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

Cal4567

mcsean2163 wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/cosasiulacha/status/1406224594252582914

If this is true...

Yes, I think we linked up the funds earlier in this thread, who were doing this. Plus I had heard it privately from people in the property industry. They were people going around buying up single houses and then going off to the council to agree a leasing deal, for these houses as a package. They were also trying to throw in the odd small completed scheme.

If you put it all together, it's a nice batch of properties. The councils being desperate would take them. I remember the report saying if the council didn't want them, the investment vehicle would just rent them privately as that was also such a good deal for them.

hometruths

Zenify wrote: »

Honestly, I don't see that as a bad price... If you put 500k into it it would be worth over 3m.

That property to me is far better value than a 4 bed semi detached houses selling for 1m in a house estate. Like many are in South Dublin.

I agree. Sure it's a punchy asking price, but it is a punchy market.

I think the pricing of this reflects the fact the vendor is fishing for one buyer with very deep pockets who wants something rare, as is prepared to pay big bucks for it.

The pricing of 1m 4 bed semi ds on the other hand reflects the fact you are fishing in a pool of multiple buyers with large mortgages, looking for something relatively common, but who don't have any other choice than to pay big bucks for it.

Sea views are expensive, and they don't come much better than that.

Hubertj

mcsean2163 wrote: »

https://mobile.twitter.com/cosasiulacha/status/1406224594252582914

If this is true...

I would absolutely believe the word of some anonymous random punter on twatter.

If this is widespread I would have thought businesspost would have covered it already considering the excellent work of killian woods?

Villa05

Timing belt wrote:

Loans are not included as they are not property transactions and even when a loan is in default it is unlikely that the financial institution will take possession of the property due to how difficult it is to repossess

Much appreciated, thanks

Would it be fair to say that Reits and/or investment/pension funds that are all subject to very favourable tax policies were the primary buyers of distressed loans from Nama and the banks at significant discount?

If repossession is next to impossible. Would a high proportion of these houses fall in to rental status as the occupant is unable to pay the mortgage. The rent would be heavily subsidised by HAP payments from the state. Mortgage to rent scheme. HAP payments have ballooned in the last few years

Given the trajectory of rents and interest rates over the last decade, rent payments would exceed the original mortgage repayments by some distance.

This scenario would make incredible profits on assets that were purchased usually at 50% of book value and thanks to taxpayer funded housing programs like HAP, mortgage to rent will be know performing well above the original loan when it was a performing loan.

Can the situation play out like this, that a distressed asset that normally dampens a market is magically turned into a super normal profit asset thus adding fuel to the market.

It would be consderably cheaper for the state to give the asset to the non paying mortgage holder for free

hometruths

Opinion piece in the IT on one of our biggest problems - Time for some common sense on mortgage arrears

Until Ireland faces up to the inevitability of people surrendering their homes to fully settle default when their position is beyond reasonable resolution, all other homebuyers will continue to pay the price. And there’s no use complaining about it.

Whilst hardly a tsunami of articles, there has been a definite uptick in the amount of media coverage on the subject over the past 6 months. It feels like five years ago no journalist would have dared to write the above.

Are we seeing the start of a shift public opinion? I certainly hope so, it's about time.

Amadan Dubh

schmittel wrote: »

Absolutely, of course it depends.

You snipped the month on month price change I whereas I snipped the year on year price change. Others can decide which is more likely to be representative of a trend in prices.

It also obviously depends when the data you snip was posted. You were disputing the following post:



And as such it have been better to quote the latest data available pre Covid, i.e Dec 2019, which the IT reported as:



Reading that it sounds to me like Amadan Dubh was spot on, but yes, as you say, it depends on which bit you choose to snip, I suppose.

Exactly, now the argument against this is perhaps the lack of a "trend" in the declines but I remember that there was a lot of commentary about uncertainty in the market at that time, with Brexit somehow being blamed for the market slowing down. However, it appeared the market had peaked due to mortgage lending rules capping further price increases. Demand was still high for housing that people could actually afford. Covid threw this on its head however, with people realising, due to government measures, they could save a lot more money and could get to their deposit levels in order to afford these homes that would've been out of reach just a year earlier. For investors, the QE covid pump continued to push them into property to chase those yields and also pushed up demand while at the same time construction sites were shuttered.

