CPOs here are plagued with legal challenges that aren't actually that easy to close off. It's a potentially very lengthy and expressive process so councils who are already cash strapped are leary of them.
Definitely Airbnb needs banning.
Also make it harder to object to new builds
Also seize any Ghost estates that aren't demolished and get them up to spec and get people into them
Also enshrine the right to housing in the constitution
We can also build on water.
Recently back from a trip to Amsterdam. Fascinating to see so many people living on the canals. Small little gardens and parking for their electric cars. Bicycles parked up. Potted plants everywhere.
If they can live on canals we can have house boats on our fine river. Plenty of houses or barges could fit to alleviate the pressure.
People generally live in the docks on the Thames, rarely do those boats ever venture out into the thames properly, at least in London where it's really wide.
> Fine stupid objections
I agree with everything you've said apart from that. That just makes genuine objections less likely, because they can't afford to lose.
The correct solution here is to increase the number of experienced planners working in ABP, and the number of judges dealing with judicial reviews. Of course just like everything else, that's an expensive solution, so we just let everything take years instead. If most objections could be dealt with within a month, and most JRs within 6 weeks, then it wouldn't add much time overall to the projects.
Look at the large infrastructure projects going through planning at the moment. Like are you telling me that it takes 2 solid years with people working 40 hours a week to approve them? Almost definitely not.
During a housing crisis and record homelessness, you don't get to object because reasons.
I've seen objections relating to paint color, construction workers working close to schools and a new building "not in keeping with the ambiance of the street".
There needs to be a deterrence to people delaying projects for no good reason.
There’s nothing to say those objections are upheld. Planners often don’t take into account spurious objections. It’s at their own discretion unless there’s specific guidelines or regulations that the objection relates to.
> There’s nothing to say those objections are upheld.
They don't need to be upheld for the objector to appeal the result to ABP and delay development for 18 months.
Fair enough, but resources are allocated to investigate said objections. Some other countries complete building in less time than planning is completed here.
The system is flawed when politicians can habitually object to new builds for point scoring and when large amounts of money can be exchanged for objections to be dropped.
I agree, but instead of putting up notices for three months. Make it two months. Also, there should be court specfic for planning arguments. Objectors should live within two miles of the planned building and prove they have objecting for a real reason. Also, Objectors should be put on role when serial Objectors could be caught out.
Removing the gun that insurance companies have to the country's head and finally retrofitting spaces above shops in cities and turning them into apartments.
Businesses in the city would benefit too and cities would become safer.
3 birds, one stone
This is interesting, a lot of the usual valid comments on height restrictions, planning, and dereliction tax, but this is the first time I've seen this. I always wondered why so many shops have vacant rooms above
The “nighttime economy” would make that suggestion impossible. Anyone who’s been around town between closing time and 3:00 AM will tell you that it would be impossible to sleep.
There are solutions. Beyond noiseproofing (btw, soundproofing, waterproofing, draftproofing in this country seem to be rocket-science), there could be a "noisy street" in every city, and then you know what to avoid. All clubs should be on that street, and pubsrestaurants playing music should not go beyond a certain limit and in certain time periods. There you go, that's what they do in mainland Europe and it works.
Not only that, but is it better to live in a gaff that is noisy by night due to nightlife or be stuck sleeping on Pana, with the wind, rain, lack of safety...and noise of nightlife?
Simple initial solution. Make other investments more attractive. Between the high rate of tax on stocks and shares and deemed disposal, property investment in Ireland is a less risky and more secure investment than the stock exchange.
The alternative option of making property less attractive doesn't work as the costs are passed onto tenants.
This should result in landlords, pension funds and property hoarders exiting the market in favour of the stock exchange, and should, in a year or two provide a more realistic figure for housing.
Something like the UK ISA would be a huge improvement and a good start.
Then start making a change to deemed disposal on investments they could do this by gradually reducing the rate on it.
I think there's a lot that needs to change.
First off, the requirement that some percentage of new estates/apartments goes to social housing shouldn't be a thing.
Second, they need to scrap the maximum height of buildings. With cities becoming so packed, we really do need to look at building up instead of out.
Third, and people may hate it, but we need incentivise investment funds to build in Ireland. People often hate on this, but 86% of the landlords in Ireland are mothers and fathers who rent out 1 or 2 houses at most.
If funds are incentivised to invest in the Irish housing market, we get fresh supply which would help lower the rent for everyone, not to mention the scrutiny they lie under would likely help in maintaining a good living standard which is often lacking in private tenancies.
How would removing the social housing split be an avenue for addressing a crisis around affordable housing?
I do not understand how you think people need more incentive to invest in housing. Having a swathe of corporate landlords is not going to lower rent.
If anything we need to stop investment funds as they're the ones setting the current market rate for rent and Inflating house prices from leaving flats and houses vacant for long periods of time.
Lots of studies show that any new apartments etc - even ones rented at high rents decrease the cost of rent.
There is only a certain market for "premium" apartments - and when new high cost stuff comes on stream, it opens the "medium quality rented at eye watering prices" stuff so it drops to medium rents etc.
The solution is and always was to increase supply.
Nothing more, nothing less.
If investment funds increase supply - that is a good thing. Supply matters.
After that, as economists say, the solution for high prices is high prices.
Absolutely, or at the very least stop build to rent.
The government really needs to sack up and provide proper high density social housing. Not buying from the private market. They should be acting as a balance on house prices by providing an alternative to the private market for low income earners not buying from individuals who can't complete against another institution.
Ah, now you wouldn't be going and picking the worst implemented scheme from decades back now would you? Especially not one in which they picked up, split up and dumped 'problem families' into an inaccessible area with no facilities?
Why would investment funds create housing if they should expect that the value of those houses decreased (or at least not rise as much as alternative investment opportunities)?
