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

Smouse156

Smiley11 wrote: »

It really shows up these bank valuations as a tick the box exercise. I've never heard of a valuer opposing the agreed price & thats another glaring problem.

We're technically desperate for a house but you have to maintain rationality above all else when it comes to the biggest purchase of your life. I couldn't pay those prices in Cork for a pretty average house. Many will though & therein lies the problem!

My gut is telling me to stop checking the property sites every couple of hours, every day & focus on anything else in the hope calm is restored to some degree. I've accepted that we won't be getting a bargain but I do expect some semblance of value.

The house discussed in Artane previously just beggars belief...495k to 650k without ever setting foot inside the door? And a valuer will sign off on it? Its yet another means of highlighting what is seriously wrong with the market & with its stakeholders.

These “valuers” haven’t a clue, agreed! Make one wonder why don’t new home purchasers just get their house valued +50% after two years and avail of the low LTV rates from the likes of Avant. Those “valuers” will probably sign anything

PropQueries

Smouse156 wrote: »

There are a good few estates being built in the suburbs and what people said isn’t far off the mark. There is lots of land available. Just not enough construction workers & Govt lockdown of construction will drive more and more Sinn Fein votes in the near future

And they still don't get it. There is a good article in the Irish Times today regarding the 1,300 homes that are to be built on the publicly-owned Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum.

The columnist attended a recent webinar hosted by the LDA and the architects in relation to the plans for the site:

"Someone asked what would constitute success for the site. Architect Rob Keane spoke about preserving the rich tapestry of natural and historical features including its biodiversity, and ensuring that heritage of the main hospital building was preserved.

He also spoke about opening up the space to the local community and being truly sustainable. These are all important, indeed, vital issues and his sincerity was palpable. However, affordability featured nowhere in what he said. Barry Chambers of the LDA spoke after him. Finally, the word affordable was mentioned – this would be an 'affordable-led scheme'".

So, they apparently still don't get the issue.

This is state-owned land. Affordability should be the only issue. And, this is on top of both the ESRI and the Central Bank this week telling the Government that their new proposed shared equity scheme will both increase house prices and will most likely break the central banks existing LTV/LTI rules so the shared-equity plan probably can't proceed as proposed even if the government approves it.

According to the Irish Independent yesterday: "It is understood the Central Bank believes the scheme, as proposed in the Affordable Housing Bill, will have 'immediate policy implications' for the regulator due to banks being centrally involved in the new housing plan."

Link to Irish Times article on Dundrum scheme here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-let-public-land-be-for-social-and-affordable-housing-1.4489717

MacronvFrugals

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

Hubertj

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

I think they will likely cop on a bit and do something proper. In parallel Sinn Fein will continue to shoot themselves in the foot as they seem incapable of controlling many of their members.

PropQueries

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

At which stage it will be 11 years since they were first publicly told of this looming housing problem.

On the 11th September 2013, Threshold said: "Government called on to address housing shortage in Budget 2014".

And in 2024, we will be much closer than further away from the next worldwide economic crisis if economic cycles are anything to go by and they will also have our pension problems etc. to pay for.

It's like watching a slow motion car crash IMO

Link to 2013 article here: https://www.thejournal.ie/https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013

decreds

Hubertj wrote: »

I think they will likely cop on a bit and do something proper. In parallel Sinn Fein will continue to shoot themselves in the foot as they seem incapable of controlling many of their members.

I like to remain apolitical but don't let your disdain for SF cloud your judgement.


While i am not pro SF, due to the sheer incompetence and corruption within our government, SF will romp home in 2024.

decreds

PropQueries wrote: »

At which stage it will be 11 years since they were first publicly told of this looming housing problem.

On the 11th September 2013, Threshold said: "Government called on to address housing shortage in Budget 2014".

And in 2024, we will be much closer than further away from the next worldwide economic crisis if economic cycles are anything to go by and they will also have our pension problems etc. to pay for.

It's like watching a slow motion car crash IMO

Link to 2013 article here: https://www.thejournal.ie/https://www.thejournal.ie/threshold-pre-budget-2014-submission-1078664-Sep2013

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, the current group of smooth brains within government will realize of their impending doom when it's too late. They will ramp up supply in 2023 but by then the damage will be done, SF will gain power in 2024, we will have supply + an economic crash = property price crash

PropQueries

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

The only possible solution I see is if they develop a register of who owns what residential property around the country.

If a lot of these vacant homes are indeed controlled by a few funds, slap a vacant tax of 20% of market value per annum on all such properties if the funds or another investor owns more than 10 of such vacant properties to force them into the market.