The owners of assets, whether it be stocks or properties, must view covid restrictions as a blessing with unlimited QE flooding the markets just when it looked like questions would need to be asked about how sustainable continued growth would actually be. The big question is how things can continue to tick along without significant QE and government supports? Assets are uncoupled from the real economy so when we are looking to see how businesses can recover and employees get back to work/higher salaries again, for property and stocks in general there is no "recovery" needed as they have thrived the last 15 months.

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

Much appreciated, thanks

Would it be fair to say that Reits and/or investment/pension funds that are all subject to very favourable tax policies were the primary buyers of distressed loans from Nama and the banks at significant discount?

Reits and pension funds didn’t buy the distressed loan books. The fund industry is massive and only a small portion of it is invested in property. The majority is in equities and fixed income. The funds that bought the distressed debt would have tried to package up the cash flows via a SPV and sold to other investors.

If repossession is next to impossible. Would a high proportion of these houses fall in to rental status as the occupant is unable to pay the mortgage. The rent would be heavily subsidised by HAP payments from the state. Mortgage to rent scheme. HAP payments have ballooned in the last few years

Not to sure about that this most mortgage arrangements would be restructured so the mortgage owner would pay over a longer period or on interest only with the property then being owned by the property when the mortgage holders pass away.

Given the trajectory of rents and interest rates over the last decade, rent payments would exceed the original mortgage repayments by some distance.

This scenario would make incredible profits on assets that were purchased usually at 50% of book value and thanks to taxpayer funded housing programs like HAP, mortgage to rent will be know performing well above the original loan when it was a performing loan.

Can the situation play out like this, that a distressed asset that normally dampens a market is magically turned into a super normal profit asset thus adding fuel to the market.

This would only happen if the fund could take possession of the physical property which would then show up in cso data I shared and there doesn’t seem to be a spike that relates to this.

It would be consderably cheaper for the state to give the asset to the non paying mortgage holder for free

There have been proposals similar to this but never implemented due to public outrage as the optic is that people are getting free property from the government.

yagan

schmittel wrote: »

Opinion piece in the IT on one of our biggest problems - Time for some common sense on mortgage arrears



Whilst hardly a tsunami of articles, there has been a definite uptick in the amount of media coverage on the subject over the past 6 months. It feels like five years ago no journalist would have dared to write the above.

Are we seeing the start of a shift public opinion? I certainly hope so, it's about time.

The societal cost of mortgage default which I agree needs airing, and the current flood of international hot money into our property market are independent of eachother.

If the hot money withdrew tomorrow and prices fell as a result we'd still need to have that debate about default and repossession.

I don't see one driving the other.

Mic 1972

Cyrus wrote: »

Amazing location but struggling to see who pays 2m for this.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/derrybeag-35a-coliemore-road-dalkey-co-dublin-a96-xp71/4508395

I would if had that money. Wonderful location
I wouldn't change a thing other than interior decoration

MacronvFrugals

Looking at the new poll released today by Ireland Thinks/ Mail on Sunday


The overall numbers are fairly interesting but the 18-34 demographic is particularly striking, listening to Varadkar's "40,000" speech it seems reversing this trend needs to be given top priority!

Today we publish a poll with Ireland Thinks that shows an overwhelming 45% :eek: of 18-34-year-olds support Sinn Féin compared to 17% for Fine Gael and six per cent for Fianna Fáil.

Elessar

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Looking at the new poll released today by Ireland Thinks/ Mail on Sunday


The overall numbers are fairly interesting but the 18-34 demographic is particularly striking, listening to Varadkar's "40,000" speech it seems reversing this trend needs to be given top priority!

They are handing the next election to Sinn Fein on a plate. House prices are closing in on their Celtic tiger highs and Varadkar himself says home ownership is now out of reach for too many.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/house-prices-to-hit-celtic-tiger-levels-experts-warn-40558962.html

Jmc25

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Looking at the new poll released today by Ireland Thinks/ Mail on Sunday


The overall numbers are fairly interesting but the 18-34 demographic is particularly striking, listening to Varadkar's "40,000" speech it seems reversing this trend needs to be given top priority!

