Right to a house?

Roger_007

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Housing should be a right, because it is a need.

So, if all citizens decide to exercise their right to a home, then homes will have to be provided on demand to any adult who wants one?
Also, if a home is a right, no one would have to buy one or pay rent for one? The state would simply have to provide enough homes for everyone free of charge?

I cannot see that working out well.:eek:

Seth Brundle

Roger_007 wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Housing should be a right, because it is a need.

So, if all citizens decide to exercise their right to a home, then homes will have to be provided on demand to any adult who wants one?
Also, if a home is a right, no one would have to buy one or pay rent for one? The state would simply have to provide enough homes for everyone free of charge?

I cannot see that working out well.:eek:

It will be my right to have my forever home (which is my right) on Sorrento Terrace. Anything less will be a breach of my rights.
...and fully furnished with period furniture.
...and the windows better not have any draughts!

Seth Brundle

Roger_007 wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Housing should be a right, because it is a need.

So, if all citizens decide to exercise their right to a home, then homes will have to be provided on demand to any adult who wants one?
Also, if a home is a right, no one would have to buy one or pay rent for one? The state would simply have to provide enough homes for everyone free of charge?

I cannot see that working out well.:eek:

It will be my right to have my forever home (which is my right) on Sorrento Terrace. Anything less will be a breach of my rights.
...and fully furnished with period furniture.
...and the windows better not have any draughts!

Colonel Claptrap

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list.

Housing is not subject to the free market.

-LPT
-4% rent pressure zones
-FTB tax rebate
-DIRT tax rebate on savings used to buy a home
-tennants cannot be kicked out unless landlord is selling or refurbishing
-HAP scheme
-social housing
-the existence of PRTB
-interest relief on borrowings
-stamp duty
-restrictive tennancy periods
-CPO of vacant dwellings

All of these are distortions of the 'free market' which apparently exists in Irish housing. I don't buy it.

Markcheese

oceanman wrote:

300k is the avarage price of the house in the current market, it dosent cost anywhere near that to build it...

Well site value ain't cheap (but state authorities have land banks), vat is a huge component, as is labour(which is taxed) , so no it wouldn't cost 300k to provide each house, but it still would cost at least 80 to 100 thousand (exclusive of site and utilities) to provide small basic unit of accommodation...
But that could be well worthwhile with private rents being so high... Helping those on the "bottom of the housing ladder" (ie. No other option but homelessness) and taking some of the "heat" out of the current rental market...

Markcheese

Incidentally, I believe in rights and responsibilities... While I don't believe everybody has a right to any home, where ever whenever (which would be daft), I do believe the state has a responsibility to provide housing for people (either through regulation and incentives or building houses, but probably both)

Mr. teddywinkles

pgj2015 wrote: »

that is not a problem, fair play to the rich for getting richer, its better than sitting around doing nothing, having as many kids as you want even though you live in a hotel (at the tax payers expense) and then whingeing and moaning that the government wont give you a free 6 bed house beside your family.

A lot of rich people get richer by sitting on their holes too. Ridiculous statement.

oceanman

Markcheese wrote: »

Well site value ain't cheap (but state authorities have land banks), vat is a huge component, as is labour(which is taxed) , so no it wouldn't cost 300k to provide each house, but it still would cost at least 80 to 100 thousand (exclusive of site and utilities) to provide small basic unit of accommodation...
But that could be well worthwhile with private rents being so high... Helping those on the "bottom of the housing ladder" (ie. No other option but homelessness) and taking some of the "heat" out of the current rental market...

I agree with all that, so why are the government not doing it right now?

Idbatterim

oceanman wrote: »

I agree with all that, so why are the government not doing it right now?

it's despicable. Vested interest or interests can be the only reason. I can't believe water charges mobilised so many people yet this scandal which is incomparable, attracts nowhere near the rage!

