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

Timing belt

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Of course in practice QE probably won't be unwound in a meaningful way anytime soon but I am confident that QE has found its way into assets, including property, which has inflated them to these levels. Especially during covid the link between QE and assets has been particularly pronounced. But, like I said, my hope is that politics kicks in before the bubble can burst and political intervention in terms of managing the QE and interest rate rises combined with significant public house building programmes and other supply stimulating measures.

Yes QE has definitely increased property prices as investors case yield. But it is not just property that has been impacted... QE has lead investors to take on more risk. Just look at the non-MMF investment funds (which include property funds) who have increased their exposure to interest rate risk. If rates rise by 1% these funds will see a decrease of 5-7% in their market value. The central banks can't raise rates without causing a market crash similar to 2008 unless there is real economic growth.

Villa05

Timing belt wrote:

I agree that supply falling short of demand and a high level of immigration around 2019 pushed prices higher but I don't know would I call it a bubble in 2019.

Would I be wrong in my assumption that bubbles are caused by controlling supply and/or demand and both are being controlled in the Irish/global housing markets

The last crash was primarily caused by credit growth. Credit growth is a mechanism for controlling demand.

Would love for someone on the bullish side to come out and say the current situation is sustainable because........

I feel it is not and government actions are exacerbating the extent of the crash through borrowing to make the situation worse
State subsidising every new build through various schemes. This mainly ends up as developers profit driving up land prices
Inflation linked Long term leasing locking in the taxpayer to ballooning housing costs
Accelerating SF path to power

Amadan Dubh

Timing belt wrote: »

Yes QE has definitely increased property prices as investors case yield. But it is not just property that has been impacted... QE has lead investors to take on more risk. Just look at the non-MMF investment funds (which include property funds) who have increased their exposure to interest rate risk. If rates rise by 1% these funds will see a decrease of 5-7% in their market value. The central banks can't raise rates without causing a market crash similar to 2008 unless there is real economic growth.

Speak of the devil and he shall appear. This has been been published today in the FT, reporting on the Fed's possible outlook for QE and what is happening in the property market. Essentially, a bust in the property market should not be leading to financial stability risks.

https://www.ft.com/content/ff83ed04-3bb5-444a-9af0-1b466201ef67

US cannot afford housing market ‘boom and bust’, warns Fed official

“It’s very important for us to get back to our 2 per cent inflation target but the goal is for that to be sustainable,” Eric Rosengren, the president of the Boston Fed, told the Financial Times. “And for that to be sustainable, we can’t have a boom and bust cycle in something like real estate.

“I’m not predicting that we’ll necessarily have a bust. But I do think it’s worth paying close attention to what’s happening in the housing market,” he said.

According to data released by the National Association of Realtors last week, the median price for sales of existing homes was up 23.6 per cent year-on-year in May.


He said the roaring housing market should be a factor as the central bank considers slowing or removing some of the hefty monetary support for the economy introduced during the coronavirus pandemic.

Villa05

fliball123 wrote:

Why have the government not used Nama for social housing??

Nama remit was to achieve the best price for the tax payer. It was not untill Nama sold most of there loanbook that social housing achieved the best returns for investors.
Mismanagement on an epic scale

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

Would I be wrong in my assumption that bubbles are caused by controlling supply and/or demand and both are being controlled in the Irish/global housing markets

The last crash was primarily caused by credit growth. Credit growth is a mechanism for controlling demand.

Would love for someone on the bullish side to come out and say the current situation is sustainable because........

I feel it is not and government actions are exacerbating the extent of the crash through borrowing to make the situation worse
State subsidising every new build through various schemes. This mainly ends up as developers profit driving up land prices
Inflation linked Long term leasing locking in the taxpayer to ballooning housing costs
Accelerating SF path to power

In regards to property price.
the current situation is sustainable because of low LTI value, fairly low credits, high savings, low construction output, economy growth, etc..
BUT I would not be surprise if next year we will start to see real signs of Bubble that could pop, there are lots of conditions for Bubble to appear soon. Next year I may start to move to other side of equation, with some expectations of overheat.
And don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Ireland has serious housing problems.

cnocbui

Perhaps the land banking problem could be addressed by overhauling the whole planning landscape - from the legislation through to the incredible delays and inefficiencies caused by the nyetskies - an boad NIMBY one and two.

