Ghost Estates/Housing lists/Rent Allowance - can we not join the dots?

Bannasidhe

This came up on a thread about the dole being cut and during a discussion on Rent allowance I made the following comment - tweaked a bit here:

I have said this many times - RA is primarily a source of revenue for private landlords but many people look at it as income for SW recipients as it pays for much of their accommodation costs. Understandably this leads to resentment among those who get no subsidy towards their housing costs and increases dependency on SW for those who would, without RA, have to meet all of their housing costs necessitating that should they become employed it would have to be 'worth their while'. Basic SW payment works out at less the 10k p.a - but factor in RA and we are looking at 15 -20 k p.a depending on circumstances. So a starting salary of 25 - 30 k is seen by many as necessary to make up for loss of various allowances.

Now, there was a time when State subsidies like RA were necessary due to a lack of housing available via local authorities so people had no option but to seek private accommodation. The insane thing is that this situation still exists even as we have whole housing estates virtually empty which are owned by the State via NAMA.

We have empty housing. A proportion of this is nearly completed while some is little more then shells. All of it is being allowed to decay - even on estates which some of the housing is currently occupied. The result is dangerous eyesores dotting the countryside.
We have skilled construction workers on the dole.
We have skilled sub-contractors on the verge of bankruptcy.
We have millions being paid out in RA.

Why is it not possible to join the dots?

We could allow local authorities/housing associations to take possession of these houses. My preference would be housing associations as my experience of them is that they are far more efficient and cost conscious.
Employ the above mentioned construction workers to complete any outstanding work on the ghost houses/apts/estates.
Offer these houses etc to RA recipients who pay a rent according to their income (as happens in Local Authority housing) - no RA.
The empty houses would be generating an income (albeit small but still more then the present zero).
Housing that is currently being allowed to decay would be preserved and used. Unfinished houses could be completed rather then the proposed bulldozing.
The Local Authority waiting lists for housing would be slashed.
The RA bill would be significantly reduced saving the State millions per year.

Now I can see that this would impact on landlords who invested in the rental market - and I do realise that some of those are struggling to pay large mortgages but as the State is reluctant to aid owner occupiers struggling to pay mortgages except by applying short term band aids like the tax relief increase announced yesterday - what is the justification for aiding those who invested in property by giving them a guaranteed rental income via Rent Allowance?


Those in receipt of RA should be obliged to apply for these houses. The Housing Association to produce a list of houses with location/ date of availability. As different people have different needs (schools, transportation, proximity of family etc etc) every one gets to choose 3 possibilities - failure to accept any of these 3 would deem the person ineligible for RA

The removal of large numbers of RA claimants from the private rental market should also have a positive downward effect on rents charged to those who do not receive RA - no guaranteed income from the State = landlords reducing rents to attract self funded renters.

donalg1

As in the other thread.

Who is going to pay the construction workers though?

And who will then be responsible for the maintenance of these houses once occupied and who will be liable for the repairs carried out to get them to an adequate standard?

One problem with having a scheme similiar to the current Social Housing Schemes that exist through Local Authorities is the maintenance issue as the maintenance costs each year are larger than the income generated by the rents paid through the differential rent scheme.

Plus there is the factor of turning ghost estates into ghetto's like they created back in the 70's and 80's, and a lack of Social Integration is another issue to be considered.

Finnbar01

Some (if not a lot) of these ghost estates/aprts are in such poor state, it would cost a fourtune for the local authorities to fix them up and as you know money is very tight at the moment.

Also, consider that a lot of them are built out in the middle of nowhere and lack access to basic amenities.

Head The Wall

Rent allowance is surely though supposed to be a temporary solution until the country is back on it's feet. Most of these people would have paid their own rent originally and we should look to getting them back to that situation as soon as we can. I think if we get them all into social housing they will end up staying there and it will be bad for the country in general as this govt and the majority of its schemes get abused no end and it's other taxpayers that end up getting shafted.

Personally I have never even contemplated looking for social housing, I was always of the opinion that you have to provide for myself and just because you can abuse the system it doesn't mean you should.

Bannasidhe

Who is going to pay the construction workers though?

And who will then be responsible for the maintenance of these houses once occupied and who will be liable for the repairs carried out to get them to an adequate standard?

One problem with having a scheme similiar to the current Social Housing Schemes that exist through Local Authorities is the maintenance issue as the maintenance costs each year are larger than the income generated by the rents paid through the differential rent scheme.

Plus there is the factor of turning ghost estates into ghetto's like they created back in the 70's and 80's, and a lack of Social Integration is another issue to be considered.

As I said briefly in reply in the other thread - Local Authorities are wasteful, inefficient, and costly - which is why I would advocate that Housing Associations such as Cluid (http://www.cluid.ie/) run things. I have friends living in some of their schemes in Cork and so far (10 years in one case) there are not the problems of ghettoisation often found in Local Authority schemes. Their tenant rules are very strict and they will and do evict!