Tony EH

Tabnabs wrote: »

The problem I have with this logic is that it attracts a very vocal cohort who ultimately seek to make housing a right rather than a need. When we bought our house, we managed our expectations and moved accordingly. There was no way we could afford the areas close to our families. We adjusted our expectations and got on with it. That kind of pragmatic thinking is missing from this debate.

There are many, many, people who "manage" the "expectations" but will still never afford a home under the current circumstances, despite the two people in a given partnership working full time.

That's the reality of the situation for a lot of folk today.

There's "pragmatisim" and there's "bollocks"

All too often, it's the latter that too may people experience, despite doing their level best and engaging in the former.

Tony EH

Eric Cartman wrote: »

being unemployed is (sadly) not a crime.

Look at this statement.

Seriously...look at this statement.

Tony EH

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm getting sick of seeing McVerry on the TV as well dismissing every strategy the Government bring in while offering no solutions himself.

If one highlights a problem, it isn't naturally incumbent upon them to also provide a solution.

masculinist

PJW wrote: »

I can’t understand how “families” in emergency accommodation feel they have a right to a house and it’s the right of the government bodies to get them one.

I have no problem with giving people a right to basic shelter - provided its the cheapest option.

Theres loads of uninhabited houses and apartments in the middle of nowhere or even in moderately sized townlands. If someone living on the streets refuses one of those then feck them is my view. They can look for a job over the internet or get help from a case worker at that location like any local who lives there.
By demanding free housing in Dublin while on social welfare they're undermining the economy even more than they have to by driving up Dublin rents and mortgages, making Dublin (which produces most of the wealth they live off of ) more uncompetitive and hence robbing resources from more cooperative vulnerable people.

hatrickpatrick

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Housing is not subject to the free market.

-LPT
-4% rent pressure zones
-FTB tax rebate
-DIRT tax rebate on savings used to buy a home
-tennants cannot be kicked out unless landlord is selling or refurbishing
-HAP scheme
-social housing
-the existence of PRTB
-interest relief on borrowings
-stamp duty
-restrictive tennancy periods
-CPO of vacant dwellings

All of these are distortions of the 'free market' which apparently exists in Irish housing. I don't buy it.

I am simply advocating for more social housing, which is already on your list. Nobody should be priced out of having a home. I am not suggesting, as others have said, that people should have a right to live on a particular street or to live in a five bedroom mansion, I am merely proposing something akin to a universal basic income but with regard to a dwelling - we should build enough social housing that everybody who earns less than the amount required to rent on the private market can afford to rent social housing instead. There shouldn't be anybody homeless because they cannot afford somewhere to live - that's where the state should step in and provide a minimum living standard below which it is impossible to fall.

Again, this is in no way outlandish. That's exactly how education, emergency healthcare, and many other areas of Irish life already work. I am arguing that the principle of a minimum living standard be extended to housing, and that that minimum living standard should simply be having an ongoing (as in, not merely day-to-day and insecure) roof over one's head. It should be impossible to be unable to afford somewhere to live, just as it is impossible to be unable to afford treatment if you suddenly have a heart attack in the middle of Grafton St. There are certain things we as a state have decided to guarantee to all citizens regardless of financial concerns, in order to ensure a minimum quality of life - emergency healthcare is one such example. I am suggesting that housing should be another such example and that we should simply take the 1930s Herbert Simms route of building enough social housing to bridge the discrepancy between wages and housing costs. In other words, if there are ten people earning enough to afford €200 a month in rent, and there are no rental rooms below €300 a month, the government should build ten social housing units and charge each of those ten people their affordable €200 a week to rent them. Simple as that.

