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

Cyrus

combat14 wrote: »

we just now have some property that is built to rent....


so these properties have all been pre sold for years - not on the open the market - we are agreed on that ..

they are now going to be rented ..

what price are these pre-sold non open market rentals which have not been made available to irish first time buyers under what is starting to look like state sponsored monopolistic/cartel like conditions?

what exorbitant price will these rentals rent for?

what is the long term price for this economy, society, culture, national competitiveness, families, mental health, etc when irish people cant buy a basic necessity such as a starter home

i have no idea what they will rent for, but if you go back 4-5 years ago people lamented that the stock of rentals was poor, there were no professional landlords and lamented how we couldnt be more like germany where people could rent for life if they wished.

now we have have some institutional landlords and decent rental stock and there is outcry.

Wanderer78

Ace2007 wrote: »

Used to be the latter, but now some funds are funding the entire project.

where are they getting the money?

Cyrus

Villa05 wrote: »

Is it? The state is purchasing/leasing the majority of these properties at sky high rents/prices for social affordable

So we are building homes that the industry openly admits that nobody can afford with the state underwriting the whole show

This practice is even worse than the subprime crisis that collapsed the US financial system

It makes no sense

if the state is leasing the majority of these id agree its short sighted, are we sure that they are indeed taking the majority?

Ace2007

Wanderer78 wrote: »

where are they getting the money?

The Investment funds? Pension funds and institutional investors that are looking for returns.

As i mentioned before, anyone that has a pension in Ireland, is probably directly or indirectly invested in property funds that are just oblivious about it and assume any growth asset is just equity.

Villa05

Wanderer78 wrote:

my suspicions are, the funding is ultimately coming from banks in the form of credit in some way, but i dont have proof of this, as this is how our monetary systems work, particularly in the eu, we still have a largely fire sector lead economy

A quick look at the HBFI website which provides funding for housing projects.

They don't quote fees for general projects but for social housing/ahb projects they charge between 5 and 7% above the euribor rate plus 1% entry fee

Quiet a return for 0 risk, plus with the eventual customer (the state) able to borrow at 0%, the whole process has got madness written all over it

Villa05

Cyrus wrote:

if the state is leasing the majority of these id agree its short sighted, are we sure that they are indeed taking the majority?

I'm making an assumption based on what the junior minister for housing said on Claire Byrne live 2 weeks ago that 60% of current resedintial construction is for social and affordable. Its likely to be increased under changes to planning last week

Wanderer78

Ace2007 wrote: »

The Investment funds? Pension funds and institutional investors that are looking for returns.

As i mentioned before, anyone that has a pension in Ireland, is probably directly or indirectly invested in property funds that are just oblivious about it and assume any growth asset is just equity.

im aware of this, the real issue being, where does all this money come from, as all money begins its life as debt, i.e. whos balance sheet is this sitting on?

Villa05 wrote: »

A quick look at the HBFI website which provides funding for housing projects.

They don't quote fees for general projects but for social housing/ahb projects they charge between 5 and 7% above the euribor rate plus 1% entry fee

Quiet a return for 0 risk, plus with the eventual customer (the state) able to borrow at 0%, the whole process has got madness written all over it

the main issue being, as soon as money is created in either the public or private domains, its flooding straight into asset markets, including property, we have to stop playing this game, its endangering us all

Ace2007

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im aware of this, the real issue being, where does all this money come from, as all money begins its life as debt, i.e. whos balance sheet is this sitting on?



the main issue being, as soon as money is created in either the public or private domains, its flooding straight into asset markets, including property, we have to stop playing this game, its endangering us all

For all the abuse investment funds gets, they provided finance for a wide range of society - like Healthcare facilities - they provide the funds to build large scale operations and without them we might not have the advances in medicine that we do.

Shopping centers/office blocks etc - majority are owned/finance by these funds. As another poster said - only a few years ago renters wanted professional standard apartments that ordinary landlords couldn't provide. The saying be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

Wanderer78

Ace2007 wrote: »

For all the abuse investment funds gets, they provided finance for a wide range of society - like Healthcare facilities - they provide the funds to build large scale operations and without them we might not have the advances in medicine that we do.