It's my theory on the reason for the "housing shortage" and I know many (most?) disagree with my theory but if I'm right, that's the solution right there IMO

If my theory is wrong, there's no way they can beef up new build supply in time for 2024.

Remember, people who were 30 in 2013 will be in their 40's by 2024. Who would you vote for in their circumstances no matter what your political beliefs are?

jill_valentine

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

Honestly can't think of anything they can do at this point. The solution to the housing crisis will be complicated, they would have needed to start working on it years ago. Instead they fannied about with stuff that from a buyer's perspective was designed to fail (Rebuilding Ireland) or designed in a way that does or would actively make things worse (HTB, Shared Equity). The only quick fix stuff they could do would be some sort of grant maybe, but money wise I can't see that happening, and we know how HAP turned out.

It's been too long, they've shown us over and over again that they don't want to solve the issue of high house prices, because it would hurt the price of houses. I think people would feel foolish to even suggest they'll suddenly figure it out now based on anything they do in the next year.

I can't imagine anything that would make me vote FFFG at this point, and even if they were to announce a millon new homes to be built by now it will be taken for granted they'd be a scam one way or the other, co living or existing stock being "delivered" again or something. Living in lockdown circumstances has sharpened a lot of minds about how bad the housing situation is here I think, too.

Villa05

PropQueries wrote:

On the 11th September 2013, Threshold said: "Government called on to address housing shortage in Budget 2014".

PropQueries wrote:

At which stage it will be 11 years since they were first publicly told of this looming housing problem.

There record for the 20 years prior to that is not great either

alwald

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

The only option IMO is affordable housing but without this shared equity nonsense. County councils must stop buying expensive units and start building both social housing and affordable housing.

Just to add, that this nonsense of 50K salary limit eligibility for single persons, must also be dropped, because it is impossible for them to buy anything - unless they move to Longford.

jill_valentine

Hubertj wrote: »

I’d take incompetency and corruption over bombing and terrorism any day. Sad day for society when that sort of behaviour is deemed acceptable. The impact on society of that sort of people governing a country has more far reaching impacts than just property. People in this country laughed and criticised that idiot in the US for 4 years. A party that justifies and defends terrorism is far worse. How will that impact the property market, economy and society? Careful what you wish for. To think they’d do any better...

The GFA was signed before some of my co workers were born. The Troubles are no more a reality to them than the Civil War, and FF and FG have apparently gotten over that. The political weight of the association is largely spent, and trying to use it as a distraction to FFFG policy failure is more or less a meme.

Meanwhile here, today, they're walking past tents to work as contractors during a pandemic so they can afford rent, if not living at home. They hear stories of people freezing to death or getting mutilated by a digger because somebody wanted his patch to look tidier in time for an election. Or the cervical cancer scandal, or the Mother & Baby homes report etc etc. That's all real harm too.

Or look at it this way. I'm currently having bother with a Rebuilding Ireland policy, because it's nonsense. Sent an email to everyone I could think of for clarification on it. Aengus Ó Snodaigh's office replied immediately, pursued my query. Got an answer from two different channels and followed up with me promptly. That's not empty Trumpian bluster from a voter's point of view, it's a useful response to me I can go forward with. The Greens replied eventually and asked if anyone else had gotten back to me. No other replies.

I've never voted SF, but regardless of who I'm going to vote for next personally, can you imagine how big an impression stuff like that would make for people struggling with the housing situation? After living under a housing crises overseen by FFFG their whole adult careers?

Housing is one of the biggest issues on millenial Irish workers plate, it affects absolutely every element of their quality of life once they clock out, and they've experienced it only go from bad to worse. FF steered the country into a crash that's defined their working lives, FG told them to leave the country or get rich parents if they wanted a home. FFFG have signalled they will actively pursue measures that all others have stated outright will make it worse again.

I won't blame anyone for seeking an alternative to the "make things worse" parties, and if we're talking about parties on the subject of housing policy, we should be keeping it on the subject of their housing policy.

The understanding now is that FFFG will make things worse. I don't think they even know what language to speak to even pitch the changes people won't expect to work (watch them propose another tax break or something...) or recognise the practical obstacles average people have vs the married double income high earners they live next door to. SF may seem a largely unknown quantity on this front, but talk a strong game so far via Ó Broin that appears comparatively coherent to casual onlookers.

Little else has bearing. The choice is between someone who will make it worse vs someone who might. That's the reality, like it or not, and it would require an almighty hail mary from FFFG to turn it around now. I won't hold my breath.

