The great myths of housing

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

https://rebuildingireland.ie/news/rebuilding-ireland-land-map/

I was curious so went into the link, the majority of sites within the greater Dublin area are not greenfield sites, and are quite small. So it's going to be apartments and not houses.

It's houses that people want for families - and ideally with a garden, or green space near by. The majority of the sites are not green field, so while it might solve socially housing issues, it's not going to solve the issue of those who refuse to look outside the area that they want to live in - and the media just run with those stories.

Jmc25

mariaalice wrote: »

A single person on minimum wage or a couple on minimum wage would not get a mortgage for 230 nor would a single person or a couple on the living wage get a mortgage for 230.

Is SF going to direct the central bank to change the mortgage rules?

If SF got us to the point where we were seriously discussing the issue of people on the minimum wage buying houses then they'd be doing very well indeed.

That's not to say I don't think a single person or couple on minimum wage should be able to afford houses, just that if SF actually got us to that point, I don't think housing would be such a hot political issue anymore.

snow_bunny

snow_bunny wrote: »

The fact that it's awful in other places seems to be a commonly trotted out excuse for the state of things here. Dublin ain't no London or San Fran, not even close.

We should be looking at what happened elsewhere only as a guide on what not to do. Do you all want to end up living in some **** dystopian future Ireland where everyone spends 3 hours a day commuting to Dublin and spends all their time working, away from family and paying rent with nothing to their names?

Longford is surely further than 3 hours commute, all in.

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

.................

anyway we will all get a chance to see how it goes because the chances are they will be setting the agenda after the next election

Best to get it over and done with IMO, I doubt Mary Lou will relish being in government as the opposition will be very credible if she is, I'd give it 12/18 months tbh...... whatever loons she'll go in with will have issue with something or other quite quickly.

Jmc25

Jmc25 wrote: »

If SF got us to the point where we were seriously discussing the issue of people on the minimum wage buying houses then they'd be doing very well indeed.

That's not to say I don't think a single person or couple on minimum wage should be able to afford houses, just that if SF actually got us to that point, I don't think housing would be such a hot political issue anymore.

Just doing something more than suggesting Longford would, at this stage, win many votes.

The supporters of the status quo here are not doing them selves any favours.

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

once they start specifically referring to repossessions (which dont happen) and celtic tiger negative equity trap ill call them out on it too.

Section 5 - Affordable Housing Bill:

Where any of the persons making an application previously purchased or built a dwelling in the State for his or her occupation but that person demonstrates, in such manner as the Minister may prescribe, that he or she has sold, or has been divested of, that dwelling as part of a personal insolvency or bankruptcy arrangement or proceedings or other legal process consequent upon insolvency, then the previous purchase or building of the dwelling concerned shall not render the applicant ineligible for an affordable dwelling purchase arrangement.

Section 6 covers those seeking to trade up but trapped in negative equity.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/71/eng/initiated/b7121s.pdf

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

Section 5 - Affordable Housing Bill:



Section 6 covers those seeking to trade up but trapped in negative equity.

https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/71/eng/initiated/b7121s.pdf

populist nonsense :P

timmyntc

Cyrus wrote: »

populist nonsense :P

This country lives for populist nonsense. It was founded by it

Ace2007

fvp4 wrote: »

Longford is surely further than 3 hours commute, all in.

1:45 on the train right into the city

Just so we are all clear, Longford came into the discussion because someone wanted to buy house, couldn't afford Dublin and bought in Longford as that's all they could afford.

Bobtheman

It would be good if people actually talked to builders but why bother talking to house builders?
He has a good point about everyone wanting a brand new house with new kitchen.
As to refurbishment of vacant houses... He just plucks a figure without any idea where they are. Which is important.
He also fails to mention as practically every new house built - the government takes 60k
Simply telling builders to up their game in terms of stream lining production is **** all use if you are homeless
He is right about rent. Low rent housing subsidised by the state in some form makes sense.
Renting is not all bad. High rents are

Bobtheman

We need to renember that because we rarely repossess in this state.. We have second highest interest rates in EU.
Making it even harder to borrow

Ray Palmer

Jmc25 wrote: »

If SF got us to the point where we were seriously discussing the issue of people on the minimum wage buying houses then they'd be doing very well indeed.

