Boomer Wealth

Geuze

OwlsZat wrote: »

We just need to reduce the cost of building to bring down the cost of housing. It's a very simple concept. Yet people will just bang on about inflationary measures until the cows come home.

The three main costs to be cut:

(1) land/site costs, by up to 90%
(2) finance costs
(3) developer's margin


I am not a supporter of SF, but I heard Eoin O'Broin speak at a DEW seminar today, and he mentioned these three costs.

Geuze

OwlsZat wrote: »

I'd also set up a task force aimed at reducing the cost of building materials. We are paying 2-3X what the UK pays.

If this is true, then I'll add it to my list of costs to be cut.

GreeBo

OwlsZat wrote: »

No need to invent an answer. Personally, I'd reduce the Government take on housing, sitting at the ludicrous 33%. We seem to have done it when we needed other sectors to pick up ie., tourism post-2008 crash with great effect.

I'd also set up a task force aimed at reducing the cost of building materials. We are paying 2-3X what the UK pays.

Are you talking about vat or something else?

How often had a vat decrease made it to the consumer?

GreeBo

Geuze wrote: »

The three main costs to be cut:

(1) land/site costs, by up to 90%
(2) finance costs
(3) developer's margin


I am not a supporter of SF, but I heard Eoin O'Broin speak at a DEW seminar today, and he mentioned these three costs.

How does the government reduce site costs and developers margin?

Geuze

GreeBo wrote: »

How does the government reduce site costs and developers margin?

Site costs possibilities??

Use State-owned land
Only allow land to be rezoned for residential after it is in State ownership
SVT, but more effective than the current Vacant Site Levy (VSL)

I am not an expert here, there must be more policies to boost the supply of land / prevent hoarding?


Developer's margin - expand AHBs and LAs and/or Housing Agency to allow them to be the developers.

Let private sector contractors build to order.

Much less risk, so the developers return required to compensate for risk is gone, just the contractors lower margin left

Eric Cartman

GreeBo wrote: »

How does the government reduce site costs and developers margin?

allow residential development on all land and only zone for other development. Separate land and property values and make CGT on land sales an 80% rate to discourage speculation or price increases.

GreeBo

Geuze wrote: »

Site costs possibilities??

Use State-owned land
Only allow land to be rezoned for residential after it is in State ownership
SVT, but more effective than the current Vacant Site Levy (VSL)

I am not an expert here, there must be more policies to boost the supply of land / prevent hoarding?


Developer's margin - expand AHBs and LAs and/or Housing Agency to allow them to be the developers.

Let private sector contractors build to order.

Much less risk, so the developers return required to compensate for risk is gone, just the contractors lower margin left

There is only so much state owned land though.
and even levys etc wont make the land cheaper, just means people wont hold onto it (for as long)

Eric Cartman wrote: »

allow residential development on all land and only zone for other development. Separate land and property values and make CGT on land sales an 80% rate to discourage speculation or price increases.

Wont that result in one off houses all over the place?

Who is going to sell their current land if they lose 80%?

Eric Cartman

GreeBo wrote: »

There is only so much state owned land though.
and even levys etc wont make the land cheaper, just means people wont hold onto it (for as long)





Wont that result in one off houses all over the place?

Who is going to sell their current land if they lose 80%?

It might do... which I don't hate.
they lose 80% on gains , so gains from the now lack of residential zoning needed, it would stop everyone profiteering off this change.

GreeBo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

It might do... which I don't hate.
they lose 80% on gains , so gains from the now lack of residential zoning needed, it would stop everyone profiteering off this change.

It might stop future land hoarding, but I don't think it will do anything right now?
Arguably it makes it worse as people will hold on for longer to make the 20% worthwhile, unless there is a dump in advance of some announcement!

Eric Cartman

GreeBo wrote: »

It might stop future land hoarding, but I don't think it will do anything right now?
Arguably it makes it worse as people will hold on for longer to make the 20% worthwhile, unless there is a dump in advance of some announcement!

it wouldn't make it worth holding on to agri land till the urban areas sprawl to it and it gets rezoned like currently happens around dublin/kildare/wicklow

GreeBo

Eric Cartman wrote: »

it wouldn't make it worth holding on to agri land till the urban areas sprawl to it and it gets rezoned like currently happens around dublin/kildare/wicklow

Or it would, as the land value would increase and thus the 20% increases value...?

OwlsZat

GreeBo wrote: »

How does the government reduce site costs and developers margin?

What's your prespective here?

Are you asking because you've no idea's yourself or asking becuase your questioning if it's possible?

GreeBo

OwlsZat wrote: »

What's your prespective here?

Are you asking because you've no idea's yourself or asking becuase your questioning if it's possible?