ExMachina1000

PropQueries wrote: »

The only possible solution I see is if they develop a register of who owns what residential property around the country.

If a lot of these vacant homes are indeed controlled by a few funds, slap a vacant tax of 20% of market value per annum on all such properties if the funds or another investor owns more than 10 of such vacant properties to force them into the market.

It's my theory on the reason for the "housing shortage" and I know many (most?) disagree with my theory but if I'm right, that's the solution right there IMO

If my theory is wrong, there's no way they can beef up new build supply in time for 2024.

Remember, people who were 30 in 2013 will be in their 40's by 2024. Who would you vote for in their circumstances no matter what your political beliefs are?

Governments shouldn't be encouraged to interfere with people's private property.

thefridge2006

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Honest question, if the shared equity scheme is scrapped for whatever reason, what is the next option for FF/FG to desperately claw back votes before 2024 housing wise?

If they do proceed with that nonsense they'll lose so many votes. The arrogance of them. they have been warned by so many about the impact this sh1te will do to an already broken system. They are just so incompetent

thefridge2006

decreds wrote: »

I like to remain apolitical but don't let your disdain for SF cloud your judgement.


While i am not pro SF, due to the sheer incompetence and corruption within our government, SF will romp home in 2024.

10000%

MacronvFrugals

It seems to come as a surprise to many on here but outside of the Irish Times and Indo column pages nobody under 30 cares one bit about the troubles, all the parties have very dark closets (FG talking about the "Jewish problem" in the 30s etc)

I'm early/mid 20s and housing is all that matters among my friends and acquaintances, i thought the shared-equity scheme would claw back lots of votes to FF but if that's not going ahead they are in big trouble.

The lines are looking more and more clear each day the next election will be between FG and SF imo.

Sweet.Science

thefridge2006 wrote: »

If they do proceed with that nonsense they'll lose so many votes. The arrogance of them. they have been warned by so many about the impact this sh1te will do to an already broken system. They are just so incompetent

Yes but nobody in office cares about long term consequences . It's only short terms they are in for and before they know it election votes are needed again

That's the biggest issue

PropQueries

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Governments shouldn't be encouraged to interfere with people's private property.

That argument doesn't stack up. The state is entitled to know about all your financial details for income tax purposes. They're entitled to know details of who to charge the property tax to. RTE is allowed by law to know if you have a TV in your house or not.

The state does indeed know everything (when it suits them) and I would be very suspicious of the reasons if they claimed they do not know how many of the vacant residential properties in Ireland are owned by the so-called vulture funds or what percentage of the new built-to-rent apartments are occupied by recipients of HAP, long-term lease agreements etc.

Hubertj

jill_valentine wrote: »

The GFA was signed before some of my co workers were born. The Troubles are no more a reality to them than the Civil War, and FF and FG have apparently gotten over that. The political weight of the association is largely spent, and trying to use it as a distraction to FFFG policy failure is more or less a meme.

Meanwhile here, today, they're walking past tents to work as contractors during a pandemic so they can afford rent, if not living at home. They hear stories of people freezing to death or getting mutilated by a digger because somebody wanted his patch to look tidier in time for an election. Or the cervical cancer scandal, or the Mother & Baby homes report etc etc. That's all real harm too.

Or look at it this way. I'm currently having bother with a Rebuilding Ireland policy, because it's nonsense. Sent an email to everyone I could think of for clarification on it. Aengus Ó Snodaigh's office replied immediately, pursued my query. Got an answer from two different channels and followed up with me promptly. That's not empty Trumpian bluster from a voter's point of view, it's a useful response to me I can go forward with. The Greens replied eventually and asked if anyone else had gotten back to me. No other replies.

I've never voted SF, but regardless of who I'm going to vote for next personally, can you imagine how big an impression stuff like that would make for people struggling with the housing situation? After living under a housing crises overseen by FFFG their whole adult careers?

Housing is one of the biggest issues on millenial Irish workers plate, it affects absolutely every element of their quality of life once they clock out, and they've experienced it only go from bad to worse. FF steered the country into a crash that's defined their working lives, FG told them to leave the country or get rich parents if they wanted a home. FFFG have signalled they will actively pursue measures that all others have stated outright will make it worse again.

I won't blame anyone for seeking an alternative to the "make things worse" parties, and if we're talking about parties on the subject of housing policy, we should be keeping it on the subject of their housing policy.

