Social housing and country at standstill

newparty

Hearing on the radio about every year "great" idea of developing social housing makes me a bit funny.
Budget Maths:
500 mln Euro to invest = 2500 Houses ( estimating 200 k cost for a house)

That's all government can archive spending budget surplus.

Celtic tiger Maths:
90 000 houses a year at 200 k each = 18 BILLIONs investment

May be that was too many houses per year but that was bringing 18 billion investment into country every year.
That was not budget money. That was money from banking system.
Ireland needs this money.
Ireland needs new jobs.
Ireland needs to kick start economy again.

Things that can be done:
1. NAMA should get rid of all of its residential stock selling to first time buyers (and not to speculative investors)
Some proportion could be designated for social housing. This must be done as quick as possible to ease pressure on the market.
2. Help people buy houses instead of restricting lending further.
20 % deposit is stupid idea. Without fresh supply prices won't drop.
Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.
Families with children paying rent and childcare have very small chances to save for deposit.
Please don't make us life long renters.

Valetta

newparty wrote: »

Hearing on the radio about every year "great" idea of developing social housing makes me a bit funny.
Budget Maths:
500 mln Euro to invest = 2500 Houses ( estimating 200 k cost for a house)

That's all government can archive spending budget surplus.

Celtic tiger Maths:
90 000 houses a year at 200 k each = 18 BILLIONs investment

May be that was too many houses per year but that was bringing 18 billion investment into country every year.
That was not budget money. That was money from banking system.
Ireland needs this money.
Ireland needs new jobs.
Ireland needs to kick start economy again.

Things that can be done:
1. NAMA should get rid of all of its residential stock selling to first time buyers (and not to speculative investors)
Some proportion could be designated for social housing. This must be done as quick as possible to ease pressure on the market.
2. Help people buy houses instead of restricting lending further.
20 % deposit is stupid idea. Without fresh supply prices won't drop.
Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.
Families with children paying rent and childcare have very small chances to save for deposit.
Please don't make us life long renters.

So much wrong in that post.

When I read. "Government lend deposit to first time buyers" I gave up.

I'll respond in full tomorrow when on computer if the thread hasn't been fiiled under "oh dear'

BoJack Horseman

Does an economy growing at 5% per annum need to return to taxpayer backed 100% mortgages to "kick start" itself?

Desperate stuff Bill.

Sheldons Brain

newparty wrote: »

Things that can be done:
1. NAMA should get rid of all of its residential stock selling to first time buyers (and not to speculative investors)

Where will the people living in the houses go?

newparty wrote: »

2. Help people buy houses instead of restricting lending further.
20 % deposit is stupid idea. Without fresh supply prices won't drop.
Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.

so instead of the bank giving money to those who won't save, the government should do it? Better perhaps to have a savings scheme for those saving for a house with no DIRT etc.

Godge

newparty wrote: »

Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.

Yay, free money, where do I sign up?

Rightwing

Social housing is a disgrace. Has led to so many problems in the country.

BoJack Horseman

Social housing has a role. (Grew up in one myself).

However its execution flawed.

They should be a temporary place to live while striving to get private accommodation elsewhere..... Not as is effectively the case, a taxpayer funded permanent home.

Then allowing Tennant's to purchase what should be a perpetual public asset, without replacing stock has been disastrous.

gaius c

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Social housing has a role. (Grew up in one myself).

However its execution flawed.

They should be a temporary place to live while striving to get private accommodation elsewhere..... Not as is effectively the case, a taxpayer funded permanent home.

Then allowing Tennant's to purchase what should be a perpetual public asset, without replacing stock has been disastrous.

Say thank you to Thatcher for that one and then another thank you to our clowns who copied the idea.

Idbatterim

20% is OTT IMO, but maybe 12.5% or 15% wouldnt be a bad thing...

Frank Lee Midere

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Social housing has a role. (Grew up in one myself).

However its execution flawed.

They should be a temporary place to live while striving to get private accommodation elsewhere..... Not as is effectively the case, a taxpayer funded permanent home.

Then allowing Tennant's to purchase what should be a perpetual public asset, without replacing stock has been disastrous.

