The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578294#Comment_122578294

Will there be an increase in home building though? Unless there is additional resource and funding in the market, I dont see how an increased number of homes will be built.

Let's say SF or FFG govts would both oversee 30k new homes per year.

If SF build 20k state land owned properties, with lower prices than the 10k homes delivered privately across town; the supply of fully owned, privately delivered homes has only increased by 10k.

If FFG oversee 30k new homes and 20k goto the private market, with 10k to affordable and cost rental, the demand led price increase for private homes is lower than it would be under SFs proposal.

SF would actually inflate the price of private homes, by introducing a two tier home ownership system which is baked in; because the SF home can never fully belong to the home owner and will always have a lower price than its private equivalent in the posh estate up the road.

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578363#Comment_122578363

Again Economics 101

A lower price in one part of the market has a knock-on effect on the rest of that market.

The only case where this would not be true is where overall fewer houses are becoming available, in which case you could end up with two different markets. Conversely if overall more houses were built, prices could collapse in the fully-private sector of the market.

On the other hand, if SF gets into power (unlikely though it seems now) and does not manage to increase the number of houses being built, they can kiss government goodbye for another generation.

deirdremf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578350#Comment_122578350

You said deal-breaker now you are shifting the goalposts.

Stop it!

And yes I am aware of the opposition to ground rents.

I'm also aware of the opposition to the current model of screwing as much money - be it rent or to buy - out of the consumer that is currently happening. I lived for years in rented premises, and was evicted on several occasions by greedy landlords. Happily I am no longer beholden to one of those obnoxious fuggers. While I was renting I would have jumped at the chance to buy a property such as those under discussion, and i know well that I am not alone.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578402#Comment_122578402

Out of 110 pages, the SF "plan" has a page and a half around how to increase the number of construction workers. It is a regurgitation of other people's ideas with nothing new. Pretty safe to say that they have no clue how they will increase the number of construction workers. However, there are little hints to what they might do:

"We also need to ensure that the builders we have are building what is most needed, namely affordable homes." They want social housing to "get priority over other forms of development such as data centres, aparthotels or high end built-to-rent apartment schemes". None of those developments are under the control of the government, so what are we left with? Postpone Metrolink, DART+ and BusConnects.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578402#Comment_122578402

I see your points, but the homes would not be part of the same market.

There would be a two-tier market.

The SF semi-govt owned homes capped at say 300k have no bearing on the 500k homes in the private market, as long as the private market demand is active.

The private market buyer does not qualify for the SF home, because their income is too high.

If 20k prospective buyers are competing for 10k private homes, the price of the private home will go up.

It does not matter what happens to the SF govt owned homes.

I agree that SF are unlikley to get into power this time around.

I see no way SF could build 300k homes over the next 5 years anyway, as they would need to recruit large resources into the public construction sector in a very short space of time and those builders and tradesmen that SF must think are sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, simply do not exist.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578432#Comment_122578432

I rented for a number of years, and was never evicted. However, there were a number of difficult tenants who caused problems for other tenants who were evicted.

Landlords who routinely evict normal tenants end up not being able to rent out their apartments/houses. I am always sceptical of references to greedy landlords evicting tenants. Greedy landlords actually don't evict as long as they are getting money, they are more likely to ignore complaints and let the standards of the accommodation drop. If you were telling me that you paid money to a greedy landlord who didn't fix the plumbing and heating, that would be more believable.

Furze99

Nothing at all wrong with leasehold tenure, so long as the leases are of sufficient length to match life expectancy.

Too much snobbery in this country as regards freehold tenure and being wedded to the idea of passing property on as assets.

The O'Broin proposal as I understood it, is that the cost of housing is managed using this method and that purchasers can sell on in the future with an inflation indexed margin.

Any family with 20-30yr olds like ours will look favourably on sensible measures like this, both the parents and the 20/30 yr olds. FG & FF have had long enough to piss in the pot and keep missing the target, one suspects deliberately. Time is up for FG in particular.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578638#Comment_122578638

Nothing wrong with Leasehold homes, I agree.

But if the value of the home is significantly reduced from market rates and its sell on price is restricted, which it will be, it is not the same asset as a home on the private market and indeed will lilkey inflate the prices of private homes.

How will these SF homes be delivered when there is barely any local council construction workforce and will banks entertain lending mortages on these properies when their value is capped, are two key questions.

FG are polling as number 1 party in the state.