The understanding now is that FFFG will make things worse. I don't think they even know what language to speak to even pitch the changes people won't expect to work (watch them propose another tax break or something...) or recognise the practical obstacles average people have vs the married double income high earners they live next door to. SF may seem a largely unknown quantity on this front, but talk a strong game so far via Ó Broin that appears comparatively coherent to casual onlookers.

Little else has bearing. The choice is between someone who will make it worse vs someone who might. That's the reality, like it or not, and it would require an almighty hail mary from FFFG to turn it around now. I won't hold my breath.

I appreciate your detailed response. Clearly something you have thought about. Sinn Fein talk a good game when it comes to housing and as you said can they do any worse than the current lot... maybe maybe not. I would hope that people look at the wider context of Sinn Fein in government instead of just focus on the usual politics footballs of health, housing etc. Anyway off topic so apologies.

cnocbui

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Wow what a yuppie post . Almost satirical. Partridge - esque

Pull up your pants, your begrudgery is showing.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

What’s the story with the cork housing market? There’s nothing but land around cork city.

I know Dublin has plenty of land but cork is basically one big field. That’s not being said in jest. There’s nothing but empty land around cork city, so no possible reason at all for any housing supply issues.

Pitch a tent in a field and live in it for a year and see how you get on. The issue isn't land, it's the timeframe and cost of construction. I have some suspicions that skilled workers in building trades are in relatively short supply vs projected housing requirements. An empty field is probly more than two years away from someone sticking the key in the front door and moving in, at the very least.

cnocbui

PropQueries wrote: »

That argument doesn't stack up. The state is entitled to know about all your financial details for income tax purposes. They're entitled to know details of who to charge the property tax to. RTE is allowed by law to know if you have a TV in your house or not.

The state does indeed know everything (when it suits them) and I would be very suspicious of the reasons if they claimed they do not know how many of the vacant residential properties in Ireland are owned by the so-called vulture funds or what percentage of the new built-to-rent apartments are occupied by recipients of HAP, long-term lease agreements etc.

There is no point in you going on and on about empty properties and REITs and what you think will deliver that cheap property you desperately crave.

If the government wont even charge REITs corporation tax or CGT, then any of your hairy proposals have got a midges chance in a hurricane of every happening.

It would be far more germaine to suggest that REITS be treated on a level footing with other commercial enterprises, before suggesting exceptional and novel measures.

Can someone tell me why not paying CGT or corporation tax isn't illegal state aid, à la Apple, and why the EU competition commission hasn't issued Ireland a warning?

PropQueries

cnocbui wrote: »

There is no point in you going on and on about empty properties and REITs and what you think will deliver that cheap property you desperately crave.

If the government wont even charge REITs corporation tax or CGT, then any of your hairy proposals have got a midges chance in a hurricane of every happening.

It would be far more germaine to suggest that REITS be treated on a level footing with other commercial enterprises, before suggesting exceptional and novel measures.

Can someone tell me why not paying CGT or corporation tax isn't illegal state aid, à la Apple, and why the EU competition commission hasn't issued Ireland a warning?

How exactly does charging reits the same tax as small landlords increase housing supply?

I think the primary reason for small landlords demanding that the reits etc. pay the same tax as small landlords is that they know it won't happen but they hope the Government will reduce their taxes.

Rental income is income and is the same as if they were doing a 9-5 job. Why exactly should a landlord pay less tax on their rental income than a worker must pay on the income from his job?

Anyway, if you're an investor in these reits and you take your dividend payment (e.g. equivalent to rent payment), do you not pay income tax or near enough equivalent?

All Ireland has to attract the reits, multinationals etc. are our low taxes. If you want them to be placed on an equal footing with the rest of us and they leave and you're a landlord, paying tax on your rental property won't be an issue as you won't have any tenants and thus any rental income to tax.

ExMachina1000

PropQueries wrote: »

That argument doesn't stack up. The state is entitled to know about all your financial details for income tax purposes. They're entitled to know details of who to charge the property tax to. RTE is allowed by law to know if you have a TV in your house or not.

The state does indeed know everything (when it suits them) and I would be very suspicious of the reasons if they claimed they do not know how many of the vacant residential properties in Ireland are owned by the so-called vulture funds or what percentage of the new built-to-rent apartments are occupied by recipients of HAP, long-term lease agreements etc.

Difference in knowing who owns what and telling people what to do with their private property.

PropQueries

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Difference in knowing and telling people what to do with their private property.

If you're a fund with hundreds of residential units in an area and you're purposely keeping them vacant to drive up rents or the value of your properties, that's market manipulation.

In the united states, a company would be heavily fined or broken up if they did something similar in any other business area.

