Housing Madness

I'm suggesting a possible quicker way to provide accommodation than new builds. If people were approached with a fair offer from the State, they can say Yes or No. No harm in asking when there is a crisis ongoing.

Why are they empty? Who says they are the same people who own 2 properties have one derelict? You are making massive leaps and bounds for a ridiculously expensive proposal that doesn't solve the problem. The largest owner of derelict property is the councils already. Why not target their inaction.

You really should try arguing a point. There is not a shortage of houses in Ireland there is a occupancy rate issue. Large parts of Dublin and Galway are occupied with one or two OAPs that can house families living in 1-2 bedroom apartments.

I don't care about what the prices are in Galway. I want to know what you want them to be and what high wage is stopping your friends from being able to afford. It is quite obvious you aren't going to give actual figures because you don't know what you are talking about

Why bother if the council already own so much unused property? Not sure what you don't get about this.

You want them to spend more time and money tracking people down to offer to by empty property so the council will do what with it? They aren't doing anything with what they have go why would they be more productive if they got more?

Where are they going to get the staff to do this investigation. Ideas have to have a practical element and yours does not.

They should make the unemployed build housing! Problem solved once there are no follow up question or explanation on how this would work.

You are not comparing notes you are intentionally being vague and refuse to answer details of your claim. I do not believe your claims and you have not backed it up in any way. For that I will take the view you are not genuinely discussing the issue. You change tack when asked direct questions and have not argued any point.

You want me to find a house you are not looking for at an unreasonable price that has no bearing on the arguement you made about higher earners not being able to afford a house in Galway. Do you actually think that makes any point or sense?

You might be overestimating that number. I don't know if this link will stay up, but it says the Local Authorities own 140,000 properties, of which just 4,000 are vacant.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/special-report-4000-properties-owned-by-councils-empty-in-a-housing-crisis-41244351.html#:~:text=Local%20authorities%20own%20about%20140%2C000,a%20new%20tenant%20moves%20in.

That would not work either, they would still be blamed the argument would move on to get a better job the vast majority of lone parents work for example.

I heard someone foaming with rage about a neighbor who has 5 children he is a stay-at-home dad and his wife works.

The thing is there always has to be someone else to blame it severs a function for society.

Hey now, no need for congrats - when you start with nonsense, it's not that difficult to distil it down further.

You said in one of your above posts that an elderly lady's property should be forcibly sold as it was not her principal private residence and was not in use.

If you don't agree with CPOs for people with second properties, then what is your criteria for the above?

Evidently it is her principle private residence, shes in a care home its fair deal. Its her house. So its got absolutely nothing to do with property developers sitting on properties on main streets across the country. Many of whom are just hoarding money in assets from the banks who might charge them for it. And they wont put a penny into the property at all so it falls down into disrepair. But if a single incentive comes up theyre on it like flies in shite. And frankly thats wrong. Completely wrong. That in itself is an incentive for them to do absolutely nothing.

Tax the arse off it and CPO.

If wages cause price inflation equal or greater than the rise in wages, then its a defacto supply problem. And as I said earlier, we need to increase supply also.

In my view that's her principle private residence. And actually doesn't come under what I'm talking about. As you know because you elaborated on my actual point later in your post.

I don't obsolve councils either. They too should be forced to **** or get off the pot.

Both councils and many many private individuals either domicile or not are asset sitting and running property down into the ground.

National strategy. Its needs addressing. And the stick approach has to be used because it makes action take hold faster.

Your view doesn't matter unless it is in the law. It isn't her principle private resident by law. My point is it does come under the laws and rules you are talking about. You also said it should be taken off her already.

Are you changing your mind or not? Are you going to say the law should make exceptions and target the actual real issue?

Have you any proof that the stick approach makes things faster? I pointed out that the councils are slower to do things why do you think they will be quicker. In the 80s they encourage investment and that worked but there is no proof what you are saying works as far as I am aware. Are you in possession of information that proves the stick works better? I don't think it does but you are sure it does,

Again do you want quick and cheap or punishment? Would it bother you if incentives worked better and these people made profits but we have housing and less derelict property?

I really don't like dereliction and I believe what was allowed happen by the 5 lamps in Dublin is a disgrace. I watched as the building were let fall down and we lost some beautiful buildings and a focal point of the city. Then you have something like Iveagh Market which was in control of the council which they completely failed to manage. I wouldn't put the council in charge of any derelict buildings as they have a track record on failure.