Give the central government some overarching powers and oversight, so if you have landbanking going on, the central government can tell the owners to start construction of houses on it within 12 months or sell it to the government for €x, otherwise it will be rezoned agricultural for the next 30 years, bypassing the local council/s.

javaboy

Villa05 wrote: »

Would I be wrong in my assumption that bubbles are caused by controlling supply and/or demand and both are being controlled in the Irish/global housing markets

The last crash was primarily caused by credit growth. Credit growth is a mechanism for controlling demand.

That's some twisty logic there. How was the unchecked credit growth of the last crash a mechanism for controlling demand? Surely it was the exact opposite: uncontrolled demand

Would love for someone on the bullish side to come out and say the current situation is sustainable because........

Wouldn't necessarily cast myself as bullish but I'd argue the short to medium term is sustainable because there are enough buyers (owner occupiers) who can afford the current supply at these prices and even higher.

Most people agree supply can't be ramped up overnight but if it gradually increases and/or if prices exceed what people can afford, why shouldn't price rises taper off and plateau?


EDIT: Longer term, large amounts of the population having no capacity to house themselves into retirement is definitely not sustainable.

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

Would I be wrong in my assumption that bubbles are caused by controlling supply and/or demand and both are being controlled in the Irish/global housing markets

The last crash was primarily caused by credit growth. Credit growth is a mechanism for controlling demand.

Would love for someone on the bullish side to come out and say the current situation is sustainable because........

I feel it is not and government actions are exacerbating the extent of the crash through borrowing to make the situation worse
State subsidising every new build through various schemes. This mainly ends up as developers profit driving up land prices
Inflation linked Long term leasing locking in the taxpayer to ballooning housing costs
Accelerating SF path to power

I think a fairly large impediment to increasing supply is capacity to build. There is a skills shortage in many countries so immigration can’t solve the issue. Lack of apprentices over the last decade was/is an issue. This is understandable given the high levels of unemployment in construction following the last recession.

woejus

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for sharing that paywall.

Same Old Hope: This Bubble Is Different

By Catherine Rampell
Sept. 13, 2009
This time is different.

Timing belt

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Speak of the devil and he shall appear. This has been been published today in the FT, reporting on the Fed's possible outlook for QE and what is happening in the property market. Essentially, a bust in the property market should not be leading to financial stability risks.

https://www.ft.com/content/ff83ed04-3bb5-444a-9af0-1b466201ef67

They will only do this once there is real economic growth. They even call that out in the article.

"The Fed has said that it would begin reducing its asset purchases only once it had made “substantial further progress” towards its goals of 2 per cent average inflation and full employment."

The big question is are we seeing strong economic growth that can be sustained or is it a bounce back due to economies opening up. Everyman and their dog knows that QE is leading to more risk taking and is causing asset inflation and it is a side effect of not having a economic collapse that would lead to increased levels of unemployment and businesses failing left right and center.

fliball123

Villa05 wrote: »

Nama remit was to achieve the best price for the tax payer. It was not untill Nama sold most of there loanbook that social housing achieved the best returns for investors.
Mismanagement on an epic scale

True at the time but its been common knowledge for at least 2 years we needed more social housing how many properties have been sold in that time from nama that could of been cultivated into social housing. I mean the Irish people own it.

Villa05

Marius34 wrote:

In regards to property price. the current situation is sustainable because of low LTI value, fairly low credits, high savings, low construction output, economy growth, etc.. BUT I would not be surprise if next year we will start to see real signs of Bubble that could pop, there are lots of conditions for Bubble to appear soon. Next year I may start to move to other side of equation, with some expectations of overheat. I don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that Ireland has serious housing problems.