Shopping centers/office blocks etc - majority are owned/finance by these funds. As another poster said - only a few years ago renters wanted professional standard apartments that ordinary landlords couldn't provide. The saying be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

yes, we do indeed need the fire sectors, but we ve turned them into a rent seeking mess, thats now actually endangering us all

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes, we do indeed need the fire sectors, but we ve turned them into a rent seeking mess, thats now actually endangering us all

Will they burn the house while Im in bed?

Wanderer78

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Will they burn the house while Im in bed?

thats if your lucky to have a house, its a mess, and its clearly been failing for a very long time, yet we continue with it, this is nuts!

Ace2007

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yes, we do indeed need the fire sectors, but we ve turned them into a rent seeking mess, thats now actually endangering us all

it's not really endangering us all though, it's affecting those who want everything there own way and won't make sacrifices

Wanderer78

Ace2007 wrote: »

it's not really endangering us all though, it's affecting those who want everything there own way and won't make sacrifices

wanna bet! many companies and investors surely must be looking at our current property situation and be thinking, ta hell with that, too messy, we ll go else where! if we dont resolve this soon, this will more than likely to continue to increase, and more of our taxes will be used to try resolve it! watch this space!

some folks have astonishing ignorance towards this serious problem, just because some of us have an element of security in regards housing, doesnt give us the right to go on the internets and point the finger, we truly are all in this one together!

handlemaster

PropQueries wrote: »

So, if there’s no shortage of land in Dublin, outside of land costs, what’s the primary reason that the proposed affordable housing bill believes that a new build a-rated three bed semi should sell for c. €225k in Co. Tipperary and the exact same size and quality house should sell for c. €450k in Co. Dublin?

Jobs and demand to live close to where you work.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

it's not really endangering us all though, it's affecting those who want everything there own way and won't make sacrifices

Ah yes, those greedy people on the average wage who wont just move to Longford and commute for 2hrs each way

Cyrus

timmyntc wrote: »

Ah yes, those greedy people on the average wage who wont just move to Longford and commute for 2hrs each way

why not just get a job in longford, if you are on the average wage there isnt much sense in being in dublin if you cant afford to buy there.

timmyntc

Cyrus wrote: »

why not just get a job in longford, if you are on the average wage there isnt much sense in being in dublin if you cant afford to buy there.

Ah yes - so everyone earning average wage or below should just leave Dublin. That would go really well for the city. Enjoy seeing nurses, teachers, gardai, all retail & hospitality workers and more leave for good.

Cyrus

timmyntc wrote: »

Ah yes - so everyone earning average wage or below should just leave Dublin. That would go really well for the city. Enjoy seeing nurses, teachers, gardai, all retail & hospitality workers and more leave for good.

im not saying it would be good for Dublin and in my opinion we should make provision within the social housing legislation to make specific allowances for key workers such as gardai, firefighters, nurses, teachers etc in cities.

im just saying what i would do if i was in that scenario, i.e. what would be good for me.

for example a married couple two teachers, life would be a lot better in wexford than in dublin.

JDD

handlemaster wrote: »

Jobs and demand to live close to where you work.

that's the argument for setting the price higher in a free market and when a private seller is trying to maximise their profit.

When a government entity is trying to sell houses on a not-for-profit basis, and with the stated intention of reducing prices in an area where prices are overheating, the price of the house should be closer to the cost to build it, not the market value of the house.

If I could buy an affordable, 3 bed, A rated home in a new estate for 350k, what motivation would there be for me to pay 500k for the same house in a private estate around the corner, or a second hand house down the road?

Pricing the affordable houses under the market value is the only way we'll take the heat out of the market.

Ace2007

timmyntc wrote: »

Ah yes - so everyone earning average wage or below should just leave Dublin. That would go really well for the city. Enjoy seeing nurses, teachers, gardai, all retail & hospitality workers and more leave for good.

But there are nurses, teachers, garda all in longford, All getting paid the same as someone in Dublin but with a lower cost of living. Maybe they are the smart ones?

What exactly do you want?

There are literally thousands of highly skilled and highly paid individuals in Ireland who can afford to paid large sums of monies for houses.

You have this sense of entitlement -

JDD

Ace2007 wrote: »

But there are nurses, teachers, garda all in longford, All getting paid the same as someone in Dublin but with a lower cost of living. Maybe they are the smart ones?

What exactly do you want?

There are literally thousands of highly skilled and highly paid individuals in Ireland who can afford to paid large sums of monies for houses.

