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

Growing savings show that people does not believe to songs of media .

yagan

Dav010 wrote: »

Thinking that the State, or society should facilitate children living close to parents in the most expensive market in the country is blinkered. Considering how many people are directly, and indirectly, employed as a result of construction, it would be naive to ignore how intertwined and codependent society is on economical effects of the construction sector.

It depends on whether you think society is the state, or that the state is a vehicle for the interests by which one cohort constantly profit.

The long term employment norm for a construction sector is between 7-8%, yet in Ireland we fail to regulate housing to the extent that it's constant boom and bust development with cyclical reliance on construction for votes.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

It's not the house prices that are the problem it's the lack of affordability, which I believe is down to the level of tax burden. When the government is buying up a significant fraction of residential housing and giving gold-plated top tier houses away as 'social-housing', because the second most expensive public sector in the EU couldn't manage to to do what many individuals can manage when they self build a house, no wonder FTBers are up against it.

Thats exactly the point - the domestic market for housing should be driven by what the people in that market can afford. But in Ireland and Dublin it is not. We have a hard cap on borrowings enforced by the central bank - yet prices for the most part have risen above the cap. This makes housing quite literally unaffordable given you cannot borrow more unlike other markets.

C14N

Timing belt wrote: »

The likes of Meath Kildare Wicklow would be considered Dublin if you are comparing it to London.

This is kind of just going back over of why they aren't really comparable. London's city area is 13 times larger than Dublin's, but the city population is also 16 times greater, so you would expect the area to be larger.

A pretty notable difference is also that London has a city population of 8.9m, and an urban population of 9.8m, so 90% of the urban population lives in the actual city. In Dublin we have a city population of just 550k but an urban population of about 1.2m, so only 46% of the urban population actually live in the city. This is why population density comparisons can be a bit misleading. Dublin's population density at 4,811 people/sqkm sounds comparable to others on paper, but most people who live in "Dublin" don't live in this area. The urban population density of Dublin is only 3689 people/sqkm.

morrissey1307

Have just had an offer accepted on a property! All delighted and excited here, but need to get the ball rolling with the bank and solicitors etc.

I have a couple of recommendations for solicitors which I am gonna chase up this morning. The estate agents are also looking for a holding deposit, should I notify the bank of the sale first or just transfer the funds and secure it?

And at what stages are all the additional sums / fees paid? Like stamp duty, solicitors fees, surveyors fees, etc etc...are these paid up front to the relevant parties? Or paid towards the end of the process when the sale is finalized and contracts signed?

And what sort of timelines are we looking at currently for contracts to be drawn up and issued back and forth through to signing?

Cyrus

Folks,

where can i see the annual average property price change for dun laoghaire rathdown 2016-17,17-18,18-19,19-20

timmyntc

Cyrus wrote: »

Folks,

where can i see the annual average property price change for dun laoghaire rathdown 2016-17,17-18,18-19,19-20

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/prices/residentialpropertypriceindex/

MacronvFrugals

Its amazing how quick this comes on the agenda as the Shinners are at the gates


Local property tax surcharge for vacant properties under consideration as system set to be overhauled

https://www.thejournal.ie/local-property-tax-vacant-properties-5454981-Jun2021/


In another letter to the IT, Fine Gael cllr John Kennedy wants this on the agenda


Vacant homes tax

The prospect of using fiscal policy to reduce vacancy is enticing given the estimated potential reservoir of approximately 245,000 (already built) vacant homes as per Census 2016.

The previous impetus surrounding a vacant homes tax in the 2016-17 period was effectively stalled by the publication of the Indecon Report on such taxation, which questioned its potential effectiveness.

However, the report did not take enough account of the example of France where “Taxing Vacant Dwellings: Can Fiscal Policy Reduce Vacancy?”, authored by Mariona Segu (Université Paris-Sud) and Benjamin Vignolles (Paris School of Economics), demonstrated the effectiveness of such taxation to reduce vacancy rates.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/vacant-homes-tax-1.4579239

DataDude

timmyntc wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/prices/residentialpropertypriceindex/

Just to add onto this, in case you're not familiar with navigating the CSO website. If you hit "PxStat Tables" there's much more granular info which you can throw out into excel. Table "HPM04" will give you your mean and median prices by month and by Eircode.

