Government to press ahead with 185,000€ tax payer money subsidy per apartment to developers with no requirement to bring down the price

33 comments

  1. The real trick of the Fine Gael magic money tree isn’t the money. It’s how quickly it disappears when they need it to.

    Remember this next time they start tightening the budget or saying thry don’t have enough money to fix something

  8. Even trying to give the government the benefit of the doubt i don’t see how this is anything other than a handout to developers. I am so so sick of this governments housing policies. I was hopefull that with FF taking over the brief they would actually try something new to try and carve out some identity other than being FGs bitch but no they are carry on the same direction that already hasn’t worked the last 7 years at this stage.

  11. Considering building apartments to sell are unviable in the current market something needs to be done. This does seem like misdirected funds though.

  14. Anybody have clips of this being debated in the dail. Interested in hearing the justification for it, all for subsidising housing but surely there should be conditions attached?

  17. Is it gone up to 185k? first i saw 120k a week or 2 ago then a few days ago they were saying 144k.

  18. Anyone know why building an apartment brings a loss to the developer? I asked this question before and someone went off on me about a housing crisis around the world which didn’t address the question. Is it inflation on building materials, there are numerous apartment blocks in Ireland and so I’m curious if they were all built at a loss or if it’s now that has made them unattractive to build financially

  19. It will boost supply but the government is basically giving them money to build and then giving them the keys 🤣, transparent money laundering..

  20. Is this as crazy as it sounds, what happened to market forces and that dictates the price not a tax payer subsidy.

    Also can the REITs purchase these subsidized apartments or the developers mates for yet more Air BnBs?

  25. Middle earners getting fucked again.

    On the median wage, I’m already paying the highest rate of tax, even though I don’t earn half of what’s needed for a mortgage, but yet earning too much for social housing.

    So now the 55% income tax I’m paying, is going to developers to make their directors even wealthier, by building more houses that I can’t afford to buy, and 10% of them will be given to people contributing less than I am.

    When are the middle gonna catch a break?

  26. Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think this is a good program.
    Developers don’t want to build apartments because they cost more to build than a typical house. With houses, developers slap a timber frame together and call it a house. With the prices the way they are, houses have a much higher return on investment because they’re so much cheaper to build, but they’ll sell for crazy money.
    By incentivizing them to build apartment buildings, the government is solving more than one problem. They’re building up supply. You can build 100 apartments which are 2 bed, 3 bed, whatever on the same space where you could only fit about 20 houses.
    Problem 1 solved, more supply.
    Problem 2 density. Apartment buildings create more density and this allows the government to provide better services such as public transport, schools, road maintenance. Its difficult to have an efficient public transport system when a small population is spread across great distances. This is the case now and will only continue to be the case if only houses are built.
    So the government is incentivizing developers to build up so that down the line they don’t make the problem worse. With the demand the way it is, if we continue to just build houses with front and back gardens, in a decade, Naas, Mainooth, Ashboure would become Dublin neighborhoods rather than separate towns.
    However, why they don’t just deny planning for houses and only allow apartment buildings is the question? A possible answer could be that developers will just move on to where they can build houses? That I don’t know.

  27. FF have never fucking changed their stripes. They are the brown envelope party. “You make the Mafia look like monks” has never gone away.

  28. Can anyone give a breakdown of why this might be a good thing. I do know/hope there is surely some smart civil servants in the department who proposed this for a valid reason.

    I’m outraged at it as a headline myself but feel there must be some sort of solid reasoning behind this.

  29. Have FF or FG explained how this is supposed to work? Giving them a benefit of a doubt, I imagine they’re saying that it would increase supply and therefore house prices would naturally drop. A theory I’m extremely sceptical on but straight away I can see an even more fundamental flaw in that couldn’t developers trickle the builds to avoid saturation?

    Incidentally more supply leading to lower prices wouldn’t be true unless supply exceeds demand, no?

    On a whole, I don’t think it’s the govs goal to provide more affordable housing under this scheme, it’s a goal to create more assets for corporations to purchase and rent and they’ll be relying on an increase in house prices to make this scheme worth it.

  30. Someone needs to explain to FFG the concept of building housing stock and holding onto it, instead of just handing out money to private entities.

    We will be contributing in a meaningful way to the funding of this housing stock with fuck all caveats, and then we will end of paying the rent via HAP for a large chunk of them, its literally mental retardation.

  32. So there going to spend tax payer money to build them houses but still expect Mr and Mrs taxpayer to pay our there own pocket for the same property. Please vote them out

Leave a Reply