Are there any posters from Galway here? Arguments for and against the Homechoice Loan Scheme

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Yesterday in the Clare People I saw a Clare house price drop from 350k to 250k - newly built detached house, enormous floor space. I'll get the article for ye later and scan it in. If this is happening to big builds like that then the smaller second-hand three-beds will fall to 180k and below to 160k yet there will be no credit lines open for people who want to purchase those 2nd hand houses? It's clearly not intended to make the buyer's life easier at all.

This proposal is designed to solve 3 linked problems, 1. Let people who are in a financial position to repay the necessary & who can find value (hopefully at cost) at the moment go ahead with a purchase. 2. Get some income to builders who can then and this is the important bit, 3. Pass that cash back to the bank.

Allowing second hand homes into the equation only solves one of those problems which in the circumstances would not be the best value we can get for our 500 million.

If we say there are 20,000 empty houses waiting sale, at an average price of 200,000€ that would be 4,000,000,000.00€ in loans less deposits.

The Budget measure was for a total of how much?

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Yesterday in the Clare People I saw a Clare house price drop from 350k to 250k - newly built detached house, enormous floor space. I'll get the article for ye later and scan it in. If this is happening to big builds like that then the smaller second-hand three-beds will fall to 180k and below to 160k yet there will be no credit lines open for people who want to purchase those 2nd hand houses? It's clearly not intended to make the buyer's life easier at all.

This proposal is designed to solve 3 linked problems, 1. Let people who are in a financial position to repay the necessary & who can find value (hopefully at cost) at the moment go ahead with a purchase. 2. Get some income to builders who can then and this is the important bit, 3. Pass that cash back to the bank.

Allowing second hand homes into the equation only solves one of those problems which in the circumstances would not be the best value we can get for our 500 million.

If we say there are 20,000 empty houses waiting sale, at an average price of 200,000€ that would be 4,000,000,000.00€ in loans less deposits.

The Budget measure was for a total of how much?

That would be part of my point, if as the pinsters would have it this is a “builders bailout” at 500 million, it’s not much of one is it?

It’s a small jump start for FTB’ers & banks through repayment of some builders loans, nothing more.

It's way too small - only lip service. Housing people might be a better option than bailing the banks out in due course. Taking on 10,000 of the best located non tax incentive houses and getting public tenants into them, with an option of tenant purchase for those who were really in the position to pay a mortgage, might be a better use of money. At the moment the Pension Fund is just sitting there shrinking anyway. What do you think?

Abandoned, half built houses are a horrible waste. If they are left empty, hopefully instead of letting them rot away, people who need houses would move into them.

I have my doubts about the ability of the local authorities to get their act together and get the scheme going.

Local Authorities have a massive problem already with part V developments. The collapse of the McNamara affordable housing agreements were I'm sure a pure relief to Dublin City Council although a tragedy for many of its tenants.

Affordable house agreements on 2005/6 and 7 prices were entered into right across the country between local authorities and contractors. The local authorities are now required to cough up and buy these houses (approximately 6% of total construction), at a time when their revenues are under stress.

I hear that there is at least one local authority in serious financial trouble over this: it does not have the funds to buy, and will be sued for breach of contract if it doesn't.

There is a disaster there for local authorities. They have to buy, and have bought, these houses at top of the market prices and now they have to find eligible (lower income) people to unload them to. The eligible people can either not get a mortgage, or they can get a cheaper house elsewhere.

Councils like DCC have had to acquire them anyway, and they are being left empty.

Where is that out of interest, cactus?

johnfás wrote:

Where is that out of interest, cactus?

Conneticut USA I think.

Edit - But there's one just like it in a field near you !

Not sure about that EVM . The fás lives in an area of mature development . Pity about the houses all around me tearing up their lovely gardens and replacing them with concrete for their multiple Mercedes. Seems they don't realise they'll be repossessed soon enough .

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Yesterday in the Clare People I saw a Clare house price drop from 350k to 250k - newly built detached house, enormous floor space. I'll get the article for ye later and scan it in. If this is happening to big builds like that then the smaller second-hand three-beds will fall to 180k and below to 160k yet there will be no credit lines open for people who want to purchase those 2nd hand houses? It's clearly not intended to make the buyer's life easier at all.

This proposal is designed to solve 3 linked problems, 1. Let people who are in a financial position to repay the necessary & who can find value (hopefully at cost) at the moment go ahead with a purchase. 2. Get some income to builders who can then and this is the important bit, 3. Pass that cash back to the bank.

Allowing second hand homes into the equation only solves one of those problems which in the circumstances would not be the best value we can get for our 500 million.

You've got a circle there with some black boxes (or holes) in it - are these builders genuinely strapped and how do we know if they are? Why can't they sell the wife's SUV, two or three of their properties in Corfu, the Costa Blanca or whereever and fork up what they owe to the banks ?

The banks themselves - don't some of these fellas earn 2 million a year - is some of this taxpayer money going into Brian Goggin's Corfu/Monaco fund too or is he on the dole now too like another 9000 people this month ?


