2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

RichardAnd

Shelga wrote: »

I agree, although I think momentum is building now. I want to see mass protests and marches as soon as covid subsides a bit more, and a snap election. We are wasting our lives away paying fortunes in rent or living with parents until late 30s/40s, while they claim ignorance of investment firms buying entire estates. They take us for fools. I'm totally and utterly sick of it, and disgusted by this government. The last 3/4 months have been a disaster, on several fronts, and so many areas of life are getting worse and worse and worse.

I'm not the protesting type, covid or not, but this is one protest that I would join. What is happening here, as I see it, is that generations below 40 are being funneled into being tax/rent cattle to be milked by the state and globalist interests. Even if I owned a house now, I still would fear for the future of younger generations coming up behind me (I'm 34). If this isn't stopped, it will only get worse.

Wanderer78

Hubertj wrote: »

Free month of rent..... life tenancies..... rent freeze for 3 years..... 4K affordable houses per year. All lies, undeliverable. Instead they could have proposed changes to state procurement regulations to speed up the ability of councils to commence projects. They could have proposed workable changes to tax treatment of funds/REITs etc. They could have proposed changes to planning laws and SHDs, grounds for NIMBYs objections. They could propose how public servants will be held accountable for not doing their job in relation to spending/wasting tax payers money.

again, theres no such thing as tax payers money, its not how our monetary systems work, but again, this cannot be discussed here

Beigepaint

Sweet.Science wrote: »

They really need to make downsizing appealing

Build one bed apartments in appealing towns and villages

We have thousands of pensioners living in 3 bed semis because there is no alternative

Hmm, what about one bed apartments in the cities with shared amenities ie. cinemas, bowling alleys, pool tables, gyms, kitchens (as pensioners who downsize will have massive disposable income and get take-away and eat out quite a lot)?

We wouldn’t want people to consider them like nursing homes, as the couples and individuals, though retired, would still be relatively young and have a lot of living left to do together.

We could call it co-living!

Claw Hammer

Sweet.Science wrote: »

They really need to make downsizing appealing

Build one bed apartments in appealing towns and villages

We have thousands of pensioners living in 3 bed semis because there is no alternative

Building is just one aspect of downsizing. The uncertainty of the whole process with the trapeze act of selling one property to buy another is tough enough for young fit people. For many elderly it is just too much. many have no cash to put down a deposit until they sell their house. If they sell, they will have to rent until they can buy. Competing for property is stressful with deals on again and off again all the time. What needs to be done is to have downsizers enter a scheme where they would agree a purchase of a property with a guaranteed price for their own property and a guaranteed purchase price so they know exactly how much they are going to get with no cash deposits needed and a move from the old to the new on closing.
The current system is far too stressful.

Ursabear

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm not the protesting type, covid or not, but this is one protest that I would join. What is happening here, as I see it, is that generations below 40 are being funneled into being tax/rent cattle to be milked by the state and globalist interests. Even if I owned a house now, I still would fear for the future of younger generations coming up behind me (I'm 34). If this isn't stopped, it will only get worse.

And 40+ , just turned 40 and only just buying property after many years of living with my parents and also renting and paying high rents. I have been in contract jobs, as that's how my industry rolls, for my entire career ( and only just starting earning a decent salary past 3 year's) so I wasn't able to get on the ladder and plenty of my friends are the same. Am only lucky I am now coupled up with someone from a different industry that allowed us to get a mortgage.

Villa05

AlmightyCushion wrote:

I accept that it is a small percentage of the market and I've even argued it on here in the past. Regardless, evictions are not easy here like he claims and I doubt any investment company thinks they are.

In comparison to functioning housing markets, there is a strong argument to say eviction is easier here especially for a powerful investment fund

amacca wrote:

My parents rented bedsits in Dublin back in late 80s early 90s ......even then the percentage of tenants that caused problems, didn't pay, damaged property was way way above 1%

I've no doubt but bedsits are not representative of the market as a whole and would be normal to have a higher incidence rate

amacca wrote:

Can't help thinking govt meddling and driving private landlords out of the market has contributed big time to this problem.......now it's either incompetence inaction or unwillingness to take action

100% correct, it could also be policy.
When I was renting I always looked for the landlord that was happy with a rental return that covered their mortgage. A symbiotic relationship

cnocbui

Hubertj wrote: »

That’s what I mean. The people need proper solutions and honesty from politicians (laughable I know). The stuff SF proposed yesterday does nothing but throw more populist nonsense into the mix.