ExMachina1000

PropQueries wrote: »

If you're a fund with hundreds of residential units in an area and you're purposely keeping them vacant to drive up rents or the value of your properties, that's market manipulation.

In the united states, a company would be heavily fined or broken up if they did something similar in any other business area.

Put each property on the market at 400% inflated rent value so.

We are not in the United states either.

Subutai

cnocbui wrote: »

Can someone tell me why not paying CGT or corporation tax isn't illegal state aid, à la Apple, and why the EU competition commission hasn't issued Ireland a warning?

If you want an actual answer, it is because to avail of the favourable tax treatment REITs must meet a number of conditions. One of those is: distribute at least 85% of its income by way of dividend to its shareholders.

Those dividends are then taxable in the hands of shareholders. For resident shareholders this is pretty straightforward. For non resident shareholders they are subject to the Irish Dividend Withholding Tax, but may get relief if they are resident in a treaty country.

Indeed, eliminating the otherwise double taxation that prevented corporate investment in real estate was the point of the changes made in the Finance Act 2013.


You may dislike it, and feel that it provides a benefit to corporate structures over small property owners (of course, this is to a large degree the point of incorporation generally), but it is not illegal state aid and is based on a coherent policy rationale.

Viscount Aggro

PropQueries wrote: »

And they still don't get it. There is a good article in the Irish Times today regarding the 1,300 homes that are to be built on the publicly-owned Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum.

The columnist attended a recent webinar hosted by the LDA and the architects in relation to the plans for the site:

"Someone asked what would constitute success for the site. Architect Rob Keane spoke about preserving the rich tapestry of natural and historical features including its biodiversity, and ensuring that heritage of the main hospital building was preserved.

He also spoke about opening up the space to the local community and being truly sustainable. These are all important, indeed, vital issues and his sincerity was palpable. However, affordability featured nowhere in what he said. Barry Chambers of the LDA spoke after him. Finally, the word affordable was mentioned – this would be an 'affordable-led scheme'".

So, they apparently still don't get the issue.

This is state-owned land. Affordability should be the only issue. And, this is on top of both the ESRI and the Central Bank this week telling the Government that their new proposed shared equity scheme will both increase house prices and will most likely break the central banks existing LTV/LTI rules so the shared-equity plan probably can't proceed as proposed even if the government approves it.

According to the Irish Independent yesterday: "It is understood the Central Bank believes the scheme, as proposed in the Affordable Housing Bill, will have 'immediate policy implications' for the regulator due to banks being centrally involved in the new housing plan."

Link to Irish Times article on Dundrum scheme here: https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-let-public-land-be-for-social-and-affordable-housing-1.4489717

Smouse156 wrote: »

These “valuers” haven’t a clue, agreed! Make one wonder why don’t new home purchasers just get their house valued +50% after two years and avail of the low LTV rates from the likes of Avant. Those “valuers” will probably sign anything

You are talking about Fizzbag Mansions.
It really should not be measured against local property values.
Affordability means, no more than 3.5 times your income,
even if one is a single person on average wage.

Sweet.Science

cnocbui wrote: »

Pull up your pants, your begrudgery is showing.[/QUOTE

Ha.

'Who would go down there anyway' partridge

Don't mind me . My postcode doesn't define my life

DataDude

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Governments shouldn't be encouraged to interfere with people's private property.

So if Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk decided to buy up all of Dublin, bulldoze it and use it as their own private paint balling arena - the government shouldn’t ‘interfere’ as it’s their private property?

Housing is a basic human need and the interests of society should always outweigh that of the individual. If a small number of people are acting in a way that benefits them at the cost to society as a whole (eg widespread vacant properties), of course the government should get involved. As with anything, the best way to deter undesirable behaviours is aggressive taxation.

ExMachina1000

DataDude wrote: »

So if Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk decided to buy up all of Dublin, bulldoze it and use it as their own private paint balling arena - the government shouldn’t ‘interfere’ as it’s their private property?

Housing is a basic human need and the interests of society should always outweigh that of the individual. If a small number of people are acting in a way that benefits them at the cost to society as a whole (eg widespread vacant properties), of course the government should get involved. As with anything, the best way to deter undesirable behaviours is aggressive taxation.

In your scenario the government would have sold all thevpublic land and government buildings to Bezos and Musk to facilitate the paintball grounds so they would be on board with it.

I'd rather talk about reality. Governments shouldn't interfere with people's private property. If there are housing shortages then it's up to government to build them or the private sector build for profit. If I have 3 houses and you have none why should I be penalised? Iv done nothing wrong.

