I hate to nit pick, but this is not correct. It’s not “any time”. Sometimes tenders are assessed and selected purely on cost. Some of the time, however, assessment and selection is based on the most economically advantageous tender.
We’re getting to that point and certainly plenty have been hinting at it. That being said I’m surprised at O’Callaghan
Big Jim subtly launching his leadership campaign.
6 Likes
He’s mugged you and the landlord class off here.
3 Likes
That’s not the same as banning all private capital, not by a long way. And in any event he said they should be banned from buying residential property, not building it.
Reits are very niche with strict rules on how they operate. They can’t build themselves I don’t think
You get the gist of it though, investment funds being banned from block buying developments is not the same as private capital being banned from building accommodation.
1 Like
I don’t think I ever mentioned all private capital. I said Private Equity (i.e. funds)
1 Like
thats a horrendous blueshirt beatdown there glas
I stand corrected. Either way I meant private capital in the form of funds (rather than capital in the form of individuals purchasing homes etc). The mood music seems to be that all funds are bad and that encouraging funds to invest is pandering to shadowy influences. “Private” is used as a disparaging term by many.
I don’t think that’s correct and risks throwing out the baby with the bath water. We need external private funding to encourage increased volume of building the whole time, particularly in the case where banks have largely shied away from development finance and developers have very restricted balance sheets.
I’m not sure you’re right there. I think there’s a clear difference in funds in not wanting funds to buy up rakes up housing with the aim of extracting the maximum rent possible from it, and excluding funds from the building market altogether.
Sure and I agree limits on funds activity in the property sector need to be both introduced and continually reviewed (for example what worked for policy between 2012-2016 might not be suitable too) to ensure that it fits in with overall policy goals.
That being said developers and/or funds pursuing a profit motive is in itself not a bad thing if it can be aligned with the overall needs. A simple example is that a developer is not going to build housing (or a fund invest in it) if they can’t see a path to profitability and as a result the housing doesn’t get built. We will need to continue to provide an attractive environment to drive investment into projects and hence supply
Similarily, I disagree that we should look to exclude institutional investors from being landlords. The state can’t be the landlord to all (and prob doesn’t want to be for a variety of reasons) and I think most agree that having many multiple small-time landlords instead isn’t the best solution.
rory aherne back again
sorry @Tim_Riggins the article makes no mention of him running for PBP back in the noughties
1 Like
In addition to recognising that Rory ran for Populism before Prosperity, I would like the Journal to mention alongside “institutional investors” /REITs like I-RES who the ultimate shareholders and beneficiaries are. Those of course include pension funds, acting for both semi state and private employees.
Jaysus lads materials are goin through the roof.There isn’t a week goes by that I don’t get an email off McMahons about price rises.
2 Likes
Price of timber is ridiculous. I was quoted €40 for and 8x4x3"4 plywood. Fucking plyboard
Not having a go at bushes but hard to square this circle where council trying an affordable scheme and many will have this reaction…
1 Like