Do you know him ?

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Yesterday in the Clare People I saw a Clare house price drop from 350k to 250k - newly built detached house, enormous floor space. I'll get the article for ye later and scan it in. If this is happening to big builds like that then the smaller second-hand three-beds will fall to 180k and below to 160k yet there will be no credit lines open for people who want to purchase those 2nd hand houses? It's clearly not intended to make the buyer's life easier at all.

This proposal is designed to solve 3 linked problems, 1. Let people who are in a financial position to repay the necessary & who can find value (hopefully at cost) at the moment go ahead with a purchase. 2. Get some income to builders who can then and this is the important bit, 3. Pass that cash back to the bank.

Allowing second hand homes into the equation only solves one of those problems which in the circumstances would not be the best value we can get for our 500 million.

You've got a circle there with some black boxes (or holes) in it - are these builders genuinely strapped and how do we know if they are? Why can't they sell the wife's SUV, two or three of their properties in Corfu, the Costa Blanca or whereever and fork up what they owe to the banks ?

The banks themselves - don't some of these fellas earn 2 million a year - is some of this taxpayer money going into Brian Goggin's Corfu/Monaco fund too or is he on the dole now too like another 9000 people this month ?

I was talking about the reasons for making 500 million available as loans to eligible FTB’ers and whether or not that was a good idea.
If you want to talk about the joys of socialist retribution for the sins of capitalism, I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong shop my friend.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Yesterday in the Clare People I saw a Clare house price drop from 350k to 250k - newly built detached house, enormous floor space. I'll get the article for ye later and scan it in. If this is happening to big builds like that then the smaller second-hand three-beds will fall to 180k and below to 160k yet there will be no credit lines open for people who want to purchase those 2nd hand houses? It's clearly not intended to make the buyer's life easier at all.

This proposal is designed to solve 3 linked problems, 1. Let people who are in a financial position to repay the necessary & who can find value (hopefully at cost) at the moment go ahead with a purchase. 2. Get some income to builders who can then and this is the important bit, 3. Pass that cash back to the bank.

Allowing second hand homes into the equation only solves one of those problems which in the circumstances would not be the best value we can get for our 500 million.

If we say there are 20,000 empty houses waiting sale, at an average price of 200,000€ that would be 4,000,000,000.00€ in loans less deposits.

The Budget measure was for a total of how much?

That would be part of my point, if as the pinsters would have it this is a “builders bailout” at 500 million, it’s not much of one is it?

It’s a small jump start for FTB’ers & banks through repayment of some builders loans, nothing more.

It's way too small - only lip service. Housing people might be a better option than bailing the banks out in due course. Taking on 10,000 of the best located non tax incentive houses and getting public tenants into them, with an option of tenant purchase for those who were really in the position to pay a mortgage, might be a better use of money. At the moment the Pension Fund is just sitting there shrinking anyway. What do you think?

That’s what the 1.85 billion S&A/shared ownership fund is for. Should shift 8,000 units or thereabouts + 2,000 with the loans, 10,000 in total.
As you say this is the way to tackle problems, take advantage of whatever opportunities the silver lining offers to solve other problems.

Imagination, positive outside the box thinking and hi ho silver, we’re away out the gap.

http://www.budget.gov.ie/2009/financialstatement.html#16

I agree with the principle, but not the figures. It is 1.65 billion for all government housing programmes. This includes all social and affordable housing and repairs.

**cactus posted before

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

tonys wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Yesterday in the Clare People I saw a Clare house price drop from 350k to 250k - newly built detached house, enormous floor space. I'll get the article for ye later and scan it in. If this is happening to big builds like that then the smaller second-hand three-beds will fall to 180k and below to 160k yet there will be no credit lines open for people who want to purchase those 2nd hand houses? It's clearly not intended to make the buyer's life easier at all.

This proposal is designed to solve 3 linked problems, 1. Let people who are in a financial position to repay the necessary & who can find value (hopefully at cost) at the moment go ahead with a purchase. 2. Get some income to builders who can then and this is the important bit, 3. Pass that cash back to the bank.

Allowing second hand homes into the equation only solves one of those problems which in the circumstances would not be the best value we can get for our 500 million.

You've got a circle there with some black boxes (or holes) in it - are these builders genuinely strapped and how do we know if they are? Why can't they sell the wife's SUV, two or three of their properties in Corfu, the Costa Blanca or whereever and fork up what they owe to the banks ?

The banks themselves - don't some of these fellas earn 2 million a year - is some of this taxpayer money going into Brian Goggin's Corfu/Monaco fund too or is he on the dole now too like another 9000 people this month ?

I was talking about the reasons for making 500 million available as loans to eligible FTB’ers and whether or not that was a good idea.
If you want to talk about the joys of socialist retribution for the sins of capitalism, I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong shop my friend.