We have employed this policy as a nation in the past. I am not suggesting something outlandish or new. Crumlin, Drimnagh, Summerhill, Gloucester Place, Sallynoggin etc were all built directly by local government in response to a housing shortage. There weren't enough houses on the market which were affordable by ordinary people, so the council built its own and rented them at an affordable price. It isn't rocket science - it's something we used to do in this country right up until the end of the 1980s, or possibly even the mid 1990s. I'm not entirely sure when the moronic policy of handing the entire provision of social housing over to private developers was implemented, but it's quite clear that it has been an unmitigated and total disaster ever since. So we should revert to our pre-2000s policy. Simple as that.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695

My mother had been living (with seven other people) in what was essentially a one-room cottage in the Liberties; my father grew up in a little hovel off the Dublin quays.
The “market” never had and never would give them a decent place to live – the State did so instead. For all the problems, people in Crumlin had a secure roof over their heads and the chance to build a good community. We had homes.
Why could the State do this in the hungry 1930s and the postwar 1940s but not now?
Not because we can’t but because, as Enda Kenny put it last week, “interference in the market” must be avoided. The desperation to avoid the simple conclusion that government should build houses for people who need them is about ideology, not resources. Fine Gael, in particular, seems incapable of understanding housing as anything other than a market.

It is striking that the decline in the building of social housing in Ireland follows directly from the rise of so called “free market” ideology in the Thatcher/Reagan era. In the mid-1970s, social housing made up a third of all new houses. The shift in which that proportion dropped to just 5 per cent was as disastrous economically as it was socially – the property bubble could not have inflated without it.
And still, after all we’ve been through, 75 per cent of the Government’s promised “social housing” is to be built (supposedly) by the private sector.
There is an almost obsessive fear of stating the obvious – that a large proportion of people will never be decently housed by “the market”. Those citizens need a State that’s not afraid to clear the ground of narrow ideology and build on the foundations of real human needs. That might involve relearning another forgotten word – republic.

I've been saying this for years and years - the root of this issue is in the post-Reagan/Thatcher policy era of the free market sacred cow. F*ck the free market, if it isn't providing society with what society needs.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I am simply advocating for more social housing, which is already on your list. Nobody should be priced out of having a home. I am not suggesting, as others have said, that people should have a right to live on a particular street or to live in a five bedroom mansion, I am merely proposing something akin to a universal basic income but with regard to a dwelling - we should build enough social housing that everybody who earns less than the amount required to rent on the private market can afford to rent social housing instead. There shouldn't be anybody homeless because they cannot afford somewhere to live - that's where the state should step in and provide a minimum living standard below which it is impossible to fall.

Again, this is in no way outlandish. That's exactly how education, emergency healthcare, and many other areas of Irish life already work. I am arguing that the principle of a minimum living standard be extended to housing, and that that minimum living standard should simply be having an ongoing (as in, not merely day-to-day and insecure) roof over one's head. It should be impossible to be unable to afford somewhere to live, just as it is impossible to be unable to afford treatment if you suddenly have a heart attack in the middle of Grafton St. There are certain things we as a state have decided to guarantee to all citizens regardless of financial concerns, in order to ensure a minimum quality of life - emergency healthcare is one such example. I am suggesting that housing should be another such example and that we should simply take the 1930s Herbert Simms route of building enough social housing to bridge the discrepancy between wages and housing costs. In other words, if there are ten people earning enough to afford €200 a month in rent, and there are no rental rooms below €300 a month, the government should build ten social housing units and charge each of those ten people their affordable €200 a week to rent them. Simple as that.

We have employed this policy as a nation in the past. I am not suggesting something outlandish or new. Crumlin, Drimnagh, Summerhill, Gloucester Place, Sallynoggin etc were all built directly by local government in response to a housing shortage. There weren't enough houses on the market which were affordable by ordinary people, so the council built its own and rented them at an affordable price. It isn't rocket science - it's something we used to do in this country right up until the end of the 1980s, or possibly even the mid 1990s. I'm not entirely sure when the moronic policy of handing the entire provision of social housing over to private developers was implemented, but it's quite clear that it has been an unmitigated and total disaster ever since. So we should revert to our pre-2000s policy. Simple as that.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-opposition-to-social-housing-is-matter-of-ideology-not-economics-1.2397695



I've been saying this for years and years - the root of this issue is in the post-Reagan/Thatcher policy era of the free market sacred cow. F*ck the free market, if it isn't providing society with what society needs.

