Ireland should stop selling houses to non residents

Samuel T. Cogley

Anteayer wrote: »

Have a read of Article 43 before you go around accusing me of writing "drivel"



Article 45



The property rights in the constitution are heavily circumscribed by very strong social balance ideology.

You missed the preamble to Art 45 and the double protection on private property. The Constitution is not as heavily circumscribed on social policy as you make out.

Maurice Yeltsin

pablo128 wrote: »

Yeah, my friends sister and her partner have just moved into a brand new good sized 3 bed in Finglas and they paid 250k.

Were they having trouble shifting and went down?

Only reason I ask, I can't recall seeing any recent new builds within Dublin borders where the starting price was below 300k.

250K is very reasonable, but if it was lower than asking you would be concerned the greedy phucks wouldn't build any more lest they not make maximum profit. I truly think these people would sooner make no money than not make obscene money.

ted1 wrote: »

It costs about 250k in labour and parts to build a 3 bed.

That’s with out land. If land was cheap I’d have a massive garden.

It’s not the foreigners fault.

The affordable scheme in Ballymun, where the developer was only after something like 5 percent profit and the land had been donated by the council, came out round 140k for a 3 bed terrace I think.

That's why you have to ask questions when another council says it is costing 1.5 million to build five council homes.

ted1

rosmoke wrote: »

You can order a passive house and it will have a BER A or B for 25-35k. It's a lego, there's even a timelapse with a man that has done it himself on Youtube in county Wicklow. Not saying it's easy or for everyone, just saying it's for some and it can be had cheaper than 250k.

That’s complete BS. Also unless you are from Wicklow you don’t get planning

ted1

rosmoke wrote: »

It takes you 10 seconds to google and find a couple of websites that deliver mostly to EU mainland countries for 2.000e, delivery I'm sure it can arranged to IE for a bit extra. Even it you're 100k or 200k all in, it's still cheaper than 250k. There are options out there.

So you’ve just trebled the price. Now you need to look at planning permission. Those houses won’t meet the requirements. And you are omitting council levies, Maine connection etc

Yurt2

In Denmark, a non Dane needs to have the permission of the Interior Ministry to purchase residential property. One needs to be either a permanent resident or someone with very strong (and compelling) links to Denmark.

I'm not sure when they got this derogation from EU law to do this, but they certainly have it.

Yurt2

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

You missed the preamble to Art 45 and the double protection on private property. The Constitution is not as heavily circumscribed on social policy as you make out.

The level to which the constitution balances private property rights and social good provisions is a matter of live debate among legal scholars. Anyone who speaks in absolutes about the Constitution in this respect is displaying ideological predilections.

rosmoke

ted1 wrote: »

That’s complete BS. Also unless you are from Wicklow you don’t get planning

You skipped a few posts, that was my whole point.
I thought Wicklow is the dearest regarding planning permissions?

ted1

rosmoke wrote: »

You skipped a few posts, that was my whole point.
I thought Wicklow is the dearest regarding planning permissions?

No dearest , they just don’t allow outsiders. It’s local needs only.

Amirani

chuchuchu wrote: »

When you factor in that a morgage can be only 3.5 times a persons salary and the average salary is 45000. Then for example a 3 bed house should cost about 200000 including the deposit. But I dont understand how the house prices are like double that price, I mean who could aford it?

3 bed houses are more suited to couples with 2 salaries than a single person on 45000. If you have a couple on that average salary, then suddenly these 3 bed houses become more affordable.

We have a limited amount of land available in our city centres. If you're a single person trying to buy there, you'd be more suited to a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment.

lalababa

rosmoke wrote: »

I honestly think the land it's the problem, I wanna buy land in the country side, build my own house, grow my own vegetables and work from home, my job allows me to do that.
But I can't because of stupid stupid and also deemed illegal by EU 'local needs'. So I have to stay in the city, make more money because expenses are higher and effectively drive the prices up for others who actually need to stay in the city.

Yep, some of the planning local need rules are a bit OTT. But why not buy an already built house and do some alterations if need be.

Anteayer

I just find it a bit worrying that the same "oh it's unconstitutional!" or "oh! this is illegal under EU law" gets bandied about without any evidence that this is the case.

Yes, the EU has a requirement for the freedom of movement of capital, but it also has various balancing circumscriptions around that which need to be explored. The same applies to property rights in the Irish constitution. Almost everything in our constitution is balanced by requirements to deliver social justice. The terminology it uses may be form the 1930s, but it is not a die-hard capitalist document. It was written with a fairly progressive notion of balance.

The government should go and figure out how regulation could be achieved and test those concepts legally. Throwing your hands up in the air, because it doesn't suit your politics, and saying it can't be done and then blaming the EU or the constitution without providing any test cases or thorough legal analysis is frankly the drivel that should be being challenged.

