Matt Barrett Registered User
#1

Commentary on the policies and actions of the Government of the day who ever they may be.

With it's beginnings under Bertie's Fianna Fail, despite the bubble and crash the state insists on following the same model of depending on private business to cure public ills.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform recently recommended that the State place a greater focus on building social houses rather than resorting to the private sector rental market to solve social housing needs.

As part of a value for money analysis, the department found that in parts of Dublin the State could build social houses for up to half the money it would have to spend on rent for social housing tenants.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/


Handsome Boards posters have been saying similar for a long time.
Intentionally or not, the state is using tax payer money to fill the pockets of housing speculators profiting off the housing crisis in an effort to, giving the benefit of the doubt, tackle the housing problem. This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.

Ireland's largest private landlord, I-RES REIT, has almost trebled the number of State-funded, social tenancies on its books.

The company, which last week announced profits of €19 million for the first half of this year, confirmed to RTÉ's Morning Ireland that it has 303 tenants receiving a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).

It equates to 11% of I-RES's total portfolio of rental properties of 2,678.

In 2017, just 4% of the company's properties were rented to State-funded tenants.


Would love to know of any public figures involved with I-RES.

Do we just keep on with this model to begrudge the anecdotal numbers of chancers and pretenders sleeping in Garda stations and the like?

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0809/984012-homeless-dublin/

ancapailldorcha Moderator
#2

Mod: Matt, I hope you don't mind but I have changed the thread title as it was a tad vague.

1 person has thanked this post
Johnny Dogs Registered User
#3

This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.


Just on this part M - I seen an article a day or 2 ago that covered how the constituency office of the housing minister was forcibly closed without a replacement being found, resulting in his constituency business now having to be conducted from his Leinster house.

The article skirts around the insinuation that Murphy was effectively left homeless as a direct result of his own policies and the competitive Dublin rental prices may have added to his problems.

2 people have thanked this post
Matt Barrett Registered User
#4

I think it's very short sighted to shrug off some of the things exacerbating the broader problem. We've PTSB selling off loans to a vulture fund because allegedly they were bad loans and what's a business to do, when not crying to the tax payer? It turned out not to be the entire story. It's just business, sure, but in the long run it'll come back to bite the tax payer.

'Vulture funds pay around €1 in taxes for every €1 million they hold in Irish assets

Up to 90% of the property in NAMA went to Vulture Funds who, in turn, used section 110 legislation to pay virtually nothing in taxes.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-simon-coveney-is-currently-engaged-in-a-land-grab-of-epic-proportions-3394082-May2017/


Vulture funds pay just €8,000 in tax on €10 billion of assets
http://www.thejournal.ie/vulture-funds-2-3176030-Jan2017/


If we can create or uphold policy that benefits such moves as AIB paying no tax on profits for 30 odd years, surely we can truly look after our own, and by that I mean everyone working and paying tax.
Any property speculators, during a crisis, should be heavily taxed IMO. It's profiting from misery and making the crisis worse.

Sam Russell Moderator
#5

There are several major problems facing the Gov at the moment - housing and health are the top two.

Homeless is a term that covers a whole range of problems, some of which show in statistics and some that does not. Rough sleepers are homeless - sometime out of choice, some out of addiction or mental health problems, and some out of social problems. Others do sofa surfing with friends, and do not get counted. Some decide to declare themselves homeless in the hope of jumping the housing queue. Others are evicted by greedy landlords looking to profit from the current situation.

Someone was on the radio the other day living on his own in a four bedroom council house with no gas*, and under notice to be moved by the council to more suitable accommodation, but nothing has happened since before Christmas. He would be quite happy to move to a one bed unit, and a family could take over his house. Who is at fault there?

Solution - give sites and money from NAMA to DCC to build, build, build. The can tender for housing units to be built by building contractors in say 100 units per contract that would allow smaller builders to get involved, and get council houses back for housing those on the waiting list. If one third was social houses (for rent), one third same houses but sold as affordable, and one third higher spec but sold at full market rate. 45% of the cost returns to Gov in the form of VAT, income tax, PRSI, and other taxes.

*He was brought up in the house, and his many siblings have moved away, with his widowed mother deceased last year. I think he was unable to cope after she died. At least, that was my understanding of his story.

2 people have thanked this post
Idbatterim Registered User
#6

There are several major problems facing the Gov at the moment - housing and health are the top two.


are they major problems for the government though? FG are doing brilliantly, if you believe the polls. If they are actually gaining seats, from this pathetic failure on health and housing, as usual. Why would they change anything? I really think the problem in this country is, that they will maintain the status quo, unless forced to change. Who is forcing them to change?

There is no feasible political alternative and we, the voters, arent flexing our muscles...

2 people have thanked this post
markodaly Registered User
#7

Johnny Dogs said:


The article skirts around the insinuation that Murphy was effectively left homeless as a direct result of his own policies and the competitive Dublin rental prices may have added to his problems.


Yes, Dublin rental prices. So who runs the Dublin, Sinn Fein being the largest party, combined with similar left wingers comprise of the largest block, run Dublin City Council.

Do they have no impact into this issue?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-asked-to-reverse-apartment-height-limits-1.2759551

Minister for Housing Simon Coveney wants Dublin City Council to reverse plans to restrict the height of apartment blocks that can be built in the city, because of the risks to future housing supply .

Last May councillors voted to limit the height of apartments in low-rise areas of the inner city to 24 metres and to 13m in low-rise areas of the suburbs. Most of Dublin apart from 13 specific areas falls into the low-rise category.

Dublin City Council chief executive Owen Keegan had wanted to set 28m as the maximum height for low-rise apartments in the city centre (the same height currently permitted for office blocks) and 16m as the height for suburban apartments.


