# "Some sane ideas to fix this housing madness"



## Brendan Burgess (22 May 2022)

I have an opinion piece in today's Sunday Times 









						Some sane ideas to fix this housing madness
					

It’s a crazy housing world. Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown county council is buying luxury apartments for €788,741 each for social housing. In Cabinteely, the same cou




					www.thetimes.co.uk
				




I am sure that the paper will soon be sold out in the rush, so just in case you can't get a copy, here is a trailer...

_It’s a crazy housing world.

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Council is buying luxury apartments for €788,741 each to provide social housing.

In Cabinteely, the same Council has agreed to lease an entire block of 81 newly built apartments at a rent of about €24,000 each. Very few private tenants could afford to rent these luxury apartments, but when the taxpayer is paying, money is no object.

First time buyers working in Dublin can only afford to buy in Dundalk, Portlaoise and Wexford while social housing tenants insist on being housed in their own community.

The government has recently announced grants of up to €144,000 to developers to build apartments because the developers say that it’s no longer economically viable to build apartments. This must come as a surprise to someone who can’t afford to buy a newly built apartment at the current prices._


----------



## User1970 (22 May 2022)

Good piece Brendan. Unfortunately it appears currently that logic and sanity are trumped by popularity and a mistaken belief that this is viable and a valid approach but I don't see anyone in political life outlining a counter balance as you have tried to do.


----------



## bipped (22 May 2022)

Why would anyone bother trying to save a deposit and get a mortgage anymore? Better to join the housing list and wait to get a fancy upmarket place on the public purse.

There are very few people who could afford to buy apartments for €744k, even people trading up from cheaper properties, let alone first-time buyers. It is a crazy situation that local councils are allowed to spend public money on expensive luxury real estate instead of buying, or building, standard no frills housing units that cost less. 

Developers are incurring part5 costs from council regulations then getting a building subsidy from the housing department and still nobody can find a reasonably priced starter home to buy. Then the councils hand over public money to buy that high cost housing for social tenants who hit the jackpot with a three quarter million euro property provided by the taxpayer.

All of our legislators, local politicians, state agencies, cannot be so blind that nobody is asking questions about this shambles and just carry on regardless. Surely someone must look at the big picture and the damage the current policies are causing. 

It is an impossible situation for anyone trying to buy in order to be self-reliant and not be a burden on the state. 

What's going on that we don't know about?


----------



## noproblem (22 May 2022)

Yes Brendan, it's an interesting piece, but ?
 It's a pity we don't have people with power in this country who think outside the box. Wouldn't it be great if someone threw out there for debate the building of a few more cities with all the relevant infrastructure, etc. Yes, yes, I know, we can't handle and modernise what we already have and all that guff. But, we can, we have the people, the ways and means and soon enough the cities we do have will just demand all this be done anyway, or simply die. Building houses in itself will solve one problem, but that's about all it will do. We need to build cities for a modern country and we need to start planning on doing it now.


----------



## bipped (22 May 2022)

noproblem said:


> Yes Brendan, it's an interesting piece, but ?
> It's a pity we don't have people with power in this country who think outside the box. Wouldn't it be great if someone threw out there for debate the building of a few more cities with all the relevant infrastructure, etc. Yes, yes, I know, we can't handle and modernise what we already have and all that guff. But, we can, we have the people, the ways and means and soon enough the cities we do have will just demand all this be done anyway, or simply die. Building houses in itself will solve one problem, but that's about all it will do. We need to build cities for a modern country and we need to start planning on doing it now.



That would be great but looking at the problems we have building new hospitals, or even linking up two luas lines, I don't think new cities will be happening anytime soon. The 2008 crash seems to have sent our politicians into some kind of CYA stupor where they are terrified of making any big decisions.


----------



## noproblem (22 May 2022)

bipped said:


> That would be great but looking at the problems we have building new hospitals, or even linking up two luas lines, I don't think new cities will be happening anytime soon. The 2008 crash seems to have sent our politicians into some kind of CYA stupor where they are terrified of making any big decisions.


Very defeatist comment and attitude. Believe me, if Ireland showed the proper ambition for this type of future development there would be investors knocking down the Dáil door to become involved


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 May 2022)

And the madness gets worse.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 May 2022)

Full article as it appeared in the Sunday Times now attached.


----------



## Purple (23 May 2022)

I was talking to a Developer on Saturday. He said that any significant attempts they have made to reduce costs by using modern construction methods are being met with a brick wall within the Department of the Environment. If it doesn't fit within current regulations you can't do it. That certainly doesn't help.

The bigger problem of all of the extra money in the world is still the primary driver of the housing affordability problem. It's not that people can't afford houses, it's that people who rely only on earned income can't afford to buy them. The stock market and commodity boom has been driven by QE so that was making materials more expensive anyway, before Covid and land prices have increased vastly as a result of that increase money supply. 
This is an international problem. Bad policy decisions and State sector inefficiency have exacerbated the problem here and elsewhere, as have the inherent inefficiencies within the construction sector, but when you look around the developed world we certainly aren't alone in facing this and we certainly can't fix it all with any amount of domestic solutions.


----------



## Allpartied (23 May 2022)

I like Brendan's suggestion that social housing should be a much bigger part of any government housing policy.   Council housing with secure tenancies, and reasonable rents are part of the answer.   And no selling of said houses, full stop.  
If you want to buy a house go into the private market.   The council house stays in public hands and is passed onto the next person on the waiting list.   Many people might, quite happily, spend their entire lives living in a rented house, if that rented house gave them lifetime security of tenure, with full maintenance costs covered, with a rent that simply covers those costs and original building costs. 

The state's attempt to contract out this policy has been a disaster and way more expensive than direct building of housing projects.


----------



## T McGibney (23 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> I like Brendan's suggestion that social housing should be a much bigger part of any government housing policy.   Council housing with secure tenancies, and reasonable rents are part of the answer.



How much do you count as "reasonable rent" for a property that costs say €250k to build and €2k a year to maintain?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (23 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> I like Brendan's suggestion that social housing should be a much bigger part of any government housing policy.   Council housing with secure tenancies, and reasonable rents are part of the answer.   And no selling of said houses, full stop.
> If you want to buy a house go into the private market.   The council house stays in public hands and is passed onto the next person on the waiting list.   Many people might, quite happily, spend their entire lives living in a rented house, if that rented house gave them lifetime security of tenure, with full maintenance costs covered, with a rent that simply covers those costs and original building costs.
> 
> The state's attempt to contract out this policy has been a disaster and way more expensive than direct building of housing projects.


It would also be better if the Co. Councils actually refurbished the properties that are laying idle , I would imagine that it would be much more financially prudent than shoving money into the pockets of developers.


----------



## Allpartied (23 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> How much do you count as "reasonable rent" for a property that costs say €250k to build and €2k a year to maintain?


I would imagine the same as an interest only mortgage, with a reduction for the lending rates that the state can get. 
So, if the cost is 250k, and the state can borrow at 2%, then the tenant pays a 3% rate ( to cover some maintenance). 
So rent is 250k/100 x 3 per annum. 
Rent is  7500 per year, or 625 a month.  That seems reasonable and state retains ownership of the property, through the local council.


