The accelerating fall in Sinn Féin support

You can't increase supply in already densely populated areas, so the supply restriction will mean that prices will go up in those areas so long as the population increases in the State.

Densely populated areas 🤣

The problem is that there is no assessment on whether the new tenancy-holder actually qualifies for social housing themselves or not - leading to the possibility of someone who can afford to house themselves blocking someone in genuine need from receiving social housing.

What is value, other than the market borne price? If two people want a loaf of bread, and both have one euro and one has 1.10 euro, and it's the last loaf, is the value not 1.1 euro?

The regulations are great. They are the only thing keeping us from a repeat of 07-09.

How is price determined, if not the priceof the item deemed by the most that one person/s is willing to pay for it by outbidding others, which is derived from the value they place on it.

Price and value diverge when demand is significantly constrained.

A few questions on the SF housing policy.

What have the banks said about availing of mortgages to purchase these homes?

What labour do SF plan to use to build these homes, consdering the home building resources in councils are now very small.

What specfic ownership rights would local councils have over these homes, when compared to ownership of freehold homes.

These SF homes will likley push up the prices further of the rest of the housing stock, since the supply of homes that can be sold to anyone on the open market and at market prices, will constrict.

Interesting points, but you'd be best addressing your points to SF or one of their supporters.

Regarding the last point though, if many more homes become available, the laws of supply and demand will cause prices to drop, because taking a substantial number of individuals out of the market means that fewer people will be looking to buy, causing oversupply. This last happened after the crash, IIRC.

It is actually a good point that he makes. If the outcome of the SF model is to bring people to the market who can't buy a house currently, that increases the demand. Unless the SF model actually succeeds in increasing the numbers of houses being built (and many commentators don't believe it will, that there will be a substitution effect), then there will be an increase in prices over and above existing increases.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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…