Typically people travel towards the centre/right as they get older but typically that's because people have bought into the system and gotten a decent paying job/mortgage by their late twenties/early thirties.

I think most younger people actually would buy into the system if they were given a chance. But the fact is a huge amount of younger people, even having bought into the system to an extent and gotten a third level qualification, find themselves in low paying/precarious employment and unable to even think about affording a house.

If things are to remain as is, SF are looking at absolutely dominating Irish politics for a generation, which is probably why FF/FG are already showing the first signs of drifting to the left - that could be all talk, but two years ago no one could have imagined Varadkar giving that Ard Fheis speech.

I am relatively optimistic that things will change on the housing front in the medium term, driven by government policy. Whether that's SF doing it or FF/FG doing because if they don't SF will, I don't know, and like most people who want cheaper housing, don't care. But the establishment as a whole are, at last, showing the first signs of a change in mentality.

yagan

Jmc25 wrote: »

I am relatively optimistic that things will change on the housing front in the medium term, driven by government policy. Whether that's SF doing it or FF/FG doing because if they don't SF will, I don't know, and like most people who want cheaper housing, don't care. But the establishment as a whole are, at last, showing the first signs of a change in mentality.

The fact that FFG were shocked out of intransigence on housing policy by the rise in SF support vindicates SF voters.

I can see Fianna Fail splitting in the near future, traditional republicans going to SF, social conservatives probably to Aontú and the rest possibly to FG or as independents where dynastic safe seats are involved.

Marius34

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Exactly, now the argument against this is perhaps the lack of a "trend" in the declines but I remember that there was a lot of commentary about uncertainty in the market at that time, with Brexit somehow being blamed for the market slowing down. However, it appeared the market had peaked due to mortgage lending rules capping further price increases. Demand was still high for housing that people could actually afford. Covid threw this on its head however, with people realising, due to government measures, they could save a lot more money and could get to their deposit levels in order to afford these homes that would've been out of reach just a year earlier. For investors, the QE covid pump continued to push them into property to chase those yields and also pushed up demand while at the same time construction sites were shuttered.

The owners of assets, whether it be stocks or properties, must view covid restrictions as a blessing with unlimited QE flooding the markets just when it looked like questions would need to be asked about how sustainable continued growth would actually be. The big question is how things can continue to tick along without significant QE and government supports? Assets are uncoupled from the real economy so when we are looking to see how businesses can recover and employees get back to work/higher salaries again, for property and stocks in general there is no "recovery" needed as they have thrived the last 15 months.

The argument is brought against the people who has lack of understand about pre-covid market, and bias points taken in time to defend their view.
The last full pre-covid month for transaction was March 2020, not 2019.
The prices started to go down end of 2018/2019, due to exemption restrictions, and likely Brexit uncertainty. Banks run out of exemptions very early in 2018. While distributing more evenly in 2019. This caused decrease in demands at the end of 2018, beginning of 2019, but fairly strong increase by the end of 2019.
In fact mortgage approvals started to grow in 2019/beginning of 2020, by February 2020 accumulated approvals reached the highest point (since Credit crisis). There is nothing to suggest that prices started to fall pre-Covid, except looking for some annual transaction price decrease points in 2019, which was short lived.

Amadan Dubh

I was reading the Sunday Times and came across an interesting story about a "luxury lettings" company, Period Door Properties, petitioning the High Court to have an examiner appointed in order to stem the flow of cases it is being subjected to from the landlords of the properties it lets. The business model of PDP is to then sub-let the rooms in these properties to individuals. "Lettings Office" is the name they go under on Daft.ie listings. High risk, high reward essentially and it will be interesting to see what happens when restrictions are fully removed, eviction bans ended and payment supports eased.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luxury-lettings-company-period-door-properties-seeks-examiner-dublin-ireland-fz9shlvkp

Period Door Properties (PDP) has at least 20 homes on its books, with about 150 tenants across Dublin.