I'm asking the poster who suggested it as a possibility to explain how it would work.

Edgware

Geuze wrote: »

The three main costs to be cut:

(1) land/site costs, by up to 90%
(2) finance costs
(3) developer's margin


I am not a supporter of SF, but I heard Eoin O'Broin speak at a DEW seminar today, and he mentioned these three costs.

The usual " I am not a supporter of S.F. but"

Mr Bright bollix O Broin. Minister for stating the fûcking obvious

OwlsZat

Edgware wrote: »

The usual " I am not a supporter of S.F. but"

Mr Bright bollix O Broin. Minister for stating the fûcking obvious

If it's so f***ing obvious why hanve't any of the past incumbents done anyting to reduce the cost of building.

Yurt2

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unaffordable-housing-poisons-youth-view-of-fine-gael-and-fianna-f%C3%A1il-1.4350008

A gentle reminder for those who think that certain age-demographics being aggrieved about housing are 'not taking personal responsibility.'

Say what you want about SF, and it is doesn't really bother me if you engage in the hysterics that they'll bring down the state, but Eoin O'Broin is a lot closer to the suite of policy solutions and actions that will make a material difference than FF or FG are by a long shot.

Yellow_Fern

Yurt! wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/unaffordable-housing-poisons-youth-view-of-fine-gael-and-fianna-f%C3%A1il-1.4350008

A gentle reminder for those who think that certain age-demographics being aggrieved about housing are 'not taking personal responsibility.'

Say what you want about SF, and it is doesn't really bother me if you engage in the hysterics that they'll bring down the state, but Eoin O'Broin is a lot closer to the suite of policy solutions and actions that will make a material difference than FF or FG are by a long shot.

SF policies, some of which are already implemented (rent control) very clearly contribute to rental prices increases and the broader housing crisis. It is true that some SF ideas would help (ie building lots of houses), but those policies are aspirations and are difficult to achieve. Furthermore FF and FG share them.

GreeBo

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

but those policies are aspirations and are difficult to achieve. Furthermore FF and FG share them.

Nah, you just go take the money from the money tree! (everyone else)

Eric Cartman

Edgware wrote: »

The usual " I am not a supporter of S.F. but"

Mr Bright bollix O Broin. Minister for stating the fûcking obvious

OBroin is a complete spoofer , wouldn't do a tap if he actually got power.

SF's plan to just magically build thousands upon thousands of houses in urban areas is completely unrealistic. The only even remotely possible way to achieve this is basically ballymun flats mk2

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

OBroin is a complete spoofer , wouldn't do a tap if he actually got power.

SF's plan to just magically build thousands upon thousands of houses in urban areas is completely unrealistic. The only even remotely possible way to achieve this is basically ballymun flats mk2

All the evidence points to the fact that FG (particularly) and FF are the spoofers on housing. They have rings ran around them by the property lobby and were happy for years at inflated house prices because a reliable voter bloc felt artificially richer. No longer, the pendulum has swung to escalating house prices being a massive poltical and social problem they're not willing or able to grasp.

O'Broin drives them absolutely nuts because he's the first poltitican to actually sit down and seriously work out solutions and they have no answrs. And a noisy minority are openly hostile to change to how housing is done in the country.

Spoof is right, but you're pointing fingers in the wrong direction. If there was a FG minister one could confidently say is putting up genuine solutions to the issue, I'd put my weight behind him/her. But they're not there, and are unlikely every to be there for reasons you know quite well.

Eric Cartman

Yurt! wrote: »

All the evidence points to the fact that FG (particularly) and FF are the spoofers on housing. They have rings ran around them by the property lobby and were happy for years at inflated house prices because a reliable voter bloc felt artificially richer. No longer, the pendulum has swung to escalating house prices being a massive poltical and social problem they're not willing or able to grasp.

O'Broin drives them absolutely nuts because he's the first poltitican to actually sit down and seriously work out solutions and they have no answrs. And a noisy minority are openly hostile to change to how housing is done in the country.

Spoof is right, but you're pointing fingers in the wrong direction. If there was a FG minister one could confidently say is putting up genuine solutions to the issue, I'd put my weight behind him/her. But they're not there, and are unlikely every to be there for reasons you know quite well.

my criticism of OBroin is not an endorsement of FF/FG.

fixing our housing market requires a lot of changes, both regulatory and societally. None of the parties are willing to touch on that.

OBroin can suggest all he wants about building houses, but he wouldn't dare be brave enough to criticise the many people on the social housing list who cause issues.

Yurt2

Is that what you want? Someone to go off on one about people on the housing list "that cause problems"?

Hell of a housing policy. Best of luck with it.

