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

Marius34

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.

My brother bought in an estate in North Dublin last summer.
According to him over 40% were social and bought by housing authorities. This is typical of all new estates from what I can see.

hometruths

bubblypop wrote: »

My brother bought in an estate in North Dublin last summer.
According to him over 40% were social and bought by housing authorities. This is typical of all new estates from what I can see.

It seems to be very common. How valuable is HTB and shared equity etc if you’re virtually guaranteed to be buying a house in a development of possibly majority social housing as new build estates seem to be going.

Marius34

bubblypop wrote: »

My brother bought in an estate in North Dublin last summer.
According to him over 40% were social and bought by housing authorities. This is typical of all new estates from what I can see.

Which development?
Normally its 10%

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

Which development?
Normally its 10%

10 is the amount set aside for the local authorities

Housing authorities buy houses and take people off the housing lists, this particular housing authority bought one full road.
They buy they same as private buyers or international reits.

Marius34

bubblypop wrote: »

10 is the amount set aside for the local authorities

Housing authorities buy houses and take people off the housing lists, this particular housing authority bought one full road.
They buy they same as private buyers or international reits.

Yes, but all the new estates that I know for private resident sales, are only around 10% for social housing. You can read as well on boards people discussing about new developments of interest, they all see around 10%. I'm not sure where this notion come in this thread that its around 40%. Which development you speaking about? Nobody seams to be able to figure out, which are those estates, thus it maybe just anecdotical gossips.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, but all the new estates that I know for private resident sales, are only around 10% for social housing. You can read as well on boards people discussing about new developments of interest, they all see around 10%. I'm not sure where this notion come in this thread that its around 40%. Which development you speaking about? Nobody seams to be able to figure out, which are those estates, thus it maybe just anecdotical gossips.

From reality Marius.

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

Yes, but all the new estates that I know for private resident sales, are only around 10% for social housing. You can read as well on boards people discussing about new developments of interest, they all see around 10%. I'm not sure where this notion come in this thread that its around 40%. Which development you speaking about? Nobody seams to be able to figure out, which are those estates, thus it maybe just anecdotical gossips.

Are you not listening?
10% social housing is what they have to set aside for local authorities.
There is nothing stopping housing authorities buying up as many properties as they want and then renting them to social tenants.
Same as there is nothing stopping private reits buying as many as they want and renting to whoever they want, mostly hap tenants from local authority housing lists.
Do you even live in Ireland? How have you missed this?

Marius34

bubblypop wrote: »

Are you not listening?
10% social housing is what they have to set aside for local authorities.
There is nothing stopping housing authorities buying up as many properties as they want and then renting them to social tenants.
Same as there is nothing stopping private reits buying as many as they want and renting to whoever they want, mostly hap tenants from local authority housing lists.
Do you even live in Ireland? How have you missed this?

So which development was that?
Talk is cheap.

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

So which development was that?
Talk is cheap.

That particular one was Knightsgate in Rush, I believe other estates out there are similar but I didn't really care

Do you not believe it or something? How have you missed this? This is normal.

Cal4567

Yurt! wrote: »

From reality Marius.

I know a few developers through extended friends and families. Some new estates have just 10
% social as per the regulations whilst others have more. Sometimes the developer is asked by the council or housing body if he will sell more to them. I hear the council has the final say on that.

Could be then 20% going to social, maybe more. Different examples. Sometimes, it's a developer who cannot shift the last few properties, other times he is keen to sell the council as much as they will take. Even pre covid the market had become sluggish mainly due to the CB lending rules.

This is now fairly common across the industry. Please if anyone else in the industry is reading this, do confirm as well. Don't just take it from me.

Marius34

Cal4567 wrote: »

I know a few developers through extended friends and families. Some new estates have just 10
% social as per the regulations whilst others have more. Sometimes the developer is asked by the council or housing body if he will sell more to them. I hear the council has the final say on that.