----------



## mathepac (23 May 2022)

Where are the Greens in all of this? Surely building new housing as social at those astronomical prices is contrary to all their Green-washing efforts.  The most carbon emissions-intensive of all building materials is cement, be it in it's production or it's incorporation with other materials to produce bricks, blocks or poured concrete.

I agree, refurb all the abandoned buildings, houses etc around the country as social housing.  Get out of the cities, decentralize.


----------



## T McGibney (23 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> I would imagine the same as an interest only mortgage, with a reduction for the lending rates that the state can get.
> So, if the cost is 250k, and the state can borrow at 2%, then the tenant pays a 3% rate ( to cover some maintenance).
> So rent is 250k/100 x 3 per annum.
> Rent is  7500 per year, or 625 a month.  That seems reasonable and state retains ownership of the property, through the local council.


Thanks. A 1% rate of return before maintenance and after interest isn't remotely economic though. How many decades until the original €250k outlay will be recouped?

Remember also that in most cases especially nowadays the build cost will be much higher than €250k, and there will be a site cost, and site-related costs.  And the unit will in time require substantial refurbishment and renewal. And there will be need to budget for contingencies, just as there is in apartment and estate management companies.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (23 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Thanks. A 1% rate of return before maintenance and after interest isn't remotely economic though. How many decades until the original €250k outlay will be recouped?
> 
> Remember also that in most cases especially nowadays the build cost will be much higher than €250k, and there will be a site cost, and site-related costs.  And the unit will in time require substantial refurbishment and renewal. And there will be need to budget for contingencies, just as there is in apartment and estate management companies.


Social housing shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria. If our Social housing stock was treated properly by all those involved that stock would be useful for 3 or 4 generations .

I'll stand corrected here but Councils have huge amounts of land laying idle and if they were to develop this land sensibly there would be economic activity provided initially and during the years after would probably eliminate or at least vastly reduce any future maintenance costs. 
Obviously a full and detailed financial model would need to be done using DCF on all cashflow which is probably beyond most CCs .
There are solutions available but the amount of vested interests,  parochial mind sets and a host of uniquely Irish attitudes seem intent of finding any.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 May 2022)

I will be discussing this and a report from the Banking and Payments Federation on Newstalk after 8 am tomorrow morning. 

Brendan


----------



## mathepac (23 May 2022)

Looking forward to it but what about (re) introducing rates for housing not in productive use?  Rate empty houses, run-down or otherwise, like commercial properties.  If they are not brought into use as housing (occupied by families off the local housing list) the owners get levied with the full rateable valuation annually or some multiple thereof.  If finance is needed to covert the houses, have the lending institutions design products to fill the need at rates more competitive than mortgages for new properties. Make the rental income tax-free for x years.

Not too well thought out yet.  Constructive criticism is welcome.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

mathepac said:


> Looking forward to it but what about (re) introducing rates for housing not in productive use?  Rate empty houses, run-down or otherwise, like commercial properties.  If they are not brought into use as housing (occupied by families off the local housing list) the owners get levied with the full rateable valuation annually or some multiple thereof.  If finance is needed to covert the houses, have the lending institutions design products to fill the need at rates more competitive than mortgages for new properties. Make the rental income tax-free for x years.
> 
> Not too well thought out yet.  Constructive criticism is welcome.


It's a perfectly good idea, rates or other taxes should be introduced,  a scheme like section 23 would be of great assistance or other " incentives " .

But the bottom line is that something has to be done that's radically different to what is being done now.  First job would be to ascertain exactly how many vacant properties are there, and include commercial, accurately because the figures we have seem contradictory.

We have the resources to turn this around so it's up Government,  Local Government,  Housing Charities,  the legal profession and all other stakeholders to come together and fix this , its 2022 and it would be a better way to celebrate our independence than remembering killing eachother and fixing the mismanagement of so many aspects of our country  in the 100 yrs since.

And if the results of this means changes to our constitution so be it.


----------



## Clueless Clive (24 May 2022)

I'm not sure I agree. We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it. I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?

You could point to the housing crisis, but I would argue that's feckless government mismanagement of an issue 20 years in the making. I'm not sure why I should be penalized for it. Carrots not sticks in my opinion. Remove tax on rental income from currently 'vacant' properties for 15 years from next year with an enhanced repair and lease scheme. That'll incentivize them to be done up and leased out in short order.


----------



## 24601 (24 May 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> I'm not sure I agree. We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it. I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?



Yes, well that's the cost of living in a civilised society. And I don't see why we should be looking at drawing lines from a "libertarian perspective", whatever that is. Your right to enjoy an extremely limited resource because you are fortunate enough to be in a position to hoard land superfluous to your housing needs can and should be limited by the State, especially during a housing crisis. Do you also take issue with motor tax?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> I'm not sure I agree. We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it. I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?
> 
> You could point to the housing crisis, but I would argue that's feckless government mismanagement of an issue 20 years in the making. I'm not sure why I should be penalized for it. Carrots not sticks in my opinion. Remove tax on rental income from currently 'vacant' properties for 15 years from next year with an enhanced repair and lease scheme. That'll incentivize them to be done up and leased out in short order.


I wouldn't be advocating that "vacant " being as you describe above, but it would need a definition that was pragmatic.

I also wouldn't be advocating that any property owner to suffer financial loss, but the vacant homes that are left idle and essentially rotting into the ground in cities, towns and villages all over the country. I'm from Cork City and everytime I visit I pass buildings within a 5min walk of Patrick Street that are 4/5 stories high and are abandoned and recently boarded up each building would provide home or at the very least a place to live.

There are even abandoned 6 bedroom houses on the Rochestown Road, probably the most expensive residential area of the city. Why is this allowed to happen? Most probably people hanging onto land/property which isn't used by them and they feel like Gordon Gecko down the pub or on the golf course. 

I appreciate that this exercise would be a mammoth undertaking but a worthwhile one.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> We're coming dangerously close to not being able to own anything outright without owing some tax of some type on it.


No we're not. That's a ridiculous statement.  We have very low rates of tax on retained assets of any type. We have very high taxes on wealth creation (work) and very low taxes on wealth retention. A bit of rebalancing there to create a more egalitarian society would be no bad thing. 


Clueless Clive said:


> I guess it comes down to where you draw the line from a libertarian perspective, but if I own a holiday home that I don't visit for a year and a half, which i've paid for fair and square, why would I pay any additional tax over and above that which I already had to pay, to purchase it, just becomes someone else deems that it is 'vacant'?


Because the State incurs an ongoing cost by the virtue of your property existing.
Because the Sate needs money to run things and taking a bit from retained assets is socially equitable.  


Clueless Clive said:


> You could point to the housing crisis, but I would argue that's feckless government mismanagement of an issue 20 years in the making.


You could, if you didn't understand why we have a housing crisis. 


Clueless Clive said:


> I'm not sure why I should be penalized for it.


You wouldn't be. You'd just be paying some tax, not being flogged.


Clueless Clive said:


> Remove tax on rental income from currently 'vacant' properties for 15 years from next year with an enhanced repair and lease scheme. That'll incentivize them to be done up and leased out in short order.


Good idea but refurbishing is very labour intensive and we've a shortage of labour.