The raw data by Eircode can be a bit lumpy given relatively low levels of transactions per month and large outliers mess with it so you might need to do some smoothing yourself.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Just to add onto this, in case you're not familiar with navigating the CSO website. If you hit "PxStat Tables" there's much more granular info which you can throw out into excel. Table "HPM04" will give you your mean and median prices by month and by Eircode.

The raw data by Eircode can be a bit lumpy given relatively low levels of transactions per month and large outliers mess with it so you might need to do some smoothing yourself.

we are looking at our LPT liability which we were exempt from until this year :pac: so the community is looking at how best to coordinate amongst us.

My suggestion is that we take the developer prices from Jan 17 and then inflate and deflate as per the annual CSO price changes for houses in DLR.

Comes out ok actually

Bass Reeves

Villa05 wrote: »

So 500k for a house where you need security to keep possession of your vehicle

As most of the workers in Dublin live outside Dublin, do they get a premium of 50% over an above Limerick/Waterford wages for instance?

Vans and trades people vehicles are always targets for being broken into. They have valuable tool's and Test equipment. Often the person breaking into them will take down the phone details of the owner to sell them back. Its means that these trades people will often not opt to rent in Dublin or any city as break in risk is too high

Ardillaun wrote: »

Houses are indeed more complex but we have highly efficient ways of producing such items now. By some measures, the cost of light, for example, has been falling for thousands of years:

https://www.statista.com/chart/10567/the-cost-of-light-through-the-ages/

One thing that’s hard to make a hundred times more of is land and we’re not managing the land we have effectively. This isn’t England with multiple other Dublins close to our capital, and we shouldn’t even be looking to other English-speaking countries like the UK, Canada or Oz for solutions, given that they have also made a complete hames of this problem in their largest cities. Why does Germany manage to provide rental properties at a better, i.e. lower, cost in Berlin and Munich? Smaller European countries should be the peers we judge ourselves against, like Austria and its capital city.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&city1=Dublin&country2=Austria&city2=Vienna

The amount of copper in wiring in a house now compared to 20 years is often double compared to 50 years ago it 5-6 times the copper and 8-10 times the about of wire. In 1980 copper was about 50c/kg today its 5 euro/kg. It not just land that has gone up in value. A lot of building technology has not made building much cheaper. In 1990 I build a house trades people subcontracting were 8-12 euro/ hours today they are 40-60/hour and that is locally in rural Ireland.

While the cost of light is falling we are using a hell of a lot more of it. Growing up there was never a light left in a hall or outside a house if there was nobody there.

One again posts that has no clue about the reality of house building

JimmyVik

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Vans and trades people vehicles are always targets for being broken into. They have valuable tool's and Test equipment. Often the person breaking into them will take down the phone details of the owner to sell them back. Its means that these trades people will often not opt to rent in Dublin or any city as break in risk is too high



The amount of copper in wiring in a house now compared to 20 years is often double compared to 50 years ago it 5-6 times the copper and 8-10 times the about of wire. In 1980 copper was about 50c/kg today its 5 euro/kg. It not just land that has gone up in value. A lot of building technology has not made building much cheaper. In 1990 I build a house trades people subcontracting were 8-12 euro/ hours today they are 40-60/hour and that is locally in rural Ireland.

While the cost of light is falling we are using a hell of a lot more of it. Growing up there was never a light left in a hall or outside a house if there was nobody there.

One again posts that has no clue about the reality of house building

I was out mowing the lawn a few weeks ago and a van pulled up beside me.
Side door was open and it was chock full of tools.

"Have a look in the back there and i'll give you a deal on any tools you want".
He didnt even look at me. Just stared straight ahead as he said it.
I said, no and off he went. I rang the gardai and gave the number of the van.
Dont know what became of it.

C14N

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Its amazing how quick this comes on the agenda as the Shinners are at the gates


Local property tax surcharge for vacant properties under consideration as system set to be overhauled

https://www.thejournal.ie/local-property-tax-vacant-properties-5454981-Jun2021/


In another letter to the IT, Fine Gael cllr John Kennedy wants this on the agenda


Vacant homes tax









https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/vacant-homes-tax-1.4579239

I don't really see how this will end up being any more enforced than the vacant site tax the councils already have and don't use. I suppose its no harm to pass it, but I don't see it really going anywhere myself. People will haggle too much over the definition of "vacant". How is the government even realistically supposed to track the current vacancy status of all properties?

