How do we deal with falling home ownership/ build more houses - long thread

[T McGibney]

Completions went from 35.5k to 47.5k during that time with a growth rate that was consistent since 1991. The big increase in completions came after 2001. We've a million more people in the country, our construction workforce is still 30% below the peek and the whole global economy has changed.

A good few of the tradesmen who worked on our house build during that time were Irish guys who had recently returned from the US & UK. Once the work is there, people will be found to do it.

I'm fine with that but we need to enforce whatever ones we have. That requires State employees and they always slow things down.

Again, we need fewer regulations, fewer State employees and fewer slowdowns.

But that's a massive subsidy from the State to the home owner. That constitutes very bad value for money.

I don't care about that. We're in an emergency and if substituting a subsidy for another bigger series of subsidies has to be done, then so be it. If it's an issue it can be addressed on other ways.

 

[Bow tie]

Taking this from a social angle, we could as mentioned by another poster give support for doing up old properties.
Do this with additional supports in villages with a small number of people. Support work from home so people can leave the most urban areas, support the services in these areas- school grants, transport, broadband GPs and hospitals. Basically re-invigorate rural Ireland and accelarate population dispersion across a small island.
I'm not sure that would fly politically though as it would de-pressure and probably reduce value all types of property in the main urban areas. Too many vested interests.

 

[Peanuts20]

San Sebastian is the polar opposite of a purpose-built new town.

The relative success of Milton Keynes does not contradict my point that these places normally equate to ghettos.

I disagree on San Sebastian as I was referring to the newly built suburbs outside of the old town. but in fairness, I didn't make that clear in my OP.

Same applies to places like Arcachon an hour outside of Bordeaux, much of which is largely new builds on a smaller original town but with the right facilities in place.

plenty of other new towns in the UK, they're not perfect but they've become communities in their own right. My core point however remains the same, we should focus on building proper communities with proper facilities and not Ceaucesu style rabbit hutches for people to live in.

 

[Purple]

A good few of the tradesmen who worked on our house build during that time were Irish guys who had recently returned from the US & UK. Once the work is there, people will be found to do it.

The work is there now and we can't find the people to do it.

Again, we need fewer regulations, fewer State employees and fewer slowdowns.

So how do we ensure whatever regulations we have are enforced? Are you okay with the issues we have from the boom reoccurring?

I don't care about that. We're in an emergency and if substituting a subsidy for another bigger series of subsidies has to be done, then so be it.

Yea, but we'd be doing the opposite. We'd be substituting a small subsidy for aa far bigger one. One-off housing in rural areas in incredibly expensive for the State to provide for, from roads to utilities to access to services. I know you don't think environmental issues should be taken into account so just look at the costs. If the owner can provide their own broadband, water, electricity and water waste management and doesn't expect a paved road where there wasn't one before then by all means let them build.

 

[Bow tie]

One-off housing in rural areas in incredibly expensive for the State to provide for, from roads to utilities to access to services. I know you don't think environmental issues should be taken into account so just look at the costs. If the owner can provide their own broadband, water, electricity and water waste management and doesn't expect a paved road where there wasn't one before then by all means let them build.

If old buildings are available, we should start with those but we should get ahead of things by starting to provide the services in cheaper but less accessible places. We are a relatively small country and looking to the future, will likely require all the land to be useful and accessible not just urban centres.

 

[Purple]

Taking this from a social angle, we could as mentioned by another poster give support for doing up old properties.
Do this with additional supports in villages with a small number of people. Support work from home so people can leave the most urban areas, support the services in these areas- school grants, transport, broadband GPs and hospitals. Basically re-invigorate rural Ireland and accelarate population dispersion across a small island.
I'm not sure that would fly politically though as it would de-pressure and probably reduce value all types of property in the main urban areas. Too many vested interests.

The problem with doing up old properties and converting areas over shops etc is that it is very labour intensive and so very expensive. Blocklayers are getting €3.50 a block (300 blocks a day is not an unrealistic output) and plasterers are getting the same sort of money. I know someone in a rural town who was recently quoted €32k labour to plaster a 200square meter new build.

 

[T McGibney]

The work is there now and we can't find the people to do it.