Organisations like Cluid already have the experience and knowledge required. We should use that.

Construction workers in receipt of SW could be offered an 'top up' of say 300 p.w. (similar to the jobsbridge scheme) to their SW payments.

Some (if not a lot) of these ghost estates/aprts are in such poor state, it would cost a fourtune for the local authorities to fix them up and as you know money is very tight at the moment.

Also, consider that a lot of them are built out in the middle of nowhere and lack access to basic amenities.

Some are yes - but not all. Plus some houses are near completion - start with renting out those to generate income while the rest are being finished.

Also - not all of them were built in the middle of nowhere - many were built close to small towns/villages like Cloyne in Cork.
People (again I have friends who live in such places ) bought there in the boom because it was affordable and within commuting distance of Cork. I am sure the same applies near Dublin, Galway etc.

People already live on many of these ghost estates - so them 'being in the middle of nowhere' is a bit of a straw argument IMHO.

MagicSean

NAMA owned ghost estates should be repaired by NAMA funds and then rented to social welfare by NAMA.

Chucky the tree

Nice idea but it would never work. I can only imagine the uproar Labour, Sinn Fein etc would kick up about Councils forcing a young Dublin mother being forced to moveo out down the country to live in NAMA houses. Does anyone have numbers of ghost estates that exist in Dublin? I doubt there is a lot of them.

MagicSean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nice idea but it would never work. I can only imagine the uproar Labour, Sinn Fein etc would kick up about Councils forcing a young Dublin mother being forced to moveo out down the country to live in NAMA houses. Does anyone have numbers of ghost estates that exist in Dublin? I doubt there is a lot of them.

I would struggle to care one bit about people who give out about where their free house is located.

Bannasidhe

Head The Wall wrote: »

Rent allowance is surely though supposed to be a temporary solution until the country is back on it's feet. Most of these people would have paid their own rent originally and we should look to getting them back to that situation as soon as we can. I think if we get them all into social housing they will end up staying there and it will be bad for the country in general as this govt and the majority of its schemes get abused no end and it's other taxpayers that end up getting shafted.

Personally I have never even contemplated looking for social housing, I was always of the opinion that you have to provide for myself and just because you can abuse the system it doesn't mean you should.

If the same rules re: amount of rent as for local authority housing are applied (assessed according to income) then those who return to employment will be paying more rent.

We have always had people claiming rent allowance - we have also had long waiting lists for local authority housing. We could deal with both of these in one go. Single people in particular have found it nearly impossible to get social housing - which is where organisations like Cluid come in. But most single people (unmarried, separated, divorced etc )on SW have no choice but to go private and claim RA. Now, as far as I am aware - NAMA also has apartments on its books of 1/2 bedroom units....

Finnbar01

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I said briefly in reply in the other thread - Local Authorities are wasteful, inefficient, and costly - which is why I would advocate that Housing Associations such as Cluid (http://www.cluid.ie/) run things. I have friends living in some of their schemes in Cork and so far (10 years in one case) there are not the problems of ghettoisation often found in Local Authority schemes. Their tenant rules are very strict and they will and do evict!

Organisations like Cluid already have the experience and knowledge required. We should use that.

Construction workers in receipt of SW could be offered an 'top up' of say 300 p.w. (similar to the jobsbridge scheme) to their SW payments.




Some are yes - but not all. Plus some houses are near completion - start with renting out those to generate income while the rest are being finished.

Also - not all of them were built in the middle of nowhere - many were built close to small towns/villages like Cloyne in Cork.
People (again I have friends who live in such places ) bought there in the boom because it was affordable and within commuting distance of Cork. I am sure the same applies near Dublin, Galway etc.

It would still cost a fortune to make these ghost estates suitable for people to live in.

People already live on many of these ghost estates - so them 'being in the middle of nowhere' is a bit of a straw argument IMHO.

That's true and its an aboslute nightmare for many because of lack of amenities such as public transport, pathways, street lighting etc.

Bannasidhe

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nice idea but it would never work. I can only imagine the uproar Labour, Sinn Fein etc would kick up about Councils forcing a young Dublin mother being forced to moveo out down the country to live in NAMA houses. Does anyone have numbers of ghost estates that exist in Dublin? I doubt there is a lot of them.

Jazus - you'd think moving out of Dublin was akin to moving to outer Mongolia.:rolleyes:

Does NAMA not own apartments in Dublin? It does own houses - they 'lent' them to the residents of Priory Hall....


Many have already people moved out of Dublin to buy in the commuter belt. So young Dublin Mum would be still be able to hear the dulcet Dubliese accent even...gasp...outside the Pale.


Plus - out of the approx 4.5 million people living in this sorry arse republic around 3 million already live outside Dublin .

