Investment Firms Buying Estates

Dav010

Ace2007 wrote: »

So whats the solution? Expect free hand out's from the government? Why should anyone scrape and save then if that's the solution?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe in handouts when it comes to buying property. I think all this whinging about how difficult and unfair it is to buy a house is crap. Every generation thinks the ones before had it easier, they didn’t. Ten years ago house prices were on the floor, ghost estates all over the country, did people complain house prices were to low? People have always struggled to buy where they wanted, and when given the chance of easy credit, bought house which were far in excess of their means, which contributed to the collapse of our economy. For years people wanted more rental properties, now we are getting them. Society owes us nothing, including homes at an affordable price. If you want it, then as another poster said, forego the luxuries, and buy where and when you can afford it. It seems people complain when they can’t buy a house near family or where they were brought up. This is not a new phenomenon.

Ace2007

^^^ totally agree with you. Dare i say that the poster who can't afford to buy a house near his parents now, mentioned how they lived abroad in he past - perhaps instead of enjoying themselves in Oz or wherever they were - the could have come home sooner (or not gone at all), and bought a house a few years ago when the prices where a lot cheaper.

When it comes to having a good time and Dublin property you can't have your cake and eat it too. You either sacrifice at the start by saving etc, or you sacrifice when buying - buying 3 bed house instead of 4, or buying in a different location etc.

I often feel the issue isn't a lack of housing in Ireland, it's the unwillingness of people to move to someone that isn't their back yard. If the government built 20,000 social houses in Tipperary for example, with schools, and all the amenities, how many people in Dublin who say they are desperate for their own home etc, would actually move down? A large % would say, no i want to be close to my friends, family etc.

lawrencesummers

The Student wrote: »

If you can't afford to pay rent stay at home until you have your deposit saved.

You can't expect to have it both ways.

And what if your job isn’t on the door step of your parents house?

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

And what if your job isn’t on the door step of your parents house?

Do what people have done for generations, share with others, look for accommodation further away from where you work which is affordable or look for a job in another area where rents/prices are lower.

Unfortunately the prevailing viewpoint seems to be, why should I have to share/have to travel to work/ have to move away? I should be able to afford to buy where I want to live.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Do what people have done for generations, share with others, look for accommodation further away from where you work which is affordable or look for a job in another area where rents/prices are lower.

Unfortunately the prevailing viewpoint seems to be, why should I have to share/have to travel to work/ have to move away? I should be able to afford to buy where I want to live.

That’s not the prevailing viewpoint. It might suit some people to share, but not others.

The reality is that people have to pay very high rents, higher than an actual mortgage would cost, but the banks won’t take into account consistent rental payment, the housing stock isn’t there to satisfy demand and when people do get the deposit and approval together they are competing with billionaire funds for the small amount of new houses.

The victims of the housing situation in this country are young people and people who want to buy. Stop blaming them for government policy that has led to this situation.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

That’s not the prevailing viewpoint. It might suit some people to share, but not others.

The reality is that people have to pay very high rents, higher than an actual mortgage would cost, but the banks won’t take into account consistent rental payment, the housing stock isn’t there to satisfy demand and when people do get the deposit and approval together they are competing with billionaire funds for the small amount of new houses.

The victims of the housing situation in this country are young people and people who want to buy. Stop blaming them for government policy that has led to this situation.

I am not blaming young people, I am stating that no one deserves the right to buy where they want, when they want, for as much as they want. In relation to sharing, lots of people currently sharing do not like it, it doesn’t suit them, but it means they pay less and save more, that is the objective.

I do concede that CB rules on lending make it harder to obtain finance for properties which are increasing in price, but, recent history proves that easy access to credit can be catastrophic. Furthermore, the affect of lowering the bar for obtaining credit to take into account rental costs would supercharge the housing market driving prices skywards.

More rental properties increases supply, which is what people have been crying out for, for years.