That's not to say I don't think a single person or couple on minimum wage should be able to afford houses, just that if SF actually got us to that point, I don't think housing would be such a hot political issue anymore.

That is a massive "IF". SF were.on.local councils that took money over houses to let developers away with not providing social housing. Where are the houses they were given money to build? They managed to spend it and not build houses.

IF they can do magic they will magic a solution. They can't do magic and can't even build when they have the money. Why aren't the councils spending the allocated money they have for traveller accommodation?

I am apolitical but SF followers are delusional to what they can/have achieved. They haven't done anything and can't do what they say and no experience. If the population fall for them it will be more magic.

The J Stands for Jay

James Bond Junior wrote: »

2. Stop taxing landlords out the door would help. 48% effective tax rate on the total amount is a total barrier to investment which impacts supply.

Why should there be different rules to other investments?

hometruths

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am apolitical but SF followers are delusional to what they can/have achieved. They haven't done anything and can't do what they say and no experience. If the population fall for them it will be more magic.

I am certainly no Shinner, but why do you think they will be unable to follow through on their proposal to build houses on state owned land and sell them for sub 230k on a leasehold basis with the state retaining the freehold?

It seems straightforward enough.

mariaalice

schmittel wrote: »

I am certainly no Shinner, but why do you think they will be unable to follow through on their proposal to build houses on state owned land and sell them for sub 230k on a leasehold basis with the state retaining the freehold?

It seems straightforward enough.

Development levies for a start let alone the cost of building each house but I am sure they have a plan about that, who developes the land? and how that paid for? is that cost separate from the actual cost of building each unit.

tommybrees

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Can you imagine if every local politician gets involved in the automotive industry the way they are involved in development. :pac:


"Yes I understand the transport crisis but this company should not produce vans because they are entirely unsuitable for family motoring"

"There is a transport crisis that we all recognise but no one should be building articulated trucks. Look at the size of them. They are too expensive, too big for local roads, ruin the views and you will never ever fill them."

"This company wants to provide a large amount of rental cars in my local area, however right now most cars in the area are privately owned. We do not believe that these rental cars will be suitable for the local community"

"You should not be allowed park your brand new Tesla in our local area since it will spoil the historic views from my three wheeled Reliant Robin"

"I feel that 2 door and 1 litre cars should be banned. We need to be raising standards and ordinary people should allways have a 4 door car and at least a 2.5 litre engine."

Absolutely brilliant ðŸ‘

The DayDream

Cyrus wrote: »

i think the argument is if you are working somewhere and what you earn isnt enough to buy a property there and thats what you want, maybe looking at working some place else and living in that location may potentially make more sense?

There's a lot of issues with that overly simplistic logic. These should be obvious but I'll spell it out.

The urban centres that have the expensive houses are where most of the jobs are. You can't just say, 'Oh, I'll go live in this little Northwest village where I can afford a house on my 50k/year wage.'

Because in that village that 50k/year job likely doesn't exist. All that's there are 15 pubs, 7 takeaways, 3 bookies, 4 hairdressers, 2 german supermarkets and 1 Irish supermarket. An optician or 2 and a couple of hotels, a tatty gift shop, maybe a book shop.

And those places all pay less than 12 an hour. If you're lucky you might get into a medical device factory where you make 12.50.

On the flip side, if everyone who works low paid jobs finds cost of living so expensive that they are forced to leave the cities, who works in all the retail shops, takeaways, bars/restaurants and hotels in those places? What kind of cities will we have without any of those establishments?

hometruths

mariaalice wrote: »

Development levies for a start let alone the cost of building each house but I am sure they have a plan about that, who developes the land? and how that paid for? is that cost separate from the actual cost of building each unit.

Well they'll be in control of the levies and the cost of the land is not a factor in the price.

Here is an example of 4 bed A rated new builds in Kildare.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/beechgrove-beechgrove-bracknagh-rathangan-kildare/4451988

Without wishing to rehash the old town vs county costs debate, it does seem entirely plausible if these homes are being sold for 245k including land costs, levies and profit then the state operating at scale and not for profit can build houses for 230k not including land costs.

Cyrus

The DayDream wrote: »

There's a lot of issues with that overly simplistic logic. These should be obvious but I'll spell it out.

