Affordable Housing Fingal / Kildare 'AHI'

Drapper

Guys, just to let you know I beleive Fingal have a small number of AHI properties in D15 that might be of interest. They are located in Erris Square and Latchford....... might be worth a call! http://www.fingalcoco.ie/LivingInFingal/Housing/AffordableHousingInitiative/

Also, there is also a small number of units in CElbridge that Kildare County Council have advertised with the Affordable Homes PArtnership http://www.affordablehome.ie/home/index.aspx?id=477

Thought I'd keep yis all posted! :D

Cantab.

Drapper wrote:

Guys, just to let you know I beleive Fingal have a small number of AHI properties in D15 that might be of interest. They are located in Erris Square and Latchford....... might be worth a call! http://www.fingalcoco.ie/LivingInFingal/Housing/AffordableHousingInitiative/

Also, there is also a small number of units in CElbridge that Kildare County Council have advertised with the Affordable Homes PArtnership http://www.affordablehome.ie/home/index.aspx?id=477

Thought I'd keep yis all posted! :D

Nothing like an air of 'exclusivity' and a 'limited offer' to round up those bargain-hunters susceptible to text-book sales techniques.

Isn't it amazing the affordable housing scheme, after a stuttering start, manages to get itself into 5th gear once the property market begins to look like my senile 19 year-old cat (god love her - she's becoming very expensive too...)

PeakOutput

Income Limits: Single up to €60,000 / Joint €165,000 (multiplier applies).

allowing a couple earning that much to take advantage of an affordable housing scheme is laughable tbh

Cantab.

PeakOutput wrote:

allowing a couple earning that much to take advantage of an affordable housing scheme is laughable tbh

Even more laughable is the philosophy behind the whole affordable housing scheme.

Why is the government subsidising individuals in the purchase an asset worth hundreds of thousands of Euro?

Why not let the market dictate? There are thousands of empty properties in Ireland, house prices are dropping and the outlook is good for buyers.

Ownership of an asset a privilige, not a right!

It's becoming increasingly difficult for the gubberment to justify spending money on affordable housing for middle-class workers, when the money should be being spent on providing nice council housing for those in need.

This country is one big joke.

PeakOutput

Cantab. wrote:

This country is one big joke.

nah its not really

affordable housing is a good thing but it should be a bigger discount for less people than it is now.

there is no need for social housing as it is at the moment but thats the subject of another thread already.

Cantab.

PeakOutput wrote:

affordable housing is a good thing but it should be a bigger discount for less people than it is now.

How is affordable housing a 'good thing'? How can you justify discounts at all? Have you seen the state of some of the apartments that are being built in Ireland? These kips are being bought off developers by local authorities in the name of the grandious 'affordable housing scheme', to be flogged off to the blinded bunny rabbits.

PeakOutput

Cantab. wrote:

How is affordable housing a 'good thing'? How can you justify discounts at all? Have you seen the state of some of the apartments that are being built in Ireland? These kips are being bought off developers by local authorities in the name of the grandious 'affordable housing scheme', to be flogged off to the blinded bunny rabbits.

ok



your previous posts make interesting reading too definitely a common theme of not giving a **** about anyone else or society in general

Cantab.

PeakOutput wrote:

ok



your previous posts make interesting reading too definitely a common theme of not giving a **** about anyone else or society in general

I'm sure you'd like to elaborate on why subsidising a middle-class person to buy an asset worth several hundred thousand € is a good thing for society?

Supercell

PeakOutput wrote:

allowing a couple earning that much to take advantage of an affordable housing scheme is laughable tbh

Its almost laughable yes - if I didn't laugh I'd want to cry.
What on gods green earth is the government doing subsidising people earning these kinds of incomes which are far in excess of the average wage?!!

I'd call it utter madness if it wasn't so bloody obvious that this has completely zero to do with "affordable" housing and more to do with helping their friends in the building industry , just look at these prices for two bed apartments :-

The Coast, Baldoyle, Dublin 13 (View Photos)
Prices from €255,000 - €280,000.