You have this sense of entitlement -

Every city needs a mix. In New York and other major cities, there are rent controlled apartments for middle/low income workers.

Every city needs bin men and nurses and cleaners and retail workers.

We could go the way of Paris, and just stuff them all out in high rises on the outskirts. I mean, look how well that has worked for them.

At least London has made an attempt at having small pockets of social housing in every suburb. There are blocks of flats in Chelsea and Mayfair.

I'm all for a free market, but when there is massive obvious problems with a million people in a city, and only 30k houses to buy coming on line each year, and no control on rents, which are spiralling, it's stupid for us to say that government have absolutely no role in this.

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

im not saying it would be good for Dublin and in my opinion we should make provision within the social housing legislation to make specific allowances for key workers such as gardai, firefighters, nurses, teachers etc in cities.

im just saying what i would do if i was in that scenario, i.e. what would be good for me.

for example a married couple two teachers, life would be a lot better in wexford than in dublin.

funny you mention this, i believe such a scenario appeared on mcwilliams podcast, not too long ago, the only houses available were shambolic kips, for 500k or so! both wanting to live in dublin, as thats where they both work, and maybe from also, but could be wrong there

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

funny you mention this, i believe such a scenario appeared on mcwilliams podcast, not too long ago, the only houses available were shambolic kips, for 500k or so! both wanting to live in dublin, as thats where they both work, and maybe from also, but could be wrong there

and do you agree they would have a much more comfortable life in wexford?

Dublin is only an hour / hour 15 away depending on where you are as well. so if you have family its an easy trip.

Reversal

mcsean2163 wrote: »

This weeks all Ireland myhome figures.

date total
17/05/2021 12002
19/05/2021 11990
21/05/2021 11972


Not going in the right direction...

24/05/2021 12664

Decent jump.

M_Murphy57

Cyrus wrote: »

and do you agree they would have a much more comfortable life in wexford?

Dublin is only an hour / hour 15 away depending on where you are as well. so if you have family its an easy trip.

Lol, 2007 called, it wants its blurb back !

Wanderer78

Cyrus wrote: »

and do you agree they would have a much more comfortable life in wexford?

Dublin is only an hour / hour 15 away depending on where you are as well. so if you have family its an easy trip.

it is up to them to decide that, not us, maybe they want and need to be close to work, family, friends, community etc etc. how do you define 'easy', as theres nothing easy about a potentially +2.5hr working day?

Bass Reeves

Balluba wrote: »

It amazes me how many posters seem to trust auctioneers even though there is no transparency or accountability in the bidding process

I do not trust them just line I distrust solicitors and accountants as well. However neither am I a conspiracy theorists. In a way it not in auctioneers interest to set the bar too high. It can make it harder to sell houses. However it is.supply that is driving prices at present.

It interesting now we are back to a causing posters that they are auctioneer's or have a vested interest in the construction/ property section. I have three children that will be looking for houses over the next few years. I am a realist User supply being a issue for the next 5 years. If we get a mini correction in the middle it will be as much as that happens.

I also recognise that 2013 was not an natural floor to houses prices. Prices over corrected to below construction costs. At present construction costs have increased and regulations have increased housing construction costs as has demand and labour supply. Maybe if Commercial construction decreases sharply it will increase labour supply. That and WFH may reduce demand in Dublin but it may increase demand on the rest of the country which will strip Dublin if construction workers. There is no easy answer until supply is solved

handlemaster

JDD wrote: »

that's the argument for setting the price higher in a free market and when a private seller is trying to maximise their profit.

When a government entity is trying to sell houses on a not-for-profit basis, and with the stated intention of reducing prices in an area where prices are overheating, the price of the house should be closer to the cost to build it, not the market value of the house.

If I could buy an affordable, 3 bed, A rated home in a new estate for 350k, what motivation would there be for me to pay 500k for the same house in a private estate around the corner, or a second hand house down the road?

Pricing the affordable houses under the market value is the only way we'll take the heat out of the market.

The government don't build homes. That is where this argument stops. All the builders are private. The land could be provided from public lands. But there is an opportunity cost to that also.

JDD

handlemaster wrote: »

The government don't build homes. That is where this argument stops. All the builders are private. The land could be provided from public lands. But there is an opportunity cost to that also.

But that shouldn't really be an issue.

Say Park Developments decide to build an estate of 100 affordable homes for the government. The cost to them is 300k for building the home, and they add 100k profit because that's how much they would get if they sold the house privately.