SF are just about the only effective element holding the government's feet to the fire.

If the government ends up doing something positive for FTBs, it will only be because of SF snapping at their heels.

Meanwhile, RTÉ News understands that proposals that could lead to changes in the tax treatment of institutional investors in property in Ireland could be considered by Government ministers as early as next week.

It follows a meeting yesterday between the Housing and Finance ministers to address the buying of large sections of housing estates by these investors.

Planning regulations are also set to be reviewed with a view to ensuring that at least 30% of homes in new housing developments are set aside for first-time buyers.

A further 20% of homes on these developments would be social and affordable houses.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2021/0506/1214052-housing-investment-funds/

Shelga

RichardAnd wrote: »

I'm not the protesting type, covid or not, but this is one protest that I would join. What is happening here, as I see it, is that generations below 40 are being funneled into being tax/rent cattle to be milked by the state and globalist interests. Even if I owned a house now, I still would fear for the future of younger generations coming up behind me (I'm 34). If this isn't stopped, it will only get worse.

Agree completely. Very aware that I really do not want to become like these politicians- if by some miracle I buy a shoebox apartment, I then turn my focus to ensuring its value doesn't drop. It's so selfish and short-sighted. Reminds me of the establishment teachers screwing over new entrants and is everything I don't like about Ireland (I do like rather a lot, but it's hard not to feel depressed and negative this year).

I want a politican who is also thinking about how we can make housing work for young people in 20/30/40 years time- we do not have to live like this and I don't accept that "that's just how it is".

C14N

derekgine3 wrote: »

huge chatter of groups on social media trying to organize a boycott of the property market (not sure this would work) but all talk no action thus far.

I don't see how this is ever supposed to work. "Potential buyers" are not a unified or unionised interest group, and builders/sellers aren't a single negotiating entity in opposition to deal with. If some people decide to "boycott", it just makes it a bit easier for the ones who don't.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we also need to support older folks who want to remain in their home, if they chose to be, as their community is a fundamental part of their existence, and of course to preserve their memories of raising their family in their home

Bit of a catch-22 though. Usually the settled ones don't like new developments (especially apartments) in their own community. I'd imagine most people at retirement age haven't got much interest in moving to a brand new area, so I don't really see a solution for making downsizing appealing.

Galwayhurl

Sweet.Science wrote: »

They really need to make downsizing appealing

Build one bed apartments in appealing towns and villages

We have thousands of pensioners living in 3 bed semis because there is no alternative

And provide bridging loans for same.

Galwayhurl

Fuzzy_Dunlop wrote: »

Looks like the first one has a north facing back garden and the second one is south facing? That's a pretty significant difference in fairness.

20% is a huge tariff to pay for aspect, no?

Wanderer78

C14N wrote: »

Bit of a catch-22 though. Usually the settled ones don't like new developments (especially apartments) in their own community. I'd imagine most people at retirement age haven't got much interest in moving to a brand new area, so I don't really see a solution for making downsizing appealing.

i think the option should be looked at though, maybe some would like to move, maybe, but those that dont want to, need to be also protected

Villa05

IAmTheReign wrote:

According to the PRTBs own stats Rent arrears/Rent arrears and overholding is by far the most common reason for disputes brought to the PRTB. It's reason for 33% of all cases, and over 80% of cases brought by landlords. Who knows how many cases are never brought to the PRTB though. Stats for Q1 2021 are

Thanks for the link
Is this figure high when you compare it against mortgage arrears and that it's widely reported renters pay more and earn less than homeowners. It would be helpful if arrears and overholding were broken down seperatly

The figure for damage over and above normal wear and tear is only 4% which is the nightmare situation

C14N

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i think the option should be looked at though, maybe some would like to move, maybe, but those that dont want to, need to be also protected

I actually don't agree. Might sound cold but I think elderly people living in large family homes (many of which are not up to modern-day building codes) with gardens in high-demand areas that they happened to buy on the cheap 30 or 40 years ago is an inefficent use of land and should generally be discouraged by public policy instead of protected. At the same time, it should be made easy to move out and find new smaller places within their community, but both push and pull effects are important. Maybe not as big a deal in small towns or the countryside, but more in city centers and surrounding areas.