Heywood Court, Santry, Dublin 9 (View Photos)
Prices from €259,950 - €270,000

Carrington, Santry, Dublin 9 (View Photos)
Prices from €249,675 - €279,225

I'd be amazed if the builder still isn't making a tidy profit shifting these at these prices (no doubt he cannot shift them at all at the prices he's quoting to the general public).
Imho, in a few years 2 beds in these areas will be below these prices for everyone and represent a staggeringly bad way to loose your ftb status.

PeakOutput

Cantab. wrote:

I'm sure you'd like to elaborate on why subsidising a middle-class person to buy an asset worth several hundred thousand € is a good thing for society?

the first thing I said was that the limits should be lowered to remove the upper echolons of the middle class being able to slip in.....ie the couples earning close to 100K a year.

secondly there is a system in place that makes it un-worthwhile(unless there is another property explosion but that ship has sailed for the forseeable future) to sell the house for the first 20 years(I assume it gets more worthwhile as the years go on but it is after 20 years that you have free reign with what you do with the house) therefore I would not consider it an asset in the traditional sense until that time period is up.


It is a method of helping people who have not benefited aswell as some from the booming economy. sure they are getting paid more but the property boom is a direct result of everyone getting paid more and they are at the arse end of it so cant afford a house despite having better than average wages. This evens out the wealth in the country by stopping the landlords sucking up all the money and accumilating more assets unfettered thus perpetuating the cycle. better spread wealth is good for the country as a whole.

PeakOutput

Longfield wrote:

I'd be amazed if the builder still isn't making a tidy profit shifting these at these prices

thats not how it works


the builder sells them to the council at cost price and the council adds on a bit to cover administration(apparently) the developer gets its costs covered for these houses and nothing more they make their profits on the other houses in the development (admittedly im sure the costs are padded out a "bit")

Supercell

PeakOutput wrote:

thats not how it works


the builder sells them to the council at cost price.....(admittedly im sure the costs are padded out a "bit")

I'm sure that there's more than a "little" padding going on here, and in many cases I'm sure these a very tidy wink, wink, nod, nod arrangement going on too.
I have zero trust in our government where the construction industry is concerned - the two are totally interlinked and dependant on each other.

FF and FG imho are nothing more than the political wing of the construction industry in Ireland...but that's going of topic and for another forum!

PeakOutput

Longfield wrote:

I'm sure that there's more than a "little" padding going on here, and in many cases I'm sure these a very tidy wink, wink, nod, nod arrangement going on too.
I have zero trust in our government where the construction industry is concerned - the two are totally interlinked and dependant on each other.

FF and FG imho are nothing more than the political wing of the construction industry in Ireland...but that's going of topic and for another forum!

you can't compare illegal activity with legislation though. if there is illegal activity going on(maybe there is it would not particularly suprise me) it should be stopped obviously it does not change the fact the legislation is generally sound

Cantab.

PeakOutput wrote:

the first thing I said was that the limits should be lowered to remove the upper echolons of the middle class being able to slip in.....ie the couples earning close to 100K a year.

What would your income limit be so?

PeakOutput wrote:

secondly there is a system in place that makes it un-worthwhile(unless there is another property explosion but that ship has sailed for the forseeable future) to sell the house for the first 20 years(I assume it gets more worthwhile as the years go on but it is after 20 years that you have free reign with what you do with the house) therefore I would not consider it an asset in the traditional sense until that time period is up.

If I've deciphered what you've said correctly, you're arguing that it's a sort of asset. An affordable house is still an asset.

If you consider that an affordable home owner is subject to a clawback clause, and offset this against the fact that the county council will effectively pay for your depreciation in the event of a property downturn: this is something that is not available to a house-buyer in the free market.

Why does the taxpayer need to subsidise the ownership of an asset at all?

Why should the taxpayer pay for the risk in the event of an affordable home-owner's home depreciating?

PeakOutput wrote:

It is a method of helping people who have not benefited aswell as some from the booming economy.