Government has provided money, resources and legislation to local authorities. Yet, still Dublin City Council refuses to allow high-rise and high-density housing. Until that changes, the problem will remain.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

Government has provided money, resources and legislation to local authorities. Yet, still Dublin City Council refuses to allow high-rise and high-density housing. Until that changes, the problem will remain.

Of course this is also part of the problem. I still feel that the root of the issue is the ideological / policy position of "the free market is sacred and the government does not directly impinge upon it", IE we don't do what we used to and directly hire builders and architects to build housing which would be 100% owned by the councils, who would then administer the renting thereof on a long term basis. This policy worked in the past, the current policy does not work, ergo we need to revert.

It's just not that complicated. If you own a shop and you find that your sales plummet after you change your internal lighting from warm-yellow to cold-blue, do you then operate for years upon years with the cold-blue lighting and constantly scratch your head saying "I just don't know why our business has fallen apart"? Government policy changed in the late 1980s / early 1990s, that change in policy has been a f*cking nightmare since day one, let's simply change back. Very, very simple stuff.

James Brown

If the government do not want to finance social housing builds, they should not be using tax payer money to finance private builds.
At best we'll have more homes with people requiring bigger loans or more tax funded aid; such is the current ponzi scheme of Fine Gael economics.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course this is also part of the problem. I still feel that the root of the issue is the ideological / policy position of "the free market is sacred and the government does not directly impinge upon it", IE we don't do what we used to and directly hire builders and architects to build housing which would be 100% owned by the councils, who would then administer the renting thereof on a long term basis. This policy worked in the past, the current policy does not work, ergo we need to revert.

It's just not that complicated. If you own a shop and you find that your sales plummet after you change your internal lighting from warm-yellow to cold-blue, do you then operate for years upon years with the cold-blue lighting and constantly scratch your head saying "I just don't know why our business has fallen apart"? Government policy changed in the late 1980s / early 1990s, that change in policy has been a f*cking nightmare since day one, let's simply change back. Very, very simple stuff.

The latest discussions in Dublin City Council are about whether portraits should be hung in the Council chamber. The level of debate is below that of a residents association. Not surprising given the current calibre of councillors, but they have the money, they have the resources and they have the tools to solve the housing problem, yet they refuse to use them or just don't know how to use them.

Chips Lovell

We still do directly build local authority housing. The problem is that, for the moment at least, we're not building enough. Admittedly, it's hard to quickly scale up construction to the levels needed, but the problem was foreseeable and they should have started ramping it up sooner.

Secondly, while we certainly are in the midst of the housing crisis, there are only so many corners you can cut. I've direct experience of what happens when you build vast swathes of local authority housing with little or nothing in the way of infrastructure and facilities and it ain't pretty.

We can't repeat the mistakes of the past. Smaller developments, built alongside private housing, with decent facilities are the way to go.

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

We still do directly build local authority housing. The problem is that, for the moment at least, we're not building enough. Admittedly, it's hard to quickly scale up construction to the levels needed, but the problem was foreseeable and they should have started ramping it up sooner.

Where do we, still? All of the big projects in recent times have involved selling the actual land itself for the mixed use developments, not merely hiring builders to build new units on that land while retaining the land and all units on it in 100% council ownership.

You can still have mixed use developments this way - just charge different rates based on income demographics. But it doesn't have to involve sell-offs.

O'Devaney Gardens is a prime example. Why do we have to sell any of it? Every square centimeter of that land should have DCC as its owner-landlord. DCC could then create its own mixed-tenure development as it saw fit. But selling this land into private ownership at a time when we need more, not less social housing is completely mad. We will regret the decision to sell so much state-owned land into the private sector a few years down the line, I guarantee that. Particularly if we also maintain the post-1980s paradigm that we never buy land by compulsory purchase to build housing, as we did in the early 20th century.

With the crisis we have now, we need artificial rent deflation through loss-leading social housing. Simple as that. Council-subsidised rents are one way to do this, but we're not trying it for whatever reason.