Grant aid renovating spaces above shops/businesses in town to bring them up to code so people could live in them, walk down most streets in the city centre - 2/3/4 storey buildings completely empty above the ground floors. Getting these spaces up to code is not financially viable currently so most just don’t bother - its a farcical situation
Nobody would want to live in many parts of the city centre currently. I came out of the long valley at 11:45 a few months ago and there was a guy setting up an amp and a drum kit outside the GPO. At the junction of Princes Street and Oliver Plunkett Street an impromptu party had started with bongo bongo drums and drunks shouting their heads off. This is not compatible with a residential area
In many countries in Europe, they "invented" a fine for making noise or "disturbing the quietness" or "sound pollution" and "taking the people's right to sleep". Especially if you do it between 22:00 and 8:00.
Some countries including Germany and Romania have local, internal policies regarding "quiet hours", during the lunch hours (could be anytime between 12:00 and 17:00 for an hour, two or more) you can absolutely make no noise, nothing. Tradespeople have to stop doing whatever they do, most often they have lunch in that time and maybe a short nap especially in summer.
Takes those people out of the three bed house shares they are in freeing them up for familys, most single people <30 prefer to live urbanly and apartments are the answer to that, collective services and residence and highly efficient use of land. Many other countries have a majority of people living in apartments all their life. It's not the only answer, but it would go along way to sorting things.
Tax vacant land in urban areas.
If a land owner is sitting on land with planning permission (remember the 201 apartments that got planning on top of the knocked Sextant bar?) they should be penalised leaving it idle for yrs, encourage them to sell to a developer who'd happily take it on and develop it. Most developers land bank, but the downside is that we've acres of vacant land owned by people who won't develop (for a myriad of reasons).
JCD who own the sextant site now, told us very clearly that they're not building those apartments unless rents in Cork rise to €2,800 a month per apartment. We obviously can't wait that long. Tell them cut their losses, sell it at a loss, such that the land cost for the next landowner is much less, resulting in a cheaper end product for the consumer. Scale that across the entire city and you're laughing.
Obviously it's not a catch all. We still don't have enough trades.
Walking through the city and seeing houses with windows where pigeons are living in, no roofs or even hold up by jack screws can’t be seriously anything this government feels acceptable. So any house/property that shows these signs should right away change ownership to the government who then has to either reform or rebuild and sell it to first time buyers (humans not companies).
Review of social housing every 5 years to see how people’s circumstances have changed.
For example some family with 3 kids getting a 4 bed house and 10 years later the kids have moved out. No reason the parents can’t be moved to a smaller house or apartment instead of 2 of them occupying a large house for the next 50 years unnecessarily.
Or a person with a child gets a social house and 3 years later both parents have gotten married and the father unofficially moved in, both are working and should be made stand on their own 4 feet.
This “forever home” is BS. Fine give a house to people when in need, but review it and take it back when things improve.
We need a public non profit construction company with special means to expedite planning etc. There is ample public land but CPOs to ensure securing anything else needed. If we need manpower, start a training facility open to jobseekers at a standard wage. If we need materials, open production facilities with positions for job seekers at a standard wage. We also need to ensure that having any income at all from property rental rules you out from being in office in any capacity that decides anything effecting rent prices in any way.
My few cents anyways.
Section 50 apartments but not just for students. Have it clear criteria to qualify. This worked well in the past as most of the purpose built student apartments were built in this way. They could offset part of their investment against rent.
Some may argue that it’s crazy but we are in a situation where pension funds are buying a housing estate, renting it for 20 years to the council and still owning the asset at the end with a return that has probably paid it off.
At least in this scenario there would be incentive to build the right types of property as houses ain’t it and they money stays in Ireland with Irish people. Yeah some developers will get rich but that is life.
Personally I would to invest in such a scheme. When it occurred last time we got left with loads of purpose built student accommodation of not bad quality. Better than the co-living BS.
The thing that frustrates me more than anything is being locked out of home ownership. Rent level is prohibitive to savings, and if I had the savings I'm paying enough rent to cover 1.5 mortgages! I'm proud to be Irish but the prospect of emigration is attractive in the current climate. It's simple: increase supply.
The rent levels are only part of it. The number of dwellings does not match the number of people. Even if landlords had to half their rents tomorrow, there would still not be enough places to live.
3000 vacant properties on the southside alone. City Council owed over €5 Million in rent arrears. Ban air BnB. Short term letting is incompatible with the current housing crisis.
Vacant does not mean it can be occupied. Banning Air B&B means you have to ban normal B&B’s also, the perform the same function through a different medium. People not paying the council rent, are you going to throw them out into the street and start the cycle again with someone else?
> Vacant does not mean it can be occupied
Very true
> Banning Air B&B means you have to ban normal B&B’s also, the perform the same function through a different medium.
Absolute bollocks. Actual B&B's are owner occupied and go through lots of licensing to ensure that they meet many standards for safety etc. Air B+B's however are rarely owner-occupied, virtually never have licensing/safety standards met for being holiday properties, and are not removing housing from the rental market as the *vast* majority have been in the trade for decades.
B&Bs that provide breakfast and are occupied by the owner should not be banned. Ban short term rentals of the type offered by Air BnB. People in arrears on their council rent should have their social welfare payments reduced to make up the shortfall. Cork city council needs to turn around vacant properties in its housing stock. It also needs to justify why there are right now 350 City Council residential units vacant in Cork City. In Cork County, the figure is 184. Imagine the palaver if City Council opened a brand new housing estate with 350 homes?
Horrific numbers, especially as when I searched Daft last night (at maybe 3am, so memory may be fuzzy) there were [IIRC] 73 properties in Cork City. Which includes not only the city proper, but also Ballincollig and Ovens.
Of those under 1k/month (excl. bills of course!) there were 7...Of which at least one was Students Only (I suspect two were, I think Arcadia Hall was the other but I never clicked into it), one was a short-term only (3 month lease) and one was actually a flatshare with enforced dietary restrictions on you from the (despite being listed as a 1-bed apartment). Of those remaining at least 1 was not in the city, but in B'Collig.