It has been involved in 54 disputes before the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) this year, the majority involving former tenants seeking the return of deposits.

In three separate cases, PDP was a respondent to claims from its landlords, and ordered to pay nearly €30,000. In one case, the company was ordered to pay €23,894 in rent arrears to the landlord of a property in Irishtown, Dublin 4.

In April, a spokesman for PDP told the Irish Independent that the delay in returning deposits had been due to “over 50 per cent” of its tenant base leaving their shared accommodation “without any notice whatsoever”.

enricoh

I think sinn fein are on a hiding to nothing when they get in next time round. Everyone under 40 expects them to magically fix everything, especially housing!

I actually think Michael n Leo are trying to make sure their isn't a fiver left in the kitty for them!

Murph85

The housing situation will get much worse, rising costs, projects held up in court for years... the local authorities hoovering up everything they can, regardless of cost, due to their failings and optics...

mcsean2163

enricoh wrote: »

I think sinn fein are on a hiding to nothing when they get in next time round. Everyone under 40 expects them to magically fix everything, especially housing!

I actually think Michael n Leo are trying to make sure their isn't a fiver left in the kitty for them!

Yes. I'd be surprised if the government didn't break up in order for SF to take over. There'll be extreme difficulty borrowing anything.

Their only hope is using the IRA to 'encourage' councils to do their job.

Jmc25

enricoh wrote: »

I think sinn fein are on a hiding to nothing when they get in next time round. Everyone under 40 expects them to magically fix everything, especially housing!

I actually think Michael n Leo are trying to make sure their isn't a fiver left in the kitty for them!

They're certainly going to be up against it in terms of high expectations, and unless they make an immediate impact on housing, large sections of the media will delight in reminding everyone that they said they would do x,y and z, and have yet to deliver. As if no other party has ever failed to immediately deliver on an election promise.

There will be an establishment onslaught I'm general which I doubt they're going to be able to survive really. I could be wrong. But a Sinn Fein Government, however brief and dysfunctional, will drag the Irish political system in general to left. As I said in an earlier post, FG/FF discourse is already shifting to the left to try and hoover up voters who intend to vote for Sinn Fein but feel a bit dirty in doing so.

jill_valentine

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I was reading the Sunday Times and came across an interesting story about a "luxury lettings" company, Period Door Properties, petitioning the High Court to have an examiner appointed in order to stem the flow of cases it is being subjected to from the landlords of the properties it lets. The business model of PDP is to then sub-let the rooms in these properties to individuals. "Lettings Office" is the name they go under on Daft.ie listings. High risk, high reward essentially and it will be interesting to see what happens when restrictions are fully removed, eviction bans ended and payment supports eased.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/luxury-lettings-company-period-door-properties-seeks-examiner-dublin-ireland-fz9shlvkp

They've been accused of withholding money from both owners and tenants and going by different names to avoid their own reputation. I don't know would I see this as an indicator towards the market so much as likely an effort to avoid consequences for running a shady outfit.

It would be worth keeping a very keen eye out in case they re-emerge with another new face soon.

Yurt2

For the first time in a long time, an actual decent workable idea out of gov that could alleviate (part) of the housing bottleneck and also give a shot at revitalizing provincial towns and villages dying on the vine due to one-off-housing mania.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2020/families-will-have-opportunity-to-buy-bargain-housing-plots-to-ease-crisis-38890987.html

Hopefully not just talk. Probably unpopular among some, but underutilized land surrounding towns and villages should be targetted for site taxation to release to people in housing need to build themselves in a ready-to-go community.

agoodpunt

mcsean2163 wrote: »

Yes. I'd be surprised if the government didn't break up in order for SF to take over. There'll be extreme difficulty borrowing anything.

Their only hope is using the IRA to 'encourage' councils to do their job.

Not to mention:


Abolition of LPT, will be welcome by exsisting owners maybe exclude private rentals.



Reduction of rents and capping costs of purchasing homes


A massive investment in the provision of social housing



Will be a vote winner and is already an expectation of the electorate


Something for everybody so bring it on...