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Where do we, still? All of the big projects in recent times have involved selling the actual land itself for the mixed use developments, not merely hiring builders to build new units on that land while retaining the land and all units on it in 100% council ownership.

Cornamona Court in Ballyfermot for example:

A €20 million estate of more than 60 council houses and apartments is to be built by Dublin City Council in Ballyfermot, more than eight years since a regeneration project for the site was shelved.

Cornamona Court in Ballyfermot will be the largest housing estate built by the council since the property crash, and one of the few to be directly built by the local authority in several years

Consonata

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Cornamona Court in Ballyfermot for example:

"One of the first in several years" being the important point.

It's a good start yet 60 houses is meagre enough.

Chips Lovell

Consonata wrote: »

"One of the first in several years" being the important point.

It's a good start yet 60 houses is meagre enough.

I agree. We need to be building more alright. But I think for a single development, 60 is enough. What we need are more developments.

recedite

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

We still do directly build local authority housing.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Where do we, still? All of the big projects in recent times have involved selling the actual land itself

What do people think of NGO's owning and running the nation's stock of social housing? Can they make a better job of it than the local authorities?
For example

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Cornamona Court in Ballyfermot for example:

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I agree. We need to be building more alright. But I think for a single development, 60 is enough. What we need are more developments.

Ok, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. 100%. What we need is this, on the scale of Simms' 1930s blitz which saw council owned developments built all over the city, often after compulsorily purchasing derelict and misused property (back then it was tenements, today it could be the buildings involved in the slum landlords revelations over the last few months for instance) - and we also need to stop selling off council owned land to be completely privately owned, which is completely mental. The manner in which the redevelopments of sites such as O'Devaney, Teresa's Gardens, Charlemont St etc is being pursued seems mad to me - absolutely we need mixed use developments, I'm not questioning that, but the council should remain in full ownership of the entire site and have the power to set its own rents for each unit. I don't understand why they insist on selling, permanently, this land as part of such deals with developers.

hatrickpatrick

recedite wrote: »

What do people think of NGO's owning and running the nation's stock of social housing? Can they make a better job of it than the local authorities?
For example

I have no problem with that at all, and Cluid have done an amazing job of regenerating many of the developments they have been put in charge of. If I'm not very much mistaken, the blocks of run down flats around Railway St which were redeveloped a few years back were Cluid?

My issue is when we take a site which is 100% state owned and we give bits of it to private developers permanently, to set their own market rates. This is just contributing to the problem of the private sector gouging ordinary citizens, and is the opposite of what we should be doing in my view.

EDIT: It wasn't Railway Street but Killarney Court which is about five minutes away, my bad. Have a look at before and after pictures, they did an absolutely stellar job regenerating the complex.

Chips Lovell

PPPs came about because, while councils had plenty of sites, what they lacked was sufficient capital to develop/redevelop them.

The days of whacking up a few hundred council flats on a site and nothing else are gone. We only have to look at the likes of Michael's Estate in Inchicore to see how that worked out. So instead you need something with a mix of public and private housing and decent amenities. And that costs more to develop.

Dublin City Council did actually attempt to go it alone with O'Devaney gardens in 2012 but couldn't raise the cash to do it.

Now, I guess the question is, if the outcome is going to be the same, a development with a mix of public and private ownership, does it really matter who builds the thing? Or, to put it another way, is it better to have a site lying undeveloped for lack of funds or have it redeveloped by a private developer?

Tabnabs

Tony EH wrote: »

There are many, many, people who "manage" the "expectations" but will still never afford a home under the current circumstances, despite the two people in a given partnership working full time.

That's the reality of the situation for a lot of folk today.

There's "pragmatisim" and there's "bollocks"

All too often, it's the latter that too may people experience, despite doing their level best and engaging in the former.

You need to reverse that line I've highlighted, because that's what I'm seeing.