You take measures to stop a bubble forming early, we are doing everything to blow it up. Would you stick with your prediction that we won't see 2020 prices again.
The higher the rises the greater the fall

javaboy wrote:

Wouldn't necessarily cast myself as bullish but I'd argue the short to medium term is sustainable because there are enough buyers (owner occupiers) who can afford the current supply at these prices and even higher.

Bubble growth period, don't forget investment funds/gov will outbid FTB in high demand areas, pushing them further out. They in turn will drive up prices beyond what that local economy can afford

javaboy wrote:

Most people agree supply can't be ramped up overnight but if it gradually increases and/or if prices exceed what people can afford, why shouldn't price rises taper off and plateau?

Supply will go where the money is. The past 5 years was commercial and hotels. There is most likely an oversupply in this sector now

javaboy wrote:

That's some twisty logic there. How was the unchecked credit growth of the last crash a mechanism for controlling demand? Surely it was the exact opposite: uncontrolled demand

Ever increasing house prices were seen as a positive in the 90/00s those that flagged issues were demonised and the policy got Bertie serially elected. Central bank was a job for the Boyz and they pretty much done what they were told.

Control is a positive and negative force depending on who has it

Marius34

Villa05 wrote: »

You take measures to stop a bubble forming early, we are doing everything to blow it up. Would you stick with your prediction that we won't see 2020 prices again.
The higher the rises the greater the fall

Yes, I stick with my predictions, that it's most likely we won't see 2020 prices again.
The higher the rise, the greater the fall could be possible.
But if the price will go 30% up, and than fall 20%, we still would be above 2020 levels.
The crash of over 30% is very rare, thus no much point of waiting for it.

fliball123

Villa05 wrote: »

You take measures to stop a bubble forming early, we are doing everything to blow it up. Would you stick with your prediction that we won't see 2020 prices again.
The higher the rises the greater the fall




Bubble growth period, don't forget investment funds/gov will outbid FTB in high demand areas, pushing them further out. They in turn will drive up prices beyond what that local economy can afford




Supply will go where the money is. The past 5 years was commercial and hotels. There is most likely an oversupply in this sector now



Ever increasing house prices were seen as a positive in the 90/00s those that flagged issues were demonised and the policy got Bertie serially elected. Central bank was a job for the Boyz and they pretty much done what they were told.

Control is a positive and negative force depending on who has it

How do you control it? Supply and Demand. Demand is out of our control you can keep a lid on this with credit in some shape or form. I mean if the central bank borrowing rules were not there I think prices would be up even higher.

But supply is a different matter there are so many issues

Lack of available property
Left learning sympathies meaning everyone will getting housed in some shape or form
No family home repossessions.
Building costs increasing (both material and labour).

I cant see any government being able to deal adequately with these 4 issues as it would cost them their job. I think your giviing our government way to much credit they didnt cause the prices to go up, they would of gone up naturally even if there was no FTB grants or any other subsidy (maybe not as high). I guess we will never know how much damage they have done by interfering. They have been reacting to the lefties and instead of bringing prices down they are shooting up.

They should be concentrating on building that is the only way they can bring prices down that will also look good for them when it comes to voting time

Timing belt

Villa05 wrote: »

Would I be wrong in my assumption that bubbles are caused by controlling supply and/or demand and both are being controlled in the Irish/global housing markets

The last crash was primarily caused by credit growth. Credit growth is a mechanism for controlling demand.

Would love for someone on the bullish side to come out and say the current situation is sustainable because........

I feel it is not and government actions are exacerbating the extent of the crash through borrowing to make the situation worse
State subsidising every new build through various schemes. This mainly ends up as developers profit driving up land prices
Inflation linked Long term leasing locking in the taxpayer to ballooning housing costs
Accelerating SF path to power

SF can come to power but will not be able to solve the crisis in 4 years.... what is needed is for political parties to come together to resolve the issue regardless of who is in government.