Cyrus

agoodpunt wrote: »

Not to mention:


Abolition of LPT, will be welcome by exsisting owners maybe exclude private rentals.



Reduction of rents and capping costs of purchasing homes


A massive investment in the provision of social housing



Will be a vote winner and is already an expectation of the electorate


Something for everybody so bring it on...

Abolition of lpt and everything else they are promising will cost and that cost will be borne by the middle classes

Bring it on indeed.

Marcusm

Cyrus wrote: »

Amazing location but struggling to see who pays 2m for this.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/derrybeag-35a-coliemore-road-dalkey-co-dublin-a96-xp71/4508395

It might provide a site for a Jim Sheridan style waterfront pad but given the problems he had I can’t see that happening. Mad price otherwise.

Yurt2

Cyrus wrote: »

Abolition of lpt and everything else they are promising will cost and that cost will be borne by the middle classes

Bring it on indeed.

Affordable housing is the provision of housing at development cost to those in housing need who can afford to buy such units. It's not quite cost neutral but it's not a free gaffes plan as some love to suggest it is.

It absolutely should be massively expanded. Above all things the middle class will benefit from going to the markets to finance an affordable housing blitz the next few years. The ERSI and IMF of all people are telling the government to go for it (after years of naysayers saying affordable housing is some sort of Soviet plot).

Cyrus

Marcusm wrote: »

It might provide a site for a Jim Sheridan style waterfront pad but given the problems he had I can’t see that happening. Mad price otherwise.

I'm guessing his has run him a lot more than 500k to construct with everything that happened.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Affordable housing is the provision of housing at development cost to those in housing need who can afford to buy such units. It's not quite cost neutral but it's not a free gaffes plan as some love to suggest it is.

It absolutely should be massively expanded. Above all things the middle class will benefit from going to the markets to finance an affordable housing blitz the next few years. The ERSI and IMF of all people are telling the government to go for it (after years of naysayers saying affordable housing is some Soviet plot).

They are not free, but government would lose income by not selling public residential land, and giving out land to people looking for affordable housing.
So public sites may start to be used of social/affordable housing only.
The good thing about it, that people looking for affordable housing in new social like estates, may get it cheaper. But most middle class typically trying avoid social housing estates, thus they will pay the price. And the affordability for middle class could get worst, as more construction resource would move to social/affordable housing estates.

Darc19

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So I'm in the Dublin market at the moment and my experience is that people are seriously overbidding on properties. Like ~20% above asking in less than 48 hours.

Anybody else seeing this?

I literally would sit the next 6 months out.

There's substantial building activity in Dublin and the commuter towns and circa 15,000 new units will come on stream in the next 6-8 months

Then you also have the natural new availability due to death of elderly people. Close to 90% of over 70's own their home, so add circa 10,000 - 15,000 homes from this area.

Then you have people finding they can work from home, it won't happen overnight, but a decent number in starter homes will look at moving into more rural locations especially if they have a connection.



Market is overheated. The estate agents are jumping for joy and saying it will continue (they NEVER get it right) and the sensationalist media esp the Indo are putting house price inflation scaremongering headlines every second day - just as they did in 2006.


Wait it out

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

They are not free, but government would lose income by not selling public residential land, and giving out land to people looking for affordable housing.
So public sites may start to be used of social/affordable housing only.
The good thing about it, that people looking for affordable housing in new social like estates, may get it cheaper. But most middle class typically trying avoid social housing estates, thus they will pay the price. And the affordability for middle class could get worst, as more construction resource would move to social/affordable housing estates.

Again the concept of affordable housing is so alien to some that it automatically gets equated with social housing and 'de flats'

We already have a de facto situation where private buyers are paying eye-watering prices to live alongside what we'd term as social housing provision. There's probably not a new housing estate development in the country without a social housing component as it stands. By hook or by crook they're in there so people may as well get used to it.

And I'm not losing sleep over the public purse 'losing out' over the sale of lands - as it stands private developers that have public lands sold to them are benefiting from the arbitrage and increased value of the land, rolling it into the purchase price of units and making all and sundry bid for it (including the local authority that often sold it to them at a discount bizarrely enough). The current dispensation is the worst of all worlds.

