@Sean Murphy: the other issue with that is it is nonsense. It is a global issue, with many driving factors, but supply being the main one, yet you and Mary Lou castigate developers. Where is the sense in this? What do you suggest to alter this? Driving house prices down then punishes generations who have paid for their homes, namely parents and grandparents of the people you say are being punished. So actual ideas please, not negative rhetoric espoused by Mary Lou.

@Sean Murphy: @Sean Murphy: You’re correct. Except in one respect.

Home owners would not lose money if their property declined in value unless
1) They happened to be very recent buyers
2) They had to sell

These two conditions would have to occur simultaneously, and would be very improbable.

@Sean Murphy: A few home owners going a few grand into negative equity…lol,it’s a lot more complicated that that….every building site in the country would shut down as it wouldn’t be worth their while in finishing them…..cost would be the same to build,and if the prices were devalued nobody else would build…..it is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard from sf(and that’s saying something)……also imagine you just spent 450 on a home and this happened?…..it’s gas,I always hear people in here giving out about greed,The people hosing this happens are the most selfish people I’ve ever come across…anyway it’s a stupid idea because it can’t happen,it’s just thrown out there to try and gain more half wit voters like yourself.

@John Terry: There has been an enormous increase in the cost of some building materials over the past couple of years.
There is no reason the cost cannot decline back to more reasonable levels.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: We don’t have a say in the cost of building supplies,also people keep demanding wage increases(understandable)but they all effect the cost of housing.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Do people actually think that a government CAN Actually do as Mary Lou eluded to….No,they can’t,it’s impossible…….Of course they didn’t give any details as to how they would do it(because it can’t be done)….

@Sean Murphy: Agree totally, the first signs of our Housing Crisis appeared over ten years ago, I remember in 2016, Simon Coveney Fine Gael was Minister for Housing and everyone but him and FFG could see that we would need to start building and soon but Coveney vanished under his desk and buried his head in the sand, his successors were no better and because they sat on their arses doing nothing the problem kept escalating.
This was pre-covid, before the Ukraine war and before the genocide in the Middle East. Failure to prepare and all that jazz.

@John Terry: Dear me!

I though you were a believer in market economics.

Except when it can work for the benefit of the people, I suppose.

We’ve been told that the increase in the cost of building materials was due to the exceptional increase in the cost of energy.
We saw increases elsewhere too, such as in food costs.
As the cost of energy falls, should we not expect a fall in the cost of these building materials?
If the state became involved in building large quantities of homes, then the purchasing power of buying in quantity should also allow price reductions.

Look, I understand that current government parties have no imagination or vision, but you should at least be able to recognise that not everyone here is incompetent.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: I agree that prices ‘should’ come down but i doubt they will to the level they were at.Our purchasing power is tiny compared to other eu nations so don’t make it sound like we have some clout when it comes to buying power……and as for present government having no vision(I agree)but look at the ‘vision’ SF have,it’s laughable and worrying in equal measures……measures like devaluation and pretty much everything else they say.Time will tell.

@John Terry: after the economic crash 08 the cost building materials only decreased marginally, unlike labour:(

@John Terry: A house in Leitrim uses the same materials as a house in Dublin. Usually more as they are built bigger with more space. The cost of land is where the real rip off comes and it is all a scam. We will see at the next election just how much of an effect this has. I think SF will power ahead exclusively on the back of housing.

@P.J. Nolan: are you having an actual laugh? Homeowners do not outnumber non-homeowners in this country.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: The negative equity argument used to keep house prices high is redundant. No home owner goes into negative equity until they decideto sell the house. Up to that point its a residence or in some cases an investment property. Like everything else prices fluctuate but as homeowners we base our wealth on the current value of the house over the original purchase value. The government use the supply issue to keep house prices infllated and so appeal to their voter base. If the supply improved would it actually drive prices down, look at the celtic tiger, we had ample supply, prices still rose, but it was greed by developers, banker, poor financial and regulatory governance by the state that caused the collapse in house prices/economy not the supply of housing.

