Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

So, on the one side he's saying that we need c. 33k new built units each year for the next decade and then on the other side he's telling DLR that they can't build more than c. 2,500 new units per annum (for whatever reason) for the next six years in a c.120sq.km area right next to Dublin City and that isn't contradictory?

Where does he want everyone to live as his colleague in the Department of Finance is planning to increase carbon taxes every year for the foreseeable future to encourage us to be more environmentally friendly and I assume urban sprawl isn't environmentally friendly.

Those two sides also appear very contradictory to me, especially as you've already pointed out that that you believe remote working won't be as popular as some of us here believe it will be.

It's not contradictory.

I know you also know it's not contradictory as this was explained to you in great detail by knowledgeable people on the previous occasions you tried to make this point.

We need houses. We need houses built in areas that can sustain an injection of population. Not allowing specific areas to grow beyond what services and infrastructure can cope with is not contradictory to needing houses.

But I am not going to rehash all this, it's a waste of everyone's time. It is clear you have your mind made up and nothing will convince you otherwise. I could spend hours and you'll make the exact same point in a week.

Here is a link to the last time this topic was extensively covered in case you want to read it again.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

The CBI publish the data on the earnings of people who get mortgages.

See page 8

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

Marius34

timmyntc wrote: »

It tells us the fundamentals are off.
The main buyers cannot afford these houses, so who is buying them instead (and why?)

It's neither normal or sustainable for institutional investors or local authorities to be buying up houses on this scale, and it wont last. When it stops, prices will drop somewhat. After that its a question of will they offload the property they own.

For me fundaments is around Demands/Supplies. If you exclude some participants from equation, I don't see it as fundamentals anymore.

Regarding how long it may last, I think Investors and government may participate on demand side for many years.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

It doesn't help that the Housing Minister, Taoiseach et.c have been spouting over the past week the we need e.g. c. 33k new built homes each year for the next decade while on the flip side, the Minister for Housing tells DLR county council that they can't build more than c. 2,500 new units per annum over the next 6 years despite DLR identifying and wanting c. 3,500 per annum.

None of their recent actions/proposals/words make any sense if they truly believed there is a housing supply issue IMO

It was explained in great detail to you why this was the case. You acted all shocked about it, so it would be very hard to believe that you don't remember it now.

The time requirement to explain things over and over is not an acceptable draw on other peoples resources. So drop this topic.

PropQueries

awec wrote: »

It's not contradictory.

I know you also know it's not contradictory as this was explained to you in great detail by knowledgeable people on the previous occasions you tried to make this point.

We need houses. We need houses built in areas that can sustain an injection of population. Not allowing specific areas to grow beyond what services and infrastructure can cope with is not contradictory to needing houses.

But I am not going to rehash all this, it's a waste of everyone's time. It is clear you have your mind made up and nothing will convince you otherwise. I could spend hours and you'll make the exact same point in a week.

If there's one thing that DLR has above nearly every other council area in Ireland, it's an abundance of infrastructure.

Basically, the actions of our ministers don't appear to align with their public statements that they truly believe there is a housing shortage IMO

Geuze

timmyntc wrote: »

Average house price in Dublin right now is ~396,000.
Average income in Dublin right now is around 45k

Assuming two people on average wage looking for a joint mortgage, their maximum price is around 90k * 3.5 = 315,000

So we are in a situation where more than half of all couples in the capital, cannot afford the average house. it begs the question - who IS buying all these homes?

The CBI publish FTB data, see page 8:

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

In Dublin, the average income is 90k, that is for all borrowers on the mortgage, combined.

Average LTV is 80%.

Average mortgage is 300k.

Average deposit is 70-80k.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

If there's one thing that DLR has above nearly every other council area in Ireland, it's an abundance of infrastructure.

Basically, the actions of our ministers don't appear to align with their public statements that they truly believe there is a housing shortage IMO

Spoken like someone who knows nothing about DLR. Again, this was covered last time.

yagan

timmyntc wrote: »

But with local authorities signing long term leases with these funds their yield is guaranteed.

How many of those funds have that guaranteed stream though?

And wasn't government talking last week about reducing down the term times for such leases?

With so many distortions to unwind it may take time for price to match average income.

Pussyhands

Geuze wrote: »

The CBI publish FTB data, see page 8:

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

In Dublin, the average income is 90k, that is for all borrowers on the mortgage, combined.

Average LTV is 80%.

Average mortgage is 300k.

Average deposit is 70-80k.