There's a major housing crisis in Ireland at present and all the stops need to be pulled out to remedy that. If it doesn't happen, you will have a serious social and political crisis on your hands : see Brexit for an illustration what happens when you blame socially divisive and poorly thought out domestic policies on a 3rd party like the EU.

The choices here are either do something about housing, or face a future where you've potentially got a populist anti-business movement rise up as a result of inaction

The state isn't helpless in this situation. Sitting on our hands and pretending that this problem will be solved by osmosis isn't going to work.

There needs to be a lot more housing supply and there needs to be regulation. Endlessly rising house prices is unsustainable. We've been here before and we can't afford to have another housing crash. We won't be bailed out twice.

4ensic15

Anteayer wrote: »

Have a read of Article 43 before you go around accusing me of writing "drivel"



Article 45



The property rights in the constitution are heavily circumscribed by very strong social balance ideology.

Article 43 says nothing about markets, neither does article 45. Look at Article 29.
"° no provision of this constitution invalidates
laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by
the state, before, on or after the entry into force of
the treaty of lisbon, that are necessitated by the
obligations of membership of the european
union referred to in subsection 5° of this section
or of the european atomic energy community, or
prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures
adopted by—
i the said european union or the european
atomic energy community, or institutions
thereof,
ii the european communities or european
union existing immediately before the entry
into force of the treaty of lisbon, or
institutions thereof, or
iii bodies competent under the treaties referred
to in this section,
from having the force of law in the state.

GGTrek

Anteayer wrote: »

I just find it a bit worrying that the same "oh it's unconstitutional!" or "oh! this is illegal under EU law" gets bandied about without any evidence that this is the case.

Yes, the EU has a requirement for the freedom of movement of capital, but it also has various balancing circumscriptions around that which need to be explored. The same applies to property rights in the Irish constitution. Almost everything in our constitution is balanced by requirements to deliver social justice. The terminology it uses may be form the 1930s, but it is not a die-hard capitalist document. It was written with a fairly progressive notion of balance.

The government should go and figure out how regulation could be achieved and test those concepts legally. Throwing your hands up in the air, because it doesn't suit your politics, and saying it can't be done and then blaming the EU or the constitution without providing any test cases or thorough legal analysis is frankly the drivel that should be being challenged.

There's a major housing crisis in Ireland at present and all the stops need to be pulled out to remedy that. If it doesn't happen, you will have a serious social and political crisis on your hands : see Brexit for an illustration what happens when you blame socially divisive and poorly thought out domestic policies on a 3rd party like the EU.

The choices here are either do something about housing, or face a future where you've potentially got a populist anti-business movement rise up as a result of inaction

The state isn't helpless in this situation. Sitting on our hands and pretending that this problem will be solved by osmosis isn't going to work.

There needs to be a lot more housing supply and there needs to be regulation. Endlessly rising house prices is unsustainable. We've been here before and we can't afford to have another housing crash. We won't be bailed out twice.

Ireland has already got way to much regulation around planning that is hampering supply, so it actually needs less regulation. The local only restrictions have already been tested at the ECJ level and FAILED:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/chance-discovery-spells-end-of-locals-only-restriction-on-one-off-housing-450596.html


You cannot have a pick and choose single market (especially one where Ireland is benefiting massively through direct investment of many multinationals), so what you are saying might be related to a Dunning Kruger effect:
https://i0.wp.com/digitalwellbeing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dunning-kruger-effect.png?resize=2010%2C1340&ssl=1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


This forum is not the Indo with its spinning populist easy solutions stories, you will get pushback on quick fix ideas like yours. Ireland has way too many quick fix regulations coming out of the a... of politicians, let's please stop the nonsense.

sydthebeat

rosmoke wrote: »

I honestly think the land it's the problem, I wanna buy land in the country side, build my own house, grow my own vegetables and work from home, my job allows me to do that.
But I can't because of stupid stupid and also deemed illegal by EU 'local needs'. So I have to stay in the city, make more money because expenses are higher and effectively drive the prices up for others who actually need to stay in the city.

Theres thousands of acres across the country where local needs doesnt apply.

You mustn't have looked very hard if you didn't know this.

Chiparus

In Australia as a non- resident you have to apply for permission to purchase a property.

https://firb.gov.au/real-estate/

We also have to be careful that apartment blocks are not used as a channel for money out of China, or we couls have situations where appartment blocks remain unoccupied as has happened in London.

Eric Cartman

Chiparus wrote: »

In Australia as a non- resident you have to apply for permission to purchase a property.

https://firb.gov.au/real-estate/

We also have to be careful that apartment blocks are not used as a channel for money out of China, or we couls have situations where appartment blocks remain unoccupied as has happened in London.