I don't agree. The market has never provided housing for everybody to buy. It can't. The best ever achieved was 80%. In the 20's to 70's it was accepted that the state, councils and other housing federations would provide significant housing stock. Even the conservatives in the UK ran on housing building program's (albeit using the housing federations rather than the state). This was mostly for workers. Not the unemployed.

realitykeeper

newparty wrote: »

2. Help people buy houses instead of restricting lending further.
20 % deposit is stupid idea. Without fresh supply prices won't drop.
Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.
Families with children paying rent and childcare have very small chances to save for deposit.
Please don't make us life long renters.

I disagree with a lot of what this government and the previous FF led government have done to "stimulate" the economy by either borrowing or by facilitating others to borrow.

The recent measures to curb credit fueled house price inflation is long overdue but nonetheless I applaud the government for waking up to reality. People who worry about not being able to buy a house are looking at this in the wrong way. These measures will ensure that when you do eventually manage to put enough aside for a deposit, your mortgage will be a lot smaller than it would have been if these restrictions were not it place.

If you cannot save enough for a deposit, you would not be able to pay the mortgage in the long term if you were given it. The "lucky" people who do manage to get a mortgage with help from wealthy parents or through a high paid job, may find they are not so lucky if house prices plunge in the future. Speaking as someone who believes house prices will collapse (when QE fails), - I believe that those who have to rent because they cannot get a mortgage will find themselves in a very good position at some point in the future, i.e. no debts and dirt cheap houses everywhere. The government will not be able to prop up house prices like they did after the 2008 credit crunch so buying a house outright will become possible for those who manage to save some money. Easy credit does not suit the Irish character. The discipline required to save will be very beneficial to people even if they don`t know it.

As a non socialist, I disagree with social housing. The undervalued workhouses of 17th century England were great places for punishing those of poor character and protecting children from the destructive influence of undisciplined parents, by means of separation, hard graft and the teaching of a trade.

macraignil

As a non socialist, I disagree with social housing. The undervalued workhouses of 17th century England were great places for punishing those of poor character and protecting children from the destructive influence of undisciplined parents, by means of separation, hard graft and the teaching of a trade.[/QUOTE]

I thaught we were ment to be a catholic republic. It does not sound very christian to reintroduce the workhouses of 17th century England and take it on ourselves to punish those of poor character. The destruction of the family in the name of protecting children from undisciplined parents also sounds a bit harsh for a society that is supposed to have advanced from that time in history. I have nothing against hard graft and teaching a trade but I do not think Ireland would benefit from the sweat shop textiles mills etc. that provide so much child labour in India, Pakistan, etc.

The government to me seems happy to hear talk of a housing crisis as it makes the investment in bailing out banks that hold property loans more acceptable. I would be very surprised to see action to facilitate home ownership in this years budget. THe FGs are much more likely to give a token gesture than offer any genuine assistance. Probably something like the affordable housing scheme that allowed peole who could prove they were on income lower than a particular threshold, to buy an overpriced house or apartment with a lower standard than the other homes in the development and still gave a profit to the developer. Actualy this should have been called the indentured labour scheme as participants need to sign away thirty odd years of their working income to have a place of their own to live.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you cannot save enough for a deposit, you would not be able to pay the mortgage in the long term if you were given it. The "lucky" people who do manage to get a mortgage with help from wealthy parents or through a high paid job, may find they are not so lucky if house prices plunge in the future. Speaking as someone who believes house prices will collapse (when QE fails), - I believe that those who have to rent because they cannot get a mortgage will find themselves in a very good position at some point in the future, i.e. no debts and dirt cheap houses everywhere. The government will not be able to prop up house prices like they did after the 2008 credit crunch so buying a house outright will become possible for those who manage to save some money. Easy credit does not suit the Irish character. The discipline required to save will be very beneficial to people even if they don`t know it.

In order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of new houses, house prices must remain above the cost of building houses. With the implementation of Part V, the development levies, the windfall tax and the high wages for tradesmen, the cost of building a house in Ireland remains above the price in a large number of places. Supply will be restricted until price rises.

The ones who will suffer most are those who are renting as lettings become harder to find. In Dublin, you pay €600 a month at the bottom of the market for a studio apartment, that could go as high as €900 in a couple of years.

realitykeeper wrote: »

As a non socialist, I disagree with social housing. The undervalued workhouses of 17th century England were great places for punishing those of poor character and protecting children from the destructive influence of undisciplined parents, by means of separation, hard graft and the teaching of a trade.

