Councils rejected over 2,000 Nama homes for social housing

GGTrek

This is today´s news:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/councils-rejected-over-2-000-nama-homes-for-social-housing-1.2924785
it should be read carefully by the posters in this forum screaming "greedy landlords!" and of course by your very own Irish govvie and TDs to understand who is really causing the housing shortage in Ireland and the increase of rents
I mean you just cannot make this stuff up: <South Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council, turned down large numbers of homes because the concentration of social housing tenants would prevent the development of “sustainable communities”>. This means that in their ideological stance they do not want social housing tenants to stay together even if this means that many of these people will stay homeless together.
These are the same guys that reject perfectly legal planning applications on the same subjective basis as in the interest of "sustainable development". It means nothing most of the time, it is just the City planners ideological or political stance against more concentrated development that Dublin badly needs. These council bureaucrats do not live in the real world since their salary is always paid on time by the Irish taxpayers. I had the misfortune in my life of having to meet a few of them.

Gumbo

GGTrek wrote: »

This is today´s news:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/councils-rejected-over-2-000-nama-homes-for-social-housing-1.2924785
it should be read carefully by the posters in this forum screaming "greedy landlords!" and of course by your very own Irish govvie and TDs to understand who is really causing the housing shortage in Ireland and the increase of rents
I mean you just cannot make this stuff up: <South Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council, turned down large numbers of homes because the concentration of social housing tenants would prevent the development of “sustainable communities”>. This means that in their ideological stance they do not want social housing tenants to stay together even if this means that many of these people will stay homeless together.
These are the same guys that reject perfectly legal planning applications on the same subjective basis as in the interest of "sustainable development". It means nothing most of the time, it is just the City planners ideological or political stance against more concentrated development that Dublin badly needs. These council bureaucrats do not live in the real world since their salary is always paid on time by the Irish taxpayers. I had the misfortune in my life of having to meet a few of them.

Re-hashed story from last year. I remember reading it then. Figures are from 2011-2016 so somewhat recent though.

The councils have to deal with people refusing houses because its not where they grew up, or near parents, or near family, that's a major problem at present, rightly or wrongly, but the LA only enforces the law/rules of local government.

I also agree somewhat with the LA not taking a block of apartments from NAMA, which NAMA cannot sell on the private market, and then filling them with social tenants. My opinion is that it will lead to problems down the line, you need a mix of private and social housing for communities to strive and be looked after.

athtrasna

Funny how Fingal Co Co bought an entire cluster in Dublin 15 just over a year ago creating an estate with 100% social housing thus breaching their own quotas and in total contrast to the council quoted above.

Only difference was Fingal bought from the booming developer before the estate was finished, it was nowhere near being a nama situation, those houses would have sold privately without a problem.

seamus

Hard to decipher all the figures in there, but what I'm getting it that about 66% of the housing offered by NAMA to local authorities over a five-year period, was accepted and converted to social housing.

That's not bad.

I completely agree with them not taking any old housing just because it's a burning issue. Piling all the social housing together might ease the burden in the short-term, but it's kicking a much bigger problem down the road.

the_syco

A further 1,300 were rejected because their use would result in an over-concentration of social housing tenants.

In other words; we don't want to lump all the people on the dole into one estate, as in the past these estates have become sh|tholes full of unemployed.

RasTa wrote: »

Good, no more social housing in Dublin. Kick them down to Louth or whatever other ghost estates are around.

The funny thing is that Dublin and not-Dublin are separate housing lists. Some homeless won't move to certain areas within Dublin as they're not close to other family members, never mind moving them to Louth!

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

In other words; we don't want to lump all the people on the dole into one estate, as in the past these estates have become sh|tholes full of unemployed.


The funny thing is that Dublin and not-Dublin are separate housing lists. Some homeless won't move to certain areas within Dublin as they're not close to other family members, never mind moving them to Louth!

And under current rules, Lough likely won't accept someone who doesn't have a connection to their area onto their housing list.

goz83

Some people "just want to be looked after". The rest of us are fools for paying our way.

I agree it's a bad idea to lump a bunch of social tenants into the same area, but it's also very disheartening to see some people having their rent and bills paid for them, when you are shouldering a mortgage of hundreds of thousands of euros.

Sadly, I think the country is fecked and is going to get a whole lot worse.

RasTa

rawn wrote: »

A lot of people in council houses either work, or are unable to work (disabled, carers, elderly etc).

Yeah but most of them are bums. I've being living next to them animals for the past 8 years on and off

Carlos Orange

I wonder where the 15 Dublin city rejected due to having no demand were.

davindub

psinno wrote: »

I wonder where the 15 Dublin city rejected due to having no demand were.

Probably Foxrock, Ballsbridge and Dalkey.

GGTrek

Other article confirming ideological stance of councils, lack of flexibility (typical characteristics of bureaucrats):
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/authorities-unlikely-to-use-nama-owned-commercial-property-for-housing-1.2924800

They are even complaining that Nama does not offer the places for free, only 20% discount on market prices!