Bass Reeves

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Vans and trades people vehicles are always targets for being broken into. They have valuable tool's and Test equipment. Often the person breaking into them will take down the phone details of the owner to sell them back. Its means that these trades people will often not opt to rent in Dublin or any city as break in risk is too high

Am not involved in construction but my brother is. He commutes a good distance into the Dublin region every day, there has to be a chunky premium in the pay packet there if he and his mates are doing now for years. There's a lot of large projects in that area. He would say his van would be a target too.


I had plumber do some work for me here. Young lad, working on his own for himself, new wife, young baby etc etc. Nice branded van with at the very least a couple of grands worth of tools in it.

He was living in the middle of a housing estate and in the middle of the night somebody broke in, moved the van from up again a wall and cleaned him out. It must have cost a bloody fortune to replace + his time for work not getting done and customers waiting.

PropQueries

Looks like the hybrid model of working is beginning to make an impact on the commercial property market in Dublin with the Irish Times reporting the availability of a modern six-storey grade A office building of 85,200sq ft and 33 basement car-parking spaces at No 2 Burlington Road due to:

"AIB’s decision to move to a hybrid-working model and the resulting reduction in its requirement for office space has opened up an opportunity for companies seeking headquarter accommodation in Dublin’s central business district."

The property "is available to let in its entirety or sublet on a floor-by-floor basis to accommodate the requirements of potential occupiers."

Link to article in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ebs-dublin-headquarters-available-to-let-at-55-per-square-foot-1.4579182

Bass Reeves

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Am not involved in construction but my brother is. He commutes a good distance into the Dublin region every day, there has to be a chunky premium in the pay packet there if he and his mates are doing now for years. There's a lot of large projects in that area. He would say his van would be a target too.


I had plumber do some work for me here. Young lad, working on his own for himself, new wife, young baby etc etc. Nice branded van with at the very least a couple of grands worth of tools in it.

He was living in the middle of a housing estate and in the middle of the night somebody broke in, moved the van from up again a wall and cleaned him out. It must have cost a bloody fortune to replace + his time for work not getting done and customers waiting.

Know a lad that build an L shaped wall at his house van is parked right up against the wall so that both the read door and side door are not accessible. There is a steel pillar post locked right in front of the van and a big visible steering lock on the steering wheel. Ideally he says he should put a wheel clamp on one of the wheels but it's a bit slow in the morning to get it off and put away

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

Looks like the hybrid model of working is beginning to make an impact on the commercial property market in Dublin with the Irish Times reporting the availability of a modern six-storey grade A office building of 85,200sq ft and 33 basement car-parking spaces at No 2 Burlington Road due to:

"AIB’s decision to move to a hybrid-working model and the resulting reduction in its requirement for office space has opened up an opportunity for companies seeking headquarter accommodation in Dublin’s central business district."

The property "is available to let in its entirety or sublet on a floor-by-floor basis to accommodate the requirements of potential occupiers."

Link to article in Irish Times here: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ebs-dublin-headquarters-available-to-let-at-55-per-square-foot-1.4579182

What impact do you think this has had?

Is the rent they're proposing very low?

awec

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/government-lockdown-sparks-collapse-in-new-home-building-1.4582019

Construction volumes down 21% says Central Statistics Office. Looks like only 16k likely to be completed this year. Not good news.

yagan

C14N wrote: »

How is the government even realistically supposed to track the current vacancy status of all properties?

By whether a property tax or electricity bill is being paid.

The jist of the charge seems to be targeting premises long abandoned and left rotting, which is very common in most town in Ireland.

There was a time during mass emigration when a vacated house was "looked after" by neighbours for the returnees. It was as much an act of hope bt those left behind.

awec

yagan wrote: »

By whether a property tax or electricity bill is being paid.

The jist of the charge seems to be targeting premises long abandoned and left rotting, which is very common in most town in Ireland.

There was a time during mass emigration when a vacated house was "looked after" by neighbours for the returnees. It was as much an act of hope bt those left behind.

Neither of these things will be able to indicate vacancy accurately.