Eric Cartman

Yurt! wrote: »

Is that what you want? Someone to go off on one about people on the housing list "that cause problems"?

Hell of a housing policy. Best of luck with it.

I want somebody to stand up and say that social housing in Dublin should only be for low income workers and not scroungers, I want somebody to say that the antisocial elements ruining social developments should be removed and left to fend for themselves, I want a robust policy that says that if you want social housing that you have to live in high density apartments or duplex's and that this business of building 3 bed semi's is just not sustainable. I want somebody to acknowledge that the reason high rise developments like the ballymun flats failed were because of scumbags allowed to run wild and they only had themselves to blame.

blanch152

Yurt! wrote: »

All the evidence points to the fact that FG (particularly) and FF are the spoofers on housing. They have rings ran around them by the property lobby and were happy for years at inflated house prices because a reliable voter bloc felt artificially richer. No longer, the pendulum has swung to escalating house prices being a massive poltical and social problem they're not willing or able to grasp.

O'Broin drives them absolutely nuts because he's the first poltitican to actually sit down and seriously work out solutions and they have no answrs. And a noisy minority are openly hostile to change to how housing is done in the country.

Spoof is right, but you're pointing fingers in the wrong direction. If there was a FG minister one could confidently say is putting up genuine solutions to the issue, I'd put my weight behind him/her. But they're not there, and are unlikely every to be there for reasons you know quite well.

If he has seriously worked out solutions that are possible and unique to him, I have yet to see him.

I have seen some regurgitation of existing policies that take time so he can claim they are not being done, even though they are. I have seen some recycling of discarded impractical policies and I have seen some pie-in-the-sky aspirations with no detail on how they might be practically achieved.

If there is some magical new thinking from O'Broin, let's see it, but I suspect the magical bit will probably be Harry Potter-like.

Yurt2

blanch152 wrote: »

If he has seriously worked out solutions that are possible and unique to him, I have yet to see him.

I have seen some regurgitation of existing policies that take time so he can claim they are not being done, even though they are. I have seen some recycling of discarded impractical policies and I have seen some pie-in-the-sky aspirations with no detail on how they might be practically achieved.

If there is some magical new thinking from O'Broin, let's see it, but I suspect the magical bit will probably be Harry Potter-like.

Endorsed by Ireland's leading hosting economists, but not FG flunkies on boards who just fling around mAgIC MoNey TREe when they're cornered. I know who I believe.

Oh wait, aren't you pretending to be a green party supporter this week?

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I want somebody to stand up and say that social housing in Dublin should only be for low income workers and not scroungers, I want somebody to say that the antisocial elements ruining social developments should be removed and left to fend for themselves, I want a robust policy that says that if you want social housing that you have to live in high density apartments or duplex's and that this business of building 3 bed semi's is just not sustainable. I want somebody to acknowledge that the reason high rise developments like the ballymun flats failed were because of scumbags allowed to run wild and they only had themselves to blame.

That's not a housing policy. That's a rant about povs. I'm not sure what to do with that post tbh.

Eric Cartman

Yurt! wrote: »

That's not a housing policy. That's a rant about povs.

this is half the problem, politicians have spent too long talking about just building houses and not what kind of people should get the more desirable ones or who should live together in a community.

Everyone wants to avoid another ballymun, they want to avoid another moyross, but politicians aren't willing to state the hard facts about how we actually avoid those and so any housing policy is doomed to fail unless it includes that conversation.

joeguevara

Yurt! wrote: »

Endorsed by Ireland's leading hosting economists, but not FG flunkies on boards who just fling around mAgIC MoNey TREe when they're cornered. I know who I believe.

Oh wait, aren't you pretending to be a green party supporter this week?

Who is it endorsed by? And when was it endorsed? And what was endorsed?

Yurt2

joeguevara wrote: »

Who is it endorsed by? And when was it endorsed? And what was endorsed?

Dr Orla Hegarty UCD, Dr Lorcan Sirr TU Dublin; housing economists. Both came out around the election and said SF housing policy was both achievable and could be fulfilled within stated costings per unit.

A poster got egg on their face around the election when they were trying the mAgiC mONey TrEE schtick on this very topic.

joeguevara

Yurt! wrote: »

Dr Orla Hegarty UCD, Dr Lorcan Sirr TU Dublin; housing economists. Both came out around the election and said SF housing policy was both achievable and could be fulfilled within stated costings per unit.

A poster got egg on their face around the election when they were trying the mAgiC mONey TrEE schtick on this very topic.

This was a decent article that looked at real life on the SF budget. It was actually a well reasoned piece, in my opinion that gave some credence to the SF plan but also outlined the difficulties in place:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/election-2020-is-sinn-féin-s-housing-policy-credible-1.4163859