I'm not at all talking about socialism but it is true that our banks should be amenable now to a few tweeks and ready to have a few buttons pushed etc. no? One of those buttons is that these overpaid fellas shouldn't be paid so much.

Ultimately I'd be into the redistribution of and evening-out of wealth alright but not consciously - it only causes trouble to try to hoist one system on another all of a sudden and anyway it doesn't work. I'm just talking about money getting shovelled into black holes. Some poor Joe Soap who cherishes his job and kids is doing the shovelling while there's a fat cat at the bottom of the black hole with his mouth open.

You made the extraordinary leap and connection to socialism when it is surely clear at this point that overpaid executives haven't helped this mess at all and could have been contributory to the whole thing in the first place. There are plenty of other ways to get half a billion out into the economy.

Interesting programme on TG4 on the 1921 Workers Soviets across Ireland.

Even though I disagree with the Home Choice Loan scheme as it currently stands, I have to say fair play to the politicians and developers for trying to sell a scheme they support. I mean, what else would we expect them to do?

Rather than letting them dominate the debate, and ignore one or two awkward questions from the floor, surely the best way for those who oppose the scheme is to take a leaf out of their book?

Why can't the Pinsters and others* organise Similar information meetings in towns up and down the country? Meetings where first time buyers can get the REAL picture? Have a properly chaired presentation, even have speakers from both sides of the debate. But please please don't let those who have a vested interest control the flow of information to the public.

Then if someone wants to sell this scheme as an unmissable offer, at least they can be challanged, and both sides of the arguement can be heard by the people who most need the information.


(*I have a fair amount of experience in events organising, and would be willing to lend a hand to anyone who thinks something like this is acheivable. pm me.)

yehbut_nobut wrote:

Even though I disagree with the Home Choice Loan scheme as it currently stands, I have to say fair play to the politicians and developers for trying to sell a scheme they support. I mean, what else would we expect them to do?

Rather than letting them dominate the debate, and ignore one or two awkward questions from the floor, surely the best way for those who oppose the scheme is to take a leaf out of their book?

Why can't the Pinsters and others* organise Similar information meetings in towns up and down the country? Meetings where first time buyers can get the REAL picture? Have a properly chaired presentation, even have speakers from both sides of the debate. But please please don't let those who have a vested interest control the flow of information to the public.

Then if someone wants to sell this scheme as an unmissable offer, at least they can be challanged, and both sides of the arguement can be heard by the people who most need the information.

(*I have a fair amount of experience in events organising, and would be willing to lend a hand to anyone who thinks something like this is acheivable. pm me.)

A most excellent idea - information via education not pontification.

one question - assuming sensible income:loan rules are strictly applied, would you be in favour of changing the scheme so that only properties that have a Building Energy Rating score of "A" qualify?

All properties sold after 01 Jan 2009 have to have a BER anyway. Good builders who didn't cut corners will have no problems getting an A rating for their houses. Some 2nd hand ones would also qualify, but drafty old houses or badly built new ones could not be purchased under the scheme.

yehbut_nobut wrote:

one question - assuming sensible income:loan rules are strictly applied, would you be in favour of changing the scheme so that pnly properties that have to have score "A" on the Building Energy Rating scheme qualify?

All properties sold after 01 Jan 2009 have to have a BER anyway. Good builders who didn't cut corners will have no problems getting an A rating for their houses. Some 2nd hand ones would also qualify, but or drafty old houses or badly built new ones could not be purchased under the scheme.

I'm all for A rating and am working on my own drafty place, but A rating is very difficult and costly to achieve, particularly retrofitted. Government was unbelievably allowing hollow block in the Dublin area until recently. God knows how they could be got up to A rating.

cactus flower wrote:

yehbut_nobut wrote:

one question - assuming sensible income:loan rules are strictly applied, would you be in favour of changing the scheme so that pnly properties that have to have score "A" on the Building Energy Rating scheme qualify?

All properties sold after 01 Jan 2009 have to have a BER anyway. Good builders who didn't cut corners will have no problems getting an A rating for their houses. Some 2nd hand ones would also qualify, but or drafty old houses or badly built new ones could not be purchased under the scheme.

I'm all for A rating and am working on my own drafty place, but A rating is very difficult and costly to achieve, particularly retrofitted. Government was unbelievably allowing hollow block in the Dublin area until recently. God knows how they could be got up to A rating.

Good God that's another scandal that will hit anytime soon- hollow blocks and uninsulated. Kingspan will be worth a fortune later I'd swear. I'm all for A rated buildings but, depending on the ease and cost at which buildings could be retrofitted later it'd be madness to restrict it only to A rated buildings. But that depends on the price of the building. There's some super gadgets in such a home but much of it could be the choice of the consumer at a later date. If the house is easily warmed with solid local fuels then that should be the baseline I think.

As time goes on this country will have to retrofit everything by the looks of it anyway.

Oh dear ...

Described as a 'farce' by the Independent as just 4 apply for it

http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?p=208632#p208632

I wonder is Frank Fahy feeling like a plonker yet....