Too late, most of the finance here is chinese now, there are chinese property tours going on in dublin every week, there are development companies recruiting mandarin speakers to deal with chinese investors. This is already in here and its completely fuelled a lot of the price rises. They don't seem to be leaving them empty at the moment but theres a lot of REIT's and professional landlords who are a company wholly owned by chinese investors.

Anteayer

GGTrek wrote: »

Ireland has already got way to much regulation around planning that is hampering supply, so it actually needs less regulation. The local only restrictions have already been tested at the ECJ level and FAILED:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/chance-discovery-spells-end-of-locals-only-restriction-on-one-off-housing-450596.html


You cannot have a pick and choose single market (especially one where Ireland is benefiting massively through direct investment of many multinationals), so what you are saying might be related to a Dunning Kruger effect:
https://i0.wp.com/digitalwellbeing.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/dunning-kruger-effect.png?resize=2010%2C1340&ssl=1


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect


This forum is not the Indo with its spinning populist easy solutions stories, you will get pushback on quick fix ideas like yours. Ireland has way too many quick fix regulations coming out of the a... of politicians, let's please stop the nonsense.

No let's just do absolutely nothing at all until the country is in another economic meltdown driven by a second property bubble instead. That's a great non solution.

What exactly do you propose?

The housing market here is dysfunctional and distorted by a whole load of legacy issues that weren't resolved after 2008. It's not responding to demand because it's not capable of doing so and that's creating a serious asset bubble.

Are you suggesting just let it slide into an mess where you end up with the rise of actual populsim due to social discontent? That's not an unlikely path if housing continues to be out of reach of a large % of the working population.

We do need to increase supply and I do agree that Irish planning is focused on many of the wrong things. We seem to manage to have very tight planning laws but we still create vast amounts of unserviceable sprwal.

I don't think removing limits on what's prudent to lend is particularly safe as we will just crash the banking sector in a few years if we do that again and the ECB isn't going to allow that kind of crazy a second time around.

We could encourage investment from home and overseas into new building projects by creating an infrastructure for property funds and alternative ways of investing and financing property.

What we don't need is investors buying into existing property competing with local buyers who are trying to house themselves.

Regulation of a dysfunctional market that's working contrary to be public good and is causing social problems is not unusual or some kind of radical measure. It's done all the time throughout the history of modern capitalism.

Eric Cartman

Anteayer wrote: »

No let's just do absolutely nothing at all until the country is in another economic meltdown driven by a second property bubble instead. That's a great non solution.

What exactly do you propose?

The housing market here is dysfunction and distorted by a whole load of legacy issues that weren't resolved after 2008.

Are you suggesting just let it slide into an mess where you end up with the rise of actual populsim due to social discontent? That's not an unlikely path if housing continues to be out of reach of a large % of the working population.

to be fair, the poster wasnt talking about credit deregulation. Those central bank rules are working and should be kept rigid, even the amount of exemptions are a bit high in my book,

the poster is talking about planning restrictions, which are far too much. It restricts innovation, the diverse type of housing other countries have , new or cheaper building techniques etc.. now im not saying 'sure let anyone make a deathtrap that will kill kids' but you can't do anything like tiny homes, container houses, log cabins (on a site, not in a back garden) , converted industrial units, prefabricated structures etc.. here.

the problem with planning laws here is that they are predicated on the idea that a building should last forever, everyone is going to have kids , all houses should suit people cradle to grave, everyones entitled to a lovely view all the time, nobody should be allowed cast shadows on another property and that nobody is allowed to make their own bad decisions or cheap out on something.

If I buy a site surrounded by mature trees in the middle of kildare , I should realistically be able to put almost anything on it , and its my responsibility to ensure access and transport to it. I shouldnt be allowed to beg a td for a bus stop to bring the kids to school, im happy to make my bed and lie in it.

Anteayer

I agree the planning laws here are a mess. They're like regulations for rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic and completely miss the point when it comes to creating viable housing.

I mean I was nearly falling over laughing at the stuff that went up in some rural towns in Leitrim where someone imposed urban notions of mixed development, resulting in abandoned apartments in what are essentially villages.

Then look at the cities - sprawl built in the 90s and early 00s without any notion of transportation or services being built along side it. Densities that are far, far too low and were appropriate 50 years ago in an entirely different Ireland.

It's almost like we don't understand what planning is. It seems like it's just a whole bunch of arbitrary regulation of visual stuff most do the time here without any real sense of strategy.

Then you get things like bits of policies plucked from continental Europe or elsewhere giving you unconnected cycle lanes or trying to limit cars in cities that have literally no viable alternatives, using only a bit of plans that were designed for cities with excellent mass transit because we don't plan or invest strategically, but just try to do all the superficial things to make it look progressive.