Plus I think there needs to be a open debate on housing needs for the country as there are people who will never be able to buy there own houses which will lead to greater problems down the road. Its not the first housing crises in Ireland and previous crises were addressed by large scale developments the difference now is that no-one wants to see large scale developments as these contributed to social issues.

If you had more social housing then you would have less HAP which would lead to lower rents as it would increase supply of rental properties. This in turn would lead to lower valuations of property and reduce demand from Investors which would lead to more supply for purchasers.

As for a bubble... Property is to expensive for a large portion of the population but that doesn't mean we are in bubble territory. Would lower houses prices benefit everyone... Absolutely but without government intervention to cut costs of building whether it be reduced taxes or preventing land hoarding and at the same time increasing supply of social houses it won't happen.

Hard working people who are paying high taxes won't want to see social housing as they will see at as free houses and not the best use of the tax they pay as they are unlikely to benefit from it. This is why the stigma of social housing needs to change and it shouldn't just be for people on the dole. If it was available to everyone and they had the ability to purchase the house then it would be a personal choice that people are making if they choose to buy their own non-social housing. But at least people are given options and not locked out of home ownership.

Villa05

Marius34 wrote:

Yes, I stick with my predictions, that it's most likely we won't see 2020 prices again. The higher the rise, the greater the fall could be possible. But if the price will go 30% up, and than fall 20%, we still would be above 2020 levels. The crash of over 30% is very rare, thus no much point of waiting for it.

I think we are well beyond the point of waiting for the crash. Those that can afford to will buy. Rental prices have made sure of that
The shared ownership will bring in the 100% mortgage effect. This will soak up significant demand. What happens after that inflation and where do the next crop of buyers come from.

New entrants to the labour market are on lower terms to there peers when they started for over a decade, pay much more for their housing and are much older by the time they can afford there own home.

cnocbui

Timing belt wrote: »

SF can come to power but will not be able to solve the crisis in 4 years.... what is needed is for political parties to come together to resolve the issue regardless of who is in government.

Plus I think there needs to be a open debate on housing needs for the country as there are people who will never be able to buy there own houses which will lead to greater problems down the road. Its not the first housing crises in Ireland and previous crises were addressed by large scale developments the difference now is that no-one wants to see large scale developments as these contributed to social issues.

If you had more social housing then you would have less HAP which would lead to lower rents as it would increase supply of rental properties. This in turn would lead to lower valuations of property and reduce demand from Investors which would lead to more supply for purchasers.

As for a bubble... Property is to expensive for a large portion of the population but that doesn't mean we are in bubble territory. Would lower houses prices benefit everyone... Absolutely but without government intervention to cut costs of building whether it be reduced taxes or preventing land hoarding and at the same time increasing supply of social houses it won't happen.

Hard working people who are paying high taxes won't want to see social housing as they will see at as free houses and not the best use of the tax they pay as they are unlikely to benefit from it. This is why the stigma of social housing needs to change and it shouldn't just be for people on the dole. If it was available to everyone and they had the ability to purchase the house then it would be a personal choice that people are making if they choose to buy their own non-social housing. But at least people are given options and not locked out of home ownership.

Housing provided by taxpayers should never be sold other than on the open market. Selling it to occupants at a huge discount is not on, in my view.

This idea that home ownership as a basic right is equally wrong.

awec

Timing belt wrote: »

SF can come to power but will not be able to solve the crisis in 4 years.... what is needed is for political parties to come together to resolve the issue regardless of who is in government.

Plus I think there needs to be a open debate on housing needs for the country as there are people who will never be able to buy there own houses which will lead to greater problems down the road. Its not the first housing crises in Ireland and previous crises were addressed by large scale developments the difference now is that no-one wants to see large scale developments as these contributed to social issues.