If you can’t afford to buy in Dublin, look for work in parts of the country you can afford to rent then buy in. As I said, this is not a new situation.

mycro2013

While investment firms buying up properties that should be available for first time buyers is bad enough the biggest issue which hasn't been highlighted is the number of properties the local authorities are buying up from the property market country wide.

No journalist seems to want to grab this nettle.

Dav010

mycro2013 wrote: »

While investment firms buying up properties that should be available for first time buyers is bad enough the biggest issue which hasn't been highlighted is the number of properties the local authorities are buying up from the property market country wide.

No journalist seems to want to grab this nettle.

LA will argue they are necessary for those that need assistance. Hardly a storyline that would stoke public outrage.

zerosugarbuzz

mycro2013 wrote: »

While investment firms buying up properties that should be available for first time buyers is bad enough the biggest issue which hasn't been highlighted is the number of properties the local authorities are buying up from the property market country wide.

No journalist seems to want to grab this nettle.

It’s better local authorities buy them than investment firms buy them. The worst scenario for the tax payer is investment firms buying them and renting them to local authorities. This results in the tax payer paying for the house for 30 years and having no asset at the end of this. Baring in mind that the local authority tenant does pay rent for 30 years either way.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

I am not blaming young people, I am stating that no one deserves the right to buy where they want, when they want, for as much as they want. In relation to sharing, lots of people currently sharing do not like it, it doesn’t suit them, but it means they pay less and save more, that is the objective.

I do concede that CB rules on lending make it harder to obtain finance for properties which are increasing in price, but, recent history proves that easy access to credit can be catastrophic. Furthermore, the affect of lowering the bar for obtaining credit to take into account rental costs would supercharge the housing market driving prices skywards.

More rental properties increases supply, which is what people have been crying out for, for years.

If you can’t afford to buy in Dublin, look for work in parts of the country you can afford to rent then buy in. As I said, this is not a new situation.

Nobody is saying they should have it all their own way regarding location and cost, but the governments job is to legislate / provide incentive or disincentivise the property market so that it works in the favour of those who need houses, not those who want a massive return on their investment at the expense of actual Irish citizens, People compromise on location all the time, and price is something that gov policy influences massively, it’s just that their policy is influencing prices to rise.

The current policy promoting investment by funds costs double, no tax income from their investments, and the people who can’t be housed are then often living in property the government is paying the rent on.

It’s a joke. A complete joke.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

LA will argue they are necessary for those that need assistance. Hardly a storyline that would stoke public outrage.

LA should do what they have done for decades and go and build some fawking houses

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Nobody is saying they should have it all their own way regarding location and cost, but the governments job is to legislate / provide incentive or disincentivise the property market so that it works in the favour of those who need houses, not those who want a massive return on their investment at the expense of actual Irish citizens, People compromise on location all the time, and price is something that gov policy influences massively, it’s just that their policy is influencing prices to rise.

The current policy promoting investment by funds costs double, no tax income from their investments, and the people who can’t be housed are then often living in property the government is paying the rent on.

It’s a joke. A complete joke.

Ten years ago when there was mass unemployment people wanted the State to introduce policies to provide jobs. Through low corporation tax and a skilled workforce, aided in no small part by scrapping tuition fees, MNs are enticed to invest in Ireland. Prior to Covid we had near full employment and wage rates which compared favourably to other countries vying for the same jobs. But we needed properties to accommodate those workers, so investment funds provided the finance the banks couldn’t or wouldn’t. Now we have huge volumes of rental properties coming on stream, but still not enough to drive rents downward, yet we don’t want that anymore, we want to own our own houses where we want to live. Fine, but go where you can afford. A significant proportion of workers do not want to buy their properties so they must be catered for as well.

Of course investors want profits, no one invests to lose money. Without that investment there would be much fewer rental properties, and much more demand for house purchases which would drive prices further up. If a bank took rent into account and didn’t limit mortgages to multiples of wages earned, every renter in Dublin would qualify for a huge mortgage, causing prices to skyrocket further.