If they are targeting the derelict houses that is certainly interesting as these are the properties that will require significant works to make them habitable, at a time when getting such works done is difficult and expensive. That is to say, this won't have the desired affect.

timmyntc

awec wrote: »

Neither of these things will be able to indicate vacancy accurately.

If they are targeting the derelict houses that is certainly interesting as these are the properties that will require significant works to make them habitable, at a time when getting such works done is difficult and expensive. That is to say, this won't have the desired affect.

If you cannot afford to restore your derelict property - you sell to someone who can.
Currently the government have made it feasible for people to just leave vacant and derelict units as they are - there should be pressure to restore or sell these.

C14N

yagan wrote: »

By whether a property tax or electricity bill is being paid.

The jist of the charge seems to be targeting premises long abandoned and left rotting, which is very common in most town in Ireland.

There was a time during mass emigration when a vacated house was "looked after" by neighbours for the returnees. It was as much an act of hope bt those left behind.

Does the government have a right to access billing information for all properties in the country? What if the residents are just in arrears or have most of their power supplied by solar?

I don't see how property taxes affect it, surely even a vacant property still has the same tax due?

C14N

timmyntc wrote: »

If you cannot afford to restore your derelict property - you sell to someone who can.

I'd broadly agree, but I'd also guess many derelict properties have nobody who is interested in doing so. I'm sure in Dublin this wouldn't be very common, but in many small towns and rural locations there have to be derelict properties that just aren't valuable enough for anyone to justify putting the money into fixing them up.

DataDude

C14N wrote: »

I don't really see how this will end up being any more enforced than the vacant site tax the councils already have and don't use. I suppose its no harm to pass it, but I don't see it really going anywhere myself. People will haggle too much over the definition of "vacant". How is the government even realistically supposed to track the current vacancy status of all properties?

A fair proportion of taxes we all pay are self reported with significant penalties applied if not assessed correctly with occasional audits performed by revenue. I really don't buy that it's "hard to assess" is enough reason to just not have it at all.

Corporation tax is hard, CGT is hard, Income Tax for the self employed is hard. And I'm sure many underpay (as we often see from revenue settlements). Doesn't mean they should be done away with it.

You could have a few council employees knock on doors and drop letters in the door etc. in their local areas. I mean you wouldn't need to be Sherlock Holmes to work out that this was vacant for example (https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/3-neptune-terrace-breffni-road-sandycove-co-dublin/4486805). Check your system to see if vacant property tax paid. If not, fine issued with burden of proof on owner to explain otherwise. Target resources in areas of "most demand". You might even be able to set up a hotline for people to report derelict properties. Nobody want's the house beside them falling down.

I really think the "complexities" people put forward are overblown.

awec

timmyntc wrote: »

If you cannot afford to restore your derelict property - you sell to someone who can.
Currently the government have made it feasible for people to just leave vacant and derelict units as they are - there should be pressure to restore or sell these.

That's not the point.

Getting rid of a derelict property is not straightforward, due to the cost of renovations right now the market is relatively small. Builders are queued out the door and have no shortage of work, if even more doer-uppers come on the market then costs will just increase further. Material costs are very high right now too.

Chances are a lot of the derelict ones will end up just paying the extra tax because either they can't sell it to someone to do it up, and they can't afford to do the renovations themselves before selling.

The tax should be focused more on getting the empty habitable stuff on to the market, but these are much harder to find.

Mic 1972

timmyntc wrote: »

If you cannot afford to restore your derelict property - you sell to someone who can.
Currently the government have made it feasible for people to just leave vacant and derelict units as they are - there should be pressure to restore or sell these.

People shouldn't be forced to get rid of a personal property.

I may have plans to restore my family home but have no cash right now, but planning to do in due time. Why would I have to sell instead?

C14N

DataDude wrote: »

A fair proportion of taxes we all pay are self reported with significant penalties applied if not assessed correctly with occasional audits performed by revenue. I really don't buy that it's "hard to assess" is enough reason to just not have it at all.

Corporation tax is hard, CGT is hard, Income Tax for the self employed is hard. And I'm sure many underpay (as we often see from revenue settlements). Doesn't mean they should be done away with it.