It's just one soft, path of least resistance decision after the next and the result is a mess that doesn't work.

Eric Cartman

Anteayer wrote: »

I agree the planning laws here are a mess. They're like regulations for rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic and completely miss the point when it comes to creating viable housing.

I mean I was nearly falling over laughing at the stuff that went up in some rural towns in Leitrim where someone imposed urban notions of mixed development, resulting in abandoned apartments in what are essentially villages.

Then look at the cities - sprawl built in the 90s and early 00s without any notion of transportation or services being built along side it. Densities that are far, far too low and were appropriate 50 years ago in an entirely different Ireland.

It's almost like we don't understand what planning is. It seems like it's just a whole bunch of arbitrary regulation of visual stuff most do the time here without any real sense of strategy.

Then you get things like bits of policies plucked from continental Europe or elsewhere giving you unconnected cycle lanes or trying to limit cars in cities that have literally no viable alternatives, using only a bit of plans that were designed for cities with excellent mass transit because we don't plan or invest strategically, but just try to do all the superficial things to make it look progressive.

and i mean sometimes the people are just as bad, like the apartments in leitrim, or the family building rurally and then asking 'wheres the bus for my kid to get to school' , instead of just letting people know that its a terrible idea or they made a bad choice, we regulate the hell out of it until it actually hurts people who need or want to live in a non standard development and are willing to accept responsibility for their situation.

Anteayer

Well in most countries if you choose to live off grid, that's up to you. You can't really be expecting the same level of services as someone in a serviced are be it urban or rural.

Eric Cartman

Anteayer wrote: »

Well in most countries if you choose to live off grid, that's up to you. You can't really be expecting the same level of services as someone in a serviced are be it urban or rural.

but apparantly so, after everyone started building one off housing , this is exactly what happened and instead of having a policy of 'f-off you knew what you were getting into' the planning board decided 'no more one offs for anyone'

there are lots of countries where you could buy an acre of land, dig your own well, provide your own septic, maybe get electricity if available or go solar and have a house you built to exactly the spec's you wanted and it would be fine.

Not in ireland though, nahh...

sydthebeat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there are lots of countries where you could buy an acre of land, dig your own well, provide your own septic, maybe get electricity if available or go solar and have a house you built to exactly the spec's you wanted and it would be fine.

Not in ireland though, nahh...

if you want to live in a mud hut go move to Africa.

Every developed society has building codes and regulations

Eric Cartman

sydthebeat wrote: »

if you want to live in a mud hut go move to Africa.

Every developed society has building codes and regulations

shockingly enough, that one is possible here https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/2627875/meet-the-couple-who-cob-house-in-sligo-they-built-with-bare-hands/

Anteayer

Ireland doesn't have too much regulation. It has the wrong regulations.

angel eyes 2012

4ensic15 wrote: »

It would be contrary to EU law to stop EU companies from investing in Ireland. We left the era of protectionism behind nearly 50 years ago.

Why can't we choose to purchase home, car or health insurance from European based companies then, what about mortgage rates, why do we have to extortionate interest rates when Europeans have better rates.

Eric Cartman

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

Why can't we choose to purchase home, car or health insurance from European based companies then, what about mortgage rates, why do we have to extortionate interest rates when Europeans have better rates.

Its so hard to evict delinquents that its basically unsecured lending at this point.

4ensic15

angel eyes 2012 wrote: »

Why can't we choose to purchase home, car or health insurance from European based companies then, what about mortgage rates, why do we have to extortionate interest rates when Europeans have better rates.

We don't have anyone willing to write insurance policies here or lend money at lower interest rates. No guesses as to why.

sydthebeat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

shockingly enough, that one is possible here https://www.thesun.ie/fabulous/2627875/meet-the-couple-who-cob-house-in-sligo-they-built-with-bare-hands/

That's still a 1400 sq ft house that cost €112,000 to build.

The architect owner still had to meet building regulations in regards to wall u values.

So is still build to code and regulation, they just choose to do it with a non standard material.

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Too late, most of the finance here is chinese now, there are chinese property tours going on in dublin every week, there are development companies recruiting mandarin speakers to deal with chinese investors. This is already in here and its completely fuelled a lot of the price rises. They don't seem to be leaving them empty at the moment but theres a lot of REIT's and professional landlords who are a company wholly owned by chinese investors.

Not doubting what you say, but this area could do with a bit of research.

Australia, NZ and Parts of Canada learned the hard way about the effects of speculative Chinese investment in their respective markets.

Vancouver is a case study in what it can do to a localised market once CN money gets a taste for the goods.