Bannasidhe

Finnbar01 wrote: »

It would still cost a fortune to make these ghost estates suitable for people to live in.

RA is already costing us a fortune and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This way, we could at least see an end to that enormous expenditure within a few years. To continue with the present system will just continue the expenditure indefinitely.

That's true and its an aboslute nightmare for many because of lack of amenities such as public transport, pathways, street lighting etc.

These works could be completed. This would increase the value of the properties in the long term - at the moment they are plummeting.
An influx of people into these ghost estate would also mean an injection of money into the local economies - shops etc would benefit. It would breathe life into many struggling rural/semi-urban communities.

Pressure could also be placed on Bus Eireann to increase frequency of buses - or licences be granted to private firms for certain routes. Like the one that used (still does?) to run from Dun Laoghaire to Dublin Airport.

Chucky the tree

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jazus - you'd think moving out of Dublin was akin to moving to outer Mongolia.:rolleyes:

Does NAMA not own apartments in Dublin? It does own houses - they 'lent' them to the residents of Priory Hall....


Many have already people moved out of Dublin to buy in the commuter belt. So young Dublin Mum would be still be able to hear the dulcet Dubliese accent even...gasp...outside the Pale.


Plus - out of the approx 4.5 million people living in this sorry arse republic around 3 million already live outside Dublin .

I'd agree with you but I am just pointing out how unpopular this would be which in turn would not make it work.

Bannasidhe

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I'd agree with you but I am just pointing out how unpopular this would be which in turn would not make it work.

Then start it outside Dublin as a 'pilot' scheme?

sparkling sea

Bannasidhe wrote: »

RA is already costing us a fortune and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. This way, we could at least see an end to that enormous expenditure within a few years. To continue with the present system will just continue the expenditure indefinitely.


These works could be completed. This would increase the value of the properties in the long term - at the moment they are plummeting.
An influx of people into these ghost estate would also mean an injection of money into the local economies - shops etc would benefit. It would breathe life into many struggling rural/semi-urban communities.

Pressure could also be placed on Bus Eireann to increase frequency of buses - or licences be granted to private firms for certain routes. Like the one that used (still does?) to run from Dun Laoghaire to Dublin Airport.

Pressure to be put on Bus Eireann without establishing demand

Breathing life into struggling rural/ semi urban communites is not something we can afford. I live in the country but it really is at quite a cost to both myself and the state - if only I could get back into town.

People caught in negative equity, think perhaps I should give back the keys and get a house on a ghost estate in town - and there in lies the dilemma. Whats just, whats fair, what can we afford and who should carry the cost.

We as a county need to keep our cost down, we need to keep people in areas where infrastructure already exists, we can't afford to spend on new infrastructure - we aren't even properly maintaining what we have at the moment.

Who is going to maintain these estates if people move into them - how will they be policed, where will the children go to school and the problem goes on and on.

Perhaps developers who can afford it should bear the cost of taking down these estates. The govenment need to focus on housing people in cost effective rather than cost efficent areas

donalg1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I said briefly in reply in the other thread - Local Authorities are wasteful, inefficient, and costly - which is why I would advocate that Housing Associations such as Cluid (http://www.cluid.ie/) run things. I have friends living in some of their schemes in Cork and so far (10 years in one case) there are not the problems of ghettoisation often found in Local Authority schemes. Their tenant rules are very strict and they will and do evict!

Organisations like Cluid already have the experience and knowledge required. We should use that.

Construction workers in receipt of SW could be offered an 'top up' of say 300 p.w. (similar to the jobsbridge scheme) to their SW payments.




Some are yes - but not all. Plus some houses are near completion - start with renting out those to generate income while the rest are being finished.

Also - not all of them were built in the middle of nowhere - many were built close to small towns/villages like Cloyne in Cork.
People (again I have friends who live in such places ) bought there in the boom because it was affordable and within commuting distance of Cork. I am sure the same applies near Dublin, Galway etc.

People already live on many of these ghost estates - so them 'being in the middle of nowhere' is a bit of a straw argument IMHO.

Any dealings I have had with Housing Associations have not been great so give me the Local Authority any day but thats the problem for every person who says the Housing associations should do you will have one saying they shouldnt. Plus the amount of admin and control that would be involved would be too high for those employed by LA's and Housing Associations to take on without further recruitment which wont happen.

Plus who is going to pay the top up for the lads building these houses, public expenditure is way too high as is so increasing that wont really do any good. Then there is insurance and public liability etc...

And all of that is before you even start with who is responsible for the maintnenace of these houses once constructed the maintenance costs of LA housing now is massive far more than the amount of rent taken in from these houses and that is before arrears are even brought into the equation.

Chucky the tree

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Then start it outside Dublin as a 'pilot' scheme?

Well it's not just Dublin but all the cities. You'd need to look at how many avilable Nama houses are in Cork city centre, Galway etc. Most people wouldn't be happy if they had to move an hour outside of Cork City.