That means 45k average right if it's a couple?

Murph85

we will be here writing for years on this thread, there isnt a chance, we will have anything good to say about what they have done on housing... these issues take years and years to manifest, I hate politicians, but I would get out of it, if I were in politics now, or certainly if I were FFG. There are so many issues, that would take so long to resolve, there are endless vested interests.

Nobody should pay for anything, except the middle, who are now the ones, who will start flexing their muscles, at last. We dont do infrastructure in this country, and their brilliant plan is, keep on pushing people out to the edge of the city, with zero infrastructure , where nobody wants to live by choice, infrastructure is costly, very time consuming in this country , huge carbon emissions from it. But keep on building 6 floors blocks in the docklands and let the peasants commute in, they will probably start supplying donkeys with the houses in maynooth etc in a few years. A green alternative to the appalling transport system and the choked roads...

Geuze

Pussyhands wrote: »

That means 45k average right if it's a couple?

Yes.

That may be where timmyntc got the 45k figure.

timmyntc

Geuze wrote: »

The CBI publish FTB data, see page 8:

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

In Dublin, the average income is 90k, that is for all borrowers on the mortgage, combined.

Average LTV is 80%.

Average mortgage is 300k.

Average deposit is 70-80k.

"only" 80k deposit.

Also that data is the mortgage approval, so is likely skewed in favour of those who actually can afford the mortgage.

If there is data on mortgage applicants I would think it would be more telling.
I'll have a look.

PropQueries

The Irish Times is reporting on their readers reactions to the Goverment’s latest plan to tackle the housing crisis.

The first reaction makes perfect sense:

"The fact that apartments and sites who already have planning permission are exempt for the changes means that any potential benefit will most likely not be felt in the next 2-3 years."

It really doesn't look like to me that the Government truly believes there is a housing crisis. And I would think their viewpoint is spot on IMO

Link to Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/housing-plan-this-will-not-be-forgotten-by-my-generation-at-the-ballot-box-1.4569359

JimmyVik

Pussyhands wrote: »

That means 45k average right if it's a couple?

Thats the average combined salary of applicants.
Not twice the average salary.

jill_valentine

Geuze wrote: »

See page 8

https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

This is self selecting, no? People on anything under that won't apply and won't show up.

This article has the national median at 38k -

https://www.newstalk.com/news/single-people-on-typical-salaries-can-afford-homes-in-only-seven-counties-1191155#:~:text=Across%20Ireland%2C%20the%20estimated%20median,house%20price%20of%20%E2%82%AC260%2C000.

timmyntc

Geuze wrote: »

Yes.

That may be where timmyntc got the 45k figure.

I took figure for average income (not just full time) in Dublin.

No reason to believe a couple applying for mortgage will necessarily both be full time workers and earning the average full time wage - CBI report seems to back that up.

timmyntc

jill_valentine wrote: »

This is self selecting, no? People on anything under that won't apply and won't show up.

This article has the national median at 38k -

https://www.newstalk.com/news/single-people-on-typical-salaries-can-afford-homes-in-only-seven-counties-1191155#:~:text=Across%20Ireland%2C%20the%20estimated%20median,house%20price%20of%20%E2%82%AC260%2C000.

Yes - when looking at affordability we should be using national average or Dublin average incomes. Not exclusively full time income, not income of mortgage approved couples.

At the end of the day we want to know what affordability is like for the average person, not the average FT worker or average person who already got a mortgage approval.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

The Irish Times is reporting on their readers reactions to the Goverment’s latest plan to tackle the housing crisis.

The first reaction makes perfect sense:

"The fact that apartments and sites who already have planning permission are exempt for the changes means that any potential benefit will most likely not be felt in the next 2-3 years."

It really doesn't look like to me that the Government truly believes there is a housing crisis. And I would think their viewpoint is spot on IMO

Link to Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/housing-plan-this-will-not-be-forgotten-by-my-generation-at-the-ballot-box-1.4569359

That is a ridiculous leap to make from that quote.

If you can't find a legitimate reason to use an article to try support your opinions, don't use it

yagan

L1011 wrote: »

That is a ridiculous leap to make from that quote.

If you can't find a legitimate reason to use an article to try support your opinions, don't use it

Have you read the link?

I agree that the government certainly isn't fully aware of how much they alienating younger voters, and the parents who can see their professionally qualified offspring being priced out of this market.

JimmyVik

yagan wrote: »

Have you read the link?

I agree that the government certainly isn't fully aware of how much they alienating younger voters, and the parents who can see their professionally qualified offspring being priced out of this market.