Bring back the workhouses, what next? The Magdalene laundries or corporal punishment in schools?

gaius c

realitykeeper wrote: »

As a non socialist, I disagree with social housing. The undervalued workhouses of 17th century England were great places for punishing those of poor character and protecting children from the destructive influence of undisciplined parents, by means of separation, hard graft and the teaching of a trade.

I needed a giggle this morning but you delivered a guffaw that I then had to explain to the whole office.

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

In order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of new houses, house prices must remain above the cost of building houses. With the implementation of Part V, the development levies, the windfall tax and the high wages for tradesmen, the cost of building a house in Ireland remains above the price in a large number of places. Supply will be restricted until price rises.

An adequate supply of houses should only be built if they can be afforded. If they cannot be afforded then they must be done without. "Demand" is a subjective term. A two year old could stamp his foot and demand a house but you would not give him one so why would you give it to an adult foot stamper.

Godge

realitykeeper wrote: »

An adequate supply of houses should only be built if they can be afforded. If they cannot be afforded then they must be done without. "Demand" is a subjective term. A two year old could stamp his foot and demand a house but you would not give him one so why would you give it to an adult foot stamper.

Shelter is a basic human right. End of.

pablo128

newparty wrote: »

500 mln Euro to invest = 2500 Houses ( estimating 200 k cost for a house.

It would cost nowhere near 200k per house to build an estate of 3 bedroomed council houses. I'd guess more like 70k per house.

quadrifoglio verde

Godge wrote: »

Shelter is a basic human right. End of.

The question needs to be asked though is shelter a 3 bed semi with a garden out the back for the kids to run around and play, for which you pay 10% of your income for. While the person subsidising your "shelter" is commuting to Dublin from Portlaoise and seeing anything over 32800 taxed at over 50%.

This idea that we have to house people for the long term in fancy houses who are unwilling to work, at the expense of the hard pressed tax payer needs to end. We can no longer to continue with our policy of give, give, give, everyone should have to contribute.

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with the state housing the low paid, or the short term unemployed, but for the lifers, their standard of living should be no more than food in the belly, water and a basic roof over their head. We need to prioritise where our finite resources go

realitykeeper

Godge wrote: »

Shelter is a basic human right. End of.

Which is why I agree with the concept of the workhouse.

AlekSmart

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The question needs to be asked though is shelter a 3 bed semi with a garden out the back for the kids to run around and play, for which you pay 10% of your income for. While the person subsidising your "shelter" is commuting to Dublin from Portlaoise and seeing anything over 32800 taxed at over 50%.

This idea that we have to house people for the long term in fancy houses who are unwilling to work, at the expense of the hard pressed tax payer needs to end. We can no longer to continue with our policy of give, give, give, everyone should have to contribute.

Don't get me wrong, I've no problem with the state housing the low paid, or the short term unemployed, but for the lifers, their standard of living should be no more than food in the belly, water and a basic roof over their head. We need to prioritise where our finite resources go

Brave man Quad,but you'll be a long time looking over that 4 leafed clover before you get a direct answer or see any sense in this particular Republic...

:eek: 30% :eek: voter turn-out in my own Consituency yesterday.....with Paul Murphy the strong beneficiary of this decrepit example of Public Participation in Governance....

At this point,I,and a fair few of my fellow contributors into this Country's administration really do need a Facepalm smilie to be added to Boards library !!!

Pete_Cavan

Godge wrote: »

In order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of new houses, house prices must remain above the cost of building houses. With the implementation of Part V, the development levies, the windfall tax and the high wages for tradesmen, the cost of building a house in Ireland remains above the price in a large number of places. Supply will be restricted until price rises.

The ones who will suffer most are those who are renting as lettings become harder to find. In Dublin, you pay €600 a month at the bottom of the market for a studio apartment, that could go as high as €900 in a couple of years.

The new planning bill will reduce the Part V contribution to 10% (from 20%) which should reduce costs to the developer. The fact that it will remove the ability of developers to account for their social housing commitments through cash payments to local authorities should actually increase the number of social houses available. But the cost of developing houses will be a big problem and is likely to get bigger as the new Central Bank mortgage rules restrain house prices. There have been calls to reduce the VAT on new home construction in order to reduce the cost of development and boost supply.

macraignil

realitykeeper wrote: »

Which is why I agree with the concept of the workhouse.