DataDude

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

DataDude

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

In your scenario the government would have sold all thevpublic land and government buildings to Bezos and Musk to facilitate the paintball grounds so they would be on board with it.

I'd rather talk about reality. Governments shouldn't interfere with people's private property. If there are housing shortages then it's up to government to build them or the private sector build for profit. If I have 3 houses and you have none why should I be penalised? Iv done nothing wrong.

For the same principles the government interfere with the cost of my private health insurance to subsidise older people. ‘I’m young fit and healthy, why should I have to pay the same as some 80 year old with a heart condition’...because we live in a compassionate society and the greater good of giving our citizens affordable access to basic needs like healthcare and housing should always trump some feeling of entitlement to individual profit.

Also the government already ‘penalises’ tonnes of stuff that’s bad for society via taxation. E.g. higher rates of car tax on vehicles with higher emissions. Can’t see how vacant housing can be seen as ‘the line in the sand that they shouldn’t cross’

Stark

DataDude wrote: »

So if Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk decided to buy up all of Dublin, bulldoze it and use it as their own private paint balling arena - the government shouldn’t ‘interfere’ as it’s their private property?
.

As long as they don't go full "RoboCop 2" on it (though if anyone's going to have a go at building cyborgs, it'll be Musk).

Unrealistic scenario anyway. Planning/zoning laws are quite strict. You can't just buy all the property in a city and do what you like with it.

NewClareman

decreds wrote: »

It's a self fulfilling prophecy, the current group of smooth brains within government will realize of their impending doom when it's too late.

I thought the term "smooth brains" was one of the best insults ever, until I found out it was a real condition.

Sorry for going off topic, but this was important. 🙂

ExMachina1000

DataDude wrote: »

For the same principles the government interfere with the cost of my private health insurance to subsidise older people. ‘I’m young fit and healthy, why should I have to pay the same as some 80 year old with a heart condition’...because we live in a compassionate society and the greater good of giving our citizens affordable access to basic needs like healthcare and housing should always trump some feeling of entitlement to individual profit.

Also the government already ‘penalises’ tonnes of stuff that’s bad for society via taxation. E.g. higher rates of car tax on vehicles with higher emissions. Can’t see how vacant housing can be seen as ‘the line in the sand that they shouldn’t cross’

I understand you have your opinion on how things should be and I have mine. They are different and that's ok. Let's not go back and forth but get nowhere

DataDude

Stark wrote: »

As long as they don't go full "RoboCop 2" on it (though if anyone's going to have a go at building cyborgs, it'll be Musk).

Unrealistic scenario anyway. Planning/zoning laws are quite strict. You can't just buy all the property in a city and do what you like with it.

Point wasn’t really about Jeff and Elon, just an intentionally absurd scenario to show that sometimes just because someone can afford to do something, doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t stop it, or at the very least raise revenue from it. You can’t buy all the property in a city and do whatever ever you like with it, but you can buy it all and do nothing with it. Which seems just as destructive to me.

Maybe in my absurd scenario I should have picked something they could legally do though - I’ll go with, “buy all the apartment blocks and residential houses for playing hide and seek!”

Hubertj

DataDude wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

Will ask my friend. He lived in grey stones the last 3 years and just got the keys to his house in la Touché. I know he looked at a lot of places. Will report back if he knows anything about the development you are referring to.

johnnyskeleton

DataDude wrote: »

Point wasn’t really about Jeff and Elon, just an intentionally absurd scenario to show that sometimes just because someone can afford to do something, doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t stop it, or at the very least raise revenue from it. You can’t buy all the property in a city and do whatever ever you like with it, but you can buy it all and do nothing with it. Which seems just as destructive to me.

Maybe in my absurd scenario I should have picked something they could legally do though - I’ll go with, “buy all the apartment blocks and residential houses for playing hide and seek!”

But you are using the absurd scenario to justify real world interference. Your argument seems to be that if the governnent intervention to stop billionaires buying up a city and turning it into a paintball park is valid, then all government intervention is valid.

Surely there comes a point when there is so much intervention that the intervention itself is the problem, but they keep blaming the market to justify more and more intervention?

DataDude

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But you are using the absurd scenario to justify real world interference. Your argument seems to be that if the governnent intervention to stop billionaires buying up a city and turning it into a paintball park is valid, then all government intervention is valid.

Surely there comes a point when there is so much intervention that the intervention itself is the problem, but they keep blaming the market to justify more and more intervention?