If you had more social housing then you would have less HAP which would lead to lower rents as it would increase supply of rental properties. This in turn would lead to lower valuations of property and reduce demand from Investors which would lead to more supply for purchasers.

As for a bubble... Property is to expensive for a large portion of the population but that doesn't mean we are in bubble territory. Would lower houses prices benefit everyone... Absolutely but without government intervention to cut costs of building whether it be reduced taxes or preventing land hoarding and at the same time increasing supply of social houses it won't happen.

Hard working people who are paying high taxes won't want to see social housing as they will see at as free houses and not the best use of the tax they pay as they are unlikely to benefit from it. This is why the stigma of social housing needs to change and it shouldn't just be for people on the dole. If it was available to everyone and they had the ability to purchase the house then it would be a personal choice that people are making if they choose to buy their own non-social housing. But at least people are given options and not locked out of home ownership.

Social tenants buying their social houses is part of the reason why we have such a problem right now. Fianna Fail were at this and it has been a disaster.

The problem is you are selling off highly valuable assets in high value locations, and you aren't getting enough money to replace them (since they are not sold for their true value), so replacement with new social stock doesn't happen.

Balluba

KBC and Ulster Bank will exit, Provident will issue no more new doorstep loans, Paschal will offload Bank of Ireland...... a lot of little ripples

Sheeps

There's a lot of voices out there shouting about issues about housing who are continuously given space in the media on matters of housing who really shouldn't. Rory Hearne is one of those people. Can anyone tell me what he means when he says “We could be at the point where the Government needs to do something like freezing house prices - I think we’re at that point". Once you're talking about freezing house prices I think it's fair to say that you've pretty much lost all credibility as a voice in housing.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/housing-market-crash-inevitable-due-to-utterly-unsustainable-prices-rory-hearne-1217278

Timing belt

cnocbui wrote: »

Housing provided by taxpayers should never be sold other than on the open market. Selling it to occupants at a huge discount is not on, in my view.

This idea that home ownership as a basic right is equally wrong.

Fair enough we just keep taking out long term leases instead and then deal with the problem of the increase number of renters come at retirement age.... This is why I said there needs to be an open discussion on housing and as a society what do we think is fair and equitable to all.

And just to be clear I am not taking about free houses for everyone... I'm talking about providing options for people that they will pay for. Just because someone is on a low income doesn't mean that home ownership should be out of reach. It may not be a big house in a posh area but a basic house elsewhere... The alternative is that we just spend money on HAP and never address the issue which in turn compounds the pressure on housing.

Timing belt

Sheeps wrote: »

There's a lot of voices out there shouting about issues about housing who are continuously given space in the media on matters of housing who really shouldn't. Rory Hearne is one of those people. Can anyone tell me what he means when he says “We could be at the point where the Government needs to do something like freezing house prices - I think we’re at that point". Once you're talking about freezing house prices I think it's fair to say that you've pretty much lost all credibility as a voice in housing.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/housing-market-crash-inevitable-due-to-utterly-unsustainable-prices-rory-hearne-1217278

What a great Idea? Introduce a freeze on house prices and watch the level of building drop off a cliff as people sit on land until it becomes more profitable to build in the future.

Yurt2

Sheeps wrote: »

There's a lot of voices out there shouting about issues about housing who are continuously given space in the media on matters of housing who really shouldn't. Rory Hearne is one of those people. Can anyone tell me what he means when he says “We could be at the point where the Government needs to do something like freezing house prices - I think we’re at that point". Once you're talking about freezing house prices I think it's fair to say that you've pretty much lost all credibility as a voice in housing.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/housing-market-crash-inevitable-due-to-utterly-unsustainable-prices-rory-hearne-1217278

Singapore essentially caps the price of new developments and has done for many decades, for both social and economic stability reasons. Do the Singaporeans have credibility?

I'm not making an argument for or against in this post - but don't just slate a housing expert or an idea because it isn't something you've let in to your headspace before.