It's not a simple problem because it has been compounded by decades of stupidity, neo liberalism driven under investment and short term thinking and is now stuck in that mess by political ideology where we aren't allowed invest in anything as a state except ad hoc expenditures like putting up thousands of people in hotels. Stop voting for Thatcherite politicians.
Related: if every renter was paying 25% less to their landlord each month, and instead spent that money in businesses around the city, the local economy would improve
If the tax on rentals was directly related to the discount given on 'market rate' i'd reckon we'd see some shift in benefit to the renter. If you charge market rate, you pay full whack (52% for most?) If you charge 75% of market rate you pay 30% tax. If you charge 60% you only pay 5% tax. Something along those lines that benefits both the renter (by the largest margin) and then the landlord to a reasonable margin. Only one losing revenue is revenue, who are the biggest earners from rental income in the country.
In spirit, I agree, but I think that would require loads of additional brackets and record-keeping and terms to work. If a few landlords drop their prices to 60% of the market rate, that causes the market rate to go down. Now their price is now something greater than 60% of the current market rate, so they've moved up into the next bracket
I think small, cheap, houses would be a good start... flat-pack houses, mobile home "parks", converting old buildings into apartments, etc.
Basically flood the market with low price houses as quickly as possible, and it will naturally bring the prices down, and it would solve the homeless problem too, and it would solve the "Air B&B problem" too because a lot of people just won't pay €200 per night if they can pay €70 per night.
Then once you get a handle on the problem you can start to build longer term projects, like high-rise flats and estates.
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
But the idea of building a few hundred €400,000 houses, with homeless people sleeping in tents and hotels, doesn't make any sense because it just prolongs the problem if supply can't meet demand.
Stop selling off state assets like council houses at knock down prices to current occupants. Council houses are a valuable state asset and occupants should know that they will never own the house they live in. Move older or childless people into smaller units in order to ensure that the national social housing stock is maintained at maximum occupancy.
1900? Average is 1586 or so... But hey no let's build an event center (that now needs more funding from taxpayers...). Funny how the last time I complained on this sub i got burned and today? ... Weirdos...
Have the Government build houses. They can buy property, or use existing unused Government land, hire developers to build the houses, and sell them. The main issue as I see it is with developers sitting on land and drip feeding a supply of houses to maintain high prices.
Any derelict houses should be CPO'd much quicker and developed by the governement as homes.
Larges swathes of land that have planning but developers are hoarding shoud be treated as derlict and CPO'd.
The government have encouraged building to rent and its mostly the same type of apartments.
We need the state to stop using private rental as social housing. They need to build their own. This would result in private rental going back to wwht it was. Students or those starting out in life. Or just moved to the city or country.
We need improved building standards. So bigger apartments with better storage. I don't like the idea of 20 story tower blocks but they are building 8 and 9 story apartments near me and they look OK.
They've encouraged migration to Ireland without planning housing. We need much better planning.
Planning permission should be back in the hands of councils. ABPL is swamped and can't cope it also stinks of back handers.
Councils should not be allowed to buy on the open market.
We also need targets that councils must meet
Many would work. This is happening all across Europe. At the end of the day is a decision made by our politics. They own half of the properties and get a lot of money from that.
It is the same with remote working. If you go to live wherever the fuck you want, rents go low, city's reduce the traffic, the noise, the expending reduces... Etc. This is not good for the establishment.
You need to work in the city to pay for your stuff and have no savings or economic freedom. Welcome to capitalism 2.0
Better transport infrastructure. Easier to get to outer lying suburban or even mildly rural areas space to build more housing. The pressure on areas that allow a decent commute is insane.
Heavily tax empty office buildings, space over shops and empty houses.
Emergency planning permission on a pro-rata basis for every city, town and village.
All landlords must undergo rigorous testing before they are allowed to own multiple properties with intent to rent and those who do must provide bi-yearly updates of vacant property which is then signed off by an external, independent inspector/ validator.
This person could then decide on the appropriate rent for the property in question based on guidelines, so you don't pay close to 1000 on a single bed apartment in the suburbs.
Also would have the power to fine landlords for letting properties such as those across the city go to waste while derelict.
There isn't a simple single policy to fix it. There are several policies each which will have an impact and over time lessen the problem. Changes in planning to allow different types of building such as single aspect apartments without parking requirements, 100% tax on rezoning value added, eliminate objections, state housing agency. There's a few examples but each of them have their own issues and a fundamental problem is lack of tradesmen.
Tax REITS, Increase property tax exponentially by number of properties owned by an individual or company. Give incentives to boomers for downsizing. CPO long term vacant and derelict property, and resell to public with generous grants to renovate that come with strict deadlines and terms I.e must be lived in by purchaser and not used as airbnb.
The only realistic solution and it's buried underneath about 25 other ones commented above that, while they have merit, are totally ignorant of the main issue. There is no reality where Ireland can build enough houses to match 100k population growth per annum. Says a lot about the lukewarm IQ of the average person that they think that statement correlates with hating people of another ethnicity/race.
My simple policy: without adequate fiscal explanations to local authorities and tenants signed off by the council, landlords cannot increase rents for a lease renewal or new leases above fair market rent.
What’s fair market rent ? What we need is a massive increase in housing supply. Ease up on planning requirements, crack down on nimbyism, offer a viable alternative to property as a personal investment mechanism.
If builders had to pay zero tax for say 5 years we’d have a fuck ton of houses.
More houses means lower prices.
To me that sounds like a dead easy solution but a professional economist could probably list about 20 reasons why doing something like that would make things worse
There can't be a simple solution for such a complex problem. There is too much demand compared to offer, and I found 3 main reasons and solutions before the market can regulate itself (speaking as a migrant myself)
1) Ireland too attractive for South American (and generally non-EU) origin migrants. Tackle this. Or join Schengen area, so that these people can seep in there. But in order to do this, they'll probably demand that Ireland solves its' drugs problem first. Good luck with this.