There is no building boom now.

So how do we ensure whatever regulations we have are enforced? Are you okay with the issues we have from the boom reoccurring?

On balance, yes. We got hundreds of thousands of houses and apartments built. In the vast majority of cases, it went well. Of course there were downsides, but there always are and we can hopefully learn from past misakes.

Yea, but we'd be doing the opposite. We'd be substituting a small subsidy for aa far bigger one. One-off housing in rural areas in incredibly expensive for the State to provide for, from roads to utilities to access to services. I know you don't think environmental issues should be taken into account so just look at the costs.

Not nearly as expensive as having a housing crisis.

If the owner can provide their own broadband, water, electricity and water waste management and doesn't expect a paved road where there wasn't one before then by all means let them build.

That's already the case. I don't know where you get the idea that we're all getting free broadband, electricity and water waste management. Or even, unlike urban folks, free water.

 

[Purple]

Our under occupancy rate is very high at 70%. Holland and Spain is around 50%. Property tax and a 5 year needs assessment on all Social Housing would help to address that. If we got our level down to Spain's we'd be a long way to addressing the problem.

 

[Purple]

There is no building boom now.

Exactly, and we have a labour shortage.

On balance, yes. We got hundreds of thousands of houses and apartments built. In the vast majority of cases, it went well. Of course there were downsides, but there always are and we can hopefully learn from past misakes.

Fair enough. I'd aim for a middle ground; Fewer rules but actually enforce them. I'd require engineers and QS's to actually go on site and sign off and make them liable in the same way they would be if a bridge collapsed.

Not nearly as expensive as having a housing crisis.

True but providing that massive subsidy won't solve the housing crisis. It might make it worse by sucking up more state funds.

That's already the case. I don't know where you get the idea that we're all getting free broadband, electricity and water waste management. Or even, unlike urban folks, free water.

There is a massive subsidy in the provision of all of those things in rural areas. Obviously once they are provided there is a change for their consumption. We should all be paying for water but that's a different barrel of muck.

 

[T McGibney]

Exactly, and we have a labour shortage.

There was also a construction labour shortage in the early to mid 90s, but that wasn't an obstacle to the post-97 boom. The market has a funny way of resolving shortages.

Fair enough. I'd aim for a middle ground; Fewer rules but actually enforce them. I'd require engineers and QS's to actually go on site and sign off and make them liable in the same way they would be if a bridge collapsed.

Well if you want additional and more onerous regulations, expect fewer and more expensive housing units.

True but providing that massive subsidy won't solve the housing crisis. It might make it worse by sucking up more state funds.

Well if there are signs that this is likely to happen, the policy can change. But again you'll end up with fewer housing units.

There is a massive subsidy in the provision of all of those things in rural areas. Obviously once they are provided there is a change for their consumption. We should all be paying for water but that's a different barrel of muck.

In a country where the State eats up a high % of national output, there are massive subsidies for almost everything. We in rural areas pay installation fees for utilities too. Even for water connection, which doesn't come cheap.

 

[cremeegg]

The original question was to the effect of 'how do we deal with the inequality' and not 'how do we avoid the inequality'.

While improvements to housing supply are to be welcomed, the premise of the original question was that there is an inequality arising and we must deal with that inequality.

I suggest that in fact, this inequality is not new despite the interesting chart in the first post. The chart shows people born in the 1960s having 60% home ownership by age 30. I suggest that this is very misleading, what we in fact see is that of those born in the 60s who still lived in Ireland 60% owned their own home.

In the 1980s (when those born in the 60s turned 20) there were no jobs. People emigrated. We didn't have a housing crisis (though mortgages were hard to get and expensive) because so many had emigrated.

Today well paying jobs are easy to get but housing is very difficult. The housing crisis is a problem of success. The fastest way to solve the housing crisis would be to nationalise a few MNCs, employment would collapse and a 5 bed detached in Ballsbridge would be affordable for a teacher. be careful what you wish for.

As was said above there is no 'just do it' solution rather ongoing efforts on easing finance, labour, materials, planning and other constraints. And doing something to assist those who will find themselves loosing out anyway.

