Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"average Dublin house prices should fall to ‘the €300,000 mark" according to Many Lou McD.

Options
1242527293077

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,937 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    Why? ignoring the whole debate around if 300k is even possible Irish homeowners hold massive political power. Telling these people that there main assets is going to be worth less and worse than that the plan is going to put some of them into negative equity is never going to be well received.

    SF like every other party support NIMBYs who don't want houses built of a whole host of reasons. A lot of these NIMBY objections can be boiled down to the new housing will negatively impact the value of their home.

    Everyone wants affordable housing provided it doesn't impact negatively the value of their home. There is an obvious contradiction there.

    The blowback is to be expected. However most older voters/homeowners won't be voting for them anyway I'd guess. Where SF might lose votes is from younger voters who only bought in the last few years. These are the voters who would be most impacted by SF proposal.

    Mary Lou and SF mistake was to put a number down as it exposes the contradiction/differing interests voters have. 99% of the time the contradiction is ignored or glossed over by most politicians and commentators.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,507 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I am looking at the SCSI data on building costs in the GDA, and the proposal from Eoin O'Broin of SF.

    The total costs in 2023 in the GDA are 461k, which includes:

    land costs = 69,962

    finance costs = 22,874

    profit margin = 53,864

    sales and marketing = 9,000

    The SF plan seems to eliminate the four costs listed above.

    The SF plan proposes to build house on State lands, but keep the lands in State ownership, so the buyer buys the house, but not the land underneath

    (will a bank give a mortgage if selling the house is restricted?)

    Under the SF plan, the cost in the GDA falls to 257,259 plus VAT, or 292k in total.


    I am not a fan of SF, but I welcome any efforts or proposals to reduce the costs of building houses.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,507 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Here is the SCSI data for the GDA:




  • Registered Users Posts: 13,507 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    I think I can see one problem with the SF calculations.

    They eliminate the profit margin of 53,864 per house, as they intend to remove the property developer, and build houses on already-owned State lands.

    Okay, but what about the profit for the building contractor that they intend to hire?

    Maybe that is included in the 179,022 house build cost?

    If not, then it will have to be added in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,383 ✭✭✭KaneToad




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,503 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Don't forget that the state-owned land is not developed someone has to pay for the development of the land it's not 'free' just because the cost would be absorbed by the general taxpayer or somehow absorbed by the council the land is in.



  • Registered Users Posts: 191 ✭✭naughtyboy


    Sinn fein If they get power will find out the hard way, just like liz truss discovered, that the markets decide what you can and cannot do when in power.

    Whoever owns your debt owns you.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I'd like to see more detail in SF's plans too.

    Especially around attracting people to apprenticeships.

    For me the fact that they're promising to directly involve the state in housebuilding once more, is at least kicking the ball in the right direction.

    I can't see the housing crisis ever being fixed without this, and it's too much of a U-turn for FFG to even countenance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    A thought occurred to me today...

    A lot of FFG supporters are pushing the idea of their long, long awaited planning reform as the solution to our housing crisis.

    While I think reform is welcome and will lead to some improvement, can anyone tell me what the expected positive impact of this centrepiece of FFG housing policy will be?

    Will output increase by 30, 50, 100%?

    We've long heard about SF's 'magic money tree', this sounds very much like a 'magic productivity tree' to me, especially with what looks like worsening staff shortages.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭drop table Users


    I dunno what does “involve the state” actually erm involve?

    Creating another quango and hiring state employees with cushy salaries and pensions and inability to dismiss them no matter how bad performance is? Hiring contractors like all of the major infrastructure projects that overan by billions and years such as children’s hospital? Bringing in foreign companies like I don’t know from China and suspending various employment laws for them??

    so many questions



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,507 ✭✭✭✭Geuze



    Have you read EOB article in the Sindo? Are we allowed to post it here?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    What impact on house prices do you expect by increasing the demand for them?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Is that how bad you think things have gotten under FFG, you want us to do without teachers and doctors to spare a few houses?

    Or do you mean me having kids!



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    It's behind a paywall so I can't read it.