@John Terry: just keep dreaming

@Liam Byrne: No, Norwegian citizens don’t get money paid out from the fund. 3 % of the interest goes into the state budget. The rest is kept to grow the fund.

@Mr Inbetween: I’m responding to a silly comment.

@honey badger: The immature threatened policies of the anti home ownership populist parties has already made veryone in the service of building, letting, furnishing, investing are running for a getaway. The damage and increase in homelessness has already started.

@thomas molloy: of course not a word of this is true.

In fact, we have a government of landlords working for the benefit of landlords, and have had for 100+ years.

And that resulted in 10s of thousands of homeless, more evictions than during the height of the Famine, and 14x more Airbnb properties than rental properties.

Since the 1930s we’ve slashed taxes on property, and sold off almost all our social housing.

And yet this sort of deregulated dystopia isn’t enough for Tom here. Tom wants zero regulations and zero taxes. He claims that by giving 100% to rich developers they’ll then build a million houses overnight. Etc.

In fact.

Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, etc etc etc have stronger regulations, higher property taxes AND more houses per capita.

Regulation is the opponent of corruption and excess. Which is why Tom hates it. He won’t rest until the homeless figures are hundreds of thousands. Because think how much his property will be worth then.

So to achieve that, lies and right wing ideology!

We don’t need your failed Tory polices Tom. Maybe try Somalia. They’ve no regulations and welcome pirates like yourself.

@honey badger: sinn fein will get houses built, ffg are keeping the building of houses at a snails pace in order for house prices to keep rising lining their pockets and the pockets of developers, faster building means more on the market and lower prices overall

@honey badger: it’s nice that you form your political opinions based off what people do or don’t reply to your on Twitter but do you think you could live in the real world?

@he didnt take the 120k because he already got it s: rubbish,I’m in the building game 30 years and I’ve never seen such a shortage of tradesmen….we are at max building capacity,anyone will tell you that….any political party that says they will increase building is talking nonsense…..couple that with the increase in our population and it’s not a great prospect….also every country is experiencing the same thing(so don’t bother saying ‘bring builders in)

@Sean Murphy: poor Eoin lives with the cuckoo’s. If he was in charge of housing I would be amazed to see 10000 built each year. He simply hasn’t a clue!!

@John Terry: Playing with lego and claiming to be in the building trade, lol, your a gas ticket.

@John Terry: they should be checking the careers of all the ukranian lads here bet half them are in building trade

@honey badger: I’m just glad we don’t still have our own currency anymore….I’m sure pearse Doherty would have some brainwave to devalue that for some reason(that only he knows and understands)

@Mr Inbetween: Yes,I run my own electrical contracting business and am working on building sites 30 years……That’s probably hard to understand coming from someone as entitled and useless as yourself…..as I’ve always said,people who complain the most usually contribute the least.

@John Terry: Lego building sites don’t count….

@Mr Inbetween: grow up ffs

@SYaxJ2Ts: Giz a hug, a big hug, it’ll cheer you up mate :)

@Sean Murphy: Eoin O Broin God Help us He has an answer for everything & of course he is never wrong

@honey badger: It can’t get much worse than under FF/FG in terms of the housing market. People know what they will get from them and it just doesn’t cut it I’m afraid. They had the shots fired across the bow at the last election and were lucky SF didn’t field enough candidates in that one. They did very little to rectify it in the 4 years since. Times up I’m afraid.

@Seanie: @Seanie: I’m sure most “feel” the same.

That does not alter the fact that when the lease expires the then occupant is homeless.
Despite all the money paid in mortgages.

Oh, and you don’t “own” anything, except a lease.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: What lease? It’s a mortgage, when the mortgage is paid i own the property, what lease are you on about

@Seanie: When the mortgage is paid, you own the lease. A lease which will expire.

You do not own the property.