It's not a case of fudging the numbers a bit though and trying so say your vacant property is worth €300k when it could realistically sell for €400k (in that case, the government would obviously still prefer to collect tax on €300k than nothing), it's a case of arguing that it just isn't vacant at all and therefore not subject to the tax.

We see this already with the existing vacant site levy which was introduced to prevent hoarding land, but which is barely enforced in practice. Depending on your defintion of vacant, there tends to be a lot of wiggle room to make sure your property isn't classified as such. As I say, I don't see it being detrimental, just not particularly effective for the task of discouraging vacancies, and I'd expect the administrative costs of assessing and enforcing vacancy statuses to possibly end up costing more than the money it would raise.

DataDude

C14N wrote: »

It's not a case of fudging the numbers a bit though and trying so say your vacant property is worth €300k when it could realistically sell for €400k (in that case, the government would obviously still prefer to collect tax on €300k than nothing), it's a case of arguing that it just isn't vacant at all and therefore not subject to the tax.

We see this already with the existing vacant site levy which was introduced to prevent hoarding land, but which is barely enforced in practice. Depending on your defintion of vacant, there tends to be a lot of wiggle room to make sure your property isn't classified as such. As I say, I don't see it being detrimental, just not particularly effective for the task of discouraging vacancies, and I'd expect the administrative costs of assessing and enforcing vacancy statuses to possibly end up costing more than the money it would raise.

I think the primary target would be high-end apartment buildings. Self declared vacancies. Annual Audit where they have to show RTB agreement and rent received for each unit for the year. Any unit that was vacant for more than x months of the year is due a vacancy tax. Large penalties if self-declared incorrectly.

On the individual stuff, there's some obvious cases like long term care etc. but they can be easily proven. The holiday home one is likely to be the "get out jail free card" but I would just say that the vacancy tax applies to those in RPZs. In the grand scheme of the tax code in Ireland, I'd really say this one must be among the easier ones to implement - just not that popular.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

If you cannot afford to restore your derelict property - you sell to someone who can.
Currently the government have made it feasible for people to just leave vacant and derelict units as they are - there should be pressure to restore or sell these.

I actually own a property which is not rentable or fit for anything but short term habitation. I had someone who made an offer on it, then pulled out after he took his architect friend there who gave him a renovation estimate of €500 K - which is more than the price on offer for the entire property. He would have likely pulled out later anyway, if not then, when it became clear planning wouldn't be granted thanks to those scum bags, An Taisce.

It's my holiday home, so a vacant tax would likely be avoidable.

yagan

awec wrote: »

Neither of these things will be able to indicate vacancy accurately.

If they are targeting the derelict houses that is certainly interesting as these are the properties that will require significant works to make them habitable, at a time when getting such works done is difficult and expensive. That is to say, this won't have the desired affect.

Unless they've really unique architecture or cultural value I reckon they'll be knocked and rebuilt in sympathy with the existing streetscapes.

awec

yagan wrote: »

Unless they've really unique architecture or cultural value I reckon they'll be knocked and rebuilt in sympathy with the existing streetscapes.

Maybe but this is big bucks stuff. It's not going to be much help to the average person who has found themselves priced out.

Bringing derelict houses to market does not really improve supply significantly, as there is still a bottleneck involved (the availability and cost of builders and the cost of materials for renovation).

JDD

Could they not start by applying the vacant property tax to certain areas, like the rent pressure zones?

There's a building on Booterstown Ave that's been vacant for nigh on 10 years now. It's boarded up, it's right on the road and it's a bloody eyesore. Builders would be chomping at the bit to do that place up, or knock it down and start again. It would likely end up being luxury apartments so not much use to your common man but in my opinion suppy is supply, better than it remaining vacant.

Depending on your defintion of vacant, there tends to be a lot of wiggle room to make sure your property isn't classified as such.

Didn't yer man who owns the Goat Grill graze some sheep around the back of his pub to prevent the land from being classified as vacant? Numpty.

C14N

JDD wrote: »

Could they not start by applying the vacant property tax to certain areas, like the rent pressure zones?

There's a building on Booterstown Ave that's been vacant for nigh on 10 years now. It's boarded up, it's right on the road and it's a bloody eyesore. Builders would be chomping at the bit to do that place up, or knock it down and start again. It would likely end up being luxury apartments so not much use to your common man but in my opinion suppy is supply, better than it remaining vacant.