Two people, working full time can't get a mortgage for a house for under €200,000 in Dublin? http://www.daft.ie/dublin/houses-for-sale/tallaght/?s%5Bmxp%5D=200000

When you can't live in the real world and accept you will never own a house near the mammy, your local and the school you went to 25 years ago, then your problem is self inflicted and not because of some conspiracy between some neo-liberal, capitalistic, Fine Gael unholy trinity. Stop whinging and looking for someone else to solve your problems and suck up the two hour commute, or life in the double figure postal address in Dublin, or the plane ticket to the UK/USA/Aus because Ireland can't afford you a future. That's what the rest of the working population are doing. Make the hard decisions and compromises because life isn't fair and notions of equality of outcome is an illusion, peddled by those with vested interests.

recedite

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Cluid have done an amazing job of regenerating many of the developments they have been put in charge of.

I agree. Also it seems they hold onto the properties permanently.
Most of the council stock of houses built in the 1960's seems to have disappeared. Often sold off by the next generation of the family, who in many cases were not short of a few bob.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

PPPs came about because, while councils had plenty of sites, what they lacked was sufficient capital to develop/redevelop them.

The days of whacking up a few hundred council flats on a site and nothing else are gone. We only have to look at the likes of Michael's Estate in Inchicore to see how that worked out. So instead you need something with a mix of public and private housing and decent amenities. And that costs more to develop.

Dublin City Council did actually attempt to go it alone with O'Devaney gardens in 2012 but couldn't raise the cash to do it.

Now, I guess the question is, if the outcome is going to be the same, a development with a mix of public and private ownership, does it really matter who builds the thing? Or, to put it another way, is it better to have a site lying undeveloped for lack of funds or have it redeveloped by a private developer?

Who builds it is not the issue. It would always be a private builder. The issue is, if funded or banked by the tax payer, who owns it once built?
Building privately owned homes put for sale at market rate won't make any notable inroads into the problem.
The councils put profit over their actual job and they were encouraged by national government to do so. That didn't seem like a bad idea to the short sighted, narrow minded at the time. We are not in a place, (thankfully) where credit is free flowing and readily available to enable the general public to avail of these new builds. The idea that making profits solves everything is simply bad management. As with selling off public land for profit was foolhardy, so to is using tax payer money to bank private builds, which will then be sold at artificially high market rates, (artificial due to government meddling).
Current moves as regards housing are not helping, the government is actively working against the public interest in that regard.

Chips Lovell

Actually, we need to build both.

Private house building also ground to a halt. This means that people who could afford to buy a house can't, because there aren't enough being built. Which means they stay in private rented accommodation, pushing rents upwards and pushing the poorest out the bottom of the market.

Secondly, you can't just build local authority houses in large sites. That's been done before and was a disaster. That's why the likes of St Michael's is being redeveloped. If it had worked it wouldn't have been knocked down.

Long story short, you need a mix of both.

recedite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Who builds it is not the issue. It would always be a private builder. The issue is, if funded or banked by the tax payer, who owns it once built?

Once upon a time councils had their own tradesmen and engineers, and it was "a job for life". Now they have lost that expertise, but they could recruit workers again.
That is unlikely to be public policy ever again, partly because council workers were notoriously lazy and slow.

But then it begs the question, if they are useless at building the houses, useless at maintaining them, and useless at retaining control of them, what is the point of giving local authorities the ownership of them?

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Actually, we need to build both.

Private house building also ground to a halt. This means that people who could afford to buy a house can't, because there aren't enough being built. Which means they stay in private rented accommodation, pushing rents upwards and pushing the poorest out the bottom of the market.

Secondly, you can't just build local authority houses in large sites. That's been done before and was a disaster. That's why the likes of St Michael's is being redeveloped. If it had worked it wouldn't have been knocked down.

Long story short, you need a mix of both.

I agree. The state seems to be concentrating on one with a concerted effort to fudge the term 'social' to mean 'available to buy', going by their last housing publication.

recedite wrote: »

Once upon a time councils had their own tradesmen and engineers, and it was "a job for life". Now they have lost that expertise, but they could recruit workers again.
That is unlikely to be public policy ever again, partly because council workers were notoriously lazy and slow.