If you refer to the workhouse as a place where people in desperate need of food and shelter work long hours in basic manufacturing for little or no financial return you might find that some other countries extensive use of this type of industry might work against developing this form of social housing in Ireland. To put it simply a workhouse in Ireland will not be able to compete with a workhouse in Bangladesh.

Over the last few years I have seen estates and apartments in an almost finished state of construction left empty while the goverment has sat back and waited for house prices to rise again so the billions invested in protecting high prices through NAMA etc. might appear to have been worthwhile. They have done nothing to address restrictions and costs involved in building a home and it seems to be government policy that owning a home should only be reserved for those who can spend many times the average wage in this country on buying in what is not a free market.

We have one of the lowest population densities in Europe and many rural areas would benefit from more people in the community yet much of the country has very restrictive planning permission regulations. There are some people who work hard in jobs that are not very well paid and face never having a home because of how government regulates the housing market.

I am not aware of developers ever having social housing commitments as mentioned above and the commitments to affordable housing scheme units when they were not bought off by a contribution to the council were sold at a profit. At current asking prices affordable housing units were sold for as much as twice the current value, and this was to people who had to prove their wages were low. I do not see any give, give, give policey in this country so please post some more details.

quadrifoglio verde

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The new planning bill will reduce the Part V contribution to 10% (from 20%) which should reduce costs to the developer. The fact that it will remove the ability of developers to account for their social housing commitments through cash payments to local authorities should actually increase the number of social houses available. But the cost of developing houses will be a big problem and is likely to get bigger as the new Central Bank mortgage rules restrain house prices. There have been calls to reduce the VAT on new home construction in order to reduce the cost of development and boost supply.

this though raises the issue of where the money is best spent.
take for example a development of 30 houses in ballsbridge. Each house sells for 1 million. Of this, the developer must hand over 3 houses to the council, which will be used to house three families. So the council now has 3 families housed.
However, had the developer donated the 3 million to the councils social housing fund, they could have housed a lot more families in a less desirable area. Yeah, the three lucky families don't get to live in leafy ballsbridge, but it means that you now have 20 lucky families with secure long term housing in clondalkin

pablo128

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

this though raises the issue of where the money is best spent.
take for example a development of 30 houses in ballsbridge. Each house sells for 1 million. Of this, the developer must hand over 3 houses to the council, which will be used to house three families. So the council now has 3 families housed.
However, had the developer donated the 3 million to the councils social housing fund, they could have housed a lot more families in a less desirable area. Yeah, the three lucky families don't get to live in leafy ballsbridge, but it means that you now have 20 lucky families with secure long term housing in clondalkin

The problem is the money disappeared once it reached the council.

Icepick

Godge wrote: »

Shelter is a basic human right. End of.

Shelter, yes. House or an apartment in one of the most expensive and dynamic cities in the world, no.

Godge

Icepick wrote: »

Shelter, yes. House or an apartment in one of the most expensive and dynamic cities in the world, no.

I didn't say that, I was responding to a poster who suggests workhouses as a solution to our economic problems.

OldNotWIse

Godge wrote: »

Shelter is a basic human right. End of.

Where did you find that?

Godge

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Where did you find that?

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Now that right is for an adequate and standard and no more than adequate but shelter is one component.

realitykeeper

macraignil wrote: »

At current asking prices affordable housing units were sold for as much as twice the current value, and this was to people who had to prove their wages were low. I do not see any give, give, give policey in this country so please post some more details.

This is true. When house prices collapsed, even those buying affordable houses found themselves in negative equity. Ultimately, the markets will take vengeance when they are interfered with and giving cheaper houses to some people but not to everyone is an interference in the housing market.

As long as social housing projects exist, there can be no value in Irish property prices. How can there be. If you are selling shoes and the government is giving them away for free or very cheap, you can only survive in business if the free/cheap shoes are only available to some. As for your customers, they pay the full price + a subsidy to the government to pay for cheap shoes it gives to other people.

To reduce exposure to the bad value available in Irish property, one would be wise to consider spending less rather than more on a property, i.e. something smaller/cheaper than you can afford.

Saipanne

newparty wrote: »

Hearing on the radio about every year "great" idea of developing social housing makes me a bit funny.
Budget Maths:
500 mln Euro to invest = 2500 Houses ( estimating 200 k cost for a house)

That's all government can archive spending budget surplus.