That means the government have to buy it off them for 400k a house, but decide to sell the houses at a loss, selling them for 350k each.

Therefore it costs the government 50k for each affordable house that they contract out to Park.

The government could choose to build these houses themselves. But then they'd have to set up a quango to oversee the social housing building programme, pay the construction workers the same as they would get in a private firm, but make pension payments and give them the same union protections they give every other public sector worker. There would be less pressure to build on time, or be fired, as there would be in private construction firms, so projects will run over, and cost more.

In the end the government may decide that it is more economical to contract out the building than undertake it in house. There's nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is trying to sell the houses for market value, so that the government have to spend nothing. And it's probably less about the cost, and more about maintaining house prices in the area that they are building in, lest the local people who bought privately blame them for their house reducing in price. Home owners tend to be people who vote.

Cyrus

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

Lol, 2007 called, it wants its blurb back !

i never suggested they commute to work.

Cyrus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

it is up to them to decide that, not us, maybe they want and need to be close to work, family, friends, community etc etc. how do you define 'easy', as theres nothing easy about a potentially +2.5hr working day?

i didnt suggest that they commute.

id get a job in wexford if it was me.

Ace2007

JDD wrote: »

Every city needs a mix. In New York and other major cities, there are rent controlled apartments for middle/low income workers.

Every city needs bin men and nurses and cleaners and retail workers.

We could go the way of Paris, and just stuff them all out in high rises on the outskirts. I mean, look how well that has worked for them.

At least London has made an attempt at having small pockets of social housing in every suburb. There are blocks of flats in Chelsea and Mayfair.

I'm all for a free market, but when there is massive obvious problems with a million people in a city, and only 30k houses to buy coming on line each year, and no control on rents, which are spiralling, it's stupid for us to say that government have absolutely no role in this.

Yes you are right - rent controlled apartments would be good idea. But we are talking about people wanting to buy their own house in the city. Not apartments and not renting.

JimmyVik

Ace2007 wrote: »

Yes you are right - rent controlled apartments would be good idea. But we are talking about people wanting to buy their own house in the city. Not apartments and not renting.

Rent controls being brought in is a big part of why we are where we are now.
Never in history has the government of Ireland not made the property situation far worse by interfering with it.

Ace2007

JDD wrote: »

But that shouldn't really be an issue.

Say Park Developments decide to build an estate of 100 affordable homes for the government. The cost to them is 300k for building the home, and they add 100k profit because that's how much they would get if they sold the house privately.

That means the government have to buy it off them for 400k a house, but decide to sell the houses at a loss, selling them for 350k each.

Therefore it costs the government 50k for each affordable house that they contract out to Park.

The government could choose to build these houses themselves. But then they'd have to set up a quango to oversee the social housing building programme, pay the construction workers the same as they would get in a private firm, but make pension payments and give them the same union protections they give every other public sector worker. There would be less pressure to build on time, or be fired, as there would be in private construction firms, so projects will run over, and cost more.

In the end the government may decide that it is more economical to contract out the building than undertake it in house. There's nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is trying to sell the houses for market value, so that the government have to spend nothing. And it's probably less about the cost, and more about maintaining house prices in the area that they are building in, lest the local people who bought privately blame them for their house reducing in price. Home owners tend to be people who vote.

The issue that arises then is why sell those houses, why not given them homeless, or HAP or a 101 other types of individual that needs a house.

How do you maintain the house price at 350k?
Is 350k affordable?

If a couple is ok 35k each, that's 70k, max mortgage they are likely to get is 3.5 = 245k, so they are short 105k.

Are the houses going to be in the city centre where people want to buy?

Ace2007

JimmyVik wrote: »

Rent controls being brought in is a big part of why we are where we are now.
Never in history has the government of Ireland not made the property situation far worse by interfering with it.

So one poster wants rent controls, another doesn't

One want the government to build houses at a loss but not idea where

Another poster wants to live on south side to be close to friends even though he can't afford it.

Basically everyone wants there own thing and everyone is pulling in different directions and instead of maybe coming together with a solution they just blame the government.

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

So one poster wants rent controls, another doesn't

One want the government to build houses at a loss but not idea where

Another poster wants to live on south side to be close to friends even though he can't afford it.