Could be then 20% going to social, maybe more. Different examples. Sometimes, it's a developer who cannot shift the last few properties, other times he is keen to sell the council as much as they will take. Even pre covid the market had become sluggish mainly due to the CB lending rules.

This is now fairly common across the industry. Please if anyone else in the industry is reading this, do confirm as well. Don't just take it from me.

I agree with this, makes sense, which is very different from saying that it's around 40% are purchased for social housing in new developments.

Amadan Dubh

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

When my anecdotal experience shows me that entry level workers, just graduated from college are talking about saving for deposits to buy their home and a Dublin courier the other week was telling me about the home he is trying to buy in Wexford as prices are too mad in Wicklow and Dublin, I see that there is no point in playing the game anytime soon. Personally, we would consider buying but at this point I think we'll be waiting at least 2 and up to 6 years, possibly even after the next election, before parting with this hard fought deposit we've been saving.

What worries me about buying is that only new builds with Help the Brickie are worth looking at in terms of houses that are affordable, the back gardens are non-existent and I'd hate to take on a mortgage, losing my deposit cash to get it, only for the estate to have social issues. Also, our rent is extortionate but that is clearly a bubble that will deflate, I am extremely confident about that. But what I would be fearful of is taking on a mortgage in the current environment, more than what we had hoped to take on due to the swollen demand, which is a bit below the rent currently but then in a few years interest rates shoot up and the mortgage is closer to the extortionate rent we were paying! I want to see a few years of stability or declines before taking the plunge, it's too volatile to jump into a mortgage anytime soon

MacronvFrugals

Marius34 wrote: »

I agree with this, makes sense, which is very different from saying that it's around 40% are purchased for social housing in new developments.

Take the Taoiseach's "The state is the biggest player in the market" comment

Now lets think the state is building feck all, aside from HAP we know this money is being ploughed into lease deals all over the country

Cal4567

Cal4567 wrote: »

Could be then 20% going to social, maybe more. Different examples. Sometimes, it's a developer who cannot shift the last few properties, other times he is keen to sell the council as much as they will take. Even pre covid the market had become sluggish mainly due to the CB lending rules.

This is now fairly common across the industry. Please if anyone else in the industry is reading this, do confirm as well. Don't just take it from me.

I see a small development (55 units) in the local paper here being bought by the local council.

https://www.kfmradio.com/news/localnews/warm-welcome-for-the-acquisition-of-social-homes-in-celbridge/

It seems to be the whole thing. Soc Dems fairly worried about investors buying the whole estate in Maynooth a fortnight ago, lots of concern about the futures of first time buyers, no worries today when the council bought the whole lot of this place. :pac:

I love the language the media uses. Councils "purchase" or "acquire" houses. "Vulture" funds "snap them up"

Amadan Dubh

MacronvFrugals wrote: »

Take the Taoiseach's "The state is the biggest player in the market" comment

Now lets think the state is building feck all, aside from HAP we know this money is being ploughed into lease deals all over the country

You honestly cannot make this up;

Look up Fiona McCabe at Tuath and Claire Solon at Clúid. I have screenshotted their LinkedIn work experiences for ease of reference. These individuals hold high up positions in these "approved housing bodies" while at the same time act for foreign investors!

These housing bodies go cap in hand to the State for funding, looking for our tax money, they advise on social housing as if they are some sort of legitimate authority on the state of the housing crisis. Meanwhile, they have the investors infiltrating their operations in order to essentially funnel our tax money into the pockets of those investors whose interests they represent outside of their approved housing body roles.

It is a total hoodwink, bordering on a criminal scam in my view. The property market in Ireland is being artificially inflated and the individuals are suffering as we are being forced to pay high costs for housing as a result.

Browney7

Marius34 wrote: »

So which development was that?
Talk is cheap.