Celtic tiger Maths:
90 000 houses a year at 200 k each = 18 BILLIONs investment

May be that was too many houses per year but that was bringing 18 billion investment into country every year.
That was not budget money. That was money from banking system.
Ireland needs this money.
Ireland needs new jobs.
Ireland needs to kick start economy again.

Things that can be done:
1. NAMA should get rid of all of its residential stock selling to first time buyers (and not to speculative investors)
Some proportion could be designated for social housing. This must be done as quick as possible to ease pressure on the market.
2. Help people buy houses instead of restricting lending further.
20 % deposit is stupid idea. Without fresh supply prices won't drop.
Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.
Families with children paying rent and childcare have very small chances to save for deposit.
Please don't make us life long renters.

Two things can cause prices to drop. One is increase in supply. For a shiny penny, what is the other, and how does it relate to the proposed central bank rules?

OldNotWIse

Godge wrote: »

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

"Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

Now that right is for an adequate and standard and no more than adequate but shelter is one component.

We have no constitutionally enshrined right to housing.

You might also find this article interesting:

http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/pilaechrseminar130511fdelondras.pdf

Godge

OldNotWIse wrote: »

We have no constitutionally enshrined right to housing.

You might also find this article interesting:

http://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/pilaechrseminar130511fdelondras.pdf

That relates to the European Convention on Human Rights not the United Nations Charter.

I never said that a basic human right was enforceable in law.

I merely said that shelter was a basic human right and was asked to back that up which I did with a reference to the UN Charter.

OldNotWIse

Godge wrote: »

That relates to the European Convention on Human Rights not the United Nations Charter.

I never said that a basic human right was enforceable in law.

I merely said that shelter was a basic human right and was asked to back that up which I did with a reference to the UN Charter.

It's still relevant. I take it you didn't actually read the article.

You assert something is a right and when asked to back that up you substantiate your assertion with a link to something that is not enforceable. Ok then....

Niall Keane

There are a lot of people and banks doing very well out of high rents, rents double or even triple in monthly payments what a 20 yr mortgage repayments would be. The rent of course prevents "saving for a deposit" but of course proves in itself that a mortgage is affordable. Let's pretend it doesn't though and watch generations condemned as renters, after all what's wrong with that? Most people in Europe rent! Thing is though how do you pay rent at 65, post retirement, when all your cash has been swallowed by rent-seekers and government? Ah, well! Homelessness kills the unproductive off quicker anyway! Maybe we can encourage / pressure the old to move to Donegal or north-west Mayo, maybe they can become poets? After all wasn't it Keats who said, “what we learn through suffering, we teach through verse”, hell maybe we could re-invent the DeValera land of Seanachais and create a whole new tourist industry, selling quaint Irish poverty and misery, the weather of our western coast adding the pathetic fallacy?

And if they don't like the west, lets deal with the problem of ageing just like the Europeans can- elective euthanasia, take the noble option when you are no longer any use to the shareholders! Think of the children, don't encumber them with more expense and debt!!!

Remember, be cautious in what one wishes for!!! Social housing may take some of the upward pressure off rents too, and we wouldn't want that!

How else to finance those 500-750k south Dublin investment properties? And we need them now! We know damn well young Ivor will never be able to afford a mortgage that lets him live near us, and you'll look after the grandkids with the cost of childcare if he's banished to Kildare?

As for selling housing stock off, its not as simple an issue as blaming Thatcher, though I'd like to, having written an architectural thesis, many years ago, (nothing has changed!) on the subject of social housing and studying cases from Cabrini Green to Ballymun, one thing is evident, perpetually renting concentrated in an area means a transient population and social breakdown and deprivation and lots of other negative issues. The Part 5 idea was interesting, but we couldn't have the rifraf getting a "free house" next to our D4 semi, now could we? We know its better for the children, not to condemn them through an accident of birth to a life of crooked hardship, but they're not our kids! Better just pay a fee and move them to an unserviced “newtown” out past Blanch!