MagicSean

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well it's not just Dublin but all the cities. You'd need to look at how many avilable Nama houses are in Cork city centre, Galway etc. Most people wouldn't be happy if they had to move an hour outside of Cork City.

Then let them buy there own house. Plenty of people, myself included, had to move outside the cities to be able to afford a house and it hasn't done any harm.

Godge

There is some merit in this idea but....

(1) It should only be one of the options for dealing with the rent allowance issue
(2) I think the costs of upgrading and maintaining the ghost estates have been understimated. Some detailed costs based on local authority maintenance costs would be useful - anyone in a position to provide these?
(3) Most difficult is the location of the ghost estates. Most are in places that will never be lived in. Counties like Leitrim and Roscommon have the highest numbers, let's be honest, who wants to live there? The other issue is community size. With all due respect to any ghost estates in Cloyne in Cork, how sustainable is the long-term provision of bus and other services to low-density population areas like that? We must reverse the dispersed development policy of the last twenty years.
(4) 40% of the population live in the Dublin and Mid-East (Kildare, Wicklow and Meath) area. http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/Commentary%20part%201.pdf
You can take it that nearly 50% of people want to live in or near Dublin (once you include those in Louth, Longford, Laois, Offaly, Westmeath and Wexford who commute). As a result, a Dublin-based solution is really required.
(5) Where this idea might work is somewhere like Adamstown or Clongriffin. There is already infratructure in place. Community facilities have been put in place. Finishing off the planned estates in those areas would make a lot of sense in terms of housing families closer to Dublin. Similarly, unfinished apartment developments in central Dublin would do the same for single people/young couples/small families. However, this would probably cost even more and has the other problem that it would make the ghost estates outside Dublin even less viable (though bulldozing is probably necessary for quite a few)
(6) What we really need is some vision from NAMA as to how they see their property holdings working out, and not just in financial terms but how they will lead to sustainable urban living over the next ten to fifteen years that will creater a greater rate of return on existing infrastructure (DART, Luas, Dublin schools and colleges, hospitals) and mae future infrastructure (Dart Underground) more cost effective.
(7) Finally, if this and/or other schemes do get set up, it should become a condition of eligibility for rent allowance that you have been through these systems looking for housing. That can be extended out to existing rent allowance holders over time.

donalg1

If you want to sort the issue of Rent Allowance you just make people pay their own rent as in stop Rent Allowance or at least cut it massively as it is far too high now anyway, but hopefully they will do that when they review it as they have said they are going to do but I wont hold my breath given the backtrack they did on some of the other elements in the budget

Bannasidhe

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well it's not just Dublin but all the cities. You'd need to look at how many avilable Nama houses are in Cork city centre, Galway etc. Most people wouldn't be happy if they had to move an hour outside of Cork City.

A detailed housing development report, Resolving Unfinished Housing Developments, found that there were 23,250 complete and vacant dwellings and an additional 9,976 dwellings that are near complete across the country. The report also found that of the 2,846 housing developments that were inspected in the advisory group survey, just 33% were substantially complete and occupied.

http://thecorknews.ie/articles/%E2%82%AC150000-cork%E2%80%99s-ghost-estates

23,250 complete and vacant dwellings across the country = 23,250 dwelling ready to be occupied - 23,250 (plus any dependants) off R.A. at little/no cost to the State for construction.

9, 976 near complete across the country = 9,976 nearly ready to accept occupants = 9, 976 off RA at small cost to the State to complete construction.

Total = 33,226 dwellings that could be offered in the very short term (if not immediately) to RA claimants at little or no additional cost to the State.

If each of these claimants receives the max amount per single person per year for Cork (as a conservative guide amount : http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html#l62fd2) that would be 468 p.m x 12 = 5,616 p.a. x 33,226 = 186,597,216 or one hundred eighty-six million five hundred ninety-seven thousand two hundred sixteen (sweetest jazus - someone tell me my maths are wrong!!! :eek::eek::eek:) savings on RA.

Apparently

In total the Government is to spend €1.5m in over 2,000 ghost estates around the country, with Cork County harbouring over 170 of these.

- So there are 170 ghost estates in Cork alone and we are already spending 1.5 million across the country on 2,000 of these unoccupied estates.....

A large amount of money is already being spent....
Over 23,000 dwelling are already completed...
Close to a further 10,000 are nearly completed....

Can I just say over one hundred eighty-six million five hundred ninety-seven thousand two hundred sixteen euro per year possible saving to the State again

Bannasidhe

donalg1 wrote: »

If you want to sort the issue of Rent Allowance you just make people pay their own rent as in stop Rent Allowance or at least cut it massively as it is far too high now anyway, but hopefully they will do that when they review it as they have said they are going to do but I wont hold my breath given the backtrack they did on some of the other elements in the budget

If rent allowance were to be stopped without an alternative system being put it place that would inevitably lead to a massive increase in homelessness and all the attendant associated problems.
We would have slum 'villages'.
We would see a rise in crime rates, illness associated with poverty, hypothermia and malnutrition.