Basically everyone wants there own thing and everyone is pulling in different directions and instead of maybe coming together with a solution they just blame the government.

People on boards dont have a unified idea to solve housing crisis - ergo its not the govts fault? :rolleyes:

JimmyVik

Ace2007 wrote: »

So one poster wants rent controls, another doesn't

One want the government to build houses at a loss but not idea where

Another poster wants to live on south side to be close to friends even though he can't afford it.

Basically everyone wants there own thing and everyone is pulling in different directions and instead of maybe coming together with a solution they just blame the government.

No matter what solutions anyone posts here (not forgetting its a bunch of random people on the internet posting when they should be at work ) -



Its kinda the governments job to provide the solutions.
A job they are 100% useless at.

Marius34

JimmyVik wrote: »

Rent controls being brought in is a big part of why we are where we are now.
Never in history has the government of Ireland not made the property situation far worse by interfering with it.

I'll say 3.5 income rule prevents from Bubble. Should the limits be removed? Should AirBnb be allowed to operate freely, without regulations? Should Funds allowed todo business freely in property market?
Like many regulation it has it's pros and cons.

cnocbui

Cyrus wrote: »

i didnt suggest that they commute.

id get a job in wexford if it was me.

The thought of living within your means, or putting up with any inconvenience, seems to be a mostly foreign concept.

timmyntc

Marius34 wrote: »

I'll say 3.5 income rule prevents from Bubble. Should the limits be removed? Should AirBnb be allowed to operate freely, without regulations? Should Funds allowed todo business freely in property market?
Like many regulation it has it's pros and cons.

Agreed - people think that because things are bad, that the govt restrictions are the reason - the reality is things could be much worse without them. House prices would skyrocket if the 3.5 income rule was abolished. Rents would likely have hit a ceiling where people couldnt afford it anymore - and due to increasing rents we would have higher property prices again due to buy-to-lets becoming more attractive to investors.

I dont think rules should be permanent, but they absolutely are protecting us from something much worse right now

jill_valentine

Cyrus wrote: »

and do you agree they would have a much more comfortable life in wexford?

Dublin is only an hour / hour 15 away depending on where you are as well. so if you have family its an easy trip.

A fairly sizeable chunk of the population moved to Dublin in the first place for work (me included). Moving back out again is a big leap, you'd need to be very confident the work you do exists - and will always exist - before you buy a whole house out there, and most people in a position to do that were already aware of it as an option.

I've just been promoted into a role where I can work remotely for the next year at least, so now I can start looking outside, but I can tell you the housing stock in range of public transport etc isn't exactly in abundance, and if I needed childcare or anything like that I'd be banjaxed.

Longford, for example, would suit me because I don't have kids, I have secure work, and I'd be back out towards family there, but it's not exactly an economic powerhouse and there are a lot of issues around Longford town with correlated antisocial behaviour. I wouldn't be a hurry to raise kids there like.

A big part of the hyperfocus we have on Dublin comes down to how hard we've made it to live anywhere else, especially if you don't drive.

JimmyVik

Marius34 wrote: »

I'll say 3.5 income rule prevents from Bubble. Should the limits be removed? Should AirBnb be allowed to operate freely, without regulations? Should Funds allowed todo business freely in property market?
Like many regulation it has it's pros and cons.

None of those have improved things have they though.
In fact they even fcuked those things up themselves.

The government are screwing with the income limits themselves.

Aibnb is still going strong and doing a roaring trade at the moment.

Funds are still doing business freely in the property market.


So, since those moves, rents have risen, sales prices have risen. And it looks like taxes are about to rise too.


Take a bow Irish government for those 3 market interventions.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

The thought of living within your means, or putting up with any inconvenience, seems to be a mostly foreign concept.

As a business I can only afford to pay X wage - to raise it higher would require higher selling costs for our product/service, which ultimately makes us uncompetitive.

So to attract staff who dont really want to work in Dublin due to cost-of-living, I either have to raise my prices and risk being put out of business, or convince people to move to Ireland from abroad to work here. Although after a decade or so most immigrants discover the situation and some move on to somewhere cheaper also.

Ireland's spiralling cost of housing will make us non-competitive as a place to do business. So job-creating through FDI will dry up, and some of business that are here currently will lose profits (maybe even some cutbacks in staff)
Which means less taxes for the state. It's bad news for everyone

Amadan Dubh

Zenify wrote: »

G7 set to seal a deal on corporation tax by Friday. This will pave the way for G20 and OECD talks. First 3 to click link get a free read of the FT article.