Is this building zoned as residential though? I know myself that there are a shocking number of vacant/derelict properties in places I've lived and worked that seem like they should rightfully be highly-valued, like in Stillorgan, Dundrum and Sandyford (particularly the infamous eyesore near Aldi and EZ Living), but most are likely zoned as commercial so they probably wouldn't be affected by this anyway.

JDD wrote: »

Didn't yer man who owns the Goat Grill graze some sheep around the back of his pub to prevent the land from being classified as vacant? Numpty.

Hadn't heard about it but it doesn't surprise me tbh.

yagan

awec wrote: »

Maybe but this is big bucks stuff. It's not going to be much help to the average person who has found themselves priced out.

Bringing derelict houses to market does not really improve supply significantly, as there is still a bottleneck involved (the availability and cost of builders and the cost of materials for renovation).

However we still can't get a clear read on the real number of vacant properties being withheld from the market, because aside from a five year census we simply don't measure it.

We were told that prices reflected demand in 2006 even though then it was obvious to any one on the building sites that we had a surplus.

I'm seeing the exact same dynamic at play, both on site and in political narrative because there's no measurable way to argue otherwise.

timmyntc

Mic 1972 wrote: »

People shouldn't be forced to get rid of a personal property.

I may have plans to restore my family home but have no cash right now, but planning to do in due time. Why would I have to sell instead?

If its not your primary residence, why should you get to hoard an extra property thats not being used?

JDD

C14N wrote: »

Is this building zoned as residential though? I know myself that there are a shocking number of vacant/derelict properties in places I've lived and worked that seem like they should rightfully be highly-valued, like in Stillorgan, Dundrum and Sandyford (particularly the infamous eyesore near Aldi and EZ Living), but most are likely zoned as commercial so they probably wouldn't be affected by this anyway.




Hadn't heard about it but it doesn't surprise me tbh.

It's a small building but I believe it did house a restaurant at one point so I guess it's zoned as commercial. It's nonsense if you can't build apartments on the site though - the buildings either side of it are residential. Surely an application could be made - the councillors would be mad to go against it when it's clear no-one wants to open something there. That end of the road is odd - there's a small shop further up and there is a constant turnover of leaseholders. There's just not enough passing trade or parking there to facilitate a commercial business.


And as for that eyesore in Sandyford - WHAT in the name of jaysus is going on there? Clearly no-one is going to take that on now. Why aren't the council insisting that it be pulled down? I've seen young teenagers climb over the hoarding in the past - I guess if someone plummets to their death the council might do something about it.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

If its not your primary residence, why should you get to hoard an extra property thats not being used?

Because you bought and paid for it, I suspect most people would argue.

JDD

Dav010 wrote: »

Because you bought and paid for it, I suspect most people would argue.

The thing is though, if you knew this vacant property tax was in place before you bid for the house, you probably wouldn't have if you didn't have the money to do it up within the relevant time period.

Different I suppose if you inherited the property, but again once it's part of the culture that you can't just hold a building and let it go to rack and ruin during a time when housing is a national crisis, then the fact that you have some nostalgic attachment to the property becomes less important.

I think it does make a difference whether the property is located within a zone that is under massive housing pressure. Having some derelict farm outbuildings is different to having a derelict cottage on the main street in a town, and again different to holding on to a derelict office block in the middle of the capital city.

timmyntc

Dav010 wrote: »

Because you bought and paid for it, I suspect most people would argue.

Land is a finite resource - just because you have money doesnt give you the right to hoard it to the detriment of society at large.

Taxing vacant/derelict properties encourages efficient use of land and property, and discourages waste. In one way its one of the more progressive taxes, in that it punishes those who have more than they need.

If you have a genuinely unsellable property, then chances are its not in a RPZ or other high demand area and should be exempt.

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

If its not your primary residence, why should you get to hoard an extra property thats not being used?

Because the right to own property is conferred by the constitution? I realise the constitution might as well have been written on toilet paper for the way everything in it disolves on closer inspection, but it' currently has that clause.

