://www.independent.ie/life/home-garden/homes/tiny-apartments-is-micro-really-dublins-next-big-thing-30457909.html

"In the heart of Dublin's north inner city, in an area extending from the North Circular Road to the River Liffey and from Amiens Street to Dorset Street, over 46pc of all homes have just one bedroom or less. Half of these homes were built over the past 20 years."

The problem is supply. You think none exist because there is no availability. Supply is constricted not because we have less housing, its still there, (it didn't disappear)But because demand has increased massively (population increased).

The problem with housing for singles is that its costs almost the same as 2 bed, but is far less versatile for most people. Its bit like a 2 seater car with no boot space. You might say people will move on, but housing mobility is at all time low for a variety of reasons.

voluntary

Cyrus wrote: »

whats your preferred description

Our hard earned money. If you steal it you don't steal from the government or banks or insurance companies. You steal from ME.

beauf

JJJackal wrote: »

you said: "That doesn't mean its someone else responsibility if I choose to act illegally."

I am stating it is other peoples responsibility

Someone else is responsible for you acting illegally? Good luck with that.

terrydel

voluntary wrote: »

The point was - how stupid and wrong the Central Bank rules are. Making rules too broad causes injustice and encourage people to act illegally (as encouraged in the above posts).

Financial fraud is a criminal offence. Imagine this person would also apply for some FTB grants. You're now not only against loan limits but a fraud against the state's purse.

So rules should be relaxed to encourage people to obey the law? you have that very arseways.
Looks were light regulation got us before.

beauf

voluntary wrote: »

That's simple. Studios and 1-bedroom apartments in multifamily buildings.
The ratio of these is very low in any international comparisons.

Do you have a link to these comparisons and analysis?

JJJackal

beauf wrote: »

Someone else is responsible for you acting illegally? Good luck with that.

It is other peoples responsibility to report a crime; your hardly going to report yourself

Or maybe those acting illegally are presenting to their local revenue/garda station saying, hey lads, I committed a crime!

beauf

JJJackal wrote: »

It is other peoples responsibility to report a crime; your hardly going to report yourself

Or maybe those acting illegally are presenting to their local revenue/garda station saying, hey lads, I committed a crime!

My comments were in the context of the idea that bank rules are the cause and being responsible for people to commit crimes. They've no choice but to commit crimes.

Someone decided to obfuscate that with a strawman of people responsibility of people to report crime. Its stupid play on words.

beauf

terrydel wrote: »

So rules should be relaxed to encourage people to obey the law? you have that very arseways.
Look where light regulation got us before.

Certainly the rules are there for a good reason.

But they could be tweaked if they are not working as expected.

JJJackal

beauf wrote: »

My comments were in the context of the idea that bank rules are the cause and being responsible for people to commit crimes. They've no choice but to commit crimes.

Someone decided to obfuscate that with a strawman of people responsibility of people to report crime. Its stupid play on words.

Everyone has a choice on whether they commit a crime - this is also not true

Brussels Sprout

beauf wrote: »

Sorry what happened 40~60 years ago is irrelevant. never mind this bluring and smearing of dates, history and religion across nearly 100yrs.

It's very relevant since the houses that were built in that era are still with us today acting as homes for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people

beauf wrote: »

We went the tiny apartment route in the 90's 30~40yrs ago with the Section 23 tax relief. People wanted tiny and cheap and they got it. All building (not just apartments) was to a poor standard and almost no regulation, and it was abused by developers and the building industry. Is this really any different to today. Still no consumer protection from this cowboy industry. Too many vested interests. Its systemic in Ireland, and its still happening after all the old excuses of religion etc are a shadow of the past.

Yeah nobody is clambering for the return of dodgy bed-sits or Celtic-Tiger era shoe-box apartments. It's possible to make an apartment for a single person without it being a depressing hovel with a crying chair and a mattress adjacent to the kitchen sink.

beauf wrote: »

The problem is supply. You think none exist because there is no availability. Supply is constricted not because we have less housing, its still there, (it didn't disappear)But because demand has increased massively (population increased).