Hubertj

Sheeps wrote: »

There's a lot of voices out there shouting about issues about housing who are continuously given space in the media on matters of housing who really shouldn't. Rory Hearne is one of those people. Can anyone tell me what he means when he says “We could be at the point where the Government needs to do something like freezing house prices - I think we’re at that point". Once you're talking about freezing house prices I think it's fair to say that you've pretty much lost all credibility as a voice in housing.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/housing-market-crash-inevitable-due-to-utterly-unsustainable-prices-rory-hearne-1217278

Hearne is a Trotskyite. People can draw their own conclusions.

Amadan Dubh

Sheeps wrote: »

There's a lot of voices out there shouting about issues about housing who are continuously given space in the media on matters of housing who really shouldn't. Rory Hearne is one of those people. Can anyone tell me what he means when he says “We could be at the point where the Government needs to do something like freezing house prices - I think we’re at that point". Once you're talking about freezing house prices I think it's fair to say that you've pretty much lost all credibility as a voice in housing.

https://www.newstalk.com/news/housing-market-crash-inevitable-due-to-utterly-unsustainable-prices-rory-hearne-1217278

I'm not defending or criticizing his claims but house prices and rents not dropping from their current levels over the coming years will lead to these types of calls being made into actual policies and laws. Unless it is acknowledged that there is a problem which requires significant increases to supply as well as big drops in rents and house prices, buckle up for some wacky and populist policies and laws being brought in.

Sheeps

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I'm not defending or criticizing his claims but house prices and rents not dropping from their current levels over the coming years will lead to these types of calls being made into actual policies and laws. Unless it is acknowledged that there is a problem which requires significant increases to supply as well as big drops in rents and house prices, buckle up for some wacky and populist policies and laws being brought in.

The problem is the same guy believes supply isn't a solution to stop rising house prices... I think you're right which is why when the likes of Sinn Féin get into power (who listen to people like Hearne) I think we're going to see the housing market completely eradicated.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Singapore essentially caps the price of new developments and has done for many decades, for both social and economic stability reasons. Do the Singaporeans have credibility?

I'm not making an argument for or against in this post - but don't just slate a housing expert or an idea because it isn't something you've let in to your headspace before.

Private or public? There is difference between subsidiesed public and private homes.

Amadan Dubh

Sheeps wrote: »

The problem is the same guy believes supply isn't a solution to stop rising house prices... I think you're right which is why when the likes of Sinn Féin get into power (who listen to people like Hearne) I think we're going to see the housing market completely eradicated.

I wanted to find another example of something that is hairbrained and won't fix the problem so Googled People Before Profit (I assume it is reasonable to think if SF are in power it could be with PBP) and this is one of their housing policies;

End corporatisation of housing system – bring the dwellings owned by corporate landlords into public ownership – revoke all legislation that allows vulture funds, REITs, build to rent corporate landlords and other special purpose vehicles to operate in the Irish housing market.

This is no longer just loopy leftie opposition stuff but is gaining mainstream popularity and accompanying credibility. This party could be in a SF coalition in 4 years.

Yurt2

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I'm not defending or criticizing his claims but house prices and rents not dropping from their current levels over the coming years will lead to these types of calls being made into actual policies and laws. Unless it is acknowledged that there is a problem which requires significant increases to supply as well as big drops in rents and house prices, buckle up for some wacky and populist policies and laws being brought in.

This problem is not going away. We should shy away from bad policy that generates bad unintended outcomes obviously, but doing nothing and dismissing any and every intervention as a socialist plot isn't helping.

e're in a catch 22 where the current model of housing provision is severely broken for (mainly young) people. Yet any proposed interventions, even if they have proven their worth in other countries are reflexively derided as populist.