Not at all. I wasn’t trying to say all intervention is valid, clearly that would be insane. Just trying to say this idea that ‘it’s my property, I’ll do what I like. Government leave me alone’ (I.e. no intervention should be allowed) is crazy. It’s also not applied in any other walk of life where the government gets involved and taxes everything we do. The government are also already heavily intervening, but primarily by stimulating the demand side. Not sure why a supply side measure should be just shut down without consideration.

I wouldn’t even be as naive to claim that vacant property taxes are obviously correct or anything, I’m no economist. But the main arguments you see made against them are based on some really poor fundamentals. Usually ‘me, me, me’ arguments or else really specific cases like someone being in a nursing home which could easily be accounted for in legislation. I’ve never seen a solid case put together for why a vacant property tax would be negative for society as a whole.

PropQueries

DataDude wrote: »

Not at all. I wasn’t trying to say all intervention is valid, clearly that would be insane. Just trying to say this idea that ‘it’s my property, I’ll do what I like. Government leave me alone’ (I.e. no intervention should be allowed) is crazy. It’s also not applied in any other walk of life where the government gets involved and taxes everything we do. The government are also already heavily intervening, but primarily by stimulating the demand side. Not sure why a supply side measure should be just shut down without consideration.

I wouldn’t even be as naive to claim that vacant property taxes are obviously correct or anything, I’m no economist. But the main arguments you see made against them are based on some really poor fundamentals. Usually ‘me, me, me’ arguments or else really specific cases like someone being in a nursing home which could easily be accounted for in legislation. I’ve never seen a solid case put together for why a vacant property tax would be negative for society as a whole.

That’s the thing. Many countries have vacant property taxes. The one I like is the Washington D.C. tax. It’s a 5% tax on the assessed value of a vacant property and a 10% tax on a vacant blighted property.

Another good one is Denmark, where you’re required by law to inform the state if your property is vacant and you must give a reason why. It’s actually a criminal offence not to tell them. At least then the state has the information and can formulate policy as needed and spot and solve problems before they become too big.

Link to Washington D.C. vacant property tax here: https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/otr-vacant-real-property

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

Is that house not very optimistically priced ? Completely different thing I know but some of the 2300 sq foot houses in the marina went for between 7 & 750 after the price drops .

MacronvFrugals

Today's SBP

Shared equity housing scheme could fuel construction in ‘wrong areas’, says ESRI

Fresh concerns have been raised about the government’s shared equity housing scheme, with the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) warning it could stimulate construction in the “wrong areas”.

New evidence of shortcomings in the British scheme have been raised by the ESRI with the Oireachtas housing committee, which showed it “stimulated housing construction in the wrong areas” and increased house prices in London by 6 per cent.

“The UK scheme stimulated housing construction in the wrong areas, so there was an increase in construction but it was not in the areas where the biggest affordability challenges and supply constraints are.

Dr Rachel Slaymaker, a research officer at the ESRI, told the Oireachtas housing committee that the findings of the LSE study are of particular relevance to the proposed shared equity scheme in Ireland.

Slaymaker added that although there was an increase in supply, the “crucial” detail from the LSE study is that additional housing supply was not created where it was needed.

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/shared-equity-housing-scheme-could-fuel-construction-in-wrong-areas-says-esri-e8c44aa3?auth=login

cnocbui

DataDude wrote: »

...

Also the government already ‘penalises’ tonnes of stuff that’s bad for society via taxation. E.g. higher rates of car tax on vehicles with higher emissions. Can’t see how vacant housing can be seen as ‘the line in the sand that they shouldn’t cross’

Advocating and justifying government intervention and social control via taxation, using 'emissions' as a justification is a huge own-goal as it only serves to highlite why government interference in markests and attempts at tax driven social control are a fundamentally bad idea.

Ireland has huge fleet of carcinogen and NOX spewing diesels, precisely because a bunch of morons called the Greens, thought having the governement use taxation to control the behaviour of the populace was a great and worthy idea.

The social housing push is another disaster unfolding, driven by socialist ideals.

Socialism is not an answer, it's a problem.

awec

DataDude wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

I don't think traffic would be an issue, New Road is not a through road and it has always seemed very quiet to me traffic wise.

The building site thing would probably be annoying for a couple of years, especially at the early stages when there'll be trucks in and out constantly.

What developer is it?

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

Is that house not very optimistically priced ? Completely different thing I know but some of the 2300 sq foot houses in the marina went for between 7 & 750 after the price drops .