Yes off course the problem is supply. One massive factor, that you omitted, that is worth mentioning is that there was barely any housing built for 10 years after the crash (and social housing construction ended many years before that exacerbating the problems even more so today)

voluntary

terrydel wrote: »

So rules should be relaxed to encourage people to obey the law? you have that very arseways.
Looks were light regulation got us before.

Not necessarily relaxed, but more focused. They're too broad and catch wrong groups of people.

beauf

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

It's very relevant since the houses that were built in that era are still with us today acting as homes for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people

Ditto new houses built since. So it's irrelevant.

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Yeah nobody is clambering for the return of dodgy bed-sits or Celtic-Tiger era shoe-box apartments. It's possible to make an apartment for a single person without it being a depressing hovel with a crying chair and a mattress adjacent to the kitchen sink.

Apparently it's not because something that happened by a bishop in the bronze age...

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Yes off course the problem is supply. One massive factor, that you omitted, that is worth mentioning is that there was barely any housing built for 10 years after the crash (and social housing construction ended many years before that exacerbating the problems even more so today)

Didn't mention that we sold off of social housing also either, or bedsits or a thousand other things. Because they are just unnecessary to the point being made.

beauf

Seems like people don't want to learn from the past and just repeat the same mistakes.

I'm sure we'll be back here in 10yrs with people complaining they are trapped in unsuitable housing again.

But I guess pendantry is more important these days.

Brussels Sprout

I can't really make it any more clear that I'm against the low quality, tenement housing of the past that was created for single people. You don't seem to be willing to take that on board so I think I'll leave it at that.

beauf

My point was the reason these don't exist is not because of some historical hang up. But because they are not attractive for developers to build. There is still no protection from low quality work. As can be seen from the scandals of new buildings failing inspections. So that's a red herring. Also people think it's a means to more affordable housing. But it's costs almost the same to build a 2 bed. So are people prepared to pay almost the same price for a single. I don't think so.

If a three bed and four bed house cost almost the same. If everything else was the same except the extra room. Why would anyone buy three bed.

Interestingly tenement doesn't always mean low quality...

A tenement is a multi-occupancy building of any sort. In Scotland it refers to flats divided horizontally in an established building type, including desirable properties in affluent areas,[1] but in other countries the term often refers to a run-down apartment building or slum building

Noone wants low quality housing, no one is arguing that and certainly not that build to standards from 40 years ago. That just nonsensical.

Certainly we should look to what's worked in other countries and learn from that. Most places seem to have similar problems.

Only interesting study I found what the average space per person across the States wasn't what you'd expect.

beauf

voluntary wrote: »

That's simple. Studios and 1-bedroom apartments in multifamily buildings.
The ratio of these is very low in any international comparisons.

Any chance of a link to those comparisons.

hmmm

beauf wrote: »

We went the tiny apartment route in the 90's 30~40yrs ago with the Section 23 tax relief. People wanted tiny and cheap and they got it. All building (not just apartments) was to a poor standard and almost no regulation, and it was abused by developers and the building industry.

The regulations were fine, the problem was there was no enforcement. The councils were happy to pocket the money from the levies, but their very well paid staff didn't bother checking to make sure the regulations were being met.

I agree that we need lots more good quality 1 bedroom apartments suitable for singles or a couple, probably no more than 50 metres in size. Every time we try to build something like this though we have to listen to people complaining about how "they are not suitable for families", or "why don't we build more houses for social housing" etc., and it's well past time we stopped listening to these people otherwise we'll end up with people commuting from Leitrim.

beauf

Having regulations with no enforcement is not regulation. It's lip service.

Problem with one beds is you need developers to build them, but they aren't. It's a similar issue with older people downsizing. They aren't building those kinds of property either.

beauf

hmmm wrote: »

... otherwise we'll end up with people commuting from Leitrim.