And the middle income earners who might like to trade up or down at some point and who will end up paying for all the mistakes that the government make.

jill_valentine

L1011 wrote: »

That is a ridiculous leap to make from that quote.

If you can't find a legitimate reason to use an article to try support your opinions, don't use it

This seems like an unreasonably snippy reaction to an article and a bit of commentary that any of us could have made?

DataDude

Browney7 wrote: »

Apologies Datadude! Didn't mean to offend and you're right. Suppose my point is, a hospital consultant is still "fairly alright" and can get approval and can operate at most levels of the market but not in the expected echelons. Instead, you come down a few rungs and look at other places and fuel bidding wars and gentrification pricing out those below you (not the hospital consultants fault!).

It was more to address the point of "if you don't like it, go back to college and upskill or pull yourself up by the bootstraps"

Agree completely and I wasn't taking offence at all. More just adding to your sentiment that it all feels a bit dysfunctional.

Consultant doctors don't have it bad by any means, but if they're held up as our upper echelon of high earners (and they are), but even they're being dragged down into the mire of struggling to compete for a 124sqm F BER Semi D - then what hope does Joe Public have. In a "I can feel it in my waters" kinda way, I just don't see how this can be the long term equilibrium of affordability.

Cyrus

jill_valentine wrote: »

This seems like an unreasonably snippy reaction to an article and a bit of commentary that any of us could have made?

if it was the first, second, third, twentieth, thirtieth time that it had happened maybe i could agree, but props has form as long as your arm.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Agree completely and I wasn't taking offence at all. More just adding to your sentiment that it all feels a bit dysfunctional.

Consultant doctors don't have it bad by any means, but if they're held up as our upper echelon of high earners (and they are), but even they're being dragged down into the mire of struggling to compete for a 124sqm F BER Semi D - then what hope does Joe Public have. In a "I can feel it in my waters" kinda way, I just don't see how this can be the long term equilibrium of affordability.

Dont most (or maybe its just some) earn as much again in private practice?

although id agree it doesnt feel right that a medical consultant is competing for that kind of property.

That said there is a new world order out there, plenty of people work in areas that didnt exist 40 years ago and earn a lot more than consultants do and they are the ones driving the prices at the higher end.

L1011

jill_valentine wrote: »

This seems like an unreasonably snippy reaction to an article and a bit of commentary that any of us could have made?

The user in question repeatedly tries to make "commentary" out of what are just their own opinions, not backed up by the article they are linking to.

timmyntc

L1011 wrote: »

The user in question repeatedly tries to make "commentary" out of what are just their own opinions, not backed up by the article they are linking to.

The post is clearly opinion though:

The user in question wrote:

It really doesn't look like to me that the Government truly believes there is a housing crisis. And I would think their viewpoint is spot on IMO

And to be honest, you only have to look at the governments track record up to this point to think that they dont see it as a housing crisis. After all, until the story about the estate in Maynooth broke (& the ensuing public outrage) the govt had no plans to stop institutional buyers.

And theres the strange comments like the below

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1394912203858452480

DataDude

Cyrus wrote: »

Dont most (or maybe its just some) earn as much again in private practice?

although id agree it doesnt feel right that a medical consultant is competing for that kind of property.

That said there is a new world order out there, plenty of people work in areas that didnt exist 40 years ago and earn a lot more than consultants do and they are the ones driving the prices at the higher end.

The unlimited money from private practice isn't as free-flowing as it once was. There's still a great number earning 7 figures in private practice and the public salary is fairly meaningless. But they are usually much older. Type B and C contracts which allow the private work are harder to come by I understand and there's a massive push to eradicate them altogether with Sláintecare. I know several on the path to consultancy and they are quite pessimistic that the Georgian in Ranleagh, that they see their predecessors with, will ever be a reality for them.

I take your point on other professions earning more these days, but no matter which way you slice it €200k is a good income. And I know I've said it oodles of time on here but I just can't help but feel there is way way more houses that are nice as the one I linked than there are €200k+ incomes.

riclad

This is a trend in all western countrys, house prices are rising in the last year.i think the trend will mean be impossible for most single people to buy a house ,they will buy a small 1 bed apartment or else buy outside citys and commute to work.
If more people work from home they will need a house with space to use as a home office ,people from the tech sector tend to have incomes over 50k.
theres a small no of house,s for sale so there will be more potential bidders who want to buy each house.