----------



## Clueless Clive (24 May 2022)

Dunno guys. Your threshold of acceptability of tax liabilities to live in a 'civilized society' is much higher than mine. Being from Donegal, there seems to be limited value in being a tax payer, given there is exceptionally high taxation, limited public transport, limited industry, limited state protection or guarantees on the safety of building materials (mica). Wealth retention in the form of property, if you manage to acquire it in the face of all of these economic disadvantages and overcome the MICA hurdles etc is the only thing you have left. You don't have the same opportunites for wealth creation as you do in pretty much the remainder of the country, although admittedly that gap is closing because of remote working. But closing, not closed.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> Dunno guys. Your threshold of acceptability of tax liabilities to live in a 'civilized society' is much higher than mine. Being from Donegal, there seems to be limited value in being a tax payer, given there is exceptionally high taxation, limited public transport, limited industry, limited state protection or guarantees on the safety of building materials (mica). Wealth retention in the form of property, if you manage to acquire it in the face of all of these economic disadvantages and overcome the MICA hurdles etc is the only thing you have left. You don't have the same opportunites for wealth creation as you do in pretty much the remainder of the country, although admittedly that gap is closing because of remote working. But closing, not closed.


The State spends vastly more per capita on services in Donegal than it does in places like Dublin or Limerick, Cork or Galway. You are getting far more for the taxes you pay than people in most of the rest of the country. That's the mature of things in less populated areas of the country.


----------



## Bluefin (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> No we're not. That's a ridiculous statement.  We have very low rates of tax on retained assets of any type. We have very high taxes on wealth creation (work) and very low taxes on wealth retention. A bit of rebalancing there to create a more egalitarian society would be no bad thing.
> 
> Because the State incurs an ongoing cost by the virtue of your property existing.
> Because the Sate needs money to run things and taking a bit from retained assets is socially equitable.
> ...


Won't this be a very real issue.. Shortage of skilled labour to build /refurb.. Increasing taxes won't change this fact nor increase additional supply.. Piecemeal and populist approach to fend off the shinners


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Clueless Clive said:


> Dunno guys. Your threshold of acceptability of tax liabilities to live in a 'civilized society' is much higher than mine. Being from Donegal, there seems to be limited value in being a tax payer, given there is exceptionally high taxation, limited public transport, limited industry, limited state protection or guarantees on the safety of building materials (mica). Wealth retention in the form of property, if you manage to acquire it in the face of all of these economic disadvantages and overcome the MICA hurdles etc is the only thing you have left. You don't have the same opportunites for wealth creation as you do in pretty much the remainder of the country, although admittedly that gap is closing because of remote working. But closing, not closed.


Donegal isn't some kind of gulag,people can leave to further themselves if they wish, and has a huge amount of holiday homes which were built at a profit. The MICA issue isn't confined to it either but let's be honest people chose whatever builder they wanted, now the rest of the country will pay for it to be fixed. 

This attitude of we shouldn't be part of the solution because we live in a place where certain things have happened isn't a valid argument.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Bluefin said:


> Won't this be a very real issue.. Shortage of skilled labour to build /refurb.. Increasing taxes won't change this fact nor increase additional supply.. Piecemeal and populist approach to fend off the shinners


Now it is but solving the housing issue will probably take 2 generations .

Bet the developers getting €145k subsidy to build won't have issues getting staff.


----------



## Leo (24 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Rent is 7500 per year, or 625 a month. That seems reasonable and state retains ownership of the property, through the local council.


But the state don't really want to own it, and have been actively trying to privatise social housing for years. The LAs are sitting on huge sums of debt from unpaid rent.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Social housing shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria.


"Public expenditure shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria." 

Wow.



Paul O Mahoney said:


> If our Social housing stock was treated properly by all those involved that stock would be useful for 3 or 4 generations .


No. Very few houses and fewer apartments remain useful for 3 or 4 generations without huge investment in renovation and refurbishment. The typical older house is as much a liability as an asset and will deteriorate to an uninhabitable state if left unoccupied or neglected for even a decade.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> I'll stand corrected here but Councils have huge amounts of land laying idle and if they were to develop this land sensibly there would be economic activity provided initially and during the years after would probably eliminate or at least vastly reduce any future maintenance costs.
> Obviously a full and detailed financial model would need to be done using DCF on all cashflow which is probably beyond most CCs .


The paradox is that the more properties councils build now, the bigger a burden they will have to shoulder in the future maintenance of these properties particularly if they are incapable of levying realistic rents from those properties. In short, it's a total money pit.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> There are solutions available but the amount of vested interests,  parochial mind sets and a host of uniquely Irish attitudes seem intent of finding any.


It's not just an Irish problem. The same issues that have bedevilled social housing in Ireland have been widespread internationally.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

mathepac said:


> Looking forward to it but what about (re) introducing rates for housing not in productive use?  Rate empty houses, run-down or otherwise, like commercial properties.  If they are not brought into use as housing (occupied by families off the local housing list) the owners get levied with the full rateable valuation annually or some multiple thereof.



Were this to happen, a lot of the properties in question would mysteriously burn down or be 'accidentally' demolished overnight.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Were this to happen, a lot of the properties in question would mysteriously burn down or be 'accidentally' demolished overnight.


I agree. The tax should be levied on the site value, not the property.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree. The tax should be levied on the site value, not the property.


Same result.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Same result.


It's very hard to burn down a site.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> It's very hard to burn down a site.


What happens the value of a site if there's a bad fire on it?


----------



## Firefly (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The paradox is that the more properties councils build now, the bigger a burden they will have to shoulder in the future maintenance of these properties particularly if they are incapable of levying realistic rents from those properties. In short, it's a total money pit.


I think this is the main reason they have outsourced social housing to the private sector..


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> What happens the value of a site if there's a bad fire on it?


Not much.


----------



## ashambles (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> Not much.


Instead of burning I'd go down the route of claiming it's not a vacant property, it's a rustic holiday home.

How would our luxury holiday home owning "left" wing TDs feel about second homes - vacant or just mostly vacant - being taxed more heavily than PPRs.

I would go down that route first, I see hypocrisy in just targeting vacant properties, which aren't always owned by people with substantial resources, whereas a holiday home generally is.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> "Public expenditure shouldn't ever be analyzed by financial and economic criteria."
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...


Well keep saying no isn't going to solve the issue, on the generational usage a close friend lives in a house that was built in 1938 and bought in 1939 a simple 3 bed and it hasn't changed infra structurally, yes it has been modified for gas heating , new kitchens,  painting etc.,  but essentially still a very habitable home. 

And comparing against other countries isn't going to solve the issue. 

We have to solve this issue, and we need to take into account every aspect of the problem,  financial,  societal and economic.........


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> I like Brendan's suggestion that social housing should be a much bigger part of any government housing policy.   Council housing with secure tenancies, and reasonable rents are part of the answer.   And no selling of said houses, full stop.
> If you want to buy a house go into the private market.   The council house stays in public hands and is passed onto the next person on the waiting list.   Many people might, quite happily, spend their entire lives living in a rented house, if that rented house gave them lifetime security of tenure, with full maintenance costs covered, with a rent that simply covers those costs and original building costs.
> 
> The state's attempt to contract out this policy has been a disaster and way more expensive than direct building of housing projects.