Wanderer78

C14N wrote: »

I actually don't agree. Might sound cold but I think elderly people living in large family homes (many of which are not up to modern-day building codes) with gardens in high-demand areas that they happened to buy on the cheap 30 or 40 years ago is an inefficent use of land and should generally be discouraged by public policy instead of protected. At the same time, it should be made easy to move out and find new smaller places within their community, but both push and pull effects are important.

...so when you get to that age, the same should be for you?

cnocbui

I am a near perfect fit for the downsizing argument. You can keep it - it's got knobs on it.

I do not want small, cramped living spaces, which is unversally what you get with single bedroom accommodation.

The whole property market in Ireland is slow, cumbersome and expensive, so is wholly unsuited to encouraging downsizing. Solicitors fees, EA commissions, BER certificates, engineers reports - X2 for the expensive ones - all add up many thousands in expenses to downsize. A lot cheaper, and far less hassle, to just close 3 bedroom doors.

C14N

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...so when you get to that age, the same should be for you?

Yes of course. I live in an apartment now with a partner and no kids. If I'm buying a house, I'll probably want something a bit bigger with the expectation that I will raise some kids there. When they're gone, I won't need as much space anymore, and if I want to hold onto it there should at least be a premium to pay for the luxury. In our current system though, I most likely would not be incentivised to do so, because I'd already own a big house that would be paid off and it would be more effort to downsize than to just stay put.

C14N

cnocbui wrote: »

I am a near perfect fit for the downsizing argument. You can keep it - it's got knobs on it.

I do not want small, cramped living spaces, which is unversally what you get with single bedroom accommodation.

The whole property market in Ireland is slow, cumbersome and expensive, so is wholly unsuited to encouraging downsizing. Solicitors fees, EA commissions, BER certificates, engineers reports - X2 for the expensive ones - all add up many thousands in expenses to downsize. A lot cheaper, and far less hassle, to just close 3 bedroom doors.

Right, but this is with our housing market the way it is right now. I'm sure if I was in your situation today, I'd be doing the same calculation and arriving at the same conclusion. I'm saying that policy can be used to make downsizing an attractive option instead of the massive pain you're describing.

Sweet.Science

My parents are looking to downsize from their 3 bed family home

With solicitor fees , estate agent fees and annual management fees it wasn't really an option in the end

Plus any one bed apartment in a desirable area was nearly the same price as their house

cnocbui

C14N wrote: »

Right, but this is with our housing market the way it is right now. I'm sure if I was in your situation today, I'd be doing the same calculation and arriving at the same conclusion. I'm saying that policy can be used to make downsizing an attractive option instead of the massive pain you're describing.

Wait till you get here. The big one is that no one builds single bedroom accommodation which has large spacious living areas. I have looked into it. I am having some thoughts about commissioning an architect to design me something ideal, when I get where I want to go. 4-5m ceilings in living areas, floor to ceiling glass - generally large open plan living areas. And then I realized that specing a single bedroom along with that would decimate the resale potential so I would probably have to add another 2-3 bedrooms I don't need, to preserve the value for my descendents. Ironic, really.

https://www.designswan.com/archives/playful-tropical-rainforest-house-in-queensland.html

Ursabear

C14N wrote: »

I actually don't agree. Might sound cold but I think elderly people living in large family homes (many of which are not up to modern-day building codes) with gardens in high-demand areas that they happened to buy on the cheap 30 or 40 years ago is an inefficent use of land and should generally be discouraged by public policy instead of protected. At the same time, it should be made easy to move out and find new smaller places within their community, but both push and pull effects are important. Maybe not as big a deal in small towns or the countryside, but more in city centers and surrounding areas.

I might be one of the first group of the generations straddling the line between the ones who got onto the market and have been pushed out but our knock on effect has been waiting to start a family later in life( and struggling) . I'd say this is similar for many. So if we are lucky enough to have kids we will be in our 60s by the time they hit 20 and if things don't improve for the younger generation I'll imagine we will want to give them the opportunity to live with us until they can afford to move out. Which could be a long time if things don't change.

MacronvFrugals

The minister for housing looked completely shaken on IrelandAM this morning, when a morning tv show presenter is tearing you apart the penny has to drop

RichardAnd

Shelga wrote: »

Agree completely. Very aware that I really do not want to become like these politicians- if by some miracle I buy a shoebox apartment, I then turn my focus to ensuring its value doesn't drop. It's so selfish and short-sighted. Reminds me of the establishment teachers screwing over new entrants and is everything I don't like about Ireland (I do like rather a lot, but it's hard not to feel depressed and negative this year).