No effect?

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-tall-buildings-problems-2795550-May2016/

The development plan acknowledges that Dublin is a “low-rise city and considers that it should remain predominantly so”, but also that the council “recognises the merit of taller buildings”.


No effect?

http://www.thejournal.ie/tall-high-rise-buildings-dublin-2-4084160-Jun2018/

While the An Bord Pleanála inspector’s report pre-dates the Ireland 2040 guidelines, the board’s final judgement shows the weight the new national policy will carry with the planning authority.

Lorcan Sirr, a lecturer on housing at DIT, told Fora that these planning decisions showed the beginnings of city councils being “politically castrated”.

“The penny hasn’t dropped with them that the Department of Housing are now in control – and that’s really bad. We elect councillors on the basis they will do A, B and C; one of the jobs they do is focus on the development plan.


Positive effect.

Local elections are on next year, I suggest you have a chat to DCC about the housing issues in Dublin.

3 people have thanked this post
markodaly Registered User
#8

Matt Barrett said:
We've PTSB selling off loans to a vulture fund because allegedly they were bad loans and what's a business to do, .


The issues with the loans are clear-cut.

1) This is a directive from the ECB, the government cannot intervene on this issue, no matter what TD or interest group tells you otherwise.

2) These loans have been festering now for the guts of 10 years, yes 10 years. Ireland is unique in the situation where a homeowner cannot or doesn't want to pay a mortgage and keep their home for up to 10 years. On average in other EU countries, the figure is 6 months.

3) It shows us that the courts will rarely if ever order eviction notices to owner-occupiers. It is almost impossible for a bank to regain its collateral if they give out a mortgage. This, in turn, has a knock on effect elsewhere.

4) We pay the highest interest rates in the EU, precisely because of the issues outlined above. This means that you, me and every other responsible person who pays for their own home is paying for others. This adds up over the lifetime of the mortgage to tens of thousands of extra euros you have to pay.

5) Selling off these loans is the fastest way to get the Irish banking back to normal business, where impaired loans are marginal and credit is perhaps slightly freer, where developers can build more much-needed houses and responsible savers and rents can get a mortgage.

6) The tax these funds pay is a separate issue and falls under the corporate tax regime of the state. The term, vulture funds is sexy and is like manna from heaven for the looney left, but they are often more reasonable to deal with than Irish banks.

6 people have thanked this post
Charles Babbage Registered User
#9

markodaly said:
The issues with the loans are clear-cut.

1) This is a directive from the ECB, the government cannot intervene on this issue, no matter what TD or interest group tells you otherwise.



The government could buy them.

These loans have a variety of cases, some are chancers and should be thrown out, some are misfortune and will have to be housed by the State anyway. The government should take control of the latter.

Aegir Registered User
#10

Charles Babbage said:
The government could buy them.

These loans have a variety of cases, some are chancers and should be thrown out, some are misfortune and will have to be housed by the State anyway. The government should take control of the latter.


That would just increase the level of deficit the state has and possibly infringe ECB rules, would it not?

Sam Russell Moderator
#11

Aegir said:
That would just increase the level of deficit the state has and possibly infringe ECB rules, would it not?


NAMA or the NTMA could be used o create one of those special purpose vehicles to fund the purchase of these loans. They could then get the original bank to manage the exit of the problem by separating the 'can't pay' from he 'wont pay'.

2 people have thanked this post
blanch152 Registered User
#12

Matt Barrett said:
Commentary on the policies and actions of the Government of the day who ever they may be.

With it's beginnings under Bertie's Fianna Fail, despite the bubble and crash the state insists on following the same model of depending on private business to cure public ills.


Handsome Boards posters have been saying similar for a long time.
Intentionally or not, the state is using tax payer money to fill the pockets of housing speculators profiting off the housing crisis in an effort to, giving the benefit of the doubt, tackle the housing problem. This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.


Would love to know of any public figures involved with I-RES.

Do we just keep on with this model to begrudge the anecdotal numbers of chancers and pretenders sleeping in Garda stations and the like?

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0809/984012-homeless-dublin/


11% of I-RES properties rented to HAP?

And somehow this is a criticism of government policy?

Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought for years that posters have been on here whinging and whinging, not just in the politics thread but also in the accommodation threads, that private landlords would not rent to those in receipt of HAP and that the government should do something about it.

So one of two things seem to be true:

(1) The government has done something about it and they should be congratulated.

(2) It was never true and landlords always did rent to those in receipt of HAP, just not to particular people in receipt of HAP. Should the focus be on why some people are turned down by landlords? Perhaps the absence of a reference because of previous behaviour, for example?

I don't know which of the above two is correct, but one of them has to be if Matt is right in his assertion that 11% of I-REP housing is being rented to those on HAP.

A good note to start the thread on, to show that the problem of landlords not renting to HAP recipients is an urban myth.

1 person has thanked this post
Idbatterim Registered User
#13

Positive effect.

Local elections are on next year, I suggest you have a chat to DCC about the housing issues in Dublin.


what and elect in those supporting higher density? who is that exactly?

markodaly Registered User
#14

Charles Babbage said:
The government could buy them.



God no! Just no.

We already have people like Margaret Cash, who is taking in over €50,000 tax free from the state demanding more.

Do you honestly think if the state started down the road of buying bad loans from banks because people decided not to pay their mortgage, knowing that the state will just buy the loan and leave those in the property alone?

Besides, the ECB would never allow it.

1 person has thanked this post
markodaly Registered User
#15

Idbatterim said:
what and elect in those supporting higher density? who is that exactly?


I have no idea, but you can ask them. I think the Greens might be worth a shot.
Then again, the national government has pulled the plug on the LA's endless vetoing

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!