The underbidder on the now infamous estate in Maynooth that the big bad REIT bought was an AHB (think it was cluid). They were looking at taking the whole thing if I recall from the reports

javaboy

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

When my anecdotal experience shows me that entry level workers, just graduated from college are talking about saving for deposits to buy their home and a Dublin courier the other week was telling me about the home he is trying to buy in Wexford as prices are too mad in Wicklow and Dublin, I see that there is no point in playing the game anytime soon. Personally, we would consider buying but at this point I think we'll be waiting at least 2 and up to 6 years, possibly even after the next election, before parting with this hard fought deposit we've been saving.

Out of curiosity, assuming for the sake of simplicity no major change in rents or interest rates, have you worked out what kind of drop in price you'd need to happen for it to be worth your while holding off for 2 years? ...or 6?

But what I would be fearful of is taking on a mortgage in the current environment, more than what we had hoped to take on due to the swollen demand, which is a bit below the rent currently but then in a few years interest rates shoot up and the mortgage is closer to the extortionate rent we were paying! I want to see a few years of stability or declines before taking the plunge, it's too volatile to jump into a mortgage anytime soon

You could fix for a longer term to protect against this. In the meantime, your mortgage payments are buying you equity.

Marius34

Browney7 wrote: »

The underbidder on the now infamous estate in Maynooth that the big bad REIT bought was an AHB (think it was cluid). They were looking at taking the whole thing if I recall from the reports

I think buying whole development is way more common than buying half or so.

Amadan Dubh

javaboy wrote: »

Out of curiosity, assuming for the sake of simplicity no major change in rents or interest rates, have you worked out what kind of drop in price you'd need to happen for it to be worth your while holding off for 2 years? ...or 6?



You could fix for a longer term to protect against this. In the meantime, your mortgage payments are buying you equity.

Yes, actually I read about the new long term fixed rates now being offered. Smart move to take those on I think.

On the first point, no cost analysis has been done other than to calculate how much more of a deposit we hope to have at the end of each year. We are lucky, I'm not going to lie, with how much we can save while renting. The bigger the deposit the less the mortgage when we eventually dive in is how I see it. The main thing is to not have a mortgage lasting past the age of 60 but ideally not past 55. We'll see how that goes!

Browney7

Browney7 wrote: »

The underbidder on the now infamous estate in Maynooth that the big bad REIT bought was an AHB (think it was cluid). They were looking at taking the whole thing if I recall from the reports

The AHB getting burned seemed to kick it all off.

Timing belt

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I see a small development (55 units) in the local paper here being bought by the local council.

https://www.kfmradio.com/news/localnews/warm-welcome-for-the-acquisition-of-social-homes-in-celbridge/

It seems to be the whole thing. Soc Dems fairly worried about investors buying the whole estate in Maynooth a fortnight ago, lots of concern about the futures of first time buyers, no worries today when the council bought the whole lot of this place. :pac:

I love the language the media uses. Councils "purchase" or "acquire" houses. "Vulture" funds "snap them up"

From the cso stats it looks like 1 out of every 9 properties was purchased by funds or councils. With councils and housing agencies buying roughly the same amount of properties as funds.

Mrcaramelchoc

That's true but keano loves it

Jmc25

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

When my anecdotal experience shows me that entry level workers, just graduated from college are talking about saving for deposits to buy their home and a Dublin courier the other week was telling me about the home he is trying to buy in Wexford as prices are too mad in Wicklow and Dublin, I see that there is no point in playing the game anytime soon. Personally, we would consider buying but at this point I think we'll be waiting at least 2 and up to 6 years, possibly even after the next election, before parting with this hard fought deposit we've been saving.

What worries me about buying is that only new builds with Help the Brickie are worth looking at in terms of houses that are affordable, the back gardens are non-existent and I'd hate to take on a mortgage, losing my deposit cash to get it, only for the estate to have social issues. Also, our rent is extortionate but that is clearly a bubble that will deflate, I am extremely confident about that. But what I would be fearful of is taking on a mortgage in the current environment, more than what we had hoped to take on due to the swollen demand, which is a bit below the rent currently but then in a few years interest rates shoot up and the mortgage is closer to the extortionate rent we were paying! I want to see a few years of stability or declines before taking the plunge, it's too volatile to jump into a mortgage anytime soon

I'm in the same boat re waiting it out for the time being. Fully understand I might eat my words, but now seems to be the worst time to buy in years. Not just because of the higher prices but because of the sheer uncertainty of what's going to happen in a post covid world in terms of the economy and government policy.