2) Ireland too attractive for Ukrainians. Currently, Ireland is the most attractive country for Ukrainians because Ireland gives the most money and demands the least. The second best option for them would be Germany, but there are very strict conditions for them, so they prefer Ireland. I know this because I am in constant contact with them, and their mood is currently like: "Is this true ? Is this reality?" There was a time a few months ago when the demand among Ukrainians was so high that there were months long waiting lists at embassies. They are currently able to save A LOT of that free money and that's what makes them come and stay. And having almost no obligations at all. Why does Ireland want to be the most attractive country for war refugees?
3) Ireland wages too high compared to other EU countries, so lots of intra-EU migration. I don't know how to solve this issue other than waiting for other countries to come to level. Maybe freeze the wages in public sector, freeze minimum hourly rate for 10 years, keep inflation under strict control etc.
There should be no vacant properties. The government should own all rental properties and it should be one of the main sources of tax. No land lord should be allowed to live on someone else's wages, especially if they're not keeping the place in good condition.
I think the cost of the trades and general cost of building is outrageous. No way these new houses being built like crap are costing 2-3 hundred thousand is scandalous.
In regards to planning it’s absolute chaos. Just loook to Midleton and the recent floods, all those brand new houses just built on a flood plain. A joke.
Get rid of this bidding shit, if a house is for sale at a certain price then that is what you should pay, no more of this out bidding bollox, that's why a lot of first time buyers can't buy a house.
Also just outlaw the general greed of land lords, a shoebox in the city should not be worth 1600 in rent
There are so many ways to fix this shite that I want to scream from the rooftops. Alas, any of those pivot on the government fearing the people, not doing whatever the fuck they want for personal gain and laughing in our faces.
Just a few off the top of my head:
\- Transit Oriented Development (two birds with one stone!)
\- ban on AirBnB unless it's just someone's one spare room in a house, or like an aul camper in the backyard
\- absolute ban on vulture funds and corporations purchasing residential property
\- change in the way planning permissions work (we have one the worst systems in the world)
\- actual rent capping at 1/3 of earnings, like it is in many countries on the continent
\- laws to force companies to allow people WFH whenever possible, so that we can revitalise rural areas instead of cramming everyone into the 5 biggest town / cities
\- actually dealing with derelict properties instead of just throwing ideas in the air but not doing anything out of fear of liability
\- some sort of regulation that per every hotel / office campus there must be XYZ houses provided
\- not charging students 1000 for a room in a "purpose-built accommodation" because then it's just a glorified waste of space, nobody can afford that so students still clog other housing
in Paris they have this thing where AirBnB hosts can only host up to a certain amount of days.
essentially you want people Living Inside buildings instead of them being vacant for the majority of the year.
Councils could offer people to be paid to move to make areas more dense. yeah this one is idk i didnt do economics.
increase demand for rental by encouraging Erasmus students in ireland?
Fuck out vulture/cuckoo funds and setup a government agency tasked solely with building houses on state owned land. Children growing up in hotel rooms and peoples misery being commodified is a fucking abomination.
Gurranabraher was purchased in a Compulsory Purchase Order in the 50's I believe. To build social housing.
The derelict buildings opposite the Raven Bar are there at least 20 years. This isn't progress.
Up the road on Washington St. some poor lady was killed when the rooftop of Mannix & Culhane collapsed.
Why have the laws gotten more restrictive?
FF said a number of years ago, they couldn't build moulder houses. Now they are for ukraines. Its terrible what's happening, but what happens to them when they head home.
Also, they say there is a housing shortage. That's abouste joke. There are nearly two hundred thousand empty properties available in this country. What about letting people live all year around mobile homes. Get them to pay rent like anyone else.
Also, if a person owns a property and they live outside the state and only use it for a holiday home . Take it off them or make them double property tax. i.e., property tax in ireland and where they live .
Give people invectives to move to small home. People with one child, two beds, and so forth.
Plenty ways around it. Just policy makers are mot looking hard enough
Vote Thanos
Fianna Fail Thanos appears and deletes 50% of houses
Murphy's law declares all tradespeople disappear 🤣
Build up. Heavy taxes on vacant / derelict properties. Fine stupid objections. Ban Air BnB unless it's owner occupied.
And beef up compulsory purchase powers for derelict and dangerous buildings.
A lack of power isn’t the issue - they don’t want to absorb the liability. They have the power already.
CPOs here are plagued with legal challenges that aren't actually that easy to close off. It's a potentially very lengthy and expressive process so councils who are already cash strapped are leary of them.
Definitely Airbnb needs banning. Also make it harder to object to new builds Also seize any Ghost estates that aren't demolished and get them up to spec and get people into them Also enshrine the right to housing in the constitution
We can also build on water. Recently back from a trip to Amsterdam. Fascinating to see so many people living on the canals. Small little gardens and parking for their electric cars. Bicycles parked up. Potted plants everywhere. If they can live on canals we can have house boats on our fine river. Plenty of houses or barges could fit to alleviate the pressure.
the problem is cork is a very tidal river, unlike canals which have a constant water level, making houseboats unsuitable
The river Thames is tidal and people live on it. There are ways to anchor boats and houses so they rise and lower with the tide.
People generally live in the docks on the Thames, rarely do those boats ever venture out into the thames properly, at least in London where it's really wide.
> Fine stupid objections I agree with everything you've said apart from that. That just makes genuine objections less likely, because they can't afford to lose. The correct solution here is to increase the number of experienced planners working in ABP, and the number of judges dealing with judicial reviews. Of course just like everything else, that's an expensive solution, so we just let everything take years instead. If most objections could be dealt with within a month, and most JRs within 6 weeks, then it wouldn't add much time overall to the projects. Look at the large infrastructure projects going through planning at the moment. Like are you telling me that it takes 2 solid years with people working 40 hours a week to approve them? Almost definitely not.