How would these now homeless people ever hope to gain unemployment?

Do we re-open industrial schools for homeless children?
Workhouses?

If we were to simply cut off RA we may as well hand the keys back to England and say 'sorry - we appear to have rejoined the 19th century.'

donalg1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If rent allowance were to be stopped without an alternative system being put it place that would inevitably lead to a massive increase in homelessness and all the attendant associated problems.
We would have slum 'villages'.
We would see a rise in crime rates, illness associated with poverty, hypothermia and malnutrition.

How would these now homeless people ever hope to gain unemployment?

Do we re-open industrial schools for homeless children?
Workhouses?

If we were to simply cut off RA we may as well hand the keys back to England and say 'sorry - we appear to have rejoined the 19th century.'

But sure they wouldnt be homeless they could use their social welfare to pay their rent simple.

If we were simply to cut off RA we wouldnt be handing back the keys as you say we would be welcoming people people back to the real world.

I think a cut of 50% first would be the way to go anyway for those currently in receipt of it and any new people will have to start at the new rate.

Bannasidhe

donalg1 wrote: »

But sure they wouldnt be homeless they could use their social welfare to pay their rent simple.

If we were simply to cut off RA we wouldnt be handing back the keys as you say we would be welcoming people people back to the real world.

I think a cut of 50% first would be the way to go anyway for those currently in receipt of it and any new people will have to start at the new rate.

Given that a 1 bed flat in Cork costs 495 - 750 per month
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?s%5Bcc_id%5D=ct3&s%5Ba_id%5D%5B%5D=&s%5Broute_id%5D=&s%5Ba_id_transport%5D=0&s%5Bstreet_name%5D=&s%5Btxt%5D=&s%5Bmnp%5D=&s%5Bmxp%5D=&s%5Bmnb%5D=&s%5Bmxb%5D=1&s%5Bmnbt%5D=&s%5Bmxbt%5D=&s%5Bpt_id%5D=&s%5Bmove_in_date%5D=0&s%5Blease%5D=&s%5Bfurn%5D=0&s%5Bnpt_id%5D=&s%5Bdays_old%5D=&s%5Bsingle_beds%5D=&s%5Bdouble_beds%5D=&s%5Btwin_beds%5D=&s%5Bagreed%5D=&search.x=28&search.y=13&search=Search+%BB&more=&tab=&search=1&s%5Bsearch_type%5D=rental&s%5Btransport%5D=&s%5Badvanced%5D=&s%5Bprice_per_room%5D=&fr=default as SW is 752 - even if one got the cheapest flat available that would leave a person 257 a month or 64.25 a week to pay for everything else- I think we can safely say that there would be an increase in homelessness and its associated problems.

donalg1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that a 1 bed flat in Cork costs 495 - 750 per month
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?s%5Bcc_id%5D=ct3&s%5Ba_id%5D%5B%5D=&s%5Broute_id%5D=&s%5Ba_id_transport%5D=0&s%5Bstreet_name%5D=&s%5Btxt%5D=&s%5Bmnp%5D=&s%5Bmxp%5D=&s%5Bmnb%5D=&s%5Bmxb%5D=1&s%5Bmnbt%5D=&s%5Bmxbt%5D=&s%5Bpt_id%5D=&s%5Bmove_in_date%5D=0&s%5Blease%5D=&s%5Bfurn%5D=0&s%5Bnpt_id%5D=&s%5Bdays_old%5D=&s%5Bsingle_beds%5D=&s%5Bdouble_beds%5D=&s%5Btwin_beds%5D=&s%5Bagreed%5D=&search.x=28&search.y=13&search=Search+%BB&more=&tab=&search=1&s%5Bsearch_type%5D=rental&s%5Btransport%5D=&s%5Badvanced%5D=&s%5Bprice_per_room%5D=&fr=default as SW is 752 - even if one got the cheapest flat available that would leave a person 257 a month or 64.25 a week to pay for everything else- I think we can safely say that there would be an increase in homelessness and its associated problems.

64.25 sure thats plenty and thats a house in a city too which is quite good. Point is the government should not be paying all their rent for them and the tenant should be paying a lot more than they currently are at least 50% of what the state pays in rent for them. I just think that if you are getting 188 in your hand every week plus your rent paid for you why would you go back to work? RA is too big an incentive not to work for a lot of people. And yes I know there isnt a huge amount of jobs out there at the minute but if you arent going to look at RA then the standard rate of social welfare needs to be cut and should be done so on a sliding scale determined by the amount of time on SW. RA should be there for people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work overnight and should be made available to people for 12 months at the full amount then cut by 50% then cut altogether after that.