I'm just waiting to see if there will be an uptick of rental properties coming on-market in the second quarter. In other words all the ones that were vacated by people getting out of Dublin shortly after Covid-19 showed up and having now been unoccupied for 24 months are no longer subject to RPZ limits.

Incentives haven't worked. We've incentivesed the arse out of the property market worldwide. And look what we have worldwide. Lack of property. A disfunction build to rent system.

We give too much of tax payers money to profit businesses now. We should start giving it back to the city's and towns people live in. That means facilitating home ownership through dereliction upgrades or social housing.

Your plan takes money out of the real economy as people pay you rent for something they'll never have the opportunity to own ever. That's toppsy turvy and it's neoliberalism which started back in the 80s. Turned out great everywhere around the world right...

No that woman shouldnt lose her house. Its her house. Its not nor never has been what you represented an asset investment.

So keep to the topic at hand. Dereliction not homes of little oul wans. Your trying to obfuscate the core issue here.

I've also stated councils need a good stick too because theyve been allowed to be sub par for decades. Neo liberalism in action.

Who in their right mind would rent out a property in this country? Likely paying 52% income tax know the rental profits, often in negative cash flow if the property is mortgaged, and if the tenant decides after 6 months to stop paying rent it will take at least 2 to have them removed and you're unlikely to recover that rent. And if the tenant destroys your property in the meantime its on you to repair.

Won't be anywhere near enough to make a difference on the grand scale of things but still be interesting/depressing (delete as appropriate) to see if that is what some landlords decided to do.

I've come across mixed signals but there are certainly companies that have had to offer permanent remote working in order to stop losing significant portions of tech staff. I pretty much walked out because I decided I was not going to put up with Dublin's accommodation situation.

What incentives haven't worked? We are talking Ireland. Section 23 worked very well in Dublin, not sure you are old enough to have seen it working.

My "plan" creates accommodation quickly and who said the property would then just be rented and not sold? You assume way too much because you are not open minded. I think you are better off not using terms like "neoliberalism" because you obviously don't understand it or even the word "bias".

Go back and read. You will see it is you who decided it was an asset that should be taken and also mentioned it made no difference she was old. So you are changing what you said now.

So are we clear you don't want any incentives because you are morally opposed to giving more money as private companies/individuals would profit, this is irregardless of it being the quickest solution you just don't want them getting money.

Meanwhile you are going to somehow create a stick to beat the councils with until they do what you think they should while giving them more property. To fund this the country should borrow the money and then all is OK. You see no flaw in your plan?

Again do you want it done quickly and cheaply or punish people? Why you won't answer this is apparent because what you are saying is you want the punishment angle and beat organisation around so they will do what you think is best. I asked for proof of this working and you have none.

There really isn't anything left to discuss because you aren't engaging when asked questions or proof that your idea is in anyway practical in the real world. Just to let you know a 28 apartment block near me was bought by the council over a year ago. It is still vacant and all they did was remove all the appliances, fixtures and fittings from a building less than 10 years old. You want to trust them to do more, no matter what penalties you heap on them they aren't going to suddenly be more efficient. I worked with the civil service so maybe I am more aware of how they operate or more to the point not operate. You live in angry hope of retribution and magical councils but reality isn't changing

The underlying problem is quite simple. Money is extremely cheap at present and this is inflating asset prices. This is a worldwide phenomenon. The ordinary individual, however, is subject to borrowing restrictions by central banks that don't apply to larger corporate entities and is therefore forced into the rental market.

Governments, seeking votes, then place restrictions on how much property corporate property funds can buy however this causes supply issues and rising rents for the increased numbers of people stuck in the rental market.

The problem goes back to aftermath of the financial crisis when money was printed to try to revive economies and at the same time mortgate lending criteria was tightened for ordinary people.

It is an example of why you can't print your way out of economic problems and why also, you can't legislate your way out of problems caused by printing money.

It did happen before. That is what happened to the social housing of the past it was sold to the resident for precisely that reason. Some squandered it other built on it so they had property to rent. Now the extremist think it is good to punish those who did well and seize their assets. Seems unfair to me but if you are a "have not" making somebody who is a "have" pay must be very appealing.