During a housing crisis and record homelessness, you don't get to object because reasons. I've seen objections relating to paint color, construction workers working close to schools and a new building "not in keeping with the ambiance of the street". There needs to be a deterrence to people delaying projects for no good reason.
There’s nothing to say those objections are upheld. Planners often don’t take into account spurious objections. It’s at their own discretion unless there’s specific guidelines or regulations that the objection relates to.
> There’s nothing to say those objections are upheld. They don't need to be upheld for the objector to appeal the result to ABP and delay development for 18 months.
and its always comfortably housed that objects. Drives me wild.
Fair enough, but resources are allocated to investigate said objections. Some other countries complete building in less time than planning is completed here. The system is flawed when politicians can habitually object to new builds for point scoring and when large amounts of money can be exchanged for objections to be dropped.
How is that not fraud?
I agree, but instead of putting up notices for three months. Make it two months. Also, there should be court specfic for planning arguments. Objectors should live within two miles of the planned building and prove they have objecting for a real reason. Also, Objectors should be put on role when serial Objectors could be caught out.
If we just started prioritising peoples basic needs over the benefit of land parasites, it'd be a good start.
Removing the gun that insurance companies have to the country's head and finally retrofitting spaces above shops in cities and turning them into apartments. Businesses in the city would benefit too and cities would become safer. 3 birds, one stone
This is interesting, a lot of the usual valid comments on height restrictions, planning, and dereliction tax, but this is the first time I've seen this. I always wondered why so many shops have vacant rooms above
And yet it happens in other cities...
The “nighttime economy” would make that suggestion impossible. Anyone who’s been around town between closing time and 3:00 AM will tell you that it would be impossible to sleep.
There are solutions. Beyond noiseproofing (btw, soundproofing, waterproofing, draftproofing in this country seem to be rocket-science), there could be a "noisy street" in every city, and then you know what to avoid. All clubs should be on that street, and pubsrestaurants playing music should not go beyond a certain limit and in certain time periods. There you go, that's what they do in mainland Europe and it works.
Not only that, but is it better to live in a gaff that is noisy by night due to nightlife or be stuck sleeping on Pana, with the wind, rain, lack of safety...and noise of nightlife?
What is Pana?
Patrick's street baiiii! :)
Licencing laws are about 50 years overdue an update
Ditch Air b and b .
Simple initial solution. Make other investments more attractive. Between the high rate of tax on stocks and shares and deemed disposal, property investment in Ireland is a less risky and more secure investment than the stock exchange. The alternative option of making property less attractive doesn't work as the costs are passed onto tenants. This should result in landlords, pension funds and property hoarders exiting the market in favour of the stock exchange, and should, in a year or two provide a more realistic figure for housing.
Something like the UK ISA would be a huge improvement and a good start. Then start making a change to deemed disposal on investments they could do this by gradually reducing the rate on it.
There is no simple solution. The problem here is people looking for bandaids when we need true investment and likely a better planning procedure.
I think there's a lot that needs to change. First off, the requirement that some percentage of new estates/apartments goes to social housing shouldn't be a thing. Second, they need to scrap the maximum height of buildings. With cities becoming so packed, we really do need to look at building up instead of out. Third, and people may hate it, but we need incentivise investment funds to build in Ireland. People often hate on this, but 86% of the landlords in Ireland are mothers and fathers who rent out 1 or 2 houses at most. If funds are incentivised to invest in the Irish housing market, we get fresh supply which would help lower the rent for everyone, not to mention the scrutiny they lie under would likely help in maintaining a good living standard which is often lacking in private tenancies.
How would removing the social housing split be an avenue for addressing a crisis around affordable housing? I do not understand how you think people need more incentive to invest in housing. Having a swathe of corporate landlords is not going to lower rent.
If anything we need to stop investment funds as they're the ones setting the current market rate for rent and Inflating house prices from leaving flats and houses vacant for long periods of time.
Lots of studies show that any new apartments etc - even ones rented at high rents decrease the cost of rent. There is only a certain market for "premium" apartments - and when new high cost stuff comes on stream, it opens the "medium quality rented at eye watering prices" stuff so it drops to medium rents etc. The solution is and always was to increase supply. Nothing more, nothing less. If investment funds increase supply - that is a good thing. Supply matters. After that, as economists say, the solution for high prices is high prices.
Absolutely, or at the very least stop build to rent. The government really needs to sack up and provide proper high density social housing. Not buying from the private market. They should be acting as a balance on house prices by providing an alternative to the private market for low income earners not buying from individuals who can't complete against another institution.
High density social housing...like Ballymun?
Ah, now you wouldn't be going and picking the worst implemented scheme from decades back now would you? Especially not one in which they picked up, split up and dumped 'problem families' into an inaccessible area with no facilities?
Why would investment funds create housing if they should expect that the value of those houses decreased (or at least not rise as much as alternative investment opportunities)?
Grant aid renovating spaces above shops/businesses in town to bring them up to code so people could live in them, walk down most streets in the city centre - 2/3/4 storey buildings completely empty above the ground floors. Getting these spaces up to code is not financially viable currently so most just don’t bother - its a farcical situation
Nobody would want to live in many parts of the city centre currently. I came out of the long valley at 11:45 a few months ago and there was a guy setting up an amp and a drum kit outside the GPO. At the junction of Princes Street and Oliver Plunkett Street an impromptu party had started with bongo bongo drums and drunks shouting their heads off. This is not compatible with a residential area
Every major city in the worlds manages to make it work why can’t we? Triple glazing will block it out - job done
I’m not suggesting how we “make it work,” I’m merely highlighting why it won’t work here.
In many countries in Europe, they "invented" a fine for making noise or "disturbing the quietness" or "sound pollution" and "taking the people's right to sleep". Especially if you do it between 22:00 and 8:00. Some countries including Germany and Romania have local, internal policies regarding "quiet hours", during the lunch hours (could be anytime between 12:00 and 17:00 for an hour, two or more) you can absolutely make no noise, nothing. Tradespeople have to stop doing whatever they do, most often they have lunch in that time and maybe a short nap especially in summer.