L1011

timmyntc wrote: »

The post is clearly opinion though:

Except its citing an article to "prove" it, when it doesn't. If the false cite wasn't there the post wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, this is off-topic.

How long was the maynooth housing estate on the market?
Some homes had been bought buy individuals before this REIT bought yes?

L1011

bubblypop wrote: »

How long was the maynooth housing estate on the market?
Some homes had been bought buy individuals before this REIT bought yes?

Phase 1 of the estate was built before it was ever advertised - not unheard of but uncommon. This was sold Autumn 2020, albeit its not yet inhabited as there was no water/sewage connected.

As far as I know, all that happened for the further phases (2-4 I think) was that names were being taken by the EAs to contact back. During this time they were initially negotiating with an AHB to sell the lot; then a smaller amount (and presumably to sell the rest individually, if they were still having an EA take names)

JimmyVik

bubblypop wrote: »

How long was the maynooth housing estate on the market?
Some homes had been bought buy individuals before this REIT bought yes?

I know someone who had paid a deposit.
After the news was announced they asked for it back and got it back with no quibbles.

PropQueries

timmyntc wrote: »

The post is clearly opinion though:



And to be honest, you only have to look at the governments track record up to this point to think that they dont see it as a housing crisis. After all, until the story about the estate in Maynooth broke (& the ensuing public outrage) the govt had no plans to stop institutional buyers.

And theres the strange comments like the below

https://twitter.com/oconnellhugh/status/1394912203858452480

Yes, it is interesting and it's being reported today in the Irish Independent.

It's even more interesting given that FG should be a lot more knowledgeable on the real current state of the issues surrounding the current housing supply/crisis given that they have been in Government for the past 10 years.

"However, a disagreement arose towards the end of the Cabinet meeting after Micheál Martin told ministers that housing was the “number one priority” for the Government and invited top civil servant Martin Fraser to explain how this would be co-ordinated across departments.

At this point, Leo Varadkar made what two sources described as a “bizarre” intervention to say this had not been agreed.

The Fine Gael leader is understood to have questioned what making housing a “number one priority” meant in practice and sought an assurance the Government would not downgrade other priority areas such as health, unemployment, climate action and education."

Link to article in Irish Independent today: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/crackdown-on-cuckoo-funds-buying-up-housing-estates-leads-to-split-in-coalition-40443325.html

awec

None of this gives any indication whatsoever that the govt thinks there is no housing crisis.

timmyntc

To those unconvinced that we are far from a normal market with normal prices:

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1395033178981683209

You really have to question who these apartments are for at 3.5k a month.
Assuming 2 adults in the place, its an annual rent per person of 21k :eek:

PropQueries

timmyntc wrote: »

To those unconvinced that we are far from a normal market with normal prices:

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1395033178981683209

You really have to question who these apartments are for at 3.5k a month.
Assuming 2 adults in the place, its an annual rent per person of 21k :eek:

Well, given that DLR county council was apparently proposing to pay up to c. €3,000 per month for apartments in Dundrum (as reported in the Irish Independent), those apartments should supposedly look like a steal to DCC for such a "prime" location, should they ever choose to engage with Greystar of course IMO

Link to Irish Independent article here: https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/council-pays-up-to-3000-a-month-to-rent-plush-flats-off-cuckoo-fund-38740107.html

Cyrus

timmyntc wrote: »

To those unconvinced that we are far from a normal market with normal prices:

https://twitter.com/Orla_Hegarty/status/1395033178981683209

You really have to question who these apartments are for at 3.5k a month.
Assuming 2 adults in the place, its an annual rent per person of 21k :eek:

it wouldnt be for me, but people have rented places in the past for 3.5k per month and will continue to rent them into the future,

its a typical clickbait twitter post, clearly apartments at 3.5k per month arent meant for the 75% of people who earn less than 40k a year, a monkey could tell you that.

javaboy

Cyrus wrote: »

it wouldnt be for me, but people have rented places in the past for 3.5k per month and will continue to rent them into the future,

its a typical clickbait twitter post, clearly apartments at 3.5k per month arent meant for the 75% of people who earn less than 40k a year, a monkey could tell you that.

Exactly. Plenty of people can and do pay that for a luxury, central apt. It's 3 bed with a heap of services included.

Breaking news: there are expensive cars too :eek:

jill_valentine

L1011 wrote: »

Except its citing an article to "prove" it, when it doesn't. If the false cite wasn't there the post wouldn't be a problem. Anyway, this is off-topic.

