Empty houses in Galway

snubbleste

According to the City Council's Kevin Swift, there are just over 4,000 cases/people on the social housing waiting list in Galway city. Some for over 10 years.
Today's Sentinel quotes Census figures that there are just under 4,000 vacant properties within the city, or in another way, 1 in 9 dwellings are empty. http://www.galwaynews.ie/20303-charity-%E2%80%98stunned%E2%80%99-almost-4000-city-homes-lie-vacant

Solution?

Do you have to be on the social housing list to claim rent allowance?

Iwannahurl

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have to be on the social housing list to claim rent allowance?

I have no idea. If such is the case, would that inflate the social housing list and lengthen waiting times?

snubbleste

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have to be on the social housing list to claim rent allowance?

No, it's either 6 months previously renting or be assessed for Housing.

JohnCleary

But is the Council going to hand property owners rental money for these houses?

You hardly expect property owners to just hand over a house for nothing

celty

Well, it is a known fact that houses and apartments actually deteriorate more when they are left vacant. If the current situation continues for five to ten years, Galway will have an awful lot of derelict buildings.

Presumably this figure includes all vacant houses and apartments, including new ones in 'ghost estates' in Doughiska and Knocknacarra, partially built dwellings, and abandoned old houses in areas such as Bohermore, where there is a whole line of them on the main street across from the graveyard.

Perhaps there is a need for some sort of NAMA to cater exclusively for vacant houses. If people could rent them directly from the Government for a nominal or reduced fee - especially those that belong to greedy landlords who've gone into receivership - then virtually everyone would be happy.

The person or landlord who has abandoned or been forced to give up a property would not really care.

The recevier could hand it over to an agency instead of looking for tenants which is not his or her job.

The tenant could get a decent place for cheaper rent than on the open private market. People who are eligible for social or local authority housing know they are not going to get one from the Council any time soon at any rate.

Such an agency could earn money to go towards paying off the national debt.

Almost everyone would be a winner, instead of the current crazy situation where there are hundreds looking for houses and hundreds of empty houses in the same small city.

mikemac

That already exists, called the RAS scheme

Proporties are inspected and brought up to standard.
The council negotiates a rate but it's definitely not a nominal fee, it's market rate or slightly less.
And the tenant will have a long term home and pay rent to the council.
A lot of landlords are approaching the councils looking for guaranteed rent. But the councils have no money.

You're talking about renting property that have been seized from bankrupts.
Those are usually sold off to pay debts, not rented

snubbleste

Slightly off my own topic..
The Census figures show there are 33,826 dwellings in the city and of those 3,839 are vacant.
The figures from the Non-Principal Private Residence charges suggest that 10,645 paid the charge in 2010 and suggestions that the true figure could be closer to 15,000.

That suggests that at least a third of housing stock is rental accomodation or second homes or empty, bearing in mind Nppr excludes council dwellings, RAS dwellings and other exclusions.

Sponge Bob

snubbleste wrote: »

That suggests that at least a third of housing stock is rental accomodation or second homes or empty, bearing in mind Nppr excludes council dwellings, RAS dwellings and other exclusions.

NPPR also excludes empty new builds ( ie still in the hands of the developer or NAMA) and properties where the ESB was disconnected too I hear.

Iwannahurl

snubbleste wrote: »

No, it's either 6 months previously renting or be assessed for Housing.

Are you sure about that? I mentioned this to a Councillor today, and he said that the social housing list includes people who are on it to qualify for rent allowance.

TBH, I have no idea what the situation is.

snubbleste

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Are you sure about that? I mentioned this to a Councillor today, and he said that the social housing list includes people who are on it to qualify for rent allowance. TBH, I have no idea what the situation is.

Yeah, it's here. The list does include people who are only on it to get rent supplement as well, but it's not a requirement.

johnnyk66

A lot of the empty houses and apts are holiday homes used by the owners during the summer or for the races & weekends are not available for rent.

maybe there should be an extra levey on these properties:rolleyes:

Iwannahurl

snubbleste wrote: »

Yeah, it's here. The list does include people who are only on it to get rent supplement as well, but it's not a requirement.

Thanks.

Since it's not a requirement, I wonder how many people on the social housing list are there because of it.

Getting back to your OP, it is remarkable how in our (often discordant) mixed economy that we can have so many vacant homes and yet so many people needing to be housed.

JohnCleary

johnnyk66 wrote: »

maybe there should be an extra levey on these properties:rolleyes:

Why, because people are in a position to have an extra property they should have even more levy's put on them? Get real. People with a 2nd (or more) property already pay an NPPR charge.

Get real.

Webbs

JohnCleary wrote: »

Why, because people are in a position to have an extra property they should have even more levy's put on them? Get real. People with a 2nd (or more) property already pay an NPPR charge.

Get real.

The point could always be argued that a second property is an investment and is therefore a fair target for additional levies/taxes thereby getting more money from the more well off in society.

JohnCleary

Webbs wrote: »

The point could always be argued that a second property is an investment and is therefore a fair target for additional levies/taxes thereby getting more money from the more well off in society.

And what if it's not an investment? ie. holiday home

Everything can be argued, doesn't mean it's true.

As it is, there is additional taxes incoming in from the property (stamp duty, VAT on bills, bills themselves etc.)

Don't forget that the 2nd property will need to be maintained, thus helping the local economy by employing landscapers etc.

Webbs

JohnCleary wrote: »

And what if it's not an investment? ie. holiday home

Everything can be argued, doesn't mean it's true.

As it is, there is additional taxes incoming in from the property (stamp duty, VAT on bills, bills themselves etc.)

Don't forget that the 2nd property will need to be maintained, thus helping the local economy by employing landscapers etc.

I know this is taking the thread off topic. But if its a holiday home it would in most cases again be those that are the more well off in society (esp if you can afford landscapers to look after your property!!). If I have 150k in the bank in savings I would pay DIRT etc on it so there should be at least the equivalent paid if you have a second home (be it holiday home or not).

Again apologies for taking it off topic a bit

saa

Webbs wrote: »

The point could always be argued that a second property is an investment and is therefore a fair target for additional levies/taxes thereby getting more money from the more well off in society.

You're right but sure didn't most people think of their first houses as an investment as well and look where we are, if someone bought a property to make money they deserve to pay those charges. If you expect to make money, expect to lose it to.

Mrs OBumble

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Getting back to your OP, it is remarkable how in our (often discordant) mixed economy that we can have so many vacant homes and yet so many people needing to be housed.

I think you'll find that the vast majority of them are already quite adequately housed.

At the time they got onto the housing list, they were paying a too-large proportion (by someone's reckoning) of their income for rent. Some (no one knows how many) are still on the list and assessed as needing housing on this basis, even though their income has gone up a lot in the intervening years.

According to the media, Galway County Councillors were recently told that people from the list would be re-assessed to see if they are still in housing need at the time when they're being offered a house. However Galway City Councillors were told that this was not going to happen.

snubbleste

Income guidelines have been revised for eligibility for Galway city.
If you are single person household, you need to be earning less than €25,000
2 adults is €26,250 3 adults €27,500
After that you are not eligible. http://www.environ.ie/en/DevelopmentHousing/Housing/RHLegislation/FileDownLoad,25575,en.pdf

Mrs OBumble

Note that is after tax, and doesn't include child allowance .... so its more than it sounds