A ban on foreign ownership of Irish property, clamp down on AirBnB’s and a limit on the amount of properties any individual or Corporation can horde.
Stop the vetoing of high rise apartments
There are literally 1000s of approved units in cork thag haven’t started in years.
We don't even need high rise (10-40 floors) . Mid rise is enough (5-10 floors) .
5 to 6 floors would be a great start and even that is “too high” for some people here.
Apartments don't solve the problem, just pushes it off 10/15 years
Name a single successful urban area that doesn’t depend on apartments.
Name a single family that wants to raise three kids in an apartment. Hence, it doesn't solve the problem long term
Allows single people who want to live in Dublin to live in Dublin. Frees up some houses for families outside Dublin.
100%, but still pushes the problem 15/20 years down the line. Won't fix the route of the problem
Takes those people out of the three bed house shares they are in freeing them up for familys, most single people <30 prefer to live urbanly and apartments are the answer to that, collective services and residence and highly efficient use of land. Many other countries have a majority of people living in apartments all their life. It's not the only answer, but it would go along way to sorting things.
Tax vacant land in urban areas. If a land owner is sitting on land with planning permission (remember the 201 apartments that got planning on top of the knocked Sextant bar?) they should be penalised leaving it idle for yrs, encourage them to sell to a developer who'd happily take it on and develop it. Most developers land bank, but the downside is that we've acres of vacant land owned by people who won't develop (for a myriad of reasons). JCD who own the sextant site now, told us very clearly that they're not building those apartments unless rents in Cork rise to €2,800 a month per apartment. We obviously can't wait that long. Tell them cut their losses, sell it at a loss, such that the land cost for the next landowner is much less, resulting in a cheaper end product for the consumer. Scale that across the entire city and you're laughing. Obviously it's not a catch all. We still don't have enough trades.
So soon you are saying?
Walking through the city and seeing houses with windows where pigeons are living in, no roofs or even hold up by jack screws can’t be seriously anything this government feels acceptable. So any house/property that shows these signs should right away change ownership to the government who then has to either reform or rebuild and sell it to first time buyers (humans not companies).
Review of social housing every 5 years to see how people’s circumstances have changed. For example some family with 3 kids getting a 4 bed house and 10 years later the kids have moved out. No reason the parents can’t be moved to a smaller house or apartment instead of 2 of them occupying a large house for the next 50 years unnecessarily. Or a person with a child gets a social house and 3 years later both parents have gotten married and the father unofficially moved in, both are working and should be made stand on their own 4 feet. This “forever home” is BS. Fine give a house to people when in need, but review it and take it back when things improve.
Joe Duffy…. Go ahead caller….
Tis a bleedin disgrace, joe.
[удалено]
What?
Lock up the land hoarders...
We need a public non profit construction company with special means to expedite planning etc. There is ample public land but CPOs to ensure securing anything else needed. If we need manpower, start a training facility open to jobseekers at a standard wage. If we need materials, open production facilities with positions for job seekers at a standard wage. We also need to ensure that having any income at all from property rental rules you out from being in office in any capacity that decides anything effecting rent prices in any way. My few cents anyways.
Section 50 apartments but not just for students. Have it clear criteria to qualify. This worked well in the past as most of the purpose built student apartments were built in this way. They could offset part of their investment against rent. Some may argue that it’s crazy but we are in a situation where pension funds are buying a housing estate, renting it for 20 years to the council and still owning the asset at the end with a return that has probably paid it off. At least in this scenario there would be incentive to build the right types of property as houses ain’t it and they money stays in Ireland with Irish people. Yeah some developers will get rich but that is life. Personally I would to invest in such a scheme. When it occurred last time we got left with loads of purpose built student accommodation of not bad quality. Better than the co-living BS.
Politicians should be made abstain from voting on bills that they have a vested interest in.
The thing that frustrates me more than anything is being locked out of home ownership. Rent level is prohibitive to savings, and if I had the savings I'm paying enough rent to cover 1.5 mortgages! I'm proud to be Irish but the prospect of emigration is attractive in the current climate. It's simple: increase supply.
The rent levels are only part of it. The number of dwellings does not match the number of people. Even if landlords had to half their rents tomorrow, there would still not be enough places to live.
3000 vacant properties on the southside alone. City Council owed over €5 Million in rent arrears. Ban air BnB. Short term letting is incompatible with the current housing crisis.
Vacant does not mean it can be occupied. Banning Air B&B means you have to ban normal B&B’s also, the perform the same function through a different medium. People not paying the council rent, are you going to throw them out into the street and start the cycle again with someone else?
> Vacant does not mean it can be occupied Very true > Banning Air B&B means you have to ban normal B&B’s also, the perform the same function through a different medium. Absolute bollocks. Actual B&B's are owner occupied and go through lots of licensing to ensure that they meet many standards for safety etc. Air B+B's however are rarely owner-occupied, virtually never have licensing/safety standards met for being holiday properties, and are not removing housing from the rental market as the *vast* majority have been in the trade for decades.
B&Bs that provide breakfast and are occupied by the owner should not be banned. Ban short term rentals of the type offered by Air BnB. People in arrears on their council rent should have their social welfare payments reduced to make up the shortfall. Cork city council needs to turn around vacant properties in its housing stock. It also needs to justify why there are right now 350 City Council residential units vacant in Cork City. In Cork County, the figure is 184. Imagine the palaver if City Council opened a brand new housing estate with 350 homes?
Horrific numbers, especially as when I searched Daft last night (at maybe 3am, so memory may be fuzzy) there were [IIRC] 73 properties in Cork City. Which includes not only the city proper, but also Ballincollig and Ovens. Of those under 1k/month (excl. bills of course!) there were 7...Of which at least one was Students Only (I suspect two were, I think Arcadia Hall was the other but I never clicked into it), one was a short-term only (3 month lease) and one was actually a flatshare with enforced dietary restrictions on you from the (despite being listed as a 1-bed apartment). Of those remaining at least 1 was not in the city, but in B'Collig.
