FG Unearths some interesting North County Stats on Housing.

AlekSmart

Councillor Dennison appears to have elicited some quite interesting statistical information here.....

http://www.kierandennison.com/2011/02/over-half-on-fingal-housing-list-are.html

The total number on the housing list is now at 8,144 an increase of 22% on the 6,691 on the list a year ago.

Single parents on the list have risen by 28% to 3,480 and now account for 43% of those waiting to be housed.

There are a total of 4,108 applicants seeking social housing support with Fingal County Council of non-Irish nationality. Of this group, there are currently a total of 2,362 applicants who are of non-EU nationality.

Figures supplied to me by the HSE revealed that over half a billion was paid out in rent supplement in 2009. Half of all residential rents in Ireland are now paid for by the state.”

Phew....thats some collection of interesting statistics for,but ONE,local authority in this green and pleasant Republic.

Now,notwithstanding the good Councillor`s Political Affiliation,are there not some rather difficult questions arising here as to how this "waiting-list" is to be eliminated.....how this elimination process is to be funded....and who will be funding it ?

If this trend can be shown to prevail across the Countryside,then we appear to have one hell of a problem simmering away just beyond the pale...Now it will be interesting to see what,if any,attention Councillor Dennison`s Parliamentary Party to-be will pay to the isses(s)

gandalf

How many unoccupied apartments and housing units have NAMA taken over the loans for?

TBH whatever Government comes into power should consider seizing those properties and housing the waiting lists in them. We should also be scrapping any rent allowances at this stage as well. There is no way the Government should be subsidising half of the rental market in Ireland and artificially inflate the cost of rent for everyone.

the groutch

gandalf wrote: »

How many unoccupied apartments and housing units have NAMA taken over the loans for?

TBH whatever Government comes into power should consider seizing those properties and housing the waiting lists in them. We should also be scrapping any rent allowances at this stage as well. There is no way the Government should be subsidising half of the rental market in Ireland and artificially inflate the cost of rent for everyone.

was reading a RBB (people before profit) leaflet today, and that was one of his proposed changes

gandalf

the groutch wrote: »

was reading a RBB (people before profit) leaflet today, and that was one of his proposed changes

Well there is no way that the Government should be subsidising the rental market to the tune it is. If RBB is in favour of scrapping rent subsidies then fair play to him.

The other question that has to be asked is of that number of "applicants who are of non-EU nationality" is how many are waiting for a decision on their residency status in this country. If it is the vast majority then there is a very strong arguement to speed up the processing of these applications to reduce this number as well.

yoshytoshy

I was thinking that a portion of the housing that lies idle should be turned into retirement areas for elderly people. Having a small care centre with a nurses etc adjoined.
Let people free up capital that would otherwise lie idle.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

Well there is no way that the Government should be subsidising the rental market to the tune it is. If RBB is in favour of scrapping rent subsidies then fair play to him.

The other question that has to be asked is of that number of "applicants who are of non-EU nationality" is how many are waiting for a decision on their residency status in this country. If it is the vast majority then there is a very strong arguement to speed up the processing of these applications to reduce this number as well.

You can't apply for housing until your status has been approved. If they are on the list, then they've been granted refugee status.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

You can't apply for housing until your status has been approved. If they are on the list, then they've been granted refugee status.

Fair enough, it is not an area I have done too much research on so I have learnt something new tonight.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

Fair enough, it is not an area I have done too much research on so I have learnt something new tonight.

Unforunately you'll have normally trustworthy folk swear blind that they are, as well as the 'free car' nonsense.
http://www.nccri.ie/pdf/MythsRefugees-AsylumSeekers.pdf

I forgot to add that they aren't entitled to rent allowance either.

gandalf

I have no problem with them getting allowances if they are entitled to them.

I have a serious problem with the state paying rent allowance subsidising the rental sector for everyone no matter what their race or creed is especially as we technically own a large swath of unoccupied housing via NAMA that will not sell or if it does sell will not get anywhere near its loaned value.

Surely we can use this stock and end the artificial prop to rental prices in this state and reduce costs for all those who rent accordingly.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

I have no problem with them getting allowances if they are entitled to them.

I have a serious problem with the state paying rent allowance subsidising the rental sector for everyone no matter what their race or creed is especially as we technically own a large swath of unoccupied housing via NAMA that will not sell or if it does sell will not get anywhere near its loaned value.

Surely we can use this stock and end the artificial prop to rental prices in this state and reduce costs for all those who rent accordingly.

Well it could be done. However a policy like that would be deemed a 'radical' move and I can't imagine it happening under either FG or an FG/Independent, FG/Labour coalition.

Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

gandalf

Nodin wrote: »

Well it could be done. However a policy like that would be deemed a 'radical' move and I can't imagine it happening under either FG or an FG/Independent, FG/Labour coalition.

Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.

Yep I agree but then again trying to find savings every avenue will have to be pursued.

It certainly would piss off a lot of landlords but then again if they bought property as an investment how does that advert warnings go, investments can go down as well as up.

Also removing rent allowance will simplify and reduce the workload on the Department of Social Protection and free up resources that can be reallocated elsewhere or downsized (fired!).