Niall Keane

Niall Keane wrote: »

There are a lot of people and banks doing very well out of high rents, rents double or even triple in monthly payments what a 20 yr mortgage repayments would be. The rent of course prevents "saving for a deposit" but of course proves in itself that a mortgage is affordable. Let's pretend it doesn't though and watch generations condemned as renters, after all what's wrong with that? Most people in Europe rent! Thing is though how do you pay rent at 65, post retirement, when all your cash has been swallowed by rent-seekers and government? Ah, well! Homelessness kills the unproductive off quicker anyway! Maybe we can encourage / pressure the old to move to Donegal or north-west Mayo, maybe they can become poets? After all wasn't it Keats who said, “what we learn through suffering, we teach through verse”, hell maybe we could re-invent the DeValera land of Seanachais and create a whole new tourist industry, selling quaint Irish poverty and misery, the weather of our western coast adding the pathetic fallacy?


Remember, be cautious in what one wishes for!!! Social housing may take some of the upward pressure off rents too, and we wouldn't want that!

How else to finance those 500-750k south Dublin investment properties? And we need them now! We know damn well young Ivor will never be able to afford a mortgage that lets him live near us, and you'll look after the grandkids with the cost of childcare if he's banished to Kildare?

As for selling housing stock off, its not as simple an issue as blaming Thatcher, though I'd like to, having written an architectural thesis, many years ago, (nothing has changed!) on the subject of social housing and studying cases from Cabrini Green to Ballymun, one thing is evident, perpetually renting concentrated in an area means a transient population and social breakdown and deprivation and lots of other negative issues. The Part 5 idea was interesting, but we couldn't have the rifraf getting a "free house" next to our D4 semi, now could we? We know its better for the children, not to condemn them through an accident of birth to a life of crooked hardship, but they're not our kids! Better just pay a fee and move them to an unserviced “newtown” out past Blanch!

There is a simple answer to that and that is that social housing should be offered on a mixed bases, social housing offered in the likes of D4 should never be for sale to tenants and social housing offered in a Ballynewtown should always be offered for sale to tenants. Social housing in a high net worth area even if it always rented does not become a ghetto and by preventing its sale to tenants you are not conferring an advantage to them that is not there for others( fairness aspect ) and you are retaining the social mix that any society should have. By selling social housing to tenants in a poorer area you are giving them a stake in society and access to credit as they now have an asset, this in time will improve the area.

The above would both solve the problem of fairness and social mix.

Godge

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It's still relevant. I take it you didn't actually read the article.

You assert something is a right and when asked to back that up you substantiate your assertion with a link to something that is not enforceable. Ok then....

There is a difference between a human right and a right enforceable by law.

Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they do not.

OldNotWIse

Godge wrote: »

There is a difference between a human right and a right enforceable by law.

Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they do not.

An unenforceable right...

How....useful

Niall Keane

mariaalice wrote: »

There is a simple answer to that and that is that social housing should be offered on a mixed bases, social housing offered in the likes of D4 should never be for sale to tenants and social housing offered in a Ballynewtown should always be offered for sale to tenants. Social housing in a high net worth area even if it always rented does not become a ghetto and by preventing its sale to tenants you are not conferring an advantage to them that is not there for others( fairness aspect ) and you are retaining the social mix that any society should have. By selling social housing to tenants in a poorer area you are giving them a stake in society and access to credit as they now have an asset, this in time will improve the area.

The above would both solve the problem of fairness and social mix.

Too simple!!! What you propose still amounts to class segregation and the inevitable wastage of "human capital" that goes with such. Why? Well people will want to live in the home that may one day own (already a factor highlighted in Ireland -houses could be bought, flats not as management responsibility becomes a problem) what happened? Well - Ballymun! Average resident was 2.5 years.

So you end up with ghettos, without a mix. This means dumb Ivor with 80 IQ but living in D4 with the "right" schools and connections will end up a businessman and fine Gael member where as Anto with an IQ of 148 is thrown on the scrap heap from birth!

The problem is mostly simple solutions put forward by inexperienced and uneducated clowns with their catchphrases, whose policy revolves around protecting wealth (often inherited) preventing any perceived threat to it, and punishing the poor for being "lazy" but we are hardly a country known to champion "the best interests of the child"?

jmayo

newparty wrote: »

Hearing on the radio about every year "great" idea of developing social housing makes me a bit funny.
Budget Maths:
500 mln Euro to invest = 2500 Houses ( estimating 200 k cost for a house)

That's all government can archive spending budget surplus.