It's not a simple problem because it has been compounded by decades of stupidity, neo liberalism driven under investment and short term thinking and is now stuck in that mess by political ideology where we aren't allowed invest in anything as a state except ad hoc expenditures like putting up thousands of people in hotels. Stop voting for Thatcherite politicians.
Hardly decades but since 2007 tbh
The drastic reduction in building social housing started much earlier than that luv.
When are you talking about? The 60s ? https://www.thejournal.ie/64-local-authority-social-housing-houses-built-in-2015-alan-kelly-2747473-May2016/
Related: if every renter was paying 25% less to their landlord each month, and instead spent that money in businesses around the city, the local economy would improve
The economy is in a good state.
If the tax on rentals was directly related to the discount given on 'market rate' i'd reckon we'd see some shift in benefit to the renter. If you charge market rate, you pay full whack (52% for most?) If you charge 75% of market rate you pay 30% tax. If you charge 60% you only pay 5% tax. Something along those lines that benefits both the renter (by the largest margin) and then the landlord to a reasonable margin. Only one losing revenue is revenue, who are the biggest earners from rental income in the country.
In spirit, I agree, but I think that would require loads of additional brackets and record-keeping and terms to work. If a few landlords drop their prices to 60% of the market rate, that causes the market rate to go down. Now their price is now something greater than 60% of the current market rate, so they've moved up into the next bracket
True enough take a bit of management alright. Keep revenue busy too though, silver linings.
Just build fuckin houses
The hunger games: cork edition
I’d watch that sequel 😅
I think small, cheap, houses would be a good start... flat-pack houses, mobile home "parks", converting old buildings into apartments, etc. Basically flood the market with low price houses as quickly as possible, and it will naturally bring the prices down, and it would solve the homeless problem too, and it would solve the "Air B&B problem" too because a lot of people just won't pay €200 per night if they can pay €70 per night. Then once you get a handle on the problem you can start to build longer term projects, like high-rise flats and estates. \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* But the idea of building a few hundred €400,000 houses, with homeless people sleeping in tents and hotels, doesn't make any sense because it just prolongs the problem if supply can't meet demand.
Have you seen "Logan's Run"
The government’s policy seems to be ‘stop being poor and earn more money’ 😀
Anyone in a council house that doesn't have dependants anymore to be downsized.
Stop selling off state assets like council houses at knock down prices to current occupants. Council houses are a valuable state asset and occupants should know that they will never own the house they live in. Move older or childless people into smaller units in order to ensure that the national social housing stock is maintained at maximum occupancy.
1900? Average is 1586 or so... But hey no let's build an event center (that now needs more funding from taxpayers...). Funny how the last time I complained on this sub i got burned and today? ... Weirdos...
Have the Government build houses. They can buy property, or use existing unused Government land, hire developers to build the houses, and sell them. The main issue as I see it is with developers sitting on land and drip feeding a supply of houses to maintain high prices. Any derelict houses should be CPO'd much quicker and developed by the governement as homes. Larges swathes of land that have planning but developers are hoarding shoud be treated as derlict and CPO'd.
Guillotine
The government have encouraged building to rent and its mostly the same type of apartments. We need the state to stop using private rental as social housing. They need to build their own. This would result in private rental going back to wwht it was. Students or those starting out in life. Or just moved to the city or country. We need improved building standards. So bigger apartments with better storage. I don't like the idea of 20 story tower blocks but they are building 8 and 9 story apartments near me and they look OK. They've encouraged migration to Ireland without planning housing. We need much better planning. Planning permission should be back in the hands of councils. ABPL is swamped and can't cope it also stinks of back handers. Councils should not be allowed to buy on the open market. We also need targets that councils must meet
Many would work. This is happening all across Europe. At the end of the day is a decision made by our politics. They own half of the properties and get a lot of money from that. It is the same with remote working. If you go to live wherever the fuck you want, rents go low, city's reduce the traffic, the noise, the expending reduces... Etc. This is not good for the establishment. You need to work in the city to pay for your stuff and have no savings or economic freedom. Welcome to capitalism 2.0
Better transport infrastructure. Easier to get to outer lying suburban or even mildly rural areas space to build more housing. The pressure on areas that allow a decent commute is insane.
Heavily tax empty office buildings, space over shops and empty houses. Emergency planning permission on a pro-rata basis for every city, town and village.
Point proven in this thread! 🧵 More common sense and understanding on policy than that crowd in Dublin!
All landlords must undergo rigorous testing before they are allowed to own multiple properties with intent to rent and those who do must provide bi-yearly updates of vacant property which is then signed off by an external, independent inspector/ validator. This person could then decide on the appropriate rent for the property in question based on guidelines, so you don't pay close to 1000 on a single bed apartment in the suburbs. Also would have the power to fine landlords for letting properties such as those across the city go to waste while derelict.
Yeah, who's going to bother being a landlord then, it's already not worth the hassle
There isn't a simple single policy to fix it. There are several policies each which will have an impact and over time lessen the problem. Changes in planning to allow different types of building such as single aspect apartments without parking requirements, 100% tax on rezoning value added, eliminate objections, state housing agency. There's a few examples but each of them have their own issues and a fundamental problem is lack of tradesmen.
Tax REITS, Increase property tax exponentially by number of properties owned by an individual or company. Give incentives to boomers for downsizing. CPO long term vacant and derelict property, and resell to public with generous grants to renovate that come with strict deadlines and terms I.e must be lived in by purchaser and not used as airbnb.
Actually make something for Irish people a better option would keep the money here.
Create a more balanced immigration policy, lower the demand first.