Posted an article, and his conclusions from it, which were clearly signposted with "It seems to me..."

A little unfair to snap at him for that, even if he did have form for mis-citing? It's not what happened there.

We're all entitled to express opinions on things, even if they're weird or annoying.

riclad wrote: »

This is a trend in all western countrys, house prices are rising in the last year.i think the trend will mean be impossible for most single people to buy a house ,they will buy a small 1 bed apartment or else buy outside citys and commute to work.

I actually wouldn't mind this so much if buying small 1 bed apartments was a realistic option here. I'd love one. Indeed, I think it's the model we should be shooting for because it's more efficient on land and resources. 1 off housing isn't super ecological or infrastructurally efficient.

The problem is, the government isn't doing anything to facilitate that. The fact they regularly differentiate between "homes" and "apartments" when speaking gives the game away - they don't live in them, or know anybody who does. Their relationship to apartments are as an asset class exclusively, and anybody who does live in one probably isn't one of their voters so they don't count. Hence they were fine with cuckoos sweeping up units all over the place until now, so long as those units weren't houses; even now the crappy lip service changes they're making specifically exempt apartments.

Apartments are now built almost exclusively to rent or hold, so we only build 2-3 bed apartments now to rent farm or sit in portfolios. 1 beds to buy are like gold dust, most of the ones I've seen date from at least the 90s if not the 80s. And on the other side of that, bank mortgage rules for at least one lender penalise you for buying a 1 bed vs a "family home". So we have created a market where okay, people can't afford to buy houses, but they have no alternative options in reach to to buy instead either.

Bearing in mind that the biggest demo block in our known homeless population are single men, this is clearly something that would be in demand if we had it. To me the biggest single gap in our national housing supply is clearly units for single buyers.

But they're also the exact type of property that don't make economic sense for a large scale commercial builder. The obvious route out of the housing crisis, to me, will involve work in that direction, not least because taking those singletons off the table takes a lot of value out of buying a 2 bed townhouse to chop into a 6 person rental tenement.

But the major commercial players in the market have no incentive to go that way with things as they are. It will absolutely require government intervention to generate those units, and until that happens, I think a great deal of our present problems will remain intractable.

Which is all fine until all the current tranche of 30-50 year old singletons burning rent their whole career have to start retiring somewhere on pensions they don't have to places that don't exist.

jill_valentine

Cyrus wrote: »

it wouldnt be for me, but people have rented places in the past for 3.5k per month and will continue to rent them into the future,

its a typical clickbait twitter post, clearly apartments at 3.5k per month arent meant for the 75% of people who earn less than 40k a year, a monkey could tell you that.

They also don't seem to be filling them that easy...

https://twitter.com/killianwoods/status/1363987246018420741

yagan

L1011 wrote: »

The user in question repeatedly tries to make "commentary" out of what are just their own opinions, not backed up by the article they are linking to.

The opinions expressed in that IT piece match the opinion that the government aren't really serious about tackling this crisis.

It ludicrous that apartments are exempt from the new stamp duty rate, it's as if they're openly admitting they not interested in votes from those who can only afford apartments.

What about any of those opinions doesn't match what Propquieries said?

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

I take your point on other professions earning more these days, but no matter which way you slice it €200k is a good income. And I know I've said it oodles of time on here but I just can't help but feel there is way way more houses that are nice as the one I linked than there are €200k+ incomes.

just on that, it certainly feels that way i would agree, but i suppose what counts is how quickly they come to the market, at the moment there arent enough of them (judging by the achieved prices at the 800k+ asking price end of the market). If a load come on stream then houses will exceed buyers and prices will fall but it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

what is for sure is that there is a lot more ways to make a large salary nowadays than there was 40 years ago, which may be galling for consultants (and i know it is for solicitor friends of mine) but the world moves on.

yagan

jill_valentine wrote: »

They also don't seem to be filling them that easy...

https://twitter.com/killianwoods/status/1363987246018420741

Reminds me this from 2007...

DEVELOPERS are offering house buyers an incentive of a ?20,000 car if they buy into an exclusive new development in Wexford.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wexfordpeople/news/house-buyers-offered-free-car-in-drive-to-boost-sales-27670597.html

Cyrus

jill_valentine wrote: »

They also don't seem to be filling them that easy...

perhaps not but what does that have to do with what i posted?

jill_valentine

Cyrus wrote: »

perhaps not but what does that have to do with what i posted?

It's in concert with your point, not disagreement.