I would buy at current prices if things stabilised for a couple of years, but the current market is dysfunctional and anyone who tells you they know where prices are going in the next few years is deluded. Nothing is certain at the moment.

javaboy

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

On the first point, no cost analysis has been done other than to calculate how much more of a deposit we hope to have at the end of each year. We are lucky, I'm not going to lie, with how much we can save while renting. The bigger the deposit the less the mortgage when we eventually dive in is how I see it. The main thing is to not have a mortgage lasting past the age of 60 but ideally not past 55. We'll see how that goes!

It's worth doing the full costing using something like https://www.drcalculator.com/mortgage/ to see where'd you be. Some of the money you're saving now above your rent should be calculated as an overpayment for an honest comparison.

You might have bought enough equity in that time to compensate for a non-crash fall in prices. Plus there's the non-tangible benefits like security, putting holes in the wall, pets, family life etc.

Cal4567

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

You honestly cannot make this up;

Look up Fiona McCabe at Tuath and Claire Solon at Clúid. I have screenshotted their LinkedIn work experiences for ease of reference. These individuals hold high up positions in these "approved housing bodies" while at the same time act for foreign investors!

These housing bodies go cap in hand to the State for funding, looking for our tax money, they advise on social housing as if they are some sort of legitimate authority on the state of the housing crisis. Meanwhile, they have the investors infiltrating their operations in order to essentially funnel our tax money into the pockets of those investors whose interests they represent outside of their approved housing body roles.

It is a total hoodwink, bordering on a criminal scam in my view. The property market in Ireland is being artificially inflated and the individuals are suffering as we are being forced to pay high costs for housing as a result.

These individuals you refer to are non exec directors. They are unpaid voluntary Board Directors of each approved housing body's Board. It's a good thing that charitable organisations have a range of expertise on their Boards. When you term them 'approved housing bodies' in that manner, it sounds like you don't think they are what they are - organisations here to house people who cannot access the markets themselves.

I tell you something from what I have seen, they do a bloody better job than the councils.

I think you are wide of the mark here. I can understand people being angry about the current crisis, but I would push that anger onto the government and their, so far, lack of any real substance in how they are dealing with this.

Villa05

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.

There a short distance away from me. Very popular given the facilities surrounding the development with 3 new schools, a large public park on your doorstep, crescent shopping centre and 2 minutes from motorway network.
Amongst the most expensive areas to buy in Limerick

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

There a short distance away from me. Very popular given the facilities surrounding the development with 3 new schools, a large public park on your doorstep, crescent shopping centre and 2 minutes from motorway network.
Amongst the most expensive areas to buy in Limerick

At least places around me in Dublin 13/Portmarnock are different on new builds, as from what people see on this thread for other areas.
Here some projects are for 100% social housing, some 100% Rentals, and the ones for private market sale, are mostly only 10% for social housing.

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

At least places around me in Dublin 13/Portmarnock are different on new builds, as from what people see on this thread for other areas.
Here some projects are for 100% social housing, some 100% Rentals, and the ones for private market sale, are mostly only 10% for social housing.

Unless housing authorities buy them up, which they do.

Amadan Dubh

Cal4567 wrote: »

These individuals you refer to are non exec directors. They are unpaid voluntary Board Directors of each approved housing body's Board. It's a good thing that charitable organisations have a range of expertise on their Boards. When you term them 'approved housing bodies' in that manner, it sounds like you don't think they are what they are - organisations here to house people who cannot access the markets themselves.

I tell you something from what I have seen, they do a bloody better job than the councils.

I think you are wide of the mark here. I can understand people being angry about the current crisis, but I would push that anger onto the government and their, so far, lack of any real substance in how they are dealing with this.