Borrow, build and sell to first-time buyers at cost - and do it aggressively.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Again the concept of affordable housing is so alien to some that it automatically gets equated with social housing and 'de flats'

We already have a de facto situation where private buyers are paying eye-watering prices to live alongside what we'd term as social housing provision. There's probably not a new housing estate development in the country without a social housing component as it stands. By hook or by crook they're in there so people may as well get used to it.

And I'm not losing sleep over the public purse 'losing out' over the sale of lands - as it stands private developers that have public lands sold to them are benefiting from the arbitrage and increased value of the land, rolling it into the purchase price of units and making all and sundry bid for it (including the local authority that often sold it to them at a discount bizarrely enough). The current dispensation is the worst of all worlds.

Borrow, build and sell to first-time buyers at cost - and do it aggressively.

Because it depends on location for affordable housing. If it's about country side only, than yes its probably not a social housing areas. But for Dublin, it would likely to be estates of mixture of social&affordable housing.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

Because it depends on location for affordable housing. If it's about country side only, than yes it maybe outside social housing areas. But for Dublin, it would likely to be estates of mixture of social&affordable housing.

I'm sorry this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm sorry this doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/new-rules-will-mean-only-social-and-affordable-housing-for-public-lands-in-dublin-and-cork-4b0af282

Minister for Housing wants Land Development Agency to provide 100 per cent social and affordable homes on state’s sites in main cities

Jmc25

Darc19 wrote: »

I literally would sit the next 6 months out.

There's substantial building activity in Dublin and the commuter towns and circa 15,000 new units will come on stream in the next 6-8 months

Then you also have the natural new availability due to death of elderly people. Close to 90% of over 70's own their home, so add circa 10,000 - 15,000 homes from this area.

Then you have people finding they can work from home, it won't happen overnight, but a decent number in starter homes will look at moving into more rural locations especially if they have a connection.



Market is overheated. The estate agents are jumping for joy and saying it will continue (they NEVER get it right) and the sensationalist media esp the Indo are putting house price inflation scaremongering headlines every second day - just as they did in 2006.


Wait it out

There's a piece on the Irish Times site from today/yesterday which more or less agrees with you here. Essentially saying that yes we have a supply issue, but we had the same issue before covid hit and by that stage prices had levelled out due to the central bank LTI rules and the fact that there were around 20,000 new units for sale per year - that wasn't enough but it was having an effect on demand.

The only thing that's changed now is that many people have substantial savings which means the LTI limits are less relevant than they were, and new builds were reduced due to the lockdowns. The article is predicting building activity will pick up at the same time savings are being depleted and this will leave us back to where we were in 2019 by the end of the year.

To me it's a better analysis than the usual "price increases to continue for ever" type stuff we tend to get at times like these.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

https://www.businesspost.ie/houses/new-rules-will-mean-only-social-and-affordable-housing-for-public-lands-in-dublin-and-cork-4b0af282

Minister for Housing wants Land Development Agency to provide 100 per cent social and affordable homes on state’s sites in main cities

Good. More of this. This may surprise you but these will turn out to be mixed-income areas with a mixture of tenures (and indeed broad social groups) much like every other new housing development you care to name. As I said, there's likely not a single new development country-wide where this isn't the case already. The net effect is the same, and the profile of people living in the estate will likely be very similar, except the units will be delivered at a lower cost.

Prejudices need to be left at the door.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that some people just want people to pay expensive per unit housing costs 'just because', no matter what the fallout or implications for society or the broader economy.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Good. More of this. This may surprise you but these will turn out to be mixed-income areas with a mixture of tenures (and indeed broad social groups) much like every other new housing development you care to name. As I said, there's likely not a single new development country-wide where this isn't the case already.

Prejudices need to be left at the door.

Most new housing developments (for sale) are middle income. They consist of low percent of social housing. That's very different from the estates with 50% or so of social housing.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that some people just want people to pay expensive per unit housing costs 'just because', no matter what the fallout or implications for society or the broader economy.