The entity – usually a company or corporation – that owns the building and the ground it stands on owns “your” apartment.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Yes i understand what you mean now, a lease which will expire in 999 years, in all fairness you are right, it is a lease but i don’t think the apparment will be livable in a thousand years so I’ll not worry about it too much.

@Seanie: I think you’ll find that the length of apartment leases are a tiny fraction of that 1000 years.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: 999 year, leasehold

@Seanie: Nope!

Although leases can be of any duration, and will be specificied on the documentation, the typical apartment lease is for 100 years from new, reducing 1 year every year.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: As per documentation 999 leasehold

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: isn’t 99 the minimum and 999 the max? And aren’t apartments , (or their leases any way) bought and sold every day for large sums?

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: That is absolute nonsense and if it was true do you think the cat would be out of the bag yet?…..It’s as much an asset as a house……In fact most houses are leasehold as well.

@Seanie: @brian o’leary: @John Terry:

Sean: I think you should check the length of that lease again.
Think of it this way:
Some other entity owns the building and the ground it stands on. As you stated in another comment, the apartment building is unlikely to be still standing in 1000 years, but if you (or your descendants) still own the apartment lease through all this time, then nothing can be done by the building owner. It would be a legal nightmare.
I did a quick Internet search and you might find this on the Chill website helpful “what-to-look-for-when-buying-an-apartment”.

Here are two pertinent points from there:
“Purchasing an apartment in Ireland is very different from buying a house. This is chiefly because when you buy a house you typically acquire a freehold interest in the property, while when you purchase an apartment you are usually only acquiring a long leasehold interest. ”

“…unlike when you purchase a house, when you purchase an apartment you are usually only acquiring a long leasehold rather than a freehold. This means you essentially own the apartment you are purchasing, but are only ‘renting’ the land it is built on for a set period of time. Although this leasehold is typically long – with new leaseholds up to 99 years – it is important to understand exactly what is included as part of this agreement. ”

Let us use an hypothetical situation to make some points.

Let us imagine that I am living in my own home, a home that was built in the 70s. Let us imagine that I have been living there almost 30 years, and the property is mortgage free. Let us also say that I will probably live here another 20 years, assuming average lifespan, or maybe even a decade or more longer if I were to live as long as my Granddad.
Now, let us say that I will leave that home to my daughter, which she can use to build wealth, particularly as it will come to here unencumbered with any debt.
If this property was an apartment, the the lease would expire around the time my daughter might be expected to die, or even earlier.

She would therefore have nothing to pass on to others.
Indeed, it is possible that the lease would expire before she dies, and that would potentially leave her homeless in the last years of her life.

Let us look at it another way:
Let’s assume a typical mortgage duration of 25 years. Now, would a bank provide a mortgage to a potential purchaser when there is only 25 years remaining on the lease? Would a potential purchaser be willing to pay a mortgage when at the end of that time they will have no home?
What value would you put on such a property if selling, or buying?
Now, apply that to an apartment with 30 years left on the lease.
And then 40, or 50 years.

With a house, when you pay a mortgage you are building wealth for yourself.
With an apartment, you are building wealth for the owner of the building and the ground it stands on.

John:
We were taught these things in school. Are they really not teaching people such basic things anymore.

Brain:
No. 99 is a sortof standard. It can be anything really, as far as I know. (They may have brought in laws since I left school that I am unaware of.) it would make no legal or common sense for a person to own an imaginary building – or part thereof – on ground owned by someone else, as no apartment building could be expected to survive 1000 years. Anyone owning an imaginary part of a building that no longer exists could present all sorts of legal problems for the owner of the land who might want to build some new apartments there.

In short, when the (normally) 100 year lease expires, the owner of the ground and building can now demolish same and build something else there (perhaps more apartments).
And the then “owners” of the apartments have nothing.

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: long leases make perfect sence as they reasure buyers at the time of purchase and make sales more possible which is what developers want. Developers don’t want to retain any interest in the land or building after the sale, they just want their profit . Also the shortest lease on an apartment that I know of is 750 years, most are 999?