...Already well past that point....

alias no.9

JDD wrote: »

That would always be the case if you are trading up from an apartment, and certainly would be the case recently for any one selling a property bought between 2004 and 2008, as breaking even and clearing your mortgage would be lucky. It also assumes that the sellers of the first property are exactly the same as the buyers of a second property. For instance, my first property was owned three ways between myself and my brothers, my second property is owned by myself and my husband. So even if we had 20% equity in the first property, my portion of it would never have matched what we would needed to have put down for the second property.

Pretty sure in your circumstance, had one of your brothers bought out the other two, the two who'd been bought out would regain FTB status. This was the case with FTB stamp duty exemption and possobly FTB grant before that but only applied where one of the original purchasers bought out the otgers interest in a property.

Roberto_gas

voluntary wrote:

BTW, these dozen should be reported and made repay the taxpayer money. We pay too much money in taxes to simply allow this to happen.

Tbh they feel that it's the bank who are responsible to check and don't understand its revenue who is paying the bill...

Roberto_gas

JJJackal wrote:

Or maybe those acting illegally are presenting to their local revenue/garda station saying, hey lads, I committed a crime!

I think you need to know details of the rules before even judging others are fraudsters...which I don't actually...maybe they have bought houses on cash and no loans...can revenue validate that in any form ?

lleti

Update on the house referenced earlier for 435k....open viewing today and was quite busy! I don't know where people are getting the money. I think a lot more people have a bank of mum and dad than they let on.

The poor mouths are a bit like the lads in work who say they can't wait for payday yet they have hapes of money.

OEP

lleti wrote: »

Update on the house referenced earlier for 435k....open viewing today and was quite busy! I don't know where people are getting the money. I think a lot more people have a bank of mum and dad than they let on.

The poor mouths are a bit like the lads in work who say they can't wait for payday yet they have hapes of money.

That's a mortgage of slightly less than 400k, so a couple earning 115k between them can afford it - that's not exactly an outrageous amount of money for a couple to be earning.

DellyBelly

OEP wrote: »

That's a mortgage of slightly less than 400k, so a couple earning 115k between them can afford it - that's not exactly an outrageous amount of money for a couple to be earning.

I agree. In fact that's probably the norm in Dublin actually maybe even on the low side. I'd say the average earnings for a couple in the city would 125k-130k

lleti

OEP wrote: »

That's a mortgage of slightly less than 400k, so a couple earning 115k between them can afford it - that's not exactly an outrageous amount of money for a couple to be earning.

It's quite a high salary I'd say considering most people I saw were young enough, early 30's and had young kids too so childcare costs would be high too.

They all seem to have SUVs too, 151-171 range.

And with a mortgage of 390k, it's still a monthy payment of 1500 at the lowest rate. Insane figure tbh. It all sounds reasonable now because of rents but that's going to change one way or the other.

voluntary

DellyBelly wrote: »

I agree. In fact that's probably the norm in Dublin actually maybe even on the low side. I'd say the average earnings for a couple in the city would 125k-130k

That would be nice, if only real.
The average household income in Ireland is around 45k and the highest average family income is in Malahide @ 78k

https://www.thejournal.ie/cso-malahide-4690048-Jun2019/

voluntary

OEP wrote: »

That's a mortgage of slightly less than 400k, so a couple earning 115k between them can afford it - that's not exactly an outrageous amount of money for a couple to be earning.

Whether then can afford it or not depends on their abilities to keep the income on similar or higher level for the term of the mortgage, so usually 20+ years.

CPTM

One risky thing I've noticed with the banks is that they're accepting contract wages as normal wages now. For example a basic contract in IT could be 350 per day which is 84k in total per year (with zero benefits) and the banks are applying a 3.5 rule to that if you've been in the role for more than a year. Their website/mortgage hotline says 2 years but in reality an exception can be made. This is personal experience. Myself and Mrs CPTM are both on higher contracts in the IT world and the amount of money their calculator is willing to lend to us is completely irresponsible in my opinion, saying as neither of us are permanent and can be let go on a whim.