I haven't met those people, neither I have seen here on boards.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

Most new housing developments (for sale) are middle income. They consist of low percent of social housing. That's very different from the estates with 50% or so of social housing.

'Low' is the keyword here and a movable feast. There will be a minimum of 10% already, and from friends that have purchased recently, new developments in most urban areas appear to be pushing 40% between part IV houses and leases to council anyway.

The days of dropping your monocle and getting surprised at social housing in your estate are in the past. People will have to get used to the povs sooner or later. You never know, many of them turn out to good neighbors.

I haven't gone door to door and asked, but I'd say my estate is probably running at 30% social housing (a solidly middle-class suburb about 10 mins drive from a city center). Brace yourself, it's a nice place to live.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

I haven't met those people, neither I have seen here on boards.

I think you're toying with it and I think you're under some misapprehensions about the caliber of people that will access affordable housing developments.

For some reason you get uncomfortable in your seat about public lands being used for affordable but have little to say about the same lands being sold at discount to private developers and them pocketing the arbitrage.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

'Low' is the keyword here and a movable feast. There will be a minimum of 10% already, and from friends that have purchased recently, new developments in most urban areas appear to be pushing 40% between part IV houses and leases to council anyway.

The days of dropping your monocle and getting surprised at social housing in your estate are in the past. People will have to get used to the povs sooner or later. You never know, many of them turn out to good neighbors.

I haven't gone door to door and asked, but I'd say my estate is probably running at 30% social housing (a solidly middle-class suburb about 10 mins drive from a city center). Brace yourself, it's a nice place to live.

Which ones, example?
I'm following many developments, and haven't seen any.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

Which ones, example?
I'm following many developments, and haven't seen any.

You haven't been looking very hard in that case. Local authorities are on a leasing rampage and it's been widely covered in the press.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

You haven't been looking very hard in that case. Local authorities are on a leasing rampage and it's been widely covered in the press.

It would be nice if you would share those developments. So we all can get some knowledge.
I can easily find for you to share examples with less than 40% of social housing.

fergus1001

Amadan Dubh wrote:

One thing I read in the last week was related to the institutionals being reluctant to drop rents, which we understand is linked to book values of the assets, how drops in asset values could trigger breaches of covenants in finance arrangements related to those assets, which of course could lead to forced asset sales by the lenders. The Central Bank also mentioned this in its risk report; the risk of asset fire sales and its impact on the property market. Liquidity and easy money is there until isn't.

this could be like why I suspect the reits are lobbying hard against a vacant home tax, at the moment they will leave them empty instead of renting them below their book value

if you look at grand canal dock and other places with apartments beside the tech giants there are only a few lights on in the evening because all the workers are going remote working

Darc19

Yurt! wrote: »

You haven't been looking very hard in that case. Local authorities are on a leasing rampage and it's been widely covered in the press.

Don't believe the utter sh1te written in the press.

The Indo (herald and Sunday world) are the worst.

Pure and utter bullsh1t is written in those rags.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

It would be nice if you would share those developments. So we all can get some knowledge.
I can easily find for you to share examples with less than 40% of social housing.

Knock yourself out. This would be fairly typical.


https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/600130/forty-six-limerick-homes-sell-for-11m.html

The latest phase of private housing dev. (46 units) fully purchased by Limerick council. Puts the estate pushing 40% when taken with the other social units in the estate. This is not an unusual development across the country.

You're welcome btw. Knowledge is always at hand if you ask politely.

Edit: Should point out in case anyone gets pedantic, the purchase by CHI is financed by Limerick council and tenants are sourced from the housing list. Tenancies are managed by CHI.

hometruths

Yurt! wrote: »

Knock yourself out. This would be fairly typical.


https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/600130/forty-six-limerick-homes-sell-for-11m.html

The latest phase of private housing dev. (46 units) fully purchased by Limerick council. Puts the estate pushingstates 40% when taken with the other social units in the estate. This is not an unusual development across the country.

You're welcome btw. Knowledge is always at hand if you ask politely.

Don’t forget the developments which are 100% leased for social housing eg KCC To Rent 125 Homes In Naas For A 25 Year Period

This is becoming increasingly common, which always makes me wonder...