They most certainly aren't finished.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578699#Comment_122578699

The inflation in private houses is currently driven principally by demand we are often told. Reducing demand by providing more reasonably priced housing can only cool down the market that we have now. I've never voted SF and would be wary of them but the present lot, partic FG have had their go and times up. I can see a forthcoming FF/ SF coalition.

pureza

What I can't understand here is why this has to be so hugely complicated

Pass an emergency law in the morning to pause all commercial building work diverting the labour to domestic house and appartment building,did the pandemic teach us nothing ?

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578737#Comment_122578737

It would do the exact opposite.

The reasonably priced, part state owned homes, that have a capped value and can only be sold to people on median or lower incomes, will not have a value limiting bearing on the private market.

What we are talking about here is social affordable homes vs private homes.

Two different markets.

And if the SF homes were built, in order to build them we would need to divert resources away from private builds, which means fewer private homes are built and so private house prices will rise.

Remember the folks buying privately dont qualify for the SF homes. So they are in a different market, a market which now has even less supply than it does today.

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578784#Comment_122578784

That effect is already happening, due to the oversupply of commercial property.

That's part of the reason we are seeing record new home commencements this year.

We should be close to 40k new homes this year, the highest number for years.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578638#Comment_122578638

You are wrong on this. Leasehold tenures are free to sell to anyone else. Purchasers under the weird SF scheme are not free to sell to anyone else. They can only sell to some future person who qualifies under the future scheme on unknown terms and at a price heavily discounted to the market. That would be a crazy investment to make in your children's futures.

As I said already, the only difference between the weird SF scheme and the Government's First Home Scheme, is that the SF scheme restricts who you can sell to.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578784#Comment_122578784

Did you know that there are public health exemptions from European law that allowed pandemic emergency measures? What is the public health emergency that demands the immediate pause of all commercial building work?

Heskey1971

Hi all,

I can't copy a link here but if you Google EY Ireland house completions highest of 19 European countries. I'm not a supporter of any party but as I think about who to vote for in the next election am I to believe Sinn fein's opinion that Ireland's government are incompetent regarding housing delivery but there are 18 other European economies that are more incompetent?

And Sinn Fein say they have all the answers?

Jeff2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122579649#Comment_122579649

Low post count and says Google their site.

Scam.

Vizzy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122580133#Comment_122580133

Scam or not, does Ireland have have higher completions than 18 other European countries?

Jeff2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122580186#Comment_122580186

So a scam is irrelevant.

SF and any other party in this country have any way to sort out housing so long as the welcome people from outside the country to come here.

They are talking about people buying homes at same time housing 1000s of people in homes irish could have bought and lived in.

pureza

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122580229#Comment_122580229

Thats a Europe wide issue atm though

I'm sure you'd welcome hospitality in other countries if your neighbour was blowing up appartment blocks and killing so many people with Ballistic missiles ?

Btw,with so many Irish in Australia,ts worth noting,it's not a housing nirvana,prices are soaring and availability as bad as here if not much worse

They've also double the amount of homeless per head of population than we have

https://youtu.be/vWlh41jJ2Ww?si=aaRy_JxCDKvTb_Pz

twinytwo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122577819#Comment_122577819

I'm not sure what people are expecting? He is another politician with virtually no experience of the real world. He has about as much understanding of the issues with housing in Ireland as our esteemed Minister for Housing Darragh O Brien - which could be written on the back of a postage stamp.

standardg60

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122579090#Comment_122579090

The other bizarre aspect is E O'BROIN's inheritance model, where the children and grandchildren will be able to inherit the home. All of them? What if there's a dispute between siblings and a court orders the house to be sold, same in the event of a relationship break up. And where do they live while they wait for the parents to die? Most people would be at least in their fifties at that stage.

There are so many holes in this plan when subjected to reality rather than O'BROIN's utopian socialist society.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122579090#Comment_122579090

But it has logic. We've all seen how FF & FG have presided over the privatisation of social housing stock built in the 1950s-70s etc. Allowing local authority tenants to buy out their social housing and gain substantially from future sales. Whilst diminishing the social housing stock. Most people regard this as regressive. At least the Shinners are looking to avoid that, so take off the blinkers and given them some credit.

Next move is in the FG / FF camps - let them come up with proposals that achieve the same. If FG can't or won't, then off the field with them.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122581705#Comment_122581705

The Shinners are not looking to avoid the privatisation of social housing. If they wanted to avoid privatisation of the social housing stock, they would just build more social housing stock and not sell to tenants.