I disagree entirely and you are being protective for some reason, naivety hopefully. These individuals are not doing this out of the kindness of their heart. At the very least it serves as a useful information gathering exercise for them and Greystar, the IDA.

Social housing is seen as an investable area by investors, particularly in light of the uncertainty in the commercial sector. If you go back a few pages in this thread you will see the discussion on how it is being promoted in investor marketing documents. This is because of, among other things, the 20/25 year social housing leases at 85/90% market rents with strong covenants in favour of the investors. On the one side you have IDA encouraging investment into Ireland, incl. housing, as well as Greystar already invested in the Irish housing market. On the other side you have the State and the individuals who are struggling to pay their rent and the government is being told by these AHBs (with their investor connections) that more money is needed to be put towards housing the individuals. I just don't see how it is not a big conflict of interest to still act on behalf of the investors as well as represent the AHBs.

Marius34

bubblypop wrote: »

Unless housing authorities buy them up, which they do.

Nobody arguing it, that it doesn't happen.

Cal4567

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I disagree entirely and you are being protective for some reason, naivety hopefully. These individuals are not doing this out of the kindness of their heart. At the very least it serves as a useful information gathering exercise for them and Greystar, the IDA.

Social housing is seen as an investable area by investors, particularly in light of the uncertainty in the commercial sector. If you go back a few pages in this thread you will see the discussion on how it is being promoted in investor marketing documents. This is because of, among other things, the 20/25 year social housing leases at 85/90% market rents with strong covenants in favour of the investors. On the one side you have IDA encouraging investment into Ireland, incl. housing, as well as Greystar already invested in the Irish housing market. On the other side you have the State and the individuals who are struggling to pay their rent and the government is being told by these AHBs (with their investor connections) that more money is needed to be put towards housing the individuals. I just don't see how it is not a big conflict of interest to still act on behalf of the investors as well as represent the AHBs.

The naivety is not from me. It's a separate argument, the long term leasing point and the work the housing bodies do. I agree entirely, the leasing is a frankly stupid policy and very short term. It is though only a small element of the work of the bodies. I have no skin in the game, only family and some business connections to developers and building contractors, some of whom work for these bodies.

I think we will start to see these leasing deals slowly being reduced, year on year, as more direct build takes over.

Hubertj

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I disagree entirely and you are being protective for some reason, naivety hopefully. These individuals are not doing this out of the kindness of their heart. At the very least it serves as a useful information gathering exercise for them and Greystar, the IDA.

Social housing is seen as an investable area by investors, particularly in light of the uncertainty in the commercial sector. If you go back a few pages in this thread you will see the discussion on how it is being promoted in investor marketing documents. This is because of, among other things, the 20/25 year social housing leases at 85/90% market rents with strong covenants in favour of the investors. On the one side you have IDA encouraging investment into Ireland, incl. housing, as well as Greystar already invested in the Irish housing market. On the other side you have the State and the individuals who are struggling to pay their rent and the government is being told by these AHBs (with their investor connections) that more money is needed to be put towards housing the individuals. I just don't see how it is not a big conflict of interest to still act on behalf of the investors as well as represent the AHBs.

Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion? Or is it just a conspiracy theory? It’s quite a serious accusation to make and I find it fairly ridiculous to suggest someone is not capable of being socially responsible simply because of where they work.

hometruths

Marius34 wrote: »

Nobody arguing it, that it doesn't happen.

To be fair it sounded a lot like you were arguing that most new housing estates would have a low percentage of social housing - i.e 10%. This is simply not true. The real figure is much greater.

timmyntc

Hubertj wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion? Or is it just a conspiracy theory? It’s quite a serious accusation to make and I find it fairly ridiculous to suggest someone is not capable of being socially responsible simply because of where they work.

It seems like a definite conflict of interest - regardless of ones true intentions.

awec

schmittel wrote: »

To be fair it sounded a lot like you were arguing that most new housing estates would have a low percentage of social housing - i.e 10%. This is simply not true. The real figure is much greater.