I don't like the idea of the State providing things for people that those could should be able to provide for themselves. The solution to high property prices and high construction costs is not for the State to spend an ever increasing proportion of the Nations wealth and income on it. The solution is to reduce the cost of construction and the price of houses. We already know how to do what is within the scope of the States reach but it is difficult and requires considerable restructuring on the government side.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> Instead of burning I'd go down the route of claiming it's not a vacant property, it's a rustic holiday home.
> 
> How would our luxury holiday home owning "left" wing TDs feel about second homes - vacant or just mostly vacant - being taxed more heavily than PPRs.
> 
> ...


I'd do both.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Firefly said:


> I think this is the main reason they have outsourced social housing to the private sector..


And that decision has been a huge success.......Councils are still paying and end up with nothing of importance.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> And that decision has been a huge success.......Councils are still paying and end up with nothing of importance.


Sorry I have big fingers


----------



## ashambles (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> I'd do both.


I meant both when I said "vacant or just mostly vacant".  A tax (extra on top of LPT) second and third homes will automatically bring vacant properties into the equation.  Owning a holiday home is a luxury - and should be taxed liked one.   At the moment the problem isn't just eating into the supply of houses, it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Well keep saying no isn't going to solve the issue



It was your incorrect assumption to which I said no, viz.:



Paul O Mahoney said:


> If our Social housing stock was treated properly by all those involved that stock would be useful for 3 or 4 generations .







Paul O Mahoney said:


> And comparing against other countries isn't going to solve the issue.



Again in referring to the international experience of social housing, I was merely rebutting your claim that this is a "uniquely Irish" problem.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> I meant both when I said "vacant or just mostly vacant".  A tax (extra on top of LPT) second and third homes will automatically bring vacant properties into the equation.


I agree. 


ashambles said:


> Owning a holiday home is a luxury - and should be taxed liked one.   At the moment the problem isn't just eating into the supply of houses, it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.


We should structure our taxation system to create the greatest societal benefit, not because we are jealous of those who have more than us. I'm reminded of the old line that middle class socialists don't give a damn about the poor, they just hare rich people. What they don't realise is that many middle class socialists are rich people, they just don't have very high incomes.   
If we taxed luxuries like that then there's be a special tax on Sky Sports, take away food, large TV's etc and we'd charge a higher rate of VAT on all sportswear that costed more than €30.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.


What a peculiar argument. The idea that odd-job men and washing machine repairers could start building much-needed housing if only their existing work could slacken off a bit is frankly bizarre.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Again in referring to the international experience of social housing, I was merely rebutting your claim that this is a "uniquely Irish" problem.


I don't like it when people take my quote and use two words of it out of context to make a point, it shows a lack of manners. 

The quote was "uniquely Irish attitudes " kindly stop this .


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I don't like it when people take my quote and use two words of it out of context to make a point, it shows a lack of manners.
> 
> The quote was "uniquely Irish attitudes " kindly stop this .


Out of context my nelly.

This is what you said.


Paul O Mahoney said:


> There are solutions available but the amount of vested interests,  parochial mind sets and a host of uniquely Irish attitudes seem intent of finding any.


If you're taking umbrage with this being used to mention a reference to "uniquely Irish", you have little to worry about.

And as for my manners, I have been unfailingly polite to you throughout all this. Feel free to report any relevant comments if or when I'm not.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Out of context my nelly.
> 
> This is what you said.
> 
> ...


I never once said that the problem was " distilled down to uniquely Irish attitudes " on this and multiple occasions I have suggested that the problems faced in our housing strategies have multiple issues,  both quantifiable and non quantifiable and if all these factors must be addressed if we are going to solve it.

You have been polite and I have no issue with your posting , but when quotes are sliced or not quoted in full , I find that rude and you clearly know how to respond to the full quote.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> You have been polite and I have no issue with your posting , but ... I find that rude


Which is it?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Which is it?


I'll allow you to work it out.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I'll allow you to work it out.


No, you can't credibly claim in the same breath that I'm both polite and rude.


----------



## Allpartied (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Thanks. A 1% rate of return before maintenance and after interest isn't remotely economic though. How many decades until the original €250k outlay will be recouped?
> 
> Remember also that in most cases especially nowadays the build cost will be much higher than €250k, and there will be a site cost, and site-related costs.  And the unit will in time require substantial refurbishment and renewal. And there will be need to budget for contingencies, just as there is in apartment and estate management companies.


Buy to let investors, can get interest only loans and they can then sell the asset, after 20 years, to pay back the original cost of purchase.  They can also charge a rent which provides them with a substantial profit, ie; the difference between the interest only rent, maintenance costs and the actual rent they charge. They then get to keep the profit from both of these agreements,  if there is any, and walk away.  
Social housing, of course, should not be based on profiteering, but the state retains the asset, so that future generations can use the house.
We don't have to allow the market to rule everything.  Its not, always, the most efficient or fairest way of doing things.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Buy to let investors, can get interest only loans and they can then sell the asset, after 20 years, to pay back the original cost of purchase.  They can also charge a rent which provides them with a substantial profit, ie; the difference between the interest only rent, maintenance costs and the actual rent they charge. They then get to keep the profit from both of these agreements,  if there is any, and walk away.
> Social housing, of course, should not be based on profiteering, but the state retains the asset, so that future generations can use the house.
> We don't have to allow the market to rule everything.  Its not, always, the most efficient or fairest way of doing things.



No answer to my question though:


T McGibney said:


> Thanks. A 1% rate of return before maintenance and after interest isn't remotely economic though. *How many decades until the original €250k outlay will be recouped?*





Allpartied said:


> Social housing, of course, should not be based on profiteering, but the state retains the asset, so that future generations can use the house.


Yet..


T McGibney said:


> Very few houses and fewer apartments remain useful for 3 or 4 generations without huge investment in renovation and refurbishment. The typical older house is as much a liability as an asset and will deteriorate to an uninhabitable state if left unoccupied or neglected for even a decade.






Allpartied said:


> We don't have to allow the market to rule everything.  Its not, always, the most efficient or fairest way of doing things.


You mean that the State should blow huge amounts of money on something that will in time generate no economic return?


----------



## Leo (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Well keep saying no isn't going to solve the issue, on the generational usage a close friend lives in a house that was built in 1938 and bought in 1939 a simple 3 bed and it hasn't changed infra structurally, yes it has been modified for gas heating , new kitchens, painting etc., but essentially still a very habitable home.


One challenge with trying to use a lot of these properties to the rental or social housing is that it is perfectly acceptable to live in such a house yourself, but there are strict requirements for rental or social housing that many of these could not meet without very significant investment. Most houses of that era will suffer from damp, mould, and heat retention issues that mean a deep retrofit would be required to bring them up to standard.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Leo said:


> One challenge with trying to use a lot of these properties to the rental or social housing is that it is perfectly acceptable to live in such a house yourself, but there are strict requirements for rental or social housing that many of these could not meet without very significant investment. Most houses of that era will suffer from damp, mould, and heat retention issues that mean a deep retrofit would be required to bring them up to standard.


Oh I accept all this and wasn't for one minute saying that the cost of such work be ignored completely, but a rudimentary view is that retrofitting these properties would be cheaper,  perhaps not , than shoving subsidies into developers pockets. 