There are loads of opportunities for anyone out there with a bit of cop-on. You don't even need to go to university these days to make a fortune. Some of the richest people I know are plumbers and air-conditioning installers.

PeakOutput wrote:

sure they are getting paid more but the property boom is a direct result of everyone getting paid more and they are at the arse end of it so cant afford a house despite having better than average wages.

So? You snooze, you lose. The people you talk about can rent for about 2/3 the cost of an equivalent mortgage, enabling them to live in a nice place, closer to the city. Since when is ownership a right?

PeakOutput wrote:

This evens out the wealth in the country by stopping the landlords sucking up all the money and accumilating more assets unfettered thus perpetuating the cycle. better spread wealth is good for the country as a whole.

So? Landlords took on risk. They won. Many recent landlords could find themselves in serious trouble with negative equity and empty properties. Live by the sword, die by the sword, reap the benefits. There's nothing stopping you, me or anybody else becoming a landlord if we really wanted to.

PeakOutput

Cantab. wrote:

So? You snooze, you lose. The people you talk about can rent for about 2/3 the cost of an equivalent mortgage, enabling them to live in a nice place, closer to the city. Since when is ownership a right?

theres no particular point i disagree with you on(im in favour of as close to a free market as possible qithout completely screwing people into the ground) HOWEVER if you take your thinking to the extreme you have what?

two very seperate and distinct classes with little or no chance of improving your circumstances,which, unless im mixing up my posters on the other thread, you were saying is a bad thing. What do you think the tax payers money SHOULD be spent on if not the improving of society.

Cantab.

PeakOutput wrote:

theres no particular point i disagree with you on(im in favour of as close to a free market as possible qithout completely screwing people into the ground) HOWEVER if you take your thinking to the extreme you have what?

Ok, so you don't disagree with me. I hope I've convinced you then.

You're wrong to comment that my thinking is extreme. If you're all for the hand-out culture and government dependency mentality, fine. Why don't you just say so? Anybody should be able to participate in the free market - those not able to do this (for whatever reason) should be facilitated in participating in the economy. How subsidising these people's personal wealth to the tune of thousands of Euro will achieve this aim is beyond me.

PeakOutput wrote:

two very seperate and distinct classes with little or no chance of improving your circumstances,which, unless im mixing up my posters on the other thread, you were saying is a bad thing. What do you think the tax payers money SHOULD be spent on if not the improving of society.

What? Whatever institute educated you should be ashamed of themselves.

On taxpayers' money: hospitals, infrastructure, education, etc. Money should not be spent on subsidising the personal wealth of individuals simply because they're lower middle-class -- you must participate in the economy and (theoretically) add value to become individually wealthy.

PeakOutput

I didnt say your thinking was extreme I said if you take it to its extreme.

giving people handouts does not work......give a man a fish and all that jazz.

helping people in certain situations does work.

What?

are you incapable of reading what I said?

Whatever institute educated you should be ashamed of themselves.

or are you getting at me for spelling/punctuation/grammar used on an internet forum?

On taxpayers' money: hospitals, infrastructure, education, etc. Money should not be spent on subsidising the personal wealth of individuals simply because they're lower middle-class -- you must participate in the economy and (theoretically) add value to become individually wealthy.

none of things are suffering because of the affordable housing initiative(you can say infrastructure can be better etc but thats bad management not lack of money)


there are loads of parts of the social welfare system i think should be changed to move away from the hand out culture i just dont think this particular initiative is a bad idea in theory the way it has been put into practice is far from perfect but in theory it costs the government very very little and benefits a lot of people (it could benefit even more)

jdivision

PeakOutput wrote:

thats not how it works


the builder sells them to the council at cost price and the council adds on a bit to cover administration(apparently) the developer gets its costs covered for these houses and nothing more they make their profits on the other houses in the development (admittedly im sure the costs are padded out a "bit")

I think there are developers making profits on affordable housing in DCC area at least. If you look at the starting prices for that place out by Clare Hall when they first came on the market (name escapes me but Meadows & Byrne is based there) they're not that different from the prices being charged for the affordable units.