Those headline rents are eye catchingly crazy high - but very few people are really paying them.

Quayside Quarter is another one that's been offering "free" month's rent for the last year, and their occupancy is still dire.

Browney7

Cyrus wrote: »

it wouldnt be for me, but people have rented places in the past for 3.5k per month and will continue to rent them into the future,

its a typical clickbait twitter post, clearly apartments at 3.5k per month arent meant for the 75% of people who earn less than 40k a year, a monkey could tell you that.

To be fair, the expectation of commentators and opposition is that apartments of this nature is all that is going to be built in Dublin city based on recent developments. If we build nothing for people who earn less than the 40k, where do these people live?

If these developments suck up all available construction workers over the next number of years and get built, are the current crop of renters going to move out of shared accom at 1k a room into 2k to 3k a month apartments? Or are these going to be luxury serviced apartments to house tech employees that will be paid for by the GCD silicon docks companies?

Or is that being alarmist?

I'd love to know what projections are being done in departments of what levels of luxury/standard/budget/social accomm needs to be brought on stream for the current situation (or crisis depending on your view) to start to improve. I just don't see what the end game is here with current thinking

Cyrus

Browney7 wrote: »

To be fair, the expectation of commentators and opposition is that apartments of this nature is all that is going to be built in Dublin city based on recent developments. If we build nothing for people who earn less than the 40k, where do these people live?

If these developments suck up all available construction workers over the next number of years and get built, are the current crop of renters going to move out of shared accom at 1k a room into 2k to 3k a month apartments? Or are these going to be luxury serviced apartments to house tech employees that will be paid for by the GCD silicon docks companies?

Or is that being alarmist?

I'd love to know what projections are being done in departments of what levels of luxury/standard/budget/social accomm needs to be brought on stream for the current situation (or crisis depending on your view) to start to improve. I just don't see what the end game is here with current thinking

if all they build is luxury apartments with rents north of 3k a month then a large portion are going to be empty with no return on that investment. I presume whoever is building them has done their research, if they havent they could be in deep water.

Mad_maxx

PropQueries wrote: »

Yes, it is interesting and it's being reported today in the Irish Independent.

It's even more interesting given that FG should be a lot more knowledgeable on the real current state of the issues surrounding the current housing supply/crisis given that they have been in Government for the past 10 years.

"However, a disagreement arose towards the end of the Cabinet meeting after Micheál Martin told ministers that housing was the “number one priority” for the Government and invited top civil servant Martin Fraser to explain how this would be co-ordinated across departments.

At this point, Leo Varadkar made what two sources described as a “bizarre” intervention to say this had not been agreed.

The Fine Gael leader is understood to have questioned what making housing a “number one priority” meant in practice and sought an assurance the Government would not downgrade other priority areas such as health, unemployment, climate action and education."

Link to article in Irish Independent today: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/crackdown-on-cuckoo-funds-buying-up-housing-estates-leads-to-split-in-coalition-40443325.html

No surprise there , Michael Martin has always been led by media pressure so its no surprise he sees dancing to this tune as his biggest priority

a follower of the highest order , no leadership ability whatsoever

Browney7

Cyrus wrote: »

if all they build is luxury apartments with rents north of 3k a month then a large portion are going to be empty with no return on that investment. I presume whoever is building them has done their research, if they havent they could be in deep water.

I agree they should be in deep water. However, the councils have form on agreeing to rent them for social housing, Dundrum, numerous in Stoneybatter (Aberdeen standard, Bartra etc) and the DLR development mentioned at the weekend.

If these are being built on the basis that the councils are schmucks and will lease them at a "discount" to the aspirational market value that would never be realised under the enhanced leasing deals and councils follow through, we're being laughed at.

I personally have no faith in councils to act with any degree of common sense and will buckle under a weight of "we've tried absolutely nothing and we're all out of ideas".

Maybe though the state will engage in this game of chicken and refuse to blink and not pay up - I won't be holding my breath.

L1011

yagan wrote: »

The opinions expressed in that IT piece match the opinion that the government aren't really serious about tackling this crisis.

It ludicrous that apartments are exempt from the new stamp duty rate, it's as if they're openly admitting they not interested in votes from those who can only afford apartments.

What about any of those opinions doesn't match what Propquieries said?

PropQueries misrepresented it as support for his claim that the housing crisis doesn't actually exist, which is a farcical conclusion to draw from it. Just read the post that was initially quoted

There is a pattern of misrepresenting that articles support fanciful beliefs which has been warned about repeatedly.