A lot of the issues on "sustainable communities" are discussed in the article an it shows how rigid the councils are.

antoinolachtnai

Have these houses and apartments shown up in the private market?

Surely there is good demand for them?

It doesn't really matter much whether they are state-rented or privately rented, as long as they are utilised.

Wheeliebin30

Remember folks sinn fein make up the majority of the councils.

Happy to sit back and blame the government for the shortage yet do nothing to help when offered. Anything to make the government look bad.

Sneaky chancers.

ted1

davindub wrote: »

Probably Foxrock, Ballsbridge and Dalkey.

Foxrock and Dalkey are not in Dublin City, they are in Dun Laoighre Rathdown.

Ballsbridge has a demand.

davindub

ted1 wrote: »

Foxrock and Dalkey are not in Dublin City, they are in Dun Laoighre Rathdown.

Ballsbridge has a demand.

It was a joke....I could imagine these areas would want 0 social housing

Sleepy

psinno wrote: »

I wonder where the 15 Dublin city rejected due to having no demand were.

Presumably in some god-awful hellhole of an estate where they can't let their current stock.

newacc2015

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Have these houses and apartments shown up in the private market?

Surely there is good demand for them?

It doesn't really matter much whether they are state-rented or privately rented, as long as they are utilised.

Of course there will be demand for them. A REIT or a dodgy fund will buy them. It is a lot cheaper to buy a block of apartments than build them still. Hence the reason why hardly any of the REITs are building.

I dont know if they will be let though. I know of a dodgy fund who brought hundreds of distressed houses/apartments and left them empty for over 2 years.

Spanish Eyes

I think the message is subtle.

People who work, contribute and pay taxes, save, scrimp, buy a house and then 100 social tenants are moved in to their NAMA complex. Would you be delira?

Answer honestly. I wouldn't with that kind of concentration TBH. And I think that is what the council's decisions are based on frankly. Good on them.

No more ghettoes aswell, and that's a good thing too.

Gumbo

GGTrek wrote: »

Other article confirming ideological stance of councils, lack of flexibility (typical characteristics of bureaucrats):
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/authorities-unlikely-to-use-nama-owned-commercial-property-for-housing-1.2924800

They are even complaining that Nama does not offer the places for free, only 20% discount on market prices!

A lot of the issues on "sustainable communities" are discussed in the article an it shows how rigid the councils are.

Sounds to me that you have a gripe with the councils moreso than the councils doing anything wrong here?

There's valid reasons why the refused 33% of the stock, and only accepted 66%.

TOEJOE

It's interesting I see that UCD was exchanging land with I think it may have been DOB and a condition of the sale was that no social housing would be allowed on the site.These guys are lecturing on social justice it's a mad world.

erudec

GGTrek wrote: »

This is today´s news:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/councils-rejected-over-2-000-nama-homes-for-social-housing-1.2924785
it should be read carefully by the posters in this forum screaming "greedy landlords!" and of course by your very own Irish govvie and TDs to understand who is really causing the housing shortage in Ireland and the increase of rents
I mean you just cannot make this stuff up: <South Dublin County Council and Dublin City Council, turned down large numbers of homes because the concentration of social housing tenants would prevent the development of “sustainable communities”>. This means that in their ideological stance they do not want social housing tenants to stay together even if this means that many of these people will stay homeless together.
These are the same guys that reject perfectly legal planning applications on the same subjective basis as in the interest of "sustainable development". It means nothing most of the time, it is just the City planners ideological or political stance against more concentrated development that Dublin badly needs. These council bureaucrats do not live in the real world since their salary is always paid on time by the Irish taxpayers. I had the misfortune in my life of having to meet a few of them.

Are you saying it's council staff who made this decision, or elected representatives?

If it was the hard left councillors who blocked it, then they might be asked how they reconcile that stance with their support for the Apollo House occupiers. If it was more the FF-FG types, then I guess they're just looking after their own voters. The middle class voter doesn't want to have "those people" move into the empty house down the road.

erudec

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I think the message is subtle.

People who work, contribute and pay taxes, save, scrimp, buy a house and then 100 social tenants are moved in to their NAMA complex. Would you be delira?

If the only social tenants allowed in are people who also work, contribute and pay taxes, would you drop your objection?

Ireland has no shortage of people who work hard, pay taxes but still struggle to get ahead. Obviously people like the cast of Shameless exist, but a huge proportion of people on the social housing list work hard and live clean.

Why should the upstanding, hard-working poor get the shaft just because some sleazy people abuse the system?

noeleenk72

Sleepy wrote: »

Presumably in some god-awful hellhole of an estate where they can't let their current stock.

There is no estates in dublin 15 that are vacant im sure of that

Sleepy

Vacant estates, I'd agree. Vacant properties which no-one wants due to those they'd be living beside certainly exist, however.

Samuel T. Cogley

As bleedin' heart liberal, living on an ex council estate, proud of my working class roots as I am... massive concentrations of social housing is a bad idea. It's an incredibly difficult balance but we need to break the cycle of creating problems in the medium and long terms by knee jerk short term solutions.