I do agree State policies influence properties prices indirectly, every time wage increases are agreed, every time incentives are introduced to increase affordability, disposable income increases leading to inflation in what people can pay for commodities/services like housing. So as long as house prices are governed by market forces, prices will go up and down. If the government intervenes in that market to reduce prices/profits, they take away the incentive for developers/funds to invest. How does that help?

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

LA should do what they have done for decades and go and build some fawking houses

Cause it’s easy to do.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Ten years ago when there was mass unemployment people wanted the State to introduce policies to provide jobs. Through low corporation tax and a skilled workforce, aided in no small part by scrapping tuition fees, MNs are enticed to invest in Ireland. Prior to Covid we had near full employment and wage rates which compared favourably to other countries vying for the same jobs. But we needed properties to accommodate those workers, so investment funds provided the finance the banks couldn’t or wouldn’t. Now we have huge volumes of rental properties coming on stream, but still not enough to drive rents downward, yet we don’t want that anymore, we want to own our own houses where we want to live. Fine, but go where you can afford. A significant proportion of workers do not want to buy their properties so they must be catered for as well.

Of course investors want profits, no one invests to lose money. Without that investment there would be much fewer rental properties, and much more demand for house purchases which would drive prices further up. If a bank took rent into account and didn’t limit mortgages to multiples of wages earned, every renter in Dublin would qualify for a huge mortgage, causing prices to skyrocket further.

I do agree State policies influence properties prices indirectly, every time wage increases are agreed, every time incentives are introduced to increase affordability, disposable income increases leading to inflation in what people can pay for commodities/services like housing. So as long as house prices are governed by market forces, prices will go up and down. If the government intervenes in that market to reduce prices/profits, they take away the incentive for developers/funds to invest. How does that help?

There is a difference between investing in construction for a return, and investing in finished property to make a return on the rental market.

The government should incentivise one and provide disincentives to the other. If investment funds can’t get the return anymore from the rental
Market they will simply invest it elsewhere, or take the lesser return.

Currently the investors in construction are benefiting as owners and landlords so they can rig the market in their own favour be turning on the tap when and by how much it suits them.

lawrencesummers

Dav010 wrote: »

Cause it’s easy to do.

They have been doing it for decades.

mycro2013

Dav010 wrote: »

LA will argue they are necessary for those that need assistance. Hardly a storyline that would stoke public outrage.[/quote

Have you ever trying buying a house when you're bidding against the local authority. One house local was a five bed on a number of acres. 400k 5 miles from the nearest town. Is this you're image of affordable housing.Prices paid range from 200k-450k.

If the story does break there will be ruptions. "Government buying fuels property price inflation".

lawrencesummers

mycro2013 wrote: »

Dav010 wrote: »

LA will argue they are necessary for those that need assistance. Hardly a storyline that would stoke public outrage.[/quote

Have you ever trying buying a house when you're bidding against the local authority. One house local was a five bed on a number of acres. 400k 5 miles from the nearest town. Is this you're image of affordable housing.Prices paid range from 200k-450k.

If the story does break there will be ruptions. "Government buying fuels property price inflation".

Not only that, but they are buying high priced houses in new estates.

I know of an estate where a recently released drug dealer has been housed in a detached 4 bed new build place costing 500k and the neighbours all regular tax payers working to pay their bills and keep their home.

Dav010

mycro2013 wrote: »

Dav010 wrote: »

LA will argue they are necessary for those that need assistance. Hardly a storyline that would stoke public outrage.[/quote

Have you ever trying buying a house when you're bidding against the local authority. One house local was a five bed on a number of acres. 400k 5 miles from the nearest town. Is this you're image of affordable housing.Prices paid range from 200k-450k.

If the story does break there will be ruptions. "Government buying fuels property price inflation".