C14N

JDD wrote: »

It's a small building but I believe it did house a restaurant at one point so I guess it's zoned as commercial. It's nonsense if you can't build apartments on the site though - the buildings either side of it are residential. Surely an application could be made - the councillors would be mad to go against it when it's clear no-one wants to open something there. That end of the road is odd - there's a small shop further up and there is a constant turnover of leaseholders. There's just not enough passing trade or parking there to facilitate a commercial business.


And as for that eyesore in Sandyford - WHAT in the name of jaysus is going on there? Clearly no-one is going to take that on now. Why aren't the council insisting that it be pulled down? I've seen young teenagers climb over the hoarding in the past - I guess if someone plummets to their death the council might do something about it.

I don't fully know what the story is with it, but a family friend works with developers and has said that, possibly like the Booterstown building, it was zoned for offices originally. However, now there is no need for more offices in the area (Sandyford has had plenty of others go up since and has clearly vacant office buildings to let already) and the arcitecture as-is is not very conducive to offices anyway as it is quite narrow and doesn't have a huge amount of space per floor. But he said the council won't re-zone it for residential use for whatever reason.

I remember looking into it before and developers had applied for planning permission several times over the years. Iirc it was sometimes rejected as they wanted to add additional floors to it, which would harm the character of the area or whatever, as if a derelict concrete shell covered in graffiti is preferable to a slightly taller but new and finished building.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

Because the right to own property is conferred by the constitution? I realise the constitution might as well have been written on toilet paper for the way everything in it disolves on closer inspection, but it' currently has that clause.

Nobody is interfering with your rights. You have the right to own property - and the responsibility to use it for the good of society. If you refuse, then you can still own your property - but pay a tax for the luxury of keeping it vacant.

Does Local property tax interfere with your right to own property?
What about stamp duty or VAT on sales?

cnocbui

timmyntc wrote: »

Land is a finite resource - just because you have money doesnt give you the right to hoard it to the detriment of society at large.

Taxing vacant/derelict properties encourages efficient use of land and property, and discourages waste. In one way its one of the more progressive taxes, in that it punishes those who have more than they need.

If you have a genuinely unsellable property, then chances are its not in a RPZ or other high demand area and should be exempt.

What about golf courses and the farm that abuts DCU?

C14N

cnocbui wrote: »

Because the right to own property is conferred by the constitution? I realise the constitution might as well have been written on toilet paper for the way everything in it disolves on closer inspection, but it' currently has that clause.

Thankfully unlike in the US though, our consitution does not prohibit direct taxes, so taxing property is completely legal within the bounds of the constitution.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

Land is a finite resource - just because you have money doesnt give you the right to hoard it to the detriment of society at large.
.

Have you a link to some legislation to support this?

The Irish Constitution disagrees with you. You may be taxed on property, but if you have the money and pay for the property. I’m not aware of any legislation that says that you cannot accumulate assets.

timmyntc

cnocbui wrote: »

What about golf courses and the farm that abuts DCU?

A golf course is not a vacant building - its being used as a golf course.
A farm is not a vacant building = its being used as a farm.

This is not a difficult concept

C14N

C14N wrote: »

Thankfully unlike in the US though, our consitution does not prohibit direct taxes, so taxing property is completely legal within the bounds of the constitution.

That does not preclude someone from buying/hoarding properties though.

timmyntc

Dav010 wrote: »

Have you a link to some legislation to support this?

The Irish Constitution disagrees with you. You may be taxed on property, but if you have the money and pay for the property. I’m not aware of any legislation that says that you cannot accumulate assets.

Exactly whats being proposed - if you choose to accumulate assets and not put them to use (i.e hoarding) you must pay a punitive tax for doing so. Its not unconstitutional.

Dav010 wrote:

That does not preclude someone from buying/hoarding properties though.

It's not about banning people from hoarding property - its about disincentivising it. hence a vacant unit tax.

timmyntc

timmyntc wrote: »

Exactly whats being proposed - if you choose to accumulate assets and not put them to use (i.e hoarding) you must pay a punitive tax for doing so. Its not unconstitutional.

So you accept that there is a right to hoard property if you wish?

timmyntc

Dav010 wrote: »

So you accept that there is a right to hoard property if you wish?

Yes - otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation.
There is right to own property, with no stated restriction on how many you own or what you do with it.

To tax vacant units is not in breach of the given constitutional rights.