P. Breathnach

gandalf wrote: »

...
I have a serious problem with the state paying rent allowance subsidising the rental sector for everyone no matter what their race or creed is especially as we technically own a large swath of unoccupied housing via NAMA that will not sell or if it does sell will not get anywhere near its loaned value.

Surely we can use this stock and end the artificial prop to rental prices in this state and reduce costs for all those who rent accordingly.

It's not so simple.

First NAMA doesn't own the houses/apartments. It owns the lender's interest in loans secured on those properties. Of course many borrowers are defaulting, and that means the claim on the property can be exercised. Then NAMA owns the property, but NAMA has no role in providing social housing. So NAMA would have to transfer the property to some other agency and, under its rules, it would have to do so at a reasonable price. Okay, it's a bit like transferring money from one of your pockets to another one, but the seemingly-simple situation is getting more complicated.

Removing the prop from rental prices has a downside as well as an upside. The upside is that all those who pay rent could reasonably hope for rents to fall, reducing their costs. The biggest saver would be the exchequer. But... (1) landlords who are just about getting by would find the arithmetic turning against them, and there might be an increase in mortgage defaults; (2) property prices would fall even more rapidly, exacerbating the impact of mortgage defaults. In addition, the assets backing NAMA's loans would also fall in value, making the eventual loss for NAMA even greater than is now projected.

I am not suggesting that it is wrong to use the NAMA-linked properties to provide social housing. It looks like one of those solutions that is staring us in the face. My concern is that it would need to be implemented very carefully, or we might be creating further problems for ourselves.

Nodin

gandalf wrote: »

Yep I agree but then again trying to find savings every avenue will have to be pursued.

It certainly would piss off a lot of landlords but then again if they bought property as an investment how does that advert warnings go, investments can go down as well as up.

........

Unforunately theres an adage about what direction the faeces rolls, too.

Given the abject deference shown to property owners earning from rent after the last budget with regards delaying new measures, its safe to say they aren't going to be hit with their own any time soon. (I doubt FG will be any different).

thebman

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not so simple.

First NAMA doesn't own the houses/apartments. It owns the lender's interest in loans secured on those properties. Of course many borrowers are defaulting, and that means the claim on the property can be exercised. Then NAMA owns the property, but NAMA has no role in providing social housing. So NAMA would have to transfer the property to some other agency and, under its rules, it would have to do so at a reasonable price. Okay, it's a bit like transferring money from one of your pockets to another one, but the seemingly-simple situation is getting more complicated.

Removing the prop from rental prices has a downside as well as an upside. The upside is that all those who pay rent could reasonably hope for rents to fall, reducing their costs. The biggest saver would be the exchequer. But... (1) landlords who are just about getting by would find the arithmetic turning against them, and there might be an increase in mortgage defaults; (2) property prices would fall even more rapidly, exacerbating the impact of mortgage defaults. In addition, the assets backing NAMA's loans would also fall in value, making the eventual loss for NAMA even greater than is now projected.

I am not suggesting that it is wrong to use the NAMA-linked properties to provide social housing. It looks like one of those solutions that is staring us in the face. My concern is that it would need to be implemented very carefully, or we might be creating further problems for ourselves.

Well in fairness that is just the state learning not to interfere so heavily in the market in the first place.

It is ridiculous to expect renters to pay tax and excess rents so we don't end up with landlords having problems paying their mortgages.

These people are usually much wealthier than the people renting so to ask those renters to pay to keep their landlords in the lifestyle they are accustomed to is a bit ridiculous.

We have a wave of defaults coming anyway that will cripple the country so TBH I don't even see the point of trying to prop up this one section since we can't afford to anyway. They took the risk and will have to take the pain.

Taxpayer can't rescue everyone (can't rescue anyone at this point).

gandalf

thebman wrote: »

Well in fairness that is just the state learning not to interfere so heavily in the market in the first place.

It is ridiculous to expect renters to pay tax and excess rents so we don't end up with landlords having problems paying their mortgages.

These people are usually much wealthier than the people renting so to ask those renters to pay to keep their landlords in the lifestyle they are accustomed to is a bit ridiculous.

We have a wave of defaults coming anyway that will cripple the country so TBH I don't even see the point of trying to prop up this one section since we can't afford to anyway. They took the risk and will have to take the pain.

Taxpayer can't rescue everyone (can't rescue anyone at this point).

Precisely rather than prolonging the pain and keeping the market artificially inflated get it all worked out of the system in a short sharp shock.

P. Breathnach

gandalf wrote: »

Precisely rather than prolonging the pain and keeping the market artificially inflated get it all worked out of the system in a short sharp shock.

Short sharp shocks are not always the best way to go. If there is a workable choice between a short sharp shock and a gentler type of adjustment, I would generally prefer the gentler option.

thebman

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Short sharp shocks are not always the best way to go. If there is a workable choice between a short sharp shock and a gentler type of adjustment, I would generally prefer the gentler option.

Except that can cause more long term economic damage depending on the circumstance.

In this case, I simply think we don't have any other choice. There is neither the will from the taxpayer to do this nor the money available to do it so it simply isn't doable IMHO.

The property market is eventually going to have to properly collapse and hit bottom. At the moment, we basically have a barely functioning, zombie property market IMO.