Instead they have this weird plan whereby if you qualify to buy one of their houses now, you might be able to sell it at some future time to somebody who also qualifies at that future time under unknown parameters. The scheme is wide open to abuse. Just look at what was going on in Peter McVerry Trust so see how a socialist arrangement works. Those in the know got looked after, while the real poor didn't.

Furze99

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122578915#Comment_122578915

Consider this.. I would have always said we were from a middle income family and that our adult children would be able to buy privately as we did. But they haven't a ***** hope at the moment. Even affording rent is a problem.

So it looks like their best bets are to 1) emigrate 2) go on social housing list 3) get HAP wile waiting 4) live at home or 5) wait till we die and inherit.

What sort of banana republic do we live in, that we can't even manage our own Irish citizens???????

But will piss away God knows what on every Tom & Dick who lands up here. Piss away God knows what on destroying parts of our tourism industry, whilst enriching a golden circle.

And look at the absolute scandal of what is going on in Wicklow at Kippure - major development of housing without any planning permission to avail of above.

Now understand why we demand change, any change from the current coalition.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122581761#Comment_122581761

I look at a neighbour of mine, two children. One has just bought a house with her partner, 425k, one of them came through apprenticeship, the other works in retail, live the simple life and save. No help that I am aware of from parents other than practical help.

The other child lives the good life, off on holidays all the time, nice car, out with the partner on the town every weekend, no interest in a career. Living in a Shomera at the back of someone else's home. They have a great time and fair play to them.

I don't pass judgement on either child, but if the second one was moaning to me about not being able to buy a home, I wouldn't listen.

The first child there isn't the only example. I know of at least 10 people in their late 20s, early 30s who have bought in the last two years.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122581104#Comment_122581104

This is truly bizarre stuff to query.

So what happens in these circumstances with the FFG First Home Scheme? Or indeed any property bought with or without taxpayer subsidies?

Which child inherits? All of them? What happens if there is a dispute? Or a relationship break up? And where will the children live while they wait for the parents to die?

Absurd nonsense.

Loafing Oaf

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122581705#Comment_122581705

Yet to be seen if the unveiling of this masterplan gives SF any sort of boost in the polls. My guess would be there are enough voters who either don't particularly care about the housing issue or aren't convinced that SF would doing a significantly better job to ensure the issue will not be an electoral game changer…

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122581830#Comment_122581830

With the First Home Scheme, the homeowner, at any point in time, has the facility to buy out the 30% government equity, that simply isn't available under the weird SF scheme. In fact, there is an even worse potential downside whereby at point of sale there could be a greater government share of the equity under the SF scheme, meaning it was a really really poor investment. Tied to the fact that there is a limited market of only people who qualify for the scheme, there are significant potential issues.

You would be mad to buy one of the weird SF houses, unless you have no other option, and you are prepared to live there for the rest of your life.

hometruths

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582011#Comment_122582011

Total nonsense. In the SF scheme the state owns the land. The house is worth less because the state owns the land, but the state does not have any equity in the house. And unless the house burns to the ground, the land is never going to be worth more than the house!

In any event none of this really answers the questions in the post you quoted about how any disputes your heirs might have would be any different under this scheme.

Only difference is you're leaving them a less valuable property than you might otherwise have done had you not availed od the scheme and you bought a house on the open market. Assuming you had paid off all borrowings in both cases, which of course is less of a certainty in the case of the FHS.

blanch152

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122582056#Comment_122582056

Well, here's a thing, imagine you had two heirs and the house was now valued at only 60% of the market value because the government owned the land. If one heir qualified under the weird SF scheme, and the other did not, the qualifying heir would get 50% of a house, because they could buy the other heir out, but the non-qualifying heir would only have 30% towards the market value of a house, which is all they could buy.

If you think all would be fine and dandy with that, you don't have potential heirs. Here are the financial details of how the SF weird scheme would affect those two heirs:

To put it in perspective, say both want to stay in the same area.

House 300k, market value in the area 500k, so both inherit 150k.

Qualifying heir: mortgage of 150k, and living in the family home.

Non-qualifying heir: mortgage of 350k, and having the stress of buying.

Oh yeah, that would make for really friendly Christmases.

In the First Home Scheme, using the same example and assume the equity was never bought out.

House 500k, Market Value 500k, Equity 350k.

Both heirs would have an inheritance of 175k, leaving them each with an equal mortgage of 325k.