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

Yet again where did I say this

“The idea that spending it on directly building social housing rather than spending on subsidies in the private market would not at least alleviate the problem is ridiculous.”

This is what I mean by putting words in my mouth. I stated my point that not building more and just changing the mix of social v private is just moving the pain point. Simple as….so you can stop your fishing exercise.

Already happening, 2 colleagues who got notice to quit are having there apts purchased by the council and rented back to them

A third missed out as income was slightly over the limit. The cost for this person is massive. Think carefully before doing that overtime

What happened there is the second bidder offered exactly what they thought the house was worth, and likely did a "take it or leave it" offer.

One of my friends did the same. House ad went on Daft on a Monday, he viewed on Tuesday, made an offer well above asking and went sale agreed same day. Ad was taken down on Wednesday.

Job done, no one else got a look in.

Actually there are examples of AHBs delivering modular to scale, but I assume you are referring to private build.

Only a matter of time. Modular has been quite late to break into Ireland, purely my own suspicion, but I always felt the CIF was up to very recently dominated by sector interests who were keen to support traditional wet trades. However, that looks to be changing.

Would be interested to see if anyone who currently works in construction agrees with that, or have I got it wrong?

Supply still going no where fast... From anecdotal observation on Daft, asking prices in Dublin at least don't seem to be changing much, though I suspect a lot of places, houses at least, are going well over asking.

Dd you have any examples where modular homes have been built at scale witin Dublin or other high price areas?

A good question.

I thought the renter had to be in receipt of housing support in some way to qualify for this council buy back scheme.

Which is essentially unfair, but then if you remove the limits on earnings/benefits for the renter to qualify, where does the scheme end?

It would mean the govt should be purchasing any rented home if the tenant has a NtQ.

Regardless of how much the tenant earns or has in wealth.

Many landlords do sell, of course.

But when they sell, the new owner very rarely moves off a housing list and they quite often do not leave an empty property behind them.

Think of a couple moving from 2 houseshares to buy a home. The 2 homes they left are still occupied by the other renters. Same with first time buyers moving out of parents home. Or a couple that seperates etc.

The people who have money to buy a home, rarely leave an empty home behind.

Essentially, the increased number of homes is housing the same amount of people, but the ratio between people and homes has reduced.

Plenty of landlords do leave the property empty, because natural rises in value offset any vacany tax imposed.

They can also just move a family member into the home (offically - even if they dont actually live there)

Lots of ways landlords can get around not renting out the property and still accrue value long term from their asset.

The bottom line is we shouldn't be forcing potential landlords into a situation where they HAVE to rent out a property. We should create an environment where they WANT to rent out their property.

That's one of the first key steps to actually solving the housing crisis, that and building far more homes at scale.

But as far as landlords are concerned, more Carrot & less stick is part of the solution.

And social housing tenants should house share, same as private tenants do. That would have a huge impact on reducing homelessness.

What's good for the goose and all that...

If a couple move out of their parents home to buy a house, nobody moves into their parents home when they leave.

The same 6 people are now occupying 3 homes instead of 2.

Same for a separating couple. 1 stays in the home but they dont move someone else in.

Same 2 people are now occupying 2 homes instead of 1.

In a house share, another person gets a place to share when someone moves out to buy, which is a good thing. But as the social list doesnt put people in house shares, that sequence doesnt reduce the homeless/housing waiting list.

There should be a change of policy there so that people on the housing list get offered places in house shares and if they dont accept, they get moved to the back of the queue.

Lots of working folks dont have the luxury of single occupancy rentals, so why should non-working folks?

10% vacancy tax is easily avoidable. Just move a family member in officially, even if they dont actually live there.

There are barely any carrots for landlords at the moment which is the exact reason why they are leaving the market.

I am not sure I go 50k over either. However from years going to auctions I have seen tactics like this often and they do work. I have often see lads do a 2-5k jump where the bids were in. 500's to shake off another bidder( on items worth les than 100k.

50k is a serious jump, however if you have been put bid 8-10 times and two years later still paying 2k/ month in rent and want to get on with life then maybe this is your final throw of the dice, check.yhr market value and put that bid in with 5-10 K on top.

5;-10k extra to where you think the bidding might stop is only a few.months rent for many

CIF now calling on govt to introduce a 1% levy on all second hand home sales, to justify gouging on new build prices fund infrastructure.

More inflationary nonsense, and poorly justified too. New builds need a contribution to infrastructure because new houses mean an increasing population,which in turn requires more infra and amenities to support it. A 2nd hand home sale does not mean more population, and does not require any additonal infrastructure, so should not have any levies.

They are leaving due to the really high prices at the moment and with interest rates going higher the price increases have stopped and are turning so they are checking out at what most would say is the highest price point. Why didn't they sell 5 - 6 years ago tax on property has not increased in that time if anything it is now more attractive to be a landlord you can now offset mortgage interest yet landlords fleeing the market has only ramped up in the last 2/3 years.

Just some issues with your narrative, firstly your first point the 2 sets of parents are still living in their home and are you really saying its a sustainable model where couples in their late 20s and 30s trying to make it work while staying in their parents for ever more?

The fact is if a landlord sells a property someone will use it and rent it out or someone else will buy it and live in it we can make up any scenario you want with regards to the making up of what happens when we buy/sell or rent but the question I want answered is why would it be a good idea to give a tax break for someone who is in the fortunately position to own 2 properties. It does not make sense and I certainly don't want my taxes going towards it. If the current situation is not working for the landlord then sell its that simple.