Can you back this up with anything?

I saw 40% being mentioned as "the norm" earlier in the thread, where was this figure pulled from?

Marius34

schmittel wrote: »

To be fair it sounded a lot like you were arguing that most new housing estates would have a low percentage of social housing - i.e 10%. This is simply not true. The real figure is much greater.

I was arguing about new housing projects for private individual sales. I never argued that housing authorities do not buy additional properties in those estates.
And yes I still see that most of those projects for private individual sales are with 10% social, and not 40%.

Marius34

Marius34 wrote: »

I was arguing about new housing projects for private individual sales. I never argued that housing authorities do not buy additional properties in those estates.
And yes I still see that most of those projects for private individual sales are with 10% social, and not 40%.

The 10% is the minimum available for the councils. Housing authorities buy houses in private housing estates all the time. Which means that the amount of social housing in those estates is higher.
You know, maybe 40% ??

hometruths

awec wrote: »

Can you back this up with anything?

I saw 40% being mentioned as "the norm" earlier in the thread, where was this figure pulled from?

No idea on the 40%, but I'd say it is closer to the true figure than 10%.

awec

schmittel wrote: »

No idea on the 40%, but I'd say it is closer to the true figure than 10%.

I would say it is absolutely not.

This number has literally been pulled out of thin air.

timmyntc

awec wrote: »

I would say it is absolutely not.

This number has literally been pulled out of thin air.

Its impossible to quantify without knowing about AHBs acquisition numbers - however given that 10% is the bare minimum to be given to the council, and AHBs are on a buying 'spree' - it is definitely higher than 10% of stock.

When AHBs are trying to buy entire estates of new builds, then its hardly a surprise that they would buy up a large proportion in mixed estates also.

awec

timmyntc wrote: »

Its impossible to quantify without knowing about AHBs acquisition numbers - however given that 10% is the bare minimum to be given to the council, and AHBs are on a buying 'spree' - it is definitely higher than 10% of stock.

When AHBs are trying to buy entire estates of new builds, then its hardly a surprise that they would buy up a large proportion in mixed estates also.

Oh I am sure it is higher than 10% of stock.

But we've leapt from "they may buy more than 10%" to "40% is the norm".

This is just alarmism. Normal people are still buying houses as well.

hometruths

awec wrote: »

I would say it is absolutely not.

This number has literally been pulled out of thin air.

Well we know that all new build estates start at 10% as a base.

And we know that non household entities purchased 32.9% of new builds in 2019, and all indicators suggest that probably increased in 2020.

And we know that councils are entering into long term leases for social housing in unprecedented volumes.

Given that we know all of the above it it not unreasonable to believe the figure is closer to 40% in some new build estates that 10%.

hometruths

awec wrote: »

Oh I am sure it is higher than 10% of stock.

But we've leapt from "they may buy more than 10%" to "40% is the norm".

This is just alarmism. Normal people are still buying houses as well.

Do you think it could be as high as 25%?

awec

schmittel wrote: »

Well we know that all new build estates start at 10% as a base.

And we know that non household entities purchased 32.9% of new builds in 2019, and all indicators suggest that probably increased in 2020.

And we know that councils are entering into long term leases for social housing in unprecedented volumes.

Given that we know all of the above it it not unreasonable to believe the figure is closer to 40% in some new build estates that 10%.

Which indicators?

schmittel wrote: »

Do you think it could be as high as 20%?

Possibly.

In my own anecdotal experience it has always been close enough to 10%.

hometruths

awec wrote: »

Which indicators?

Well the fact that the government have recently felt the need to change stamp duty laws to stop them buying buying in bulk would be one.

awec wrote: »

Possibly.

In my own anecdotal experience it has always been close enough to 10%.

I have no idea if it is as high as 40%, all I am saying is that I don't find Marius' argument that most new build estates only have 10% of social housing to be credible.

timmyntc

awec wrote: »

Possibly.

In my own anecdotal experience it has always been close enough to 10%.