    You probably can't post the full text here but I'd say quotes and a summary would be fine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    There's things the state could do like incentivising apprenticeships etc that would certainly help.

    I think it's far too late to bring in foreign workers as there's definitely no houses now.

    I'd say a national housing entity with a very precise function (build lots of houses) would be the only way to go at this point.

    I'd figure it could be cost neutral given how much is already being spent by the state a) buying at inflated cost from the private market and b) managing contracts and spending with the plethora of housing NGOs out there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,507 ✭✭✭✭Geuze




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Obviously if we have to go this route it's best not leave FFG in charge.

    They'd probably end up with Phil Hogan's driver as CEO, or bringing back Angela Kerins.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭drop table Users


    Thanks for posting this

    several issues straight up

    1. EU competition rules if the state puts out existing companies out of business due to state aid rules
    2. “State doesn’t have overheads as private companies” that’s right they have more overheads such as beuracracy and having to provide cushy padded pensions and not being able to fire bad performers
    3. not being able to rent these in future only screws renters further
    4. If the owner is restricted to whom they can sell and hence not on open market then why would any bank lend towards these


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,030 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    Eoin O’Broin says that they can build 21,000 public housing units in a year, and reduce costs at the same time.

    Surely if you massively and rapidly increase demand for something which is finite, then the cost must also increase? This is basic economics, no?

    In this case, how do you ramp up the demand for construction labour and materials without ramping up the price?

    BTW of those 21,000 homes, only 4,000 would actually be available for purchase. The rest would be cost rentals (4,000) and traditional social housing (13,000).



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,955 ✭✭✭Bobson Dugnutt


    Eoin has written 3 books about it, so he must know what he in on about right? He might bring in Rory Hearn as a special advisor.

    The idea is that plasterers, plumbers, electricians would work for a state building company. They’d be employees of the State. Then they’d build houses on public land.

    I don’t know what that would mean if you wanted to get your own house renovated. Not sure the details have been fully worked out. It’s a good headline figure though.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,426 ✭✭✭Rosahane


    The shinners know as much about basic economics as they do about astrophysics... maybe they will rob a few banks and ramp up the protection money on the drug dealers to pay for it😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I don't think this would qualify as state aid as it doesn't affect trade between member states.

    Even if it was somehow deemed to involve trade between states there are exceptional circumstances exemptions.

    As for your point around bureaucracy and such costs, I'd suggest these are already present where the state buys from the private market and deals with so many housing bodies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,124 ✭✭✭downtheroad


    Did he get chat get to write that? Not one example provided by him of how SF will actually get the houses built and furthermore at a cost that would allow them to be sold at 300k (and he now even mentions 250k).

    What a muppet.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,163 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Just a simple question tbh.

    Some posters seem to think that house prices should never rise, even though they always will of the population is growing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,030 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


     the owner is restricted to whom they can sell and hence not on open market then why would any bank lend towards these

    not just restricted to whom they can sell but they can only sell at the “affordable” price of the day.

    So you could live there ten years, pay down a big chunk of the mortgage, and the housing minister can decide, sorry houses need to be even more affordable, cuts the price and just wipes away a load of your equity.

    It’s utterly batsh1t.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,726 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Why always?

    Again you don't understand basic economics.

    Prices don't always rise if demand rises, in a free market supply would increase too.

    FFG like to talk about housing as a 'free' market. This is either ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

    In reality it's quite restricted. So supply won't increase rapidly, if ever.

    There are measures that could have been taken to increase supply, but they've failed repeatedly to take them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 185 ✭✭drop table Users


    Free markets?

    Yeh more meddling in housing totally won’t backfire again to renters and buyers



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,545 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo




  • Registered Users Posts: 5,545 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    Has anyone ever read any of Eoin's books? because I hear it fired out all the time but yet to find someone who read it



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,545 ✭✭✭Clo-Clo


    You have posted this a number of times, ireland at the moment has low unemployment. The people unemployed I would expect you will find a lot will never work due to health conditions etc.

    So who exactly are you getting to work in these apprenticeships?

    Also is that what Solas is not already doing in Ireland? https://www.solas.ie/

    A "national housing entity", would that not be the department of housing?



Advertisement