 

[Purple]

There was also a construction labour shortage in the early to mid 90s, but that wasn't an obstacle to the post-97 boom. The market has a funny way of resolving shortages.

I admire your optimism.

Well if you want additional and more onerous regulations, expect fewer and more expensive housing units.

I don't. I want the ones we want to keep to be enforced.

Well if there are signs that this is likely to happen, the policy can change. But again you'll end up with fewer housing units.

We'll certainly end up with fewer units if we offer massive subsidies to small scale builds.

In a country where the State eats up a high % of national output, there are massive subsidies for almost everything.

True, though that's the case in most developed countries.

We in rural areas pay installation fees for utilities too.

Yes, but they are nowhere close to the actual cost.

Even for water connection, which doesn't come cheap.

Agreed, but it is nowhere close to the actual cost.

 

[cremeegg]

I have always thought that the fact so many Irish households are property owners contributes hugely to social stability here. I am thinking of farms as much as purely residential housing.

Tensions between the caricature ultra liberal female city based lawyer, and the caricature conservative small rural farmer, are behind much political instability. In the US, in Holland at the moment, we saw it in part behind Brexit, it part of the issues in Italy at the moment and very much so in Poland. In Ireland they are more likely to be father and daughter. That doesn't mean their political ideas are similar, but they do understand each other.

This is because small farmers are property owners rather than agricultural labourers and tenants as in the UK, and so can afford to educate their children. This carried on with urban homeowners, I can afford to educate my children because my mortgage is small and nearly paid.

 

[Bow tie]

This carried on with urban homeowners, I can afford to educate my children because my mortgage is small and nearly paid.

This 100%.

Personally, I don't think it is fair to penalize those who have worked to achieve a certain standard- of income, home, education by calling it inequality and seeking to redistribute further. I would have no issue with more tax money being spent outside urban towns and cities to get the best use from all the land for all the people.

 

[T McGibney]

I admire your optimism.

Experience, not optimism.

I don't. I want the ones we want to keep to be enforced.

We'll certainly end up with fewer units if we offer massive subsidies to small scale builds.

Repeats of earlier comments, each already addressed.

True, though that's the case in most developed countries.

Yes, but they are nowhere close to the actual cost.

Agreed, but it is nowhere close to the actual cost.

Ditto, also off-topic.

 

[Purple]

Experience, not optimism.

Yea, it sounds like optimism.

Repeats of earlier comments, each already addressed.

Not really.

 

[PGF2016]

2. Dramatically cut building regulations and levies back to early Celtic Tiger era levels.

3. Do likewise with planning restrictions.

6. Ignore the naysayers and objectors.

This sounds like China. And they have the same issues with young people not being able to afford housing, housing being built in the wrong areas and to poor standards. Not something to aspire to.

And if this does happen we can then have a thread in 10 years on how to fix all the issues brought on by the lack of planning.

 

[T McGibney]

This sounds like China.

It's OK, early Celtic Tiger Ireland was nothing like China.

 

[Purple]

Personally, I don't think it is fair to penalize those who have worked to achieve a certain standard- of income, home, education by calling it inequality and seeking to redistribute further.

It is inequality but that's not necessarily wrong. Equality of opportunity is the aspiration. We should never aspire to equality of outcome as that is utterly evil.
Working to achieve a certain standard is one thing but as I pointed out in another thread my pension fund and house value doubled in less than a decade without me putting a cent into either and all that gain was based on politics, not economics or my hard work. Taxing that gain isn't taxing my work or prudence or the like. It's just taxing wealth to fund the rest of the stuff we want in society. The less ideology in decision making the batter.

I would have no issue with more tax money being spent outside urban towns and cities to get the best use from all the land for all the people.

Either do I, if it gets the best use from all the land for all the people.

 

[Bow tie]

Taxing that gain isn't taxing my work or prudence or the like. It's just taxing wealth to fund the rest of the stuff we want in society. The less ideology in decision making the batter.

Taxing the notional value gain on shelter/home is a problem in my eyes. A family home which doesn't change hands and which I live in with my family has not increased my wealth except on paper.
There are different types of wealth, with different buyers/investors....and pretending they are all equal in the eyes of the general public/voters is true wizardofozcononmics