Case in point: A poster a few posts up said that the right to housing ownership is wrong. Precisely zero parties or contributors to this issue have called for a right to home ownership. As soon as something gets tabled to ameliorate the problem, there is a small but significant cohort of people that start throwing tantrums as they are deathly afraid of their perceived advantages in the market being curtailed, and they will distort and bluff about proposals until there's no point in having a level honest conversation any more. Which unfortunately, it appears is what they want.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

Private or public? There is difference between subsidiesed public and private homes.

HDB system. It's a hybrid system. Owners enjoy property rights (with clawbacks if sold after a certain period of time) but the agency developing is government-owned.

Singapore is one country that has gotten housing right. It would be derided from on high as a socialist conspiracy to steal your granny's farmhouse or something if you tried to introduce it here, but the country's prosperity and stability is built on their approach to housing provision.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

HDB system. It's a hybrid system.

HDB is public housing.

javaboy

Villa05 wrote: »

Bubble growth period, don't forget investment funds/gov will outbid FTB in high demand areas, pushing them further out. They in turn will drive up prices beyond what that local economy can afford

Again it's only a bubble if it pops. I haven't seen anyone explain where the pop is coming from and why it would be sudden?
We're already being told that funds/gov are outbidding FTBs and yet the stats say FTBs drawdowns are going ahead in huge numbers:
https://www.thejournal.ie/almost-10000-mortgages-worth-2-1-million-drawn-down-q1-2021-5423302-Apr2021/
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/first-time-buyers-now-account-for-over-half-of-mortgage-approvals-1.4519942

Supply will go where the money is. The past 5 years was commercial and hotels. There is most likely an oversupply in this sector now

I don't see the relevance. We're miles off oversupply in residential housing. Not even the optimistic predictions say we're going to meet demand any time soon. The commercial sector has entirely different dynamics not to mention the impact of COVID.

Villa05 wrote: »

New entrants to the labour market are on lower terms to there peers when they started for over a decade, pay much more for their housing and are much older by the time they can afford there own home.

Is the bolded part true outside of the public sector? Genuine question as it's not been my experience in the private sector. Not by a long shot.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

HDB is public housing.

Owners enjoy property rights Marius. Don't even bother trying to get smart on this one, I've lived in Singapore and an ex-girlfriend was a HDB owner - I've read her property deeds.

mcsean2163

Sad to see propqueries banned. The amount of building around Dublin at the moment is amazing. New apartment blocks all over the place.

Children's hospital/ intel will both soon be finished freeing up construction staff.

Lots of people in our area are returning to their home countries after covid19. The next census will be very interesting. Birth rate dropping etc.

I'm not convinced that once the government exits the market via Hap etc there won't be issues and I expect that might begin to appear in Q4.

It depends on how much more fuel government can throw on the fire and the level of inflation in the pipeline...

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

Owners enjoy property rights Marius. Don't even bother trying to get smart on this one, I've lived in Singapore and an ex-girlfriend was a HDB owner.

I have nothing against Singapore model at all. But HDB is subsidiesed Public housing.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

I have nothing against Singapore model at all. But HDB is subsidiesed Public housing.

I know exactly what HDB is. I lived in one let from the property owner.
. Which he had bought in the 80s, that was developed by the HDB corportation.

Timing belt

Yurt! wrote: »

Owners enjoy property rights Marius. Don't even bother trying to get smart on this one, I've lived in Singapore and an ex-girlfriend was a HDB owner - I've read her property deeds.

Singapore also control immigration... If you loose your job you loose your housing rights unless you are a from Singapore. Add on top of that a large % of people daily migrating from neighboring countries to work makes Singapore a unique case.

Yurt2

Timing belt wrote: »

Singapore also control immigration... If you loose your job you loose your housing rights unless you are a from Singapore. Add on top of that a large % of people daily migrating from neighboring countries to work makes Singapore a unique case.

Can't be done. Singapore unique.


Austria then? Can't be done, Austrians speak German.


Denmark? Lego.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

I know exactly what HDB is. I lived in one let from the property owner.
. Which he had bought in the 80s, that was developed by the HDB corportation.