Bannasidhe

donalg1 wrote: »

64.25 sure thats plenty and thats a house in a city too which is quite good. Point is the government should not be paying all their rent for them and the tenant should be paying a lot more than they currently are at least 50% of what the state pays in rent for them. I just think that if you are getting 188 in your hand every week plus your rent paid for you why would you go back to work? RA is too big an incentive not to work for a lot of people. And yes I know there isnt a huge amount of jobs out there at the minute but if you arent going to look at RA then the standard rate of social welfare needs to be cut and should be done so on a sliding scale determined by the amount of time on SW. RA should be there for people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work overnight and should be made available to people for 12 months at the full amount then cut by 50% then cut altogether after that.

64.25 is not plenty.
It is a one bedroom flat - not a house.
The government is not paying all their rent - I agree the tenant should pay a greater contribution having seen that local authority tenants in same position can pay over 1,000 a year more in contributions to their rent.

As for your other proposals - I already know from other threads that you seem to believe anyone on SW should live on bread and dripping huddled around a candle.

What I do disagree with is the State paying out hundreds of millions to private landlords when there are currently over 23,000 homes vacant and completed lying empty which are owned by the State. Which is why I began this thread.

If you wish to discuss RA on it's own and discuss your slash and starve policies- please create a thread to do so.

antoobrien

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nice idea but it would never work. I can only imagine the uproar Labour, Sinn Fein etc would kick up about Councils forcing a young Dublin mother being forced to moveo out down the country to live in NAMA houses. Does anyone have numbers of ghost estates that exist in Dublin? I doubt there is a lot of them.

not an issue, fingal co co has something like 160 of them (a figure I remember from primetime sometime in the past year or so)

donalg1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

64.25 sure thats plenty and thats a house in a city too which is quite good. Point is the government should not be paying all their rent for them and the tenant should be paying a lot more than they currently are at least 50% of what the state pays in rent for them. I just think that if you are getting 188 in your hand every week plus your rent paid for you why would you go back to work? RA is too big an incentive not to work for a lot of people. And yes I know there isnt a huge amount of jobs out there at the minute but if you arent going to look at RA then the standard rate of social welfare needs to be cut and should be done so on a sliding scale determined by the amount of time on SW. RA should be there for people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work overnight and should be made available to people for 12 months at the full amount then cut by 50% then cut altogether after that.

64.25 is not plenty.
It is a one bedroom flat - not a house.
The government is not paying all their rent - I agree the tenant should pay a greater contribution having seen that local authority tenants in same position can pay over 1,000 a year more in contributions to their rent.

As for your other proposals - I already know from other threads that you seem to believe anyone on SW should live on bread and dripping huddled around a candle.

What I do disagree with is the State paying out hundreds of millions to private landlords when there are currently over 23,000 homes vacant and completed lying empty which are owned by the State. Which is why I began this thread.

If you wish to discuss RA on it's own and discuss your slash and starve policies- please create a thread to do so.

Slash and starve ok good one and where did I say that?

plasteritup

donalg1 wrote: »

64.25 sure thats plenty and thats a house in a city too which is quite good. Point is the government should not be paying all their rent for them and the tenant should be paying a lot more than they currently are at least 50% of what the state pays in rent for them. I just think that if you are getting 188 in your hand every week plus your rent paid for you why would you go back to work? RA is too big an incentive not to work for a lot of people. And yes I know there isnt a huge amount of jobs out there at the minute but if you arent going to look at RA then the standard rate of social welfare needs to be cut and should be done so on a sliding scale determined by the amount of time on SW. RA should be there for people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work overnight and should be made available to people for 12 months at the full amount then cut by 50% then cut altogether after that.

that is a ridiculous idea on so many levels,implementing that would lead to so many problems,one being a huge rise in suicide.

donalg1

plasteritup wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

64.25 sure thats plenty and thats a house in a city too which is quite good. Point is the government should not be paying all their rent for them and the tenant should be paying a lot more than they currently are at least 50% of what the state pays in rent for them. I just think that if you are getting 188 in your hand every week plus your rent paid for you why would you go back to work? RA is too big an incentive not to work for a lot of people. And yes I know there isnt a huge amount of jobs out there at the minute but if you arent going to look at RA then the standard rate of social welfare needs to be cut and should be done so on a sliding scale determined by the amount of time on SW. RA should be there for people who are unfortunate enough to find themselves out of work overnight and should be made available to people for 12 months at the full amount then cut by 50% then cut altogether after that.

that is a ridiculous idea on so many levels,implementing that would lead to so many problems,one being a huge rise in suicide.

Well there are plenty of other countries that reduce social welfare payments on a sliding scale and seems to work there so why not here?

plasteritup

donalg1 wrote: »

Well there are plenty of other countries that reduce social welfare payments on a sliding scale and seems to work there so why not here?

what countries?

redto

the idea has merit, however I believe the cost of finishing those estates is being underestimated. New local authority houses are built to a much higher standard than those built by most 'developers'.