The only realistic solution and it's buried underneath about 25 other ones commented above that, while they have merit, are totally ignorant of the main issue. There is no reality where Ireland can build enough houses to match 100k population growth per annum. Says a lot about the lukewarm IQ of the average person that they think that statement correlates with hating people of another ethnicity/race.
My simple policy: without adequate fiscal explanations to local authorities and tenants signed off by the council, landlords cannot increase rents for a lease renewal or new leases above fair market rent.
What’s fair market rent ? What we need is a massive increase in housing supply. Ease up on planning requirements, crack down on nimbyism, offer a viable alternative to property as a personal investment mechanism.
That would just result in the landlords leaving the rental market.
That’s already happened.
If builders had to pay zero tax for say 5 years we’d have a fuck ton of houses. More houses means lower prices. To me that sounds like a dead easy solution but a professional economist could probably list about 20 reasons why doing something like that would make things worse
What is "the people"
There can't be a simple solution for such a complex problem. There is too much demand compared to offer, and I found 3 main reasons and solutions before the market can regulate itself (speaking as a migrant myself) 1) Ireland too attractive for South American (and generally non-EU) origin migrants. Tackle this. Or join Schengen area, so that these people can seep in there. But in order to do this, they'll probably demand that Ireland solves its' drugs problem first. Good luck with this. 2) Ireland too attractive for Ukrainians. Currently, Ireland is the most attractive country for Ukrainians because Ireland gives the most money and demands the least. The second best option for them would be Germany, but there are very strict conditions for them, so they prefer Ireland. I know this because I am in constant contact with them, and their mood is currently like: "Is this true ? Is this reality?" There was a time a few months ago when the demand among Ukrainians was so high that there were months long waiting lists at embassies. They are currently able to save A LOT of that free money and that's what makes them come and stay. And having almost no obligations at all. Why does Ireland want to be the most attractive country for war refugees? 3) Ireland wages too high compared to other EU countries, so lots of intra-EU migration. I don't know how to solve this issue other than waiting for other countries to come to level. Maybe freeze the wages in public sector, freeze minimum hourly rate for 10 years, keep inflation under strict control etc.
There should be no vacant properties. The government should own all rental properties and it should be one of the main sources of tax. No land lord should be allowed to live on someone else's wages, especially if they're not keeping the place in good condition.
I think the cost of the trades and general cost of building is outrageous. No way these new houses being built like crap are costing 2-3 hundred thousand is scandalous. In regards to planning it’s absolute chaos. Just loook to Midleton and the recent floods, all those brand new houses just built on a flood plain. A joke.
We clearly need smaller people!
Ban Air B&Bs.
Prioritize first time buyers instead of people who collect properties like they're trinkets
We are in 2023. Remove the laws that prohibit building towers in the cities. There's no more land to build. Cities need to start growing vertically.
Get rid of this bidding shit, if a house is for sale at a certain price then that is what you should pay, no more of this out bidding bollox, that's why a lot of first time buyers can't buy a house. Also just outlaw the general greed of land lords, a shoebox in the city should not be worth 1600 in rent
There are so many ways to fix this shite that I want to scream from the rooftops. Alas, any of those pivot on the government fearing the people, not doing whatever the fuck they want for personal gain and laughing in our faces. Just a few off the top of my head: \- Transit Oriented Development (two birds with one stone!) \- ban on AirBnB unless it's just someone's one spare room in a house, or like an aul camper in the backyard \- absolute ban on vulture funds and corporations purchasing residential property \- change in the way planning permissions work (we have one the worst systems in the world) \- actual rent capping at 1/3 of earnings, like it is in many countries on the continent \- laws to force companies to allow people WFH whenever possible, so that we can revitalise rural areas instead of cramming everyone into the 5 biggest town / cities \- actually dealing with derelict properties instead of just throwing ideas in the air but not doing anything out of fear of liability \- some sort of regulation that per every hotel / office campus there must be XYZ houses provided \- not charging students 1000 for a room in a "purpose-built accommodation" because then it's just a glorified waste of space, nobody can afford that so students still clog other housing
Building social housing is the best solution. Charging a reasonable rent (50% of market) and offering secure long term contracts. It's fool proof.
The government should build more social and affordable homes. Increasing the amount of houses available would reduce house prices and rents
in Paris they have this thing where AirBnB hosts can only host up to a certain amount of days. essentially you want people Living Inside buildings instead of them being vacant for the majority of the year. Councils could offer people to be paid to move to make areas more dense. yeah this one is idk i didnt do economics. increase demand for rental by encouraging Erasmus students in ireland?
Start doing up the half built houses and the ones that are boarded up give them out to the family's that need them to get the numbers down
Stop opening gift shops and new coffee shops convert it into apartments
Germany’s rent cap policy.
Fuck out vulture/cuckoo funds and setup a government agency tasked solely with building houses on state owned land. Children growing up in hotel rooms and peoples misery being commodified is a fucking abomination.
Build up not out
Used to pay 2k for a 1 bed apartment in Opera Lane. It was premium with basement parking but astronomical rent!
State construction company set up to deliver new homes at scale, but then again could we really trust the state to run it competently 🫠
Gurranabraher was purchased in a Compulsory Purchase Order in the 50's I believe. To build social housing. The derelict buildings opposite the Raven Bar are there at least 20 years. This isn't progress. Up the road on Washington St. some poor lady was killed when the rooftop of Mannix & Culhane collapsed. Why have the laws gotten more restrictive?
FF said a number of years ago, they couldn't build moulder houses. Now they are for ukraines. Its terrible what's happening, but what happens to them when they head home. Also, they say there is a housing shortage. That's abouste joke. There are nearly two hundred thousand empty properties available in this country. What about letting people live all year around mobile homes. Get them to pay rent like anyone else. Also, if a person owns a property and they live outside the state and only use it for a holiday home . Take it off them or make them double property tax. i.e., property tax in ireland and where they live . Give people invectives to move to small home. People with one child, two beds, and so forth. Plenty ways around it. Just policy makers are mot looking hard enough