Of course then once the properties are habitable they should stay in the possession of the local authority,  rents can be negotiated with the cost of maintenance included or if there are changes in circumstances rents could increase , whatever makes it equitable for all involved needs to be known and then the correct decisions made.


----------



## Allpartied (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> You mean that the State should blow huge amounts of money on something that will in time generate no economic return?


But they are not " blowing huge amounts of money", they are building an asset, which will appreciate over time. 
There are loads of counci housing estates around large cities, which were built in the 50's or 60's and still serve their purpose.  Yes, they require maintenance, but that is a fraction of the cost of building anew.  
The economic return cannot just be measured in a profit figure, it can be measured in the service that the housing project brings to the community.  By housing families or individuals, over 100 year periods the " return" is phenomenal.   
Some council houses have been used by 3 or 4 generations, at this stage.   Councils have been generating a return, by selling their sites and housing to private developers.  Many of those sites, purchased and developed 70 or 80 years ago are, currently, valued in the hundreds of millions. I think thats a terrible mistake, but it does show the sites have significant value, if that's your beef.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> But they are not " blowing huge amounts of money", they are building an asset, which will appreciate over time.



No, they will deteriorate over time.



Allpartied said:


> The economic return cannot just be measured in a profit figure, it can be measured in the service that the housing project brings to the community.


You clearly misunderstand the meaning of economic return.


Allpartied said:


> By housing families or individuals, over 100 year periods the " return" is phenomenal.


There isn't a social housing unit in the country that has been in use for 100 years. And what exactly is the "phenomenal" return on say €500k of taxpayers' money being spent to house a single family or series of individuals over a generation or two, any more than say sending a few of them off to train as barristers?



Allpartied said:


> Some council houses have been used by 3 or 4 generations, at this stage.   Councils have been generating a return, by selling their sites and housing to private developers.  Many of those sites, purchased and developed 70 or 80 years ago are, currently, valued in the hundreds of millions. I think thats a terrible mistake, but it does show the sites have significant value, if that's your beef.


If the sites had never been built on, they'd still be commanding these valuations, so whatever relevance that has to the economic viability of social housing escapes me.


----------



## ashambles (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> What a peculiar argument. The idea that odd-job men and washing machine repairers could start building much-needed housing if only their existing work could slacken off a bit is frankly bizarre.


You'll find that when these people buy their holiday home they probably want a bit more than a washing machine repaired.

During the pandemic there was a huge increase in demand for costal detached property, basically any money that might instead have gone to places like Spain and France went instead to the Irish coast.  These days that often involves a large scale renovation to bring it up the standard of the PPR especially when people moved there to work remotely - leaving the PPR vacant. 

The work that's going on for second homes is affecting people who need to do work on their PPR. It's not the main reason clearly but it's one smaller reason.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> You'll find that when these people buy their holiday home they probably want a bit more than a washing machine repaired.
> 
> *During the pandemic there was a huge increase in demand for costal detached property, basically any money that might instead have gone to places like Spain and France went instead to the Irish coast. * These days that often involves a large scale renovation to bring it up the standard of the PPR especially when people moved there to work remotely - leaving the PPR vacant.


(citation needed)


ashambles said:


> The work that's going on for second homes is affecting people who need to do work on their PPR. It's not the main reason clearly but it's one smaller reason.


I think that's nonsense to be honest.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

Allpartied said:


> Social housing, of course, should not be based on profiteering


*Profiteering*, _the practice of making or seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market_.
Are you seriously suggesting the State is doing that? If not then edit your post or find some sort of a hyperbole filter.

I absolutely think that the State should be charging more for social housing and Tenants who have the means to do so but fail to keep up to date with their rent should be fined and have the money taken directly from their wages or welfare. The State should absolutely make sure it makes a profit on social housing.

I'd also evict anti-social tenants. If their children end up homeless that's their parents fault. If that's a problem take the kids into care.

There's absolutely no way people renting in the private sector should find themselves worse off than people who are in State provided housing, funded by the taxes of those same people renting in the private sector.

That should be the cornerstone of our welfare system; you won't be better off on welfare than working.

I'd have an immediate ban on the State buying any private housing. If they want to provide social housing they should build it.

I'd also cut HAPS, it's pricing working people out of the market. It doesn't provide a single extra home, it just distorts the market.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> You'll find that when these people buy their holiday home they probably want a bit more than a washing machine repaired.
> 
> During the pandemic there was a huge increase in demand for costal detached property, basically any money that might instead have gone to places like Spain and France went instead to the Irish coast.  These days that often involves a large scale renovation to bring it up the standard of the PPR especially when people moved there to work remotely - leaving the PPR vacant.
> 
> The work that's going on for second homes is affecting people who need to do work on their PPR. It's not the main reason clearly but it's one smaller reason.


Should people doing up their PPR have to show that they actually need that new bathroom or kitchen? 
What's wrong with the paint they have on the wall at the moment? My parents just spend €40k on a new kitchen even though the old one was perfectly functional. Should they be punished for doing so?


----------



## Firefly (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> *Profiteering*, _the practice of making or seeking to make an excessive or unfair profit, especially illegally or in a black market_.
> Are you seriously suggesting the State is doing that? If not then edit your post or find some sort of a hyperbole filter.
> 
> I absolutely think that the State should be charging more for social housing and Tenants who have the means to do so but fail to keep up to date with their rent should be fined and have the money taken directly from their wages or welfare. The State should absolutely make sure it makes a profit on social housing.
> ...


I agree with all of this and would add:

I would prohibit children who grew up in social housing from remaining in the house when they're parents kick the bucket. Their parents have already won the lotto by living in a house at practically no cost, time to give another family in need a go, in the interest of fairness n'all


----------



## nest egg (24 May 2022)

A recession, that's how you "fix" it!

Neither the state nor the private sector can match the demand as-is. With QE ending & interest rate rises coming sharply into focus, you'd expect both economic activity and asset prices start to decline.


----------



## Purple (24 May 2022)

mojoask said:


> A recession, that's how you "fix" it!
> 
> Neither the state nor the private sector can match the demand as-is. With QE ending & interest rate rises coming sharply into focus, you'd expect both economic activity and asset prices start to decline.


I just sold and am waiting to buy so I hope you’re right!


----------



## Firefly (24 May 2022)

mojoask said:


> A recession, that's how you "fix" it!
> 
> Neither the state nor the private sector can match the demand as-is. With QE ending & interest rate rises coming sharply into focus, you'd expect both economic activity and asset prices start to decline.



It won't happen. Ireland is different and worst outcome will be a soft landing


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

Purple said:


> I'd also cut HAPS,


This is another doozy brought in and as you say never created anything or solved anything.  HAP spend in 2020 was almost €500m to support 60,000 families. 

Edit,  made a mess of your quote and don't know how to fix it.....bus posting .


----------



## ashambles (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> (citation needed)


Citation needed to show that there was a hugely increased demand by Irish people for Irish costal property due to Covid?   The IT/Daft had prices up by 23% up to June 21.  It's a bit higher than that now.