I want a politican who is also thinking about how we can make housing work for young people in 20/30/40 years time- we do not have to live like this and I don't accept that "that's just how it is".

To me, the solution would be to dramatically reduce the size and power of the state. A small state would not have the power to interfere with the housing market to the extent that has been seen. It would not be able to incentivise investment funds to come here with the promise of 25 year leases for social housing. It would not be able to force massive demographic changes with plans such as Ireland 2040 in an attempt to continuously maintain demand for property by increasing the population.

To me, it seems that the state wants to be a farmer with the population as the cattle; to be milked and used as a resource. That is not the kind of world I want to bring children into, and it's certainly not one I want to leave behind for generations yet to come.

The state is rotting to the core.

tigger123

RichardAnd wrote: »

To me, the solution would be to dramatically reduce the size and power of the state. A small state would not have the power to interfere with the housing market to the extent that has been seen. It would not be able to incentivise investment funds to come here with the promise of 25 year leases for social housing. It would not be able to force massive demographic changes with plans such as Ireland 2040 in an attempt to continuously maintain demand for property by increasing the population.

To me, it seems that the state wants to be a farmer with the population as the cattle; to be milked and used as a resource. That is not the kind of world I want to bring children into, and it's certainly not one I want to leave behind for generations yet to come.

The state is rotting to the core.

Yes. The invisible hand of the market would solve our housing crisis.

Cyrus

Galwayhurl wrote: »

20% is a huge tariff to pay for aspect, no?

For North v South I'd pay it to be honest makes a massive difference.

RichardAnd

tigger123 wrote: »

Yes. The invisible hand of the market would solve our housing crisis.

This is not what I am suggesting at all. These funds are operating here because the state has allowed them to do so. State policy has provided them with a market by pursuing policies that will increase the population and directly funding them by offering them leases for social housing.

Would a totally unregulated free market be the solution? No, it would not, but the absence of state encouragement of these funds would remove much of the incentive for their being here, as I see it at least.

Amadan Dubh

RichardAnd wrote: »

To me, the solution would be to dramatically reduce the size and power of the state. A small state would not have the power to interfere with the housing market to the extent that has been seen. It would not be able to incentivise investment funds to come here with the promise of 25 year leases for social housing. It would not be able to force massive demographic changes with plans such as Ireland 2040 in an attempt to continuously maintain demand for property by increasing the population.

To me, it seems that the state wants to be a farmer with the population as the cattle; to be milked and used as a resource. That is not the kind of world I want to bring children into, and it's certainly not one I want to leave behind for generations yet to come.

The state is rotting to the core.

I agree with this, the State is far too big and I feel exerts too much control over our lives. In many ways I envy the United States where they are dogmatic in their hatred of the State being too overbearing. When the State is directly impacting my personal freedoms and wellbeing I would look to strip it down and slice off some of its limbs. People seem to forget that the State works for the people but it by no means should micromanage what happens in our lives. Things like the covid authoritarian measures, making drugs illegal, minimum alcohol pricing and of course of relevance to this thread, housing market interference. It should be a player in the housing market to help legitimate cases where people fall through the cracks of the market but should not be in the market itself, especially to the extent it is. Let's be clear, its policies with respect to the housign market have been influenced by corporate lobbyists and not the wellbeing of the general population and what I am referring to are the long term social housing leases rather than building themselves, shared equity, tax free rents for REITs.

Wanderer78

C14N wrote: »

Yes of course. I live in an apartment now with a partner and no kids. If I'm buying a house, I'll probably want something a bit bigger with the expectation that I will raise some kids there. When they're gone, I won't need as much space anymore, and if I want to hold onto it there should at least be a premium to pay for the luxury. In our current system though, I most likely would not be incentivised to do so, because I'd already own a big house that would be paid off and it would be more effort to downsize than to just stay put.

are you sure of this now, are you sure your needs or wants and wishes will remain to be?

tigger123 wrote: »

Yes. The invisible hand of the market would solve our housing crisis.

theres no such thing as invisible people, thats just fiction!

EddieN75

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1390277425121136641?s=20

It's all an illusion. No change is coming

EddieN75

EddieN75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1390277425121136641?s=20

It's all an illusion. No change is coming

3 years ago

https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1115579062158753792?s=20