I think a bit, yeah. It's been for sale for a long time now. Went sale agreed below asking early this year (not sure by how much) but now looks to be falling through. We considered the ones in the Marina alright, and in particular the showhouse which dropped from €1.2m to €950k in the end, but as with all new builds, no gardens at all which is a big priority for us.

awec wrote: »

I don't think traffic would be an issue, New Road is not a through road and it has always seemed very quiet to me traffic wise.

The building site thing would probably be annoying for a couple of years, especially at the early stages when there'll be trucks in and out constantly.

What developer is it?

Thanks for that, good to know. I walk by New Road the odd time and has never seemed too crazy. It's the guy who owned and closed the old mobile home park, William Fenelon, who's received the permission. Not sure what normal course of events from there are - i.e. is he now likely to auction it off to highest bidding developer or if he'll look to proceed himself.

Hard to know what the monetary value of a few years of inconvenience is!

hometruths

DataDude wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who’s very familiar with Greystones that might be able to provide some advice? Or even someone with experience buying close to site which was being developed.
We’re interested in a house that is on New Rd, a location we really like. However this particular property backs onto Fairfield Park. Google tells me this is a former caravan park which has been closed since 2016, but planning has recently been granted for 60+ houses. Planning docs/objections show that the developer has agreed to change plans for a number of 3 story houses to bungalows so that this house on New Road is not overlooked. Still concerned about both the prospect of a building site being 100m from our door for a few years and the short term + long term traffic implications. Any local perspectives on this development would be really appreciated.

From the look of house/garden, your neighbor on New Road would be a bigger overlooking concern than the new development.

I’d be cautious that the planning docs you’re viewing might end up changing a bit. I understood that the applicant applied for planning to boost value for sale of the site, (obviously a nice pay day if it has pp for 60+ Houses) but he himself has no intention of getting into the building game.

I’ve no idea if he applied in conjunction with the developer, which I guess is a possibility. But if not, you run the risk of a big time developer buying the site and using all their nous to amend the plans, which presumably would not be for lower density.

Personally I’d make sure of that before I bought. Traffic and other inconveniences will pass in time.

Edit - I see you posted whilst I was typing and you’re aware it may now end up with the highest bidder! Good luck!

DataDude

schmittel wrote: »

From the look of house/garden, your neighbor on New Road would be a bigger overlooking concern than the new development.

I’d be cautious that the planning docs you’re viewing might end up changing a bit. I understood that the applicant applied for planning to boost value for sale of the site, (obviously a nice pay day if it has pp for 60+ Houses) but he himself has no intention of getting into the building game.

I’ve no idea if he applied in conjunction with the developer, which I guess is a possibility. But if not, you run the risk of a big time developer buying the site and using all their nous to amend the plans, which presumably would not be for lower density.

Personally I’d make sure of that before I bought. Traffic and other inconveniences will pass in time.

Edit - I see you posted whilst I was typing and you’re aware it may now end up with the highest bidder! Good luck!

Thanks for this, we've been thinking about it a fair bit over the last few days and ultimately the point you raise re. potential changes to plans was the one
that was dissuading us the most. The emotional strain of fighting some developer (and likely losing) would take a huge toll.

Enough question marks, and not like it's a bargain anyway...The wait continues (probably)!

hometruths

DataDude wrote: »

Thanks for this, we've been thinking about it a fair bit over the last few days and ultimately the point you raise re. potential changes to plans was the one
that was dissuading us the most. The emotional strain of fighting some developer (and likely losing) would take a huge toll.

Enough question marks, and not like it's a bargain anyway...The wait continues (probably)!

Out of interest, and please tell me to sh*g off if I’m being nosy, do you think you’ll trade up in the medium term from whatever you buy now or are you looking for a lifetime house?

If you’re on big bucks now, is it likely you’ll be on super big bucks in 5 years or so?

DataDude

schmittel wrote: »

Out of interest, and please tell me to sh*g off if I’m being nosy, do you think you’ll trade up in the medium term from whatever you buy now or are you looking for a lifetime house?

If you’re on big bucks now, is it likely you’ll be on super big bucks in 5 years or so?

Our hope was to get a home that we'd be happy to stay in forever rather than one we'd want to upgrade.

It's possible/probable (but not guaranteed) income could go from 200s to 300s in 5-10 years. Beyond that would take a combination of sacrifice and even more luck than I've already had so wouldn't bank on it. My thinking has always been, we'd look to pay off the house ASAP, taking the pressure off financially in order to work less/retire early rather than taking a "keeping up with Joneses" type mentality...but then I see the odd house like this and think "I'd be happy to defer retirement by a few years for that". https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/pine-lodge-new-road-greystones-wicklow/4369599