In my experience its a more recent thing, last 2/3 years have seen a big uptick in AHBs buying of new builds.

They dont buy a few units in each estate though, some will have a very large % bought, others will be lower. But almost always above the minimum 10%.

am_zarathustra

I'd be in agreement with the roughly 30-40% based on half the people I know buying over the last few years. Articles like this (linked above) drive it home

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-homes-bought-by-institutions-up-six-fold-in-decade-1.4598783?fbclid=IwAR2Msnu2FyJbF2-qiOA7Rke9enCldMRMenBvTQKbsa8i_9HVz4_OjRxArxY&mode=amp

I know good people, very invested in their community, went to college, work hard, do socially important jobs who have not been able to buy a house in an area as investors are snapping up everything. So far they have all been rented on to the council. I just bought a house very close to one of the developments mentioned here, it'll cost 10 of thousands to get it close to one of those new houses but I'd been warned the council were looking so I assumed they wouldn't be on the market, I was right. I'll end up paying a lot more as a result.

If the coutry councils buy housing stock at 10%(and often more) and institutional investors are buying over a third then it stands to reason it's likely the proportion of SH is close to 40% in some estates.

I'm absolutely for social housing but I also like guards, nurses, teachers, social workers ect being able to afford to live close to or in the communities they serve. If you offer 25 years leases, maintain the property and guarantee 90% market value what do you expect to happen?

Yurt2

awec wrote: »

Oh I am sure it is higher than 10% of stock.

But we've leapt from "they may buy more than 10%" to "40% is the norm".

This is just alarmism. Normal people are still buying houses as well.

Don't think anyone said "40% is the norm". What I said is that in certain areas it's pushing towards that percentage. I stand behind that.

The direction of travel, particularly over the last couple of years is towards that figure and not 10%, and where councils have long waiting lists 10% hasn't been the way of things for quite a while now.

Amadan Dubh

Cal4567 wrote: »

The naivety is not from me. It's a separate argument, the long term leasing point and the work the housing bodies do. I agree entirely, the leasing is a frankly stupid policy and very short term. It is though only a small element of the work of the bodies. I have no skin in the game, only family and some business connections to developers and building contractors, some of whom work for these bodies.

I think we will start to see these leasing deals slowly being reduced, year on year, as more direct build takes over.

It's a ridiculous policy, I agree. But it is a policy which investors are licking their chops at. The investors are infiltrating the bodies which implement this ridiculous government policy. That is never going to result in these housing bodies questioning the policy.

Hubertj wrote: »

Do you have any evidence to support such an assertion? Or is it just a conspiracy theory? It’s quite a serious accusation to make and I find it fairly ridiculous to suggest someone is not capable of being socially responsible simply because of where they work.

"Fairly ridiculous" - how so? I am highlighting what looks like to me as a potential conflict and questioning how it is reconcilable.

JDD

I don't think housing boards are able to buy up large volumes of new builds in housing estates that are in high demand areas. Honestly, while developers love cashflow, it would be counter productive for them to sell large chunks of their estate to the council for social housing. This is simply because larger estates are sold piecemeal - 30-50 units at the time as and when they are built - and an estate may get a "reputation" (rightly or wrongly) early on as having a high number of social housing units. They'll find it difficult to sell in later phases if a reputation like that takes hold. And why bother when there are many private buyers falling over themselves to buy the units?

For instance, in our estate the developers have released 30/40/50 units at a time for private sale (outside of what they build for the council - the 10% - and anything they might have directly sold to REITs). As far as I can see so far about 90% of the houses and 60% of the apartments have been sold to owner occupiers - based on Daft rental listings. I can't imagine there's too many houses left over for the council to buy.

I'm not saying you'd immediately know if the people next door owned the house or were renting it off the council, but you'd definitely know if 30/40% of your road was. And while you'd be reluctant to talk about that in case it ran down the value of your house, people outside the estate would know. It would be inevitable that word would get out and developers know that would be kryptonite to later sales.