It might be possible however to do some form of rent to own, or shared ownership for the houses, then maintenance of the house would be the 'owner' /renters problem.

OT , I think there should be more profesional landlord compaines or housing associations, than the reliance here on private, amature landlords that we currently have and encourage

donalg1

plasteritup wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Well there are plenty of other countries that reduce social welfare payments on a sliding scale and seems to work there so why not here?

what countries?

Basically every other country in Europe we are the only country where someone on social welfare for ten years gets the same as someone on it for ten days.

So saying cutting social welfare or RA will lead to mass suicide is pretty silly now.

And spending hundreds of millions bringing these houses up to standard isn't really a solution to the huge RA bill. Who is gonna pay for it? Who is going to do the work and who is gonna pay them? Who is going to collect the rent and who is going to pay them? Who is gonna pay for the maintenance of all these houses?

Let me guess the tax payer can pay?

plasteritup

donalg1 wrote: »

Basically every other country in Europe we are the only country where someone on social welfare for ten years gets the same as someone on it for ten days.

So saying cutting social welfare or RA will lead to mass suicide is pretty silly now.

And spending hundreds of millions bringing these houses up to standard isn't really a solution to the huge RA bill. Who is gonna pay for it? Who is going to do the work and who is gonna pay them? Who is going to collect the rent and who is going to pay them? Who is gonna pay for the maintenance of all these houses?

Let me guess the tax payer can pay?

first of all i never said mass suicide!! you did.
ok donal,no rent allowance you say!
50percent cut in sw after a year you say!
what happens then??

donalg1

plasteritup wrote: »

donalg1 wrote: »

Basically every other country in Europe we are the only country where someone on social welfare for ten years gets the same as someone on it for ten days.

So saying cutting social welfare or RA will lead to mass suicide is pretty silly now.

And spending hundreds of millions bringing these houses up to standard isn't really a solution to the huge RA bill. Who is gonna pay for it? Who is going to do the work and who is gonna pay them? Who is going to collect the rent and who is going to pay them? Who is gonna pay for the maintenance of all these houses?

Let me guess the tax payer can pay?

first of all i never said mass suicide!! you did.
ok donal,no rent allowance you say!
50percent cut in sw after a year you say!
what happens then??

I said 50% cut in RA not social welfare I said one or the other should be cut not both

gurramok

There are also a few thousand empty NAMA apts in Sandyford and its environs, most of them finished. Bet there are also many empties in towns and cities across the country so the accommodation is there in the right areas. Not all empties are in remote areas!

Icepick

plasteritup wrote: »

what happens then??

They adapt

COYW

gurramok wrote: »

There are also a few thousand empty NAMA apts in Sandyford and its environs, most of them finished. Bet there are also many empties in towns and cities across the country so the accommodation is there in the right areas. Not all empties are in remote areas!

It is a perfectly sensible idea. Moving those on RA into vacant properties makes sense and to be very honest, I would cut the RA on those who refuse to do so.

I want a free house!

Why pay a mortgage if you can get a free house?
Why would those struggling in neg equity continue when they could get a free house?

COYW

Deleted User wrote: »

I want a free house!

Why pay a mortgage if you can get a free house?
Why would those struggling in neg equity continue when they could get a free house?

At this is the reason why debt relief will never happen. You are 100% correct though. Only a fool would continue paying for something that you could get for free.

Head The Wall

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Given that a 1 bed flat in Cork costs 495 - 750 per month
as SW is 752 - even if one got the cheapest flat available that would leave a person 257 a month or 64.25 a week to pay for everything else- I think we can safely say that there would be an increase in homelessness and its associated problems.

Someone on the dole shouldn't be entitled to spend that much on rent allowance, people should move to accommodation they can afford (this is something I did myself last year when on the dole, I didn't apply for RA) and if they still can't afford it they should share. We should definitely not be paying for full apartments etc, they should only be paid enough for a room. people on the dole have to learn to live with in their means even if it involves a change to their lifestyle

redto wrote: »

the idea has merit, however I believe the cost of finishing those estates is being underestimated. New local authority houses are built to a much higher standard than those built by most 'developers'.

This is another joke, people getting free or subsidised houses which are a better spec than houses that most people buy. It's another reason why people that pay their own rent or have mortgages get outraged at the likes of these schemes. The building standards set by the govt should be good enough for all houses, it's rubbing peoples noses in it when they do things like this.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I want a free house!

Why pay a mortgage if you can get a free house?
Why would those struggling in neg equity continue when they could get a free house?

So - do council tenants get free houses too?

The key word here is tenant-so people would only be getting 'free' houses in the same way as those currently getting RA are getting 'free' houses.

They will not own the house unless they buy it.
Their rent can be means tested to ensure they pay a fair amount according to their income.