						Price of coastal homes ‘soars in wake of pandemic’
					

Properties near sea 23% more expensive than before Covid-19 – report




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> The IT/Daft had prices up by 23% up to June 21.  It's a bit higher than that now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wasn't that phenomenon nationwide? 

And the piece suggested they're not being used as holiday homes at all.

And your claim that all or many of these properties required extensive renovation?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> Citation needed to show that there was a hugely increased demand by Irish people for Irish costal property due to Covid?   The IT/Daft had prices up by 23% up to June 21.  It's a bit higher than that now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep we are trying to find something coastal and the price difference between same size houses is a least 20%, on average, more than inland houses.

One house was on the market for €600k in North Wexford we got an interior designer and engineer in to estimate what would a renovation cost roughly and to our requirements both reckoned 100k to 120k not including the pool


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Yep we are trying to find something coastal and the price difference between same size houses is a least 20%, on average, more than inland houses.
> 
> One house was on the market for €600k in North Wexford we got an interior designer and engineer in to estimate what would a renovation cost roughly and to our requirements both reckoned 100k to 120k not including the pool


The argument isn't that coastal properties command a premium (we all know they've done so for donkeys years) but that there's so much work being done on second homes near the coast that tradesmen can't be got for love nor money in those places, compared to places like Dublin, Meath and Kildare that don't have a preponderance of second homes and hence no tradesmen shortages.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The argument isn't that coastal properties command a premium (we all know they've done so for donkeys years) but that there's so much work being done on second homes near the coast that tradesmen can't be got for love nor money in those places, compared to places like Dublin, Meath and Kildare that don't have a preponderance of second homes and hence no tradesmen shortages.


I'm in Maynooth and its impossible to get any trade person the electrician might get to us before our holidays which is 23rd of July and hes a personal friend,  plumber laughing said hows 2023 sound Paul,  again have shared pints of an evening. 

Sister in law getting a new kitchen November this year earliest shes in Midleton 

The shortages of tradesmen is national but I did notice in North Wexford and indeed west Waterford that an awful lot of building one offs and or renovations. 

The engineer we used is local here and he did mention that he had clients in coastal areas and he said and I quote " I hope ye aren't in a hurry as things are manic now,"  and he too knew people. 

Again this is anecdotal and we have put off for a year and buy something that will fulfill all our needs and minimise any work


----------



## ashambles (24 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The argument isn't that coastal properties command a premium (we all know they've done so for donkeys years) but that there's so much work being done on second homes near the coast that tradesmen can't be got for love nor money in those places, compared to places like Dublin, Meath and Kildare that don't have a preponderance of second homes and hence no tradesmen shortages.


You asked for a "citation" saying that costal prices had increased due to the pandemic. 

 Also in anticipation of a predictable misrepresentation I said "It's not the main reason clearly but it's one smaller reason." you seem to be implying I said it's the only reason.

But it's a visible reason, also while it depends where you live, you'll see they're tying up the more reputable builders for longer than average projects.  

Taxing second homes will not solve "the housing crisis" - but if you're taxing vacant sites then in the interest of fairness and a possible minor improvement then I don't see how you can not tax second homes as well.  Let's say someone has a house in Dublin and West Cork, introduce the second home tax and because Irish people hate avoidable taxes maybe they decide to sell the Dublin one.  Now instead of getting a wreck of a vacant site that may not be currently viable to renovate you  get a ready to live in home added to the market. What's not to like?


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> You asked for a "citation" saying that costal prices had increased due to the pandemic.



No, I asked for a citation to support the following assertion

*"During the pandemic there was a huge increase in demand for costal detached property, basically any money that might instead have gone to places like Spain and France went instead to the Irish coast."*

The piece you quoted didn't do that. It suggested that the spike in demand for coastal properties was driven by the switch to remote working and not, as you asserted, a rush to acquire second homes.


----------



## Leo (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Oh I accept all this and wasn't for one minute saying that the cost of such work be ignored completely, but a rudimentary view is that retrofitting these properties would be cheaper,  perhaps not , than shoving subsidies into developers pockets.
> 
> Of course then once the properties are habitable they should stay in the possession of the local authority,  rents can be negotiated with the cost of maintenance included or if there are changes in circumstances rents could increase , whatever makes it equitable for all involved needs to be known and then the correct decisions made.


The subsidy I've seen mentioned would be a lot less than the cost of deep-retrofits that would be required on many of these. It's far more efficient to deliver a development at scale in a place with public services where people want to live.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

Leo said:


> The subsidy I've seen mentioned would be a lot less than the cost of deep-retrofits that would be required on many of these. It's far more efficient to deliver a development at scale in a place with public services where people want to live.


Ok ,and that's another consideration however we really don't know if it would be more expensive as a detailed analysis hasn't been done and I accept that it probably won't ever be done, theres little by way of income from renovation of existing properties and this as an opportunity cost would also inflate the cost of renovations.

The other point regarding public transportation and adequate community infrastructure, the past isn't kind to this been done adequately, we both could name areas where houses were built first and a generation later the necessary services followed.

Existing vacant homes would in general be in areas that all the infrastructure is in situ, of course supplying these to any new builds will have a considerable cost for decades ahead and would also be put into the hopper and see what is the overall cost of providing these to new builds.

What I'm trying to do here is highlight the complexity of the issue and I'm saying it's not a black and white situation the entire problem needs to be looked at in detail.

We've had citizens conferences on all types of issues except one on trying to drag Ireland into some kind of country where families are not housed in hotels,  B&Bs and other unsuitable accommodation.

Nothing is free in life, but for a country to be so bereft of ideas to solve this issue or any other social issues really should have us collectively ashamed.


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 May 2022)

I don’t know why the Government don’t treat housing as an emergency – in common with health and climate change. Successive Governments have lacked ambition. Piecemeal fixes have cost a fortune and achieved little.

Why doesn’t it start from the premise of what people can reasonably afford and then work backwards from that with all of the connected trades, professions and Government departments?

It should work to a fixed time limit to concentrate minds.

It would start with the zoning of land. The government should develop the land. It would be less expensive because of economies of scale. The developed plots would be reflected in their cost, but it would work out cheaper than each developer having to carry out that work.

Then intense expert input would be needed to plan the site. We need to aim higher than featureless cookie cutter housing lacking appropriate infrastructure and then wonder why we have social problems.

Unfortunately, expertise is not sufficiently valued in Ireland and is never included at project start-up.

Nowadays, very little construction needs to be on-site as @Purple and others have been saying for some time. There is a raft of new construction materials available that do not cost the earth.

Precision built housing with expert oversight would be infinitely more desirable and cost-effective than the wasteful practices I have witnessed over the years on various construction sites. My late father used to refer to the breed of builder typical of the Celtic Tiger era as slapdashopithecus.

How people live should not be an afterthought, but rather it should be upfront *before* anything is built.

Suitable plot sizes, access to fresh air, storage, safe zones for children, distance to retail, health facilities, schools, transport, and other amenities, etc., need to be considered.

There is no point in telling people to ditch their cars when things they need to access daily are miles away, involving the inevitable unhealthy choked up traffic due to poor planning.

Refurbishment should have more sensible regulation, which better reflects the practicalities of what can be achieved at reasonable cost.

Built infrastructure doesn’t need to be disgusting. People with little resources have the same aesthetic appreciation as the better off. We need better imagination and not more money.