The urban centres that have the expensive houses are where most of the jobs are. You can't just say, 'Oh, I'll go live in this little Northwest village where I can afford a house on my 50k/year wage.'

Because in that village that 50k/year job likely doesn't exist. All that's there are 15 pubs, 7 takeaways, 3 bookies, 4 hairdressers, 2 german supermarkets and 1 Irish supermarket. An optician or 2 and a couple of hotels, a tatty gift shop, maybe a book shop.

And those places all pay less than 12 an hour. If you're lucky you might get into a medical device factory where you make 12.50.

On the flip side, if everyone who works low paid jobs finds cost of living so expensive that they are forced to leave the cities, who works in all the retail shops, takeaways, bars/restaurants and hotels in those places? What kind of cities will we have without any of those establishments?

I'm being overly simplistic yet your description of life outside the urban centres consists of takeaways and bookies.

I better go ask my dad how he managed to make a go of it so, and my father in law and my college friends and work friends that moved back home.

Certainly doesn't look like any of them are earning 12 quid an hour from where I'm standing.

mariaalice

schmittel wrote: »

Well they'll be in control of the levies and the cost of the land is not a factor in the price.

Here is an example of 4 bed A rated new builds in Kildare.

https://www.myhome.ie/residential/brochure/beechgrove-beechgrove-bracknagh-rathangan-kildare/4451988

Without wishing to rehash the old town vs county costs debate, it does seem entirely plausible if these homes are being sold for 245k including land costs, levies and profit then the state operating at scale and not for profit can build houses for 230k not including land costs.

Might happen, I said who will pay for developing the land so it ready to build on, road, services, and the like, you don't just go in a bit of land and start building.

mariaalice

Cyrus wrote: »

I'm being overly simplistic yet your description of life outside the urban centres consists of takeaways and bookies.

I better go ask my dad how he managed to make a go of it so, and my father in law and my college friends and work friends that moved back home.

Certainly doesn't look like any of them are earning 12 quid an hour from where I'm standing.

There are large multinationals doted all around Ireland and they don't pay 12.50 an hour, where do you think individuals get the money to use the takeaways, hairdressers, and supermarkets. A lot of employment in health care and wider care services, education, childcare, services, tourism.

Just because you don't see it does not mean it's not there.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Might happen, I said who will pay for developing the land so it ready to build on, road, services, and the like, you don't just go in a bit of land and start building.

They'll presumably factored into a different cost somewhere.

Who knows, there might be cost effective ways to build modular homes that cuts down on the price of labour etc. I don't think the concept should be dismissed out of hand but you'd need to see the figures first.

Murph85

Ray Palmer wrote: »

This really is laughable. You are using 2008 when prices had crashed. The banks wouldn't lend money and people lost jobs. It was not affordable to buy a house for many people.

I was a first time buyer before this and house prices were going up 20% a year and more then. People were lying through their teeth to get mortgages. Fake payroll, saying they were going to rent a room, bonus pay claims etc...

You cannot ignore the public when it comes to the mess that is property market in Ireland. When a property shortage was warned the public were very vocal about the government making it up to help builder friends. So the government didn't invest in building and a hosuing shortage followed. The public insisted on this.

We do not have a lack of houses we have an occupancy issue. There is a ring of property around Dublin of retired people living on their own or a couple occupying large family homes. We are talking about 10-20% occupancy rates for many houses.

We should have places to downsize in these areas so people can stay local have better designed housing for their needs. Very unpopular as it isn't been sold as a real solution. People scream about people being kicked out of their houses ànd bedroom taxes.

So many people cannot discuss the topic of housing without some ideal fairyland solution that never address the money and how they will be built and who does it. It is all doomed to fail because they aren't looking at reality.

I have a place that could be made into a house. Nobody can tax me for a vacant site as it isn't. I won't develop it because landlord taxation and policies that favour the tenants. It just isn't worth it. Many people in a similar boat. Punatives taxes and legislation on small landlords is what a lot of the public want

Brilliant piece!the government literally makes all decisions on public opinion... apartment construction is very expensive, as are the construction taxes, way out of reach for hundreds of thousands ... they wont raise any extra meaningful revenue from anywhere... as it would hurt what they feel is their core demographic and something something about hurting " the vulnerable " who are a special breed in Ireland, as they are a really better off than many...than those who are worse off than them..