G7 is close to deal on taxation of world’s largest companies - https://on.ft.com/2TcMEWy via @FT

If it hampers growth of MNCs in Ireland and therefore demand for rentals, very much welcome for me. The government won't do enough by themselves so the market does need this push.

Marius34

JimmyVik wrote: »

None of those have improved things have they though.
In fact they even fcuked those things up themselves.

The government are screwing with the income limits themselves.

Aibnb is still going strong and doing a roaring trade at the moment.

Funds are still doing business freely in the property market.


So, since those moves, rents have risen, sales prices have risen. And it looks like taxes are about to rise too.


Take a bow Irish government for those 3 market interventions.

It prevents from boom and bust. Last boom and bust cost whey to much for tax payers, to afford it again.
But as I said most of regulations has pros and cons.

Cyrus

jill_valentine wrote: »

A fairly sizeable chunk of the population moved to Dublin in the first place for work (me included). Moving back out again is a big leap, you'd need to be very confident the work you do exists - and will always exist - before you buy a whole house out there, and most people in a position to do that were already aware of it as an option.

I've just been promoted into a role where I can work remotely for the next year at least, so now I can start looking outside, but I can tell you the housing stock in range of public transport etc isn't exactly in abundance, and if I needed childcare or anything like that I'd be banjaxed.

Longford, for example, would suit me because I don't have kids, I have secure work, and I'd be back out towards family there, but it's not exactly an economic powerhouse and there are a lot of issues around Longford town with correlated antisocial behaviour. I wouldn't be a hurry to raise kids there like.

A big part of the hyperfocus we have on Dublin comes down to how hard we've made it to live anywhere else, especially if you don't drive.

why would you be banjaxed for childcare in longford

and not driving, unless you have a disability that prevents you from being able to drive, is an eminently solvable problem.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

As a business I can only afford to pay X wage - to raise it higher would require higher selling costs for our product/service, which ultimately makes us uncompetitive.

So to attract staff who dont really want to work in Dublin due to cost-of-living, I either have to raise my prices and risk being put out of business, or convince people to move to Ireland from abroad to work here. Although after a decade or so most immigrants discover the situation and some move on to somewhere cheaper also.

Ireland's spiralling cost of housing will make us non-competitive as a place to do business. So job-creating through FDI will dry up, and some of business that are here currently will lose profits (maybe even some cutbacks in staff)
Which means less taxes for the state. It's bad news for everyone

Don't set up business in Dublin. I have long thought one way for governments to deal with the single attractor problem - France is even worse, with it being Paris, and nothing but Paris - would be to scale corporate tax by proximity to population centres so that the further away you are from major population centres, the greater the reduction in tax.

In other words it wouldn't be a tax penalty, but a tax incentive.

The government should have set about building a Dublin scale hospital near Shannon airport, with nearby family accommodation, 20 years ago, to alleviate the 20 years of bed shortages at Limerick Regional and to stop this inhumane business of so many people having to travel to Dublin for specialist treatment. That location would let it serve Cork and Galway catchments as well as Limerick.

Specialist pediatic nurses and the like, would then have an alternative to living in Dublin.

Villa05

Social housing has never been delivered using state employees, rather contracted out to builders






3.5 rule does not dictate price. investment funds backed up by unsustainable long term leases from the government set price thus further inflating the bubble
Air B&B practically operates freely as there is little implementation of regs

Investment funds control the market in our highest demand areas. Not good

M_Murphy57

Cyrus wrote: »

why would you be banjaxed for childcare in longford

and not driving, unless you have a disability that prevents you from being able to drive, is an eminently solvable problem.

I think he means childcare if commuting to dublin. Eg in greystones the creches open 7-7 (and many kids spent 12 hour days there) because it was at least 60+ minutes commute to centre. If you had a 2 hour drive to wexford each way, plus a 9-5 day how do you manage childcare?

Cyrus

M_Murphy57 wrote: »

I think he means childcare if commuting to dublin. Eg in greystones the creches open 7-7 (and many kids spent 12 hour days there) because it was at least 60+ minutes commute to centre. If you had a 2 hour drive to wexford each way, plus a 9-5 day how do you manage childcare?

got you.

yes i agree that would be problematic.