As for social housing, the same standards should apply. However, to be housed at the taxpayer’s expense should be a privilege to be valued.

Neighbourhoods are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their properties and it should be intolerable that are dragged down and brought into disrepute by the anti-social behaviour of the few.

Therefore, there should be a contract enforced by a specialized branch of the court services that can deal with matters quickly. Anyone who has a problem with that should not be accommodated.

Rent and a reasonable maintenance cost should be garnished and although it wouldn’t thank me for suggesting this, responsibility for this should be given to the Revenue Commissioners. Revenue is excellent at collection; local authorities are notoriously bad.

This might seem a bit extreme, even in terms of cost, but anti-social behaviour has a much larger financial cost and reduces otherwise good neighbourhoods to pariah status so that no one wants to live there.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> I don’t know why the Government don’t treat housing as an emergency.





Sophrosyne said:


> The government should develop the land. It would be less expensive because of economies of scale. The developed plots would be reflected in their cost, but it would work out cheaper than each developer having to carry out that work.


The State is generally terrible at doing things like property development and costs typically soar out of control whenever they attempt it. Look at the Children's Hospital fiasco for example

We only have a housing emergency because 13 years ago, our State's top decision-makers decided we no longer needed private residential property developers and enacted laws to put them out of business.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> 13 years ago, our State's top decision-makers decided we no longer needed private residential property developers



And at the same time, they stopped building social housing and told would be tenants to rent privately and the taxpayer would foot the bill.

Brendan


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 May 2022)

Agreed. But there is fault on both sides.

Tenders are unrealistic.

Examination of tenders has become a box ticking occupation devoid of knowledge or skill.

The Government treats the housing crises as a unwelcome irritation. Opposition parties treat it as a point scoring opportunity.

That is why we need a complete sea change. What is happening at the moment is unstainable.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> And at the same time, they stopped building social housing and told would be tenants to rent privately and the taxpayer would foot the bill.
> 
> Brendan


Yes Brendan, they swallowed hook line and sinker the nonsense from theories David McWilliams and a few others that the overbuilding craze in the 2005-08 period had left us with an overhang of houses and apartments that would neither be needed nor occupied - even though a child could have told them at the time that the population was rising.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> Agreed. But there is fault on both sides.
> 
> Tenders are unrealistic.
> 
> Examination of tenders has become a box ticking occupation devoid of knowledge or skill.


The difference is that if a private developer gets their sums wrong, they go out of business and another developer ends up buying and completing the development. If the State as developer gets their sums wrong, the taxpayer underwrites the extra cost and the State completes the development on that basis. It's a recipe for perpetual cost increases.


----------



## Leo (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> The other point regarding public transportation and adequate community infrastructure, the past isn't kind to this been done adequately, we both could name areas where houses were built first and a generation later the necessary services followed.


I would have assumed the other. There has been a shift away from the countryside over the past few decades and the rising values of city properties that are well serve by public transport and other services usually incentivises people to sell if they are no longer required, or renovate and rent given the escalation in rents in recent years.

With that it is the more remote properties with poor or no access to public services that are being left idle or used as holiday homes on occasion.


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 May 2022)

My main point is that in trying to save money, the State is throwing away money on ineffectual solutions.

In my view it is due to a combination of party politics, local authority ineptitude and a lack of expertise, ambition, and proper oversight.

This may be turned into the usual private v State contention but that gets us nowhere as both are necessary if this is to be solved.

Regardless of what happened in the past, we urgently need new thinking.

That is why I am suggesting that experts from all connected areas are brought in at the beginning.

Housing is not just about bricks and mortar.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The difference is that if a private developer gets their sums wrong, they go out of business and another developer ends up buying and completing the development. If the State as developer gets their sums wrong, the taxpayer underwrites the extra cost and the State completes the development on that basis. It's a recipe for perpetual cost increases.


Developers are no angel's in this either when a requirement for 15% of developments were to be built for social housing they threw the teddy out of the pram and were allowed to buy out that requirement,  don't know if that is still the case but every stakeholder in this mess have questions that need answers and need to be part of the solution.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

Sophrosyne said:


> My main point is that in trying to save money, the State is throwing away money on ineffectual solutions.
> 
> In my view it is due to a combination of party politics, local authority ineptitude and a lack of expertise, ambition, and proper oversight.
> 
> ...


"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. .." Bucky Fuller


----------



## Sophrosyne (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. .." Bucky Fuller


“Big results require big ambitions” - _Heraclitus. _


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Developers are no angel's in this either when a requirement for 15% of developments were to be built for social housing they threw the teddy out of the pram and were allowed to buy out that requirement,  don't know if that is still the case but every stakeholder in this mess have questions that need answers and need to be part of the solution.


That was no solution and in fact was a contributor to the negative equity mess that so many new homeowners found themselves in post-2008.  The plan that these homeowners should pay an extra premium on the purchase of their home to finance cut-price homes for the State was always unsustainable.


----------



## Firefly (25 May 2022)

I've mentioned this before, but I really think a large, sale-and-leaseback scheme for housing should be considered. The state would agree to pay a rent for say 1,000 new houses


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

Firefly said:


> I've mentioned this before, but I really think a large, sale-and-leaseback scheme for housing should be considered. The state would agree to pay a rent for say 1,000 new houses


There are 66000 on HAP already which hasn't changed much.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That was no solution and in fact was a contributor to the negative equity mess that so many new homeowners found themselves in post-2008.  The plan that these homeowners should pay an extra premium on the purchase of their home to finance cut-price homes for the State was always unsustainable.


The negative equity was caused by banks over lending to both developers and house buyers creating a bubble which eventually burst,  since very few if any developers allowed the 15% anyway it certainly wasn't the cause of negative equity


----------



## noproblem (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> There are 66000 on HAP already which hasn't changed much.


Why are 66,000 people on HAP, and thousands more on other rent allowances, plus thousands and thousands that won't pay their share? Poor ould worker paying for them as well as their own


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> The negative equity was caused by banks over lending to both developers and house buyers creating a bubble which eventually burst,  since very few if any developers allowed the 15% anyway it certainly wasn't the cause of negative equity


Anything that caused new buyers to pay more than the economic cost of their purchases added to the bubble and this scheme certainly did that anywhere it was implemented.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

noproblem said:


> Why are 66,000 people on HAP, and thousands more on other rent allowances, plus thousands and thousands that won't pay their share? Poor ould worker paying for them as well as their own


Absolutely does anyone know what the total figure is for housing interventions HAP alone was almost €500m in 2020, latest report I could find.

Surely all that money could be better used ?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Anything that caused new buyers to pay more than the economic cost of their purchases added to the bubble and this scheme certainly did that anywhere it was implemented.


But it wasn't the cause of the negative equity the entire country suffered post 2008 as a percentage it would have been minuscule by comparison to the economic devastation foisted on ordinary people the by the actions of banks, developers and government policies.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> But it wasn't the cause of the negative equity the entire country suffered post 2008 as a percentage it would have been minuscule by comparison to the economic devastation foisted on ordinary people the by the actions of banks, developers and government policies.