Celtic tiger Maths:
90 000 houses a year at 200 k each = 18 BILLIONs investment

May be that was too many houses per year but that was bringing 18 billion investment into country every year.
That was not budget money. That was money from banking system.
Ireland needs this money.
Ireland needs new jobs.
Ireland needs to kick start economy again.

Ehh I have some better ones for you ....

Ireland needs to start educating our kids in some basic economics.
Ireland definitely needs to prevent people from overborrowing in order to buy property.
Ireland needs to educate people that an economy should not be based on building houses for each other.

newparty wrote: »

Things that can be done:
1. NAMA should get rid of all of its residential stock selling to first time buyers (and not to speculative investors)
Some proportion could be designated for social housing. This must be done as quick as possible to ease pressure on the market.
2. Help people buy houses instead of restricting lending further.
20 % deposit is stupid idea. Without fresh supply prices won't drop.
Government need to do opposite: lend deposit to first time buyers who can't save for it.

And now your post has me a bit funny and a lot sad.

BTW you have started 5 threads and from what I can see from cursory glance you don't bother replying in most of them.
Do you ever have a contrary argument or do you just like spewing forth your ideas on particular days of the week ?

The_Captain

The logic in this thread seems to be

1: 100% mortgages killed the economy (they didn't)
2: We should make houses expensive so the only people who can afford them can pay back the banks
3: Do nothing about rent rates, the people who made a killing during the Tiger should be allowed to set their own prices (which is pretty much the de facto opposite of every 'free market' in the devloped world, monopolies/oligarchies are never good for economies)
4: The people who can't afford to rent or buy houses will just stop existing and will vanish into the air like fog when the sun comes out. There will be no downside to this system, the economy will improve because a small number of people will be making big money at the expense of many but that's good because the economy is getting better

Godge

jmayo wrote: »

And now your post has me a bit funny and a lot sad.

BTW you have started 5 threads and from what I can see from cursory glance you don't bother replying in most of them.
Do you ever have a contrary argument or do you just like spewing forth your ideas on particular days of the week ?

Maybe he is setting up a new party and is roadtesting policy options

jmayo

Godge wrote: »

Maybe he is setting up a new party and is roadtesting policy options

Maybe it is mehole martin ?

I cant believe anyone serious would think it is a good idea for the government to give deposits to people who by the fact they don't have any proves they cannot save.

As for the idea that all that money that came into Ireland as cheap credit to be used to buy proeprty is the type of "investment" we need.

Then again it does sound almost like some of our leftie politicos who appear to believe in magic money trees.

realitykeeper

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe it is mehole martin ?

Less vulgarity please. Spot on otherwise.

godwin

Apart from all the typical stereotypes of people who "benefit" from social housing, there are folks like me and the missus, both working, 1 kid and will never qualify for a mortgage. At least with a council house we have a permanent home at a reasonable rent.

jmayo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Less vulgarity please. Spot on otherwise.

I tend to get vulgar when discussing shysters who have cost my family and I dear.
And make no mistake the shyster from Cork has cost us all a lot of money.

Never forget this is the guy that presided over the creation of that inept financial black hole institution called the HSE.

Never forget mehole was part of the same cabinet that cheerled the property madness, arrogantly ignored the warning signs and ended up with us being signed into penury.

Oh and he was the recipient of developer funds (nearly half the annual industrial wage at the time) which happened to be found resting in the his "wife to be"/wife's bank account in another city.

So please allow me vulgar, since due to people like mehole it is one of the few things I can now afford.

AlekSmart

godwin wrote: »

Apart from all the typical stereotypes of people who "benefit" from social housing, there are folks like me and the missus, both working, 1 kid and will never qualify for a mortgage. At least with a council house we have a permanent home at a reasonable rent.

It is really kinda incredible that virtually the entirety of current Irish housing policy presupposes that folks such as Godwin do not exist here....:(

It's as if the Godwins represent not alone "Foreign" notions,but that they must never become an integral part of this State in the future.

Ireland,going forward,has to be populated by either photogenic,childless,Professional couples in their 20's,whom the Irish Retail Banking sector will gladly satisfy..or....poverty-trapped,disadvantaged singles,preferably with a "disability"/"dependant child" for whom the Local Authority represents Housing salvation.

Our entire shaky edifice continues to wobble under the weight of this huge misrepresentation of Irish reality.

WTF is wrong with Local Authorities catering for the Godwins of this land on the basis he outlines....