If The justification for govt buying 750k apartments in D4 for social housing is so we can better integrate the tenants and avoid the ghettos of the past, how does leasing entire estates tick the integration and ghetto avoidance box?

Yurt2

schmittel wrote: »

Don’t forget the developments which are 100% leased for social housing eg KCC To Rent 125 Homes In Naas For A 25 Year Period

This is becoming increasingly common, which always makes me wonder...

If The justification for govt buying 750k apartments in D4 for social housing is so we can better integrate the tenants and avoid the ghettos of the past, how does leasing entire estates tick the integration and ghetto avoidance box?

It's poor policy for sure for a number of reasons. The 750k apartments were Dun Laoghaire if I recall correctly.

Housing lists need to be tackled, there's no two ways about it. The case I'm making, and others besides, is that they shouldn't be tackled like above.

Affordable and social housing delivered at scale on public lands. Mixed tenure, and mixed-income. We're slowly reaching a consensus in Ireland about this. There are many implacably opposed for their own various reasons, but people will need to get with the programme eventually. The model of delivery at present is beyond broken and just about p*sses everybody off.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Knock yourself out. This would be fairly typical.


https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/600130/forty-six-limerick-homes-sell-for-11m.html

The latest phase of private housing dev. (46 units) fully purchased by Limerick council. Puts the estate pushing 40% when taken with the other social units in the estate. This is not an unusual development across the country.

You're welcome btw. Knowledge is always at hand if you ask politely.

Edit: Should point out in case anyone gets pedantic, the purchase by CHI is financed by Limerick council and tenants are sourced from the housing list. Tenancies are managed by CHI.

From what I understand houses in these development were never for sale for private residents. which is basically a whole different development from the ones in discussion for middle class. Thus it's not pushing to 40%, or whatever. Which shows that it's very hard to find such development for middle class, that has been bought ~40% by social housing entities.

P.s. please don't get personal, I'm trying to keep specifically on the topic.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

From what I understand houses in these development were never for sale for private residents. which is basically a whole different development from the ones in discussion for middle class. Thus it's not pushing to 40%, or whatever. Which shows that it's very hard to find such development for middle class, that has been bought ~40% by social housing entities.

P.s. please don't get personal, I'm trying to keep specifically on the topic.

Ah here. The goalposts have left the stadium at this stage. You pretty snarkily asked for an example and I did your homework for you and put it under your nose and you still don't like it.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Ah here. The goalposts have left the stadium at this stage. You pretty snarkily asked for an example and I did your homework for you and put it under your nose and you still don't like it.

I simply was referring to your response on new developments. As it's appear a very rare case

Yurt! wrote: »

'Low' is the keyword here and a movable feast. There will be a minimum of 10% already, and from friends that have purchased recently, new developments in most urban areas appear to be pushing 40% between part IV houses and leases to council anyway.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

I simply was referring to your previous post. As it's appear a very rare case

This is not a good faith conversation. I'm out.

am_zarathustra

Yurt! wrote: »

It's poor policy for sure for a number of reasons. The 750k apartments were Dun Laoghaire if I recall correctly.

Housing lists need to be tackled, there's no two ways about it. The case I'm making, and others besides, is that they shouldn't be tackled like above.

Affordable and social housing delivered at scale on public lands. Mixed tenure, and mixed-income. We're slowly reaching a consensus in Ireland about this. There are many implacably opposed for their own various reasons, but people will need to get with the programme eventually. The model of delivery at present is beyond broken and just about p*sses everybody off.

100% is a disaster but people have a fear of estates with large numbers of county council houses as the councils are toothless. In fairness to the housing bodies they will actually tackle disruptive tentants whereas the council won't. I know estates completely destroyed by one family and the council then housed the oldest child when they hit age in the same estate. They are violent and intimidate older residents. When you spend 400000 grand on a house you want to do your best to avoid this

It's awful for the 95% of social housing recipients who are very decent people, often working jobs society just doesn't value enough but it's difficult to convince people to gamble their only shot at home ownership.