That's beside the point. You touted it as a solution to the current crisis when in fact it was a contributor to the last one, being an apt example of something that was "foisted on ordinary people by the actions of banks, developers and government policies". The extent of that contribution relative to others is neither here nor there.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That's beside the point. You touted it as a solution to the current crisis when in fact it was a contributor to the last one, being an apt example of something that was "foisted on ordinary people by the actions of banks, developers and government policies". The extent of that contribution relative to others is neither here nor there.


I never touted anything I just mentioned that when an attempt to find a way of getting people into home the building industry and its cohorts were 100% against it.
It was never going to be a total solution but it was rejected and Government policy allowed the building industry an out. 

And let's be clear here , you were the one who said that it was the cause of negative equity. Which most would strongly disagree with as do I.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I never touted anything I just mentioned that when an attempt to find a way of getting people into home the building industry and its cohorts were 100% against it.
> *It was never going to be a total solution* but it was rejected and Government policy allowed the building industry an out.


It was never going to be even a partial solution to any situation of scarcity. How can something that artificially hikes prices for one subset of homebuyers ever be?


Paul O Mahoney said:


> And let's be clear here , you were the one who said that it was the cause of negative equity.


I most certainly didn't say that. You know well what the word "contributor" means. If you're going to put words into my mouth, at least be accurate.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (25 May 2022)

ashambles said:


> I meant both when I said "vacant or just mostly vacant".  A tax (extra on top of LPT) second and third homes will automatically bring vacant properties into the equation.  Owning a holiday home is a luxury - and should be taxed liked one.   At the moment the problem isn't just eating into the supply of houses, it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.


It is taxed like a luxury.

The person makes €X, only gets to keep 45-48% of X, and then uses that to buy a property.

People with assets aren’t the issue. It’s inefficiency, incompetence, and general madness in government and the State sector.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> It was never going to be even a partial solution to any situation of scarcity. How can something that artificially hikes prices for one subset of homebuyers ever be?
> 
> I most certainly didn't say that. You know well what the word "contributor" means. If you're going to put words into my mouth, at least be accurate.


Like when you said  I " touted" something when I clearly didn't. Yeah  you seem to have selective memory.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Like when you said  I " touted" something when I clearly didn't. Yeah  you seem to have selective memory.


I said "_You touted it as a solution to the current crisis_".

100% factual.

As with earlier in the week, you can _ad hominem_ me all evening if you wish but I won't be responding in kind.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I said "_You touted it as a solution to the current crisis_".
> 
> 100% factual.
> 
> As with earlier in the week, you can _ad hominem_ me all evening if you wish but I won't be responding in kind.


Again I did not and I didn't ad hominem you at anytime , you did not quote my post in full and I regard that practice as rude and un mannerly.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

New grant for first-time buyers of derelict houses
					

A new grant scheme has been announced for first-time buyers. The plans will enable first-time buyers to convert derelict properties without planning permission.




					www.bonkers.ie
				




Does anyone know if this has begun or is it still stalled in Government roundabouts,  the amounts of the Grant's seem a bit low.


----------



## T McGibney (25 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Again I did not and I didn't ad hominem you at anytime , you did not quote my post in full and I regard that practice as rude and un mannerly.


Here we go again.

And


Paul O Mahoney said:


> Yeah  you seem to have selective memory.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (25 May 2022)

Leo said:


> I would have assumed the other. There has been a shift away from the countryside over the past few decades and the rising values of city properties that are well serve by public transport and other services usually incentivises people to sell if they are no longer required, or renovate and rent given the escalation in rents in recent years.
> 
> With that it is the more remote properties with poor or no access to public services that are being left idle or used as holiday homes on occasion.


Dublin perhaps but in say Cork, Galway the movement seems outward. 

What I was trying to say was that within the larger urban areas like Cork,  Limerick and Galway the vacant properties including council properties would already be in areas where services are already in situ and any future requirements to provide them would already be in place.

I might be completely wrong but I still hold the view that unless its shown that renovations etc are more costly than new builds given the myriad of other factors then fine.

The title of the thread has the word " sensible " in it and what hit the press recently isn't sensible nor economical but it'll probably go ahead. 

I'll state this again solutions must be found and all stakeholders must be part if those solutions either wise we are going to repeat the same mistakes were made for the last 50 years.

Time is of the essence and  short term stop gaps may be needed but in tandem to that a clear equitable strategy fit for a modern country also needs to found.


----------



## Leo (26 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Dublin perhaps but in say Cork, Galway the movement seems outward.
> 
> What I was trying to say was that within the larger urban areas like Cork, Limerick and Galway the vacant properties including council properties would already be in areas where services are already in situ and any future requirements to provide them would already be in place.


The data from last year isn't published yet, and may well show a pandemic and remote working impact, but the CSO has been reporting a slow but steady urbanisation of the population, 

There certainly are some unusued properties in desirable and services aras, but when the need is of the scale of 10's of thousands of additional properties a year, existing dwellings will only scratch the surface. It's a high effort, low gain approach.

Let's face it, the vast majority of these are in private ownership, and you just can't force people to rent them out if they don't want to, Taxation can encourage it, but only to an extent.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (26 May 2022)

Leo said:


> The data from last year isn't published yet, and may well show a pandemic and remote working impact, but the CSO has been reporting a slow but steady urbanisation of the population,
> 
> There certainly are some unusued properties in desirable and services aras, but when the need is of the scale of 10's of thousands of additional properties a year, existing dwellings will only scratch the surface. It's a high effort, low gain approach.
> 
> Let's face it, the vast majority of these are in private ownership, and you just can't force people to rent them out if they don't want to, Taxation can encourage it, but only to an extent.


It'll be interesting to see, and there maybe counter flows emerging,  from viewing houses particularly in North Wexford most of the fellow viewers would certainly be my generation and would have large amounts of equity and one couple mentioned their children had flown the nest. 

Our daughter has moved into Dublin to " get on with her life" so it might be the young moving into cities and the old moving out.


----------



## Leo (26 May 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> It'll be interesting to see, and there maybe counter flows emerging,  from viewing houses particularly in North Wexford most of the fellow viewers would certainly be my generation and would have large amounts of equity and one couple mentioned their children had flown the nest.
> 
> Our daughter has moved into Dublin to " get on with her life" so it might be the young moving into cities and the old moving out.


Yeah, I think there are signs already that a lot of employers, or at least some of their current managers, aren't so keen on staff working remotely the vast majority of the time. Younger people will always gravitate towards the office and the social life that accompanies it. Overall I'd expect our move towards greater urbanisation will continue.


----------



## lff12 (10 Jul 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have an opinion piece in today's Sunday Times
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the council is doing so its because in doing so it skipped ALL the stages of agreeing the development, paying the cost of design, going through planning etc - just let someone else do it and then lease it all out, and kick the can 20 years down the road.
Its just short term thinking - largely because there isn't political consensus on how to house a large population of people who cannot afford to house themselves.

The Centre/Right want to go on the basis that a % of private housing goes to social/affordable (thus just pays for the house, not the rest of the costs, planning etc the developers problem).
The left wants traditional social housing in 100% council owned/developed units but from what I can see no LA is building any of these bigger than 30-40 homes.
Each side would literally prefer to burn the other crowd's preferred fix to the ground rather than see it go through.
Rinse and repeat.


----------

