affordable housing offer

jdivision

The percentage depends on the council. 10 per cent affordable and 10 per cent social is the standard. Gibo you could apply for a social housing exemption certificate which is granted a lot in Dublin at least on small developments.

gibo_ie

jdivision wrote:

The percentage depends on the council. 10 per cent affordable and 10 per cent social is the standard. Gibo you could apply for a social housing exemption certificate which is granted a lot in Dublin at least on small developments.

Yeah, i applied after speaking with planners who assured me it would be exempt, 6 weeks later they had "lost" my application, two more weeks later they inisist i had never a hope of being exempted!!! Some of these guys are on a huge power trip, especially after what i hear from some other people dealing with them.

For me it is just though luck but my point is that the council can make a lot of money if people sell these houses but nothing gets given back to the person who owns the site originally, i think this is hugely unfair. Why should I have to loose money and wages just cos someone else cant afford a house in Ireland due to the extortionate house prices?

Ces't la vie....

iguana

podge018 wrote:

They don't. How hard is it to understand.

But somebody does make a loss. The council - and at the root of that the tax payer.

If what you're saying is correct, which it might be, then a seller in a falling market has no incentive to get more than the max they paid for the property. Why would they care if the property sells for 155kor 280k if either way they will get 155k?

If you lost your job next month but were offered a new job in another country but they needed you to start in two weeks. And there were other apartments in your building for sale for 280k on the market for the last 4 months. Wouldn't it make a huge amount of sense to put your apartment on the market for 155k to get rid of it fast and get your investment back?

CelloPoint

iguana wrote:

But somebody does make a loss. The council - and at the root of that the tax payer.

And so we get to the crux of affordable housing: an ingenius way of getting taxpayers to counteract serious cracks in the housing market.

Isn't it amazing that it's only in recent months that the affordable housing scheme (God, doesn't it sound great?) has really got off the ground? A few years ago it wasn't being implemented at all because the developers were - surprise, surprise - creaming it.

Why is it near impossible to get accurate, detailed and up-to-date information on affordable housing from the county council? It's like something out of George Orwell. I sometimes wonder if the CoCos purposely put idiots on the end of phone lines.

I'm thinking of scanning in all documentation I received from the Affordable Housing Scheme. The unproffesionalism and patronising tone in the brochures/letters I received is startling. And this coming from a country who demands tax from me in almost everything I do.

patrickolee

CelloPoint wrote:

And so we get to the crux of affordable housing: an ingenius way of getting taxpayers to counteract serious cracks in the housing market.

Isn't it amazing that it's only in recent months that the affordable housing scheme (God, doesn't it sound great?) has really got off the ground? A few years ago it wasn't being implemented at all because the developers were - surprise, surprise - creaming it.

Why is it near impossible to get accurate, detailed and up-to-date information on affordable housing from the county council? It's like something out of George Orwell. I sometimes wonder if the CoCos purposely put idiots on the end of phone lines.

I'm thinking of scanning in all documentation I received from the Affordable Housing Scheme. The unproffesionalism and patronising tone in the brochures/letters I received is startling. And this coming from a country who demands tax from me in almost everything I do.

Ahhh you're getting a cut price house, you should be grateful. Now bend over.

jdivision

iguana wrote:

But somebody does make a loss. The council - and at the root of that the tax payer.

You still don't seem to realise that if buy a place on the affordable housing list for e155k and sell it for 155k the council does not lose any money. The council buys the units at cost price and then add an administration fee to cover their costs and sell them to affordable home buyers for that price. They DO NOT pay say e240k and then sell it to somebody for e155k. What usually happens is they pay say e153k and sell it on for e155k.

SuzyS1972

Who's had a final interview with Fingal and how did ye find it ?
Was it a grilling process - how long dod they take after the interview to give you the go ahead
I am in a tizzy worrying about it !!!!

If you have 3 times the minimum deposit do you think this would count towards the approval too ?

iguana

jdivision wrote:

They DO NOT pay say e240k and then sell it to somebody for e155k. What usually happens is they pay say e153k and sell it on for e155k.

But they would have brokered that deal with an understanding that they would get back money. This money would have been earmarked for something else.

Also with no incentive for the property owner to get the best price possible for their property, any crash comes faster and harder. How the hell is someone else who needs to sell expected to sell for more than €200k if the guy in the affordable house just sold for €155k.

The_Conductor

The other way of looking at it- if Mr. A who bought an affordable house at E155 goes on to subsequently sell it at E155, so he did not make a loss (take the councils finances out of the equation) he is back where he started. What happens when he goes to try to buy another house? He is no longer a FTB, and does not get favourable stamp duty treatment. In addition- does anyone genuinely believe that you would qualify for an affordable house a second time? So- he now has made no profit on the disposal of his principle primary residence, is no longer a FTB and no longere qualifies for assistance under either council housing schemes. Mr. A is up the creek......

iguana

smccarrick wrote:

Mr. A is up the creek......

Though less far up it than Mr B who bought in the same building for €310k as a regular punter and had his up for sale for €280k but now sees that his neighbour has just sold for €155k.

jdivision

iguana wrote:

But they would have brokered that deal with an understanding that they would get back money. This money would have been earmarked for something else.
.

No they wouldn't because if you sell after a certain amount of time there is no clawback. They also have no idea what the market price would be if you were to sell or even when you would sell.

The_Conductor

jdivision wrote:

No they wouldn't because if you sell after a certain amount of time there is no clawback. They also have no idea what the market price would be if you were to sell or even when you would sell.

Absolute values are used in the clawback calculations- inflation is not factored in. So- in a flat market, with inflation rates of 5% real values is falling by 5% p.a. but absolute values are a constant. To avail of no-clawback, you have to keep the property for a 10 year period- in a falling or a constant market you could end up stuck for a significant sum, even though your property has fallen in real values.

jdivision

smccarrick wrote:

Absolute values are used in the clawback calculations- inflation is not factored in.

Who suggested it was. I was highlighting that iguana's post was factually incorrect.

podge018

Ha ha, the lads are clutching at straws now.

No matter how we answer your questions you come back with a "but... but...", let it go, have you a want in you or something?

iguana

jdivision wrote:

No they wouldn't because if you sell after a certain amount of time there is no clawback. They also have no idea what the market price would be if you were to sell or even when you would sell.

All businesses, councils included, work on projected budgets and estimates of possible incomes over, usually, 5 year periods. Councils often have plans in the pipeline that rely on projected incomes and if those incomes don't come in to being those projects get downscaled or cancelled. At which point the taxpayer suffers.

Very few people will live in an Irish apartment for 20 years, so the councils would most certainly be expecting clawback on a number of the properties. However I can believe that there was possibly no proper precautions taken against negative equity as it may not have been forseen.

But the assertation that if a seller of an affordable property sells at the amount they bought for nobody loses out is wrong. Those who paid full price for similar properties suffer if they want to sell and the tax-payer suffers as the council has less than projected income.