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

The rates you quote are for development finance, typically in the 6.5 to 8% bracket in the market. They are not comparable to the longer term mortgage rates as the products perform differently and turnaround times are fast. A 1% shift in rate would be less impactful on total repayment as a result.

I don't think SF are planning to offer cheaper finance to building developers however. Stripping margins to zero will reduce demand for finance, that's for sure.

But it's the same for potatoes or realistically any product even commodities. Once you clear regulatory hurdles you still have to deal with customers and suppliers. Certain customers only want a certain type(s)/standard(s) of product. In food processing like potatoes for example you have a group of customers called the multiple ie Tesco, Dunnes, Lidl, Aldi etc who have massive market power and they have their own standards and demands that are in addition to the regulatory benchmarks. If you don't meet them you don't get to sell and you either go out of business or go for a very niche customer base. You can replicate a variation of this for every business and organisation going. That's before we even talk about staff, suppliers, financing etc.

Building houses is not especially unique in terms of the balancing customers, staff, suppliers, politicians etc. Obviously housing has its own unique quirks but that's no different from any other industry. Just because you or the wider public are not fimiliar with all the boring stuff that makes an organisation tick along does not mean it doesn't exist. Once you start getting down into the details like this thread has done on housing things gets complicated. It's the same for every industry and organisation regardless of size.

The government can build houses but there is a cost to that. It's better for everyone that people are up front with the costs as there is less drama down the line. Pie in the sky figures do no one any good. Massive cost overruns don't make for good headlines regardless of who is in government or the particular government project (ie government built social housing) in question. Look at the children's hospital.

Yes and the construction industry also has it's own idiosyncrasies around suppliers and customers etc.

However the regulatory efforts are far greater.

That's not to say other industries don't have regulation, just that it's not a similar supply obstacle.

Would you say it's as difficult, from a regulatory perspective, to bring medicines to market as it is potatoes?

Of course not, there are degrees of regulation, and what puts construction at the higher end of that, is that each house or development has to go through it's own process.

On your first point, I think it correct for a government to intervene to help a market function as close to a 'free market' as possible.

My issue is that FFG tell us construction will function like a 'free market' while largely only intervening on the demand side and ignoring supply obstacles.

That's either spin or utter incompetence.

Where lower houses prices factor into this is they decrease the likelihood of another huge slow down in a recession, making the industry a more stable and attractive career option.

Those same lower prices for private housing will drive a recession due to massive negative equity.

Well even better was someone posting on another thread they planned to move to the UK...opp's

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/oct/05/england-worst-place-in-developed-world-to-find-housing-says-report

First off, I don't think it would cause massive negative equity. I can't see those buying at the top end of today's market loosing out to affordable housing on state land.

Even if it does cause some negative equity, how will that greatly impact the domestic economy? People will still be paying the same mortgage they signed up for and have the same disposable income.

I don't think SF plans equate to an attempt to control prices in the sense of a price cap, or that type of intervention.

In fact, far from causing a housing down turn, I think you'd see more like the divide you seem to desire.

A high end of the market would be there for more exclusive development where developers are free to take as much risk and pursue as much profit as they like.

For the rest of us will be stable, consistent production of affordable housing, produced by the new entrants to the construction market attracted by these stable conditions.

Works for me.

I said massive negative equity.

I don't think the value of those houses at the higher end of today's market will be threatened by affordable housing on today's land.

And I quite clearly stated that it could cause negative equity, but I don't see this having a significant affect on the domestic economy.

I'd prefer not to be in negative equity myself, but I don't see it effecting my disposable income. My mortgage will remain the same regardless.

I fixed my mortgage for a nice long term, as I'd hope most who bought in recent years did.

I would still say the impact of this will be relatively small, as it's only lowering prices for a subsection of the housing market.

We can share the load and call it an FFG tax if you like, to compensate those affected?

Maybe use the economic benefits of once more people able to attract academic researchers and other valuable workers?

Regarding the movers, if their own place is worth less than they paid for it, I guess the plan is working and they'll be able to find a nice affordable family home too.

That's unlikely to happen for them now with the way prices are rising. As things stand now if you bought a starter home that forever family home is only getting further and further away.

You realise in today's market it's price doesn't stay fixed while the value of your starter home conveniently increases right?

After that I think you'll find it hard to argue against the economic consequences of leaving the housing market as it is.

One way that SF would help reduce new house prices is by abolishing HTB and the new shared equity scheme.

I agree with them about that.

How would the 4,000 buyers be picked, given that the seliing price can't respond to demand?

Dedication to “the cause”? Or by who made the biggest donation to the party (the NI branch of course…)?

SF have spent the past 5-6 years aping Bertie-era FF in an awful lot of their populist promises. Is the next step to start aping CJH-era FF?

I don't know the details of their plan, and cannot comment on whether they would work, but I think it was posted on thread that people who bought them would not be able to rent them out and would be restricted as to who (or how much maybe) they could sell them on for.

If there were such conditions, it would remove the attractiveness for any investors/speculators trying to buy them on the cheap to flip them.

Did previous affordable house schemes not have restrictions on renting out and a clawback on any capital gain if the property was sold within X years?