As I said earlier - those on SW in council housing actually pay a greater contribution towards their rent (and receive no RA) then those in privately owner accommodation who do receive RA.

Currently, The only person who is getting a free house is the private landlord whose mortgage is being paid by the tax payer via the RA scheme.

Bannasidhe

Head The Wall wrote: »

Someone on the dole shouldn't be entitled to spend that much on rent allowance, people should move to accommodation they can afford (this is something I did myself last year when on the dole, I didn't apply for RA) and if they still can't afford it they should share. We should definitely not be paying for full apartments etc, they should only be paid enough for a room. people on the dole have to learn to live with in their means even if it involves a change to their lifestyle

It's a Catch 22 situation really - until private rents come down people have no choice whether they are on RA or paying their own rent but to pay the 'market' rate. The cheapest one bed flat I could find in Cork today costs 125 a week - so a person on basic SW of 188 per week would be hard pressed to afford that without further help from the State - which is what RA provides.
http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?id=1145559. Studios (a.k.a bedsits) are around the 80-85 mark - and yes, that would be ok for a single person (hell - I have lived in bedsits myself back in the day ).

However - not ever RA recipient is a single person with no children. I did a search on Daft for 2 beds and yes, there are some available in Cork for 110 - 125 p.w - . http://www.daft.ie/searchrental.daft?s%5Bcc_id%5D=ct3&s%5Ba_id%5D=&s%5Bmnp%5D=&s%5Bmxp%5D=&s%5Bmnb%5D=2&s%5Bmxb%5D=2&s%5Bpt_id%5D=&search=1&s%5Broute_id%5D=&s%5Ba_id_transport%5D=0&s%5Bstreet_name%5D=&s%5Btxt%5D=&s%5Bmnbt%5D=&s%5Bmxbt%5D=&s%5Bmove_in_date%5D=0&s%5Blease%5D=&s%5Bfurn%5D=0&s%5Bnpt_id%5D=&s%5Bdays_old%5D=&s%5Bsingle_beds%5D=&s%5Bdouble_beds%5D=&s%5Btwin_beds%5D=&s%5Bagreed%5D=&s%5Bsearch_type%5D=rental&s%5Btransport%5D=&s%5Badvanced%5D=&s%5Bprice_per_room%5D=&s%5Bsort_by%5D=price&s%5Bsort_type%5D=a&s%5Brefreshmap%5D=1&fr=default - the interesting thing is they all accept RA - so they are aimed at that market

I believe RA is helping to maintain high rents by providing a baseline amount. If that subsidy was removed from the private market - by transferring RA recipients into houses/apts already owned by the State- rents should come down for those who have to pay out of there own pockets.

There are also places available to rent in Cork for 2,000 a month - although the average for a 'high' end 2 bed seems to be 1,050 - 1,250 a month. Sorry - but over a grand rent for an apartment in a small city like Cork is crazy (pop of the whole county is 518,128 and it has 33,796 vacant dwellings http://thecork.ie/2011/06/30/population-of-cork-city-and-county-is-up-census-2011/ ). I could get a 3 bedroom flat in London in a comparably 'nice' area for less then that! -http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/London.html?sortByPriceDescending=false&sortByRelevance=false&minBedrooms=2&displayPropertyType=flats&primaryDisplayPropertyType=flats&oldDisplayPropertyType=flats&oldPrimaryDisplayPropertyType=flats

This is another joke, people getting free or subsidised houses which are a better spec than houses that most people buy. It's another reason why people that pay their own rent or have mortgages get outraged at the likes of these schemes. The building standards set by the govt should be good enough for all houses, it's rubbing peoples noses in it when they do things like this.

I don't think one can blame tenants for the absolute failure to enforce any kind of independently assessed building regulations in the private construction sector in this country. But I agree - the standard of building is appalling.

n97 mini

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nice idea but it would never work. I can only imagine the uproar Labour, Sinn Fein etc would kick up about Councils forcing a young Dublin mother being forced to moveo out down the country to live in NAMA houses. Does anyone have numbers of ghost estates that exist in Dublin? I doubt there is a lot of them.

There are plenty of foreign nationals on the housing lists that would be glad to get a house anywhere in the country. I'm sure if offers were made you would get someone to fill every empty house in the country.

gurramok

Manchester:
http://www.tameside.gov.uk/benefits/localallowance
http://www.tenantstips.com/Home/Hous...d#.Tr08pJtEd3E


The highest RS that can be obtained in Manchester for a 2bed in £524. In Dublin, its 930euro for a couple or a single mother with a child.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en...upplement.html

Rental accommodation is seriously subsidised by the Irish govt at the detriment of working taxpayers.

Icepick

gurramok wrote: »

In Dublin, its 930euro for a single mother with a child.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en...upplement.html

This is beyond stupid and unfair.