That makes no difference, its still Public housing.

timmyntc

Marius34 wrote: »

That makes no difference, its still Public housing.

Is it?

If the state is a builder and seller of property - is it still "public housing" even if its bought from the state like from any other seller?

Marius34

timmyntc wrote: »

Is it?

If the state is a builder and seller of property - is it still "public housing" even if its bought from the state like from any other seller?

Depends on the case. But I'm talking specifically about Singapores HDB housing.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

That makes no difference, its still Public housing.

That is the most simplistic hot take about probably the best and most thoughtful housing provision system in the world. Perhaps coincidentally, and apart from being a category error on your part, it serves your narrow do nuthin' point of view.

Timing belt

Yurt! wrote: »

Can't be done. Singapore unique.


Austria then? Can't be done, Austrians speak German.


Denmark? Lego.

how you jumped to Lego I don't know...Where did I say it can't be done????

All I said is Singapore is unique.

Yurt2

Timing belt wrote: »

how you jumped to Lego I don't know...Where did I say it can't be done????

All I said is Singapore is unique.

Fair enough. A HDB type provision of housing is completely achievable in Ireland. Indeed, many of the housing agencies affordable housing schemes (sold slightly over construction cost) can be readily compared to the HDB model and include very similar clawback provisions for 10 years or so to prevent house flipping. It can be scaled up. These are not something for nothing developments, and can put a major dent in the affordability crisis.


There is of course, hostility to them. Poorly articulated and even the people who are hostile to them can't really explain why.

Marius34

Yurt! wrote: »

That is the most simplistic hot take about probably the best and most thoughtful housing provision system in the world. Perhaps coincidentally, and apart from being a category error on your part, it serves your narrow do nuthin' point of view.

Singapore is unique, with probably one of the most sucefull public housing implementation. I have mentioned this in my very old posts.

Yurt2

Marius34 wrote: »

Singapore is unique, with probably one of the most sucefull public housing implementation. I have mentioned this in my very old posts.

They are developed and financed by a government owned corporation. That's where the comparison with public housing as we know it ends.

Timing belt

awec wrote: »

Social tenants buying their social houses is part of the reason why we have such a problem right now. Fianna Fail were at this and it has been a disaster.

The problem is you are selling off highly valuable assets in high value locations, and you aren't getting enough money to replace them (since they are not sold for their true value), so replacement with new social stock doesn't happen.

That's a very valid point....but the majority of previous social housing is not in high value locations. Yes some was but not the majority.

Spending money on HAP is equally as bad a policy... If the money spent on HAP was redirected to building new social stock it would take pressure off the overall housing market.

Yurt2

Timing belt wrote: »

That's a very valid point....but the majority of previous social housing is not in high value locations. Yes some was but not the majority.

Spending money on HAP is equally as bad a policy... If the money spent on HAP was redirected to building new social stock it would take pressure off the overall housing market.

HAP is a long term disaster. Well intentioned I suppose but designed as a short term measure to paper over a housing strategy failure and has created more problems than it has solved if taken as a whole.

Timing belt

Yurt! wrote: »

Fair enough. A HDB type provision of housing is completely achievable in Ireland. Indeed, many of the housing agencies affordable housing schemes (sold slightly over construction cost) can be readily compared to the HDB model and include very similar clawback provisions for 10 years or so to prevent house flipping. It can be scaled up. These are not something for nothing developments, and can put a major dent in the affordability crisis.


There is of course, hostility to them. Poorly articulated and even the people who are hostile to them can't really explain why.

Whether this is called Social housing, public housing, HDB, affordable housing makes no difference what it's called.... It is about providing housing that is needed as opposed to the state wasting money renting in the private sector at over the top cost.

Unfortunately as soon as people hear social housing they think houses for free to people on the dole.

Yurt2

Timing belt wrote: »

Unfortunately as soon as people hear social housing they think houses for free to people on the dole.

Bingo.