Free luxury apartment in dundrum? 2000 a month after tax, so not far off a 30k income just to pay for your apartment...

The housing issue is going to be an atomic bomb going to go off and we will have nothing but waffle and ineffective bull****, from those bull****ting spoofers. I have the popcorn and beer out already! There us no escape for them...

hometruths

mariaalice wrote: »

Might happen, I said who will pay for developing the land so it ready to build on, road, services, and the like, you don't just go in a bit of land and start building.

The state will pay for it as part of the development costs. In much the same way the developer in Kildare paid for it in order to bring the houses to market at 245k.

Murph85

Ace2007 wrote: »

And we've come full circle, and what my original point was - if you can't afford, stop complaining and buy where you can. To many people today want the dream home from Day 1.

Stop complaining about a government choice to have rip off housing? To allow cereal boxes in the docklands etc, instead of housing huge amounts of extra workers and apartments in mid to high rise schemes? Lol !

Crimsonred

If landlords are leaving the sector in droves as some claim then surely that brings the direct benefit of increasing the supply to people who want to buy homes to live in rather than as an investment, less "mom and pop landlords" isn't necessarily a bad thing, you'd swear these people were doing some kind of selfless service to the community instead of just being in it for the money.

The more regulation the better for landlords ad far as I can see, as for taxation, how many of them actually declare all their income I wonder?

I live in an area which at one time would have been dominated by families who were own occupiers, over time this has shifted and any of the houses are now rented out, the area feels less like a community as a result and the rental properties tend to be less well kept than those which are owner occupied.

Jmc25

Ray Palmer wrote: »

That is a massive "IF". SF were.on.local councils that took money over houses to let developers away with not providing social housing. Where are the houses they were given money to build? They managed to spend it and not build houses.

IF they can do magic they will magic a solution. They can't do magic and can't even build when they have the money. Why aren't the councils spending the allocated money they have for traveller accommodation?

I am apolitical but SF followers are delusional to what they can/have achieved. They haven't done anything and can't do what they say and no experience. If the population fall for them it will be more magic.

Whether they can or not very much remains to be seen. But the current policies are the same as we've had for the past ten years or so and they've failed many people (they've benefited many people too).

If people want change they'll probably vote SF. It's the benefit of being in opposition.

Ace2007

Murph85 wrote: »

Stop complaining about a government choice to have rip off housing? To allow cereal boxes in the docklands etc, instead of housing huge amounts of extra workers and apartments in mid to high rise schemes? Lol !

Explain why it's the government fault that Irish people want to buy their own 3 bed semi in the city and are annoyed that the can't afford it. Most of Europe, people don't buy their own house.

The issue isn't apartments, it's people unable to buy houses in the areas of the city that they want to because they can't afford it.

Ubbquittious

Ace2007 wrote: »

Explain why it's the government fault that Irish people want to buy their own 3 bed semi in the city and are annoyed that the can't afford it. Most of Europe, people don't buy their own house.

The issue isn't apartments, it's people unable to buy houses in the areas of the city that they want to because they can't afford it.

Y'Know I'm sick of this sh1te auld narrative of "In Europe everybody loves paying a corporate landlord for 60+ years of their life and they're perfectly happy with it"


Load of bollix. I know plenty of people in Mainland europe and most of them own their house. Tis a load of sh1te trying to push people in Ireland away from home ownership with this fable

Topgear on Dave

Crimsonred wrote: »

If landlords are leaving the sector in droves as some claim then surely that brings the direct benefit of increasing the supply to people who want to buy homes to live in rather than as an investment, less "mom and pop landlords" isn't necessarily a bad thing, you'd swear these people were doing some kind of selfless service to the community instead of just being in it for the money.

The more regulation the better for landlords ad far as I can see, as for taxation, how many of them actually declare all their income I wonder?

I live in an area which at one time would have been dominated by families who were own occupiers, over time this has shifted and any of the houses are now rented out, the area feels less like a community as a result and the rental properties tend to be less well kept than those which are owner occupied.

+1 Renters are entirely the wrong class of person the i want in my area. The horror of having those untermenschen living beside me.