There really won’t, when the head of the LA states that the properties are needed to provide housing for the homeless or those who need assistance. Those hardship stories are covered daily by the media.

mycro2013

lawrencesummers wrote: »

mycro2013 wrote: »

Not only that, but they are buying high priced houses in new estates.

I know of an estate where a recently released drug dealer has been housed in a detached 4 bed new build place costing 500k and the neighbours all regular tax payers working to pay their bills and keep their home.

It is rife. Know of numerous estates that the council have block purchased houses. The people that get them from the local authority are laughing at the ones who purchased them heading and returning from work.

It will be governments downfall, the furlore with the investment funds is only a diversion tactic.

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There is a difference between investing in construction for a return, and investing in finished property to make a return on the rental market.

The government should incentivise one and provide disincentives to the other. If investment funds can’t get the return anymore from the rental
Market they will simply invest it elsewhere, or take the lesser return.

Currently the investors in construction are benefiting as owners and landlords so they can rig the market in their own favour be turning on the tap when and by how much it suits them.

Investors go where profits are higher, hardly a new concept. Limit those profits and they look elsewhere.

A lot of larger developments are forward financed by investment companies, they provide finance to developers and only take it over when finished. This of course provides finance directly for construction jobs and indirectly to the economy through wage spending. Without that finance, many projects would not have commenced. Again, these are additional rental properties, which are necessary and which we have been crying out for, for years.

Dav010

mycro2013 wrote: »

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It is rife. Know of numerous estates that the council have block purchased houses. The people that get them from the local authority are laughing at the ones who purchased them heading and returning from work.

It will be governments downfall, the furlore with the investment funds is only a diversion tactic.

Government falls for helping the poor/those who can’t afford housing. Where have you been for the last couple of year? The alternative, SF, are going to run on a policy of providing housing to those in need, will that help you?

Dav010

lawrencesummers wrote: »

They have been doing it for decades.

You don’t think circumstances like construction costs, nimby objections, crushing state debt are different now?

I guarantee you, if an LA applies for planning for social housing, the objections would be loud and prolonged.

Jinglejangle69

lawrencesummers wrote: »

LA should do what they have done for decades and go and build some fawking houses

They are.

Dav010

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They are.

I suspect he thinks they should be building on an industrial scale so that LA does not compete anywhere with private buyers.

Jinglejangle69

Dav010 wrote: »

I suspect he thinks they should be building on an industrial scale so that LA does not compete anywhere with private buyers.

And has he a costing of this?

And who pays for it?

Dav010

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

And has he a costing of this?

And who pays for it?

I doubt it.

The Student

lawrencesummers wrote: »

And what if your job isn’t on the door step of your parents house?

Welcome to life.

mycro2013

Dav010 wrote: »

mycro2013 wrote: »

Government falls for helping the poor/those who can’t afford housing. Where have you been for the last couple of year? The alternative, SF, are going to run on a policy of providing housing to those in need, will that help you?

My point is that it should be government policy to build new housing stock and not to actively compete with private buyers trying to secure a home.

Dav010

mycro2013 wrote: »

Dav010 wrote: »

My point is that it should be government policy to build new housing stock and not to actively compete with private buyers trying to secure a home.

I know what you mean, but they will argue that they need housing now, not in 10 yrs time after planning appeals, tendering processes, delays, cost over runs etc. You think it might bring down a Government, yet the opposition said it will run on a platform to provide housing to the homeless and those on housing lists.

The Student

mycro2013 wrote: »

Dav010 wrote: »

My point is that it should be government policy to build new housing stock and not to actively compete with private buyers trying to secure a home.

We as a State can't afford to. We can't afford more capital debt on our balance sheet.

Please don't say we can borrow at 0% interest. Yes we can but when we go to refinance and the interest rate goes up we have to service that loan so our costs as a State go up.

We don't do social housing well history shows us that. Why do you think social housing areas have the reputation they have. Deal with the causes of the reputation and the stigma of living in these areas would disappear.

Until these issues,are dealt with we will continue on the course we are on.