At least with a council house we have a permanent home at a reasonable rent

This is exactly the situation which worked VERY well for generations of Irish families from the 1930's onwards,right up until some of our Politicians started sniffing around Lady Thatchers idea's bin.

I'm of the belief that the Irish State needs to reinvolve itself in the provision of sound,basic,sustainable Family Accomodation in a BIG Way,with a commensurate significant reduction in the levels of Importance to which we elevated "Property Developers".

jmayo

AlekSmart wrote: »

WTF is wrong with Local Authorities catering for the Godwins of this land on the basis he outlines....

This is exactly the situation which worked VERY well for generations of Irish families from the 1930's onwards,right up until some of our Politicians started sniffing around Lady Thatchers idea's bin.

I'm of the belief that the Irish State needs to reinvolve itself in the provision of sound,basic,sustainable Family Accomodation in a BIG Way,with a commensurate significant reduction in the levels of Importance to which we elevated "Property Developers".

You see not alone did some geniuses decide to adopt thatcher's ideas on turning existing local authority tenants in property owners, they also noticed that by getting the private sector to provide accommodation for those normally in receipt of state housing, it was a great way of transferring wealth to private sector landlords.
Ever care to notice how many of our politicans are actually landlords and property investors.
Go through the Dáil register of interests and you will a sizeable chunk of politicans have property in their investment portfolio.
And it aint just any old property, but a fair chunk of residential property.
Then add in the ones related to construction, auctioneering, etc.
Some of course like frank fahey, ivor callely, etc are major trough feeders.

Instead of the taxpayers funding property that would remain in state ownership and also available to future generations of state dependent renters, we have decided to enable generations of landlords buy assets.
We have also help set a rental floor in the residential market that can benefit all landlords.

BTW there has been social studies done that shows that by making people property owners you are heading off social descontent in society.
Some see this as a reason the UK started encouraging people to their own homes way back even into 1930s.

realitykeeper

jmayo wrote: »

I tend to get vulgar when discussing shysters who have cost my family and I dear.
And make no mistake the shyster from Cork has cost us all a lot of money.

Never forget this is the guy that presided over the creation of that inept financial black hole institution called the HSE.

Never forget mehole was part of the same cabinet that cheerled the property madness, arrogantly ignored the warning signs and ended up with us being signed into penury.

Oh and he was the recipient of developer funds (nearly half the annual industrial wage at the time) which happened to be found resting in the his "wife to be"/wife's bank account in another city.

So please allow me vulgar, since due to people like mehole it is one of the few things I can now afford.

I know what you mean. I feel exactly the same about Bertie Ahern who I hold personally responsible for the mess the country is in, more than any other individual. Make no mistake, Martin would never have been Minister for health were he not suitable puppet material for Bertie Ahern. Indeed, "Bertie Ahern" makes "your hole" sound positively hygienic.

UrbanFret

One worrying development in all of this is city councils buying clusters of houses in rural areas at dirt cheap prices (I'm talking €20,000 per unit) and housing their most undesirable tenants in them. In no shape or form have they any ties nor are they an asset to the communities who have been burdened with them. :mad:

BoJack Horseman

UrbanFret wrote: »

One worrying development in all of this is city councils buying clusters of houses in rural areas at dirt cheap prices (I'm talking €20,000 per unit) and housing their most undesirable tenants in them. In no shape or form have they any ties nor are they an asset to the communities who have been burdened with them. :mad:

Dublin did the same with Wicklow in the 80's.
Indeed, it didn't work out well.

Its a practice that should be banned.
Let people leave Dublin if they chose, but the DCC shouldn't abdicate its responsibility like that.

chopper6

UrbanFret wrote: »

One worrying development in all of this is city councils buying clusters of houses in rural areas at dirt cheap prices (I'm talking €20,000 per unit) and housing their most undesirable tenants in them. In no shape or form have they any ties nor are they an asset to the communities who have been burdened with them. :mad:

You see my problem is that there should be no "undesirable tenants" living scot free at the taxpayers expense.

The local authorities should not be housing and re-housing people who are behving like animals or causing problems for thier neighbours.

If the tenants are being antisocial,damaging the property or commiting crimes in teh area they should be chucked out on thier ear....what they do next shouldnt really be anybody else's problem especially when decent people cant even afford to rent themselves.