But then it begs the question, if they are useless at building the houses, useless at maintaining them, and useless at retaining control of them, what is the point of giving local authorities the ownership of them?

We have record breaking, growing crises. So logic dictates that something is wrong and things are becoming worse. So staying the course simply makes no sense.
I'm not sure who you're responding to as I don't see anyone advocating the councils hiring vast swathes of tradesmen. Councils tender out/hire private companies to take care of much of it's maintenance to it's housing stock. It's been that way for a very long time.

If there are issues with councils not carrying out their remit to our satisfaction it should be addressed. Simply complaining about it and doing nothing but watch things get worse is cutting your nose to spite your face. There's enough blame to go around, but using it to ignore possible solutions and continue as is, is silly.

Meanwhile should we expect a rap on the knuckles off the EU for using NAMA as a builder friendly bank? Does it contravene competition laws, or is it okay with folks as long as it doesn't benefit the general public?

jimmycrackcorm

hatrickpatrick wrote:

I've been saying this for years and years - the root of this issue is in the post-Reagan/Thatcher policy era of the free market sacred cow. F*ck the free market, if it isn't providing society with what society needs.

I don't think that's entirely to blame. The bleeding hearts demand that social housing may be integrated which dictates buying into expensive private schemes in the name of equality.

Yet they won't tackle the source of the problems of large scale social housing is developed, which is the problem tenants.

It has also become too expensive for councils to actually provide housing due to their own building regulations and requirements that thankfully are starting to change.

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

PPPs came about because, while councils had plenty of sites, what they lacked was sufficient capital to develop/redevelop them.

The days of whacking up a few hundred council flats on a site and nothing else are gone. We only have to look at the likes of Michael's Estate in Inchicore to see how that worked out. So instead you need something with a mix of public and private housing and decent amenities. And that costs more to develop.

Dublin City Council did actually attempt to go it alone with O'Devaney gardens in 2012 but couldn't raise the cash to do it.

Now, I guess the question is, if the outcome is going to be the same, a development with a mix of public and private ownership, does it really matter who builds the thing? Or, to put it another way, is it better to have a site lying undeveloped for lack of funds or have it redeveloped by a private developer?

It matters who owns it though. Because what we actually need, which nobody is talking about, is a fairly large scale artificial deflation of rental prices through artificially low rents backed by councils. That doesn't happen if you allow the private sector to *own* these sites after they have been developed - they are interested in getting as much money as they possibly can in return, not in "what can we do here to better society as a whole by correcting the overheated rental economy".

Let me put this another way - social housing is one thing, but I'm suggesting that even "mixed tenure" developments still need some kind of artificially low rents (in other words, not market rate) because market rate is now simply too damn expensive for ordinary people to afford without being left miserably destitute in every other way. So it's not just about housing the homeless anymore, it's about achieving a massive and reasonably rapid reduction in rents across the board. Rent controls are apparently a no no, so this is the next best option. Because essentially, it is now clear that just like education, health etc, we simply shouldn't allow housing to be dictated by how much money people can make from providing it. It needs to be provided for the good of society at rates which society can afford, even if those rates are less than the absolute maximum it would be possible to milk from people given the chance.

The private sector will never behave this way, it isn't designed to. But we have a societal need for it. That's where the state should step in.

Our first and foremost priority must be to ensure a decent quality of life for average individual citizens. This doesn't happen in a system which is designed to milk as much money from them as possible, rather than deciding on a rate which is reasonable and doesn't leave people financially destitute.

One of the "three Fs" back in the days of the Land League was "fair rent" - in other words, not just a rent which would turn a profit but also one which tenants could reasonably be expected to afford. That concept has gone out the window in favour of "if your decently paying job won't house you, tough sh!t, too bad". That's not the kind of society I want to live in, and I highly doubt most others want to live in it either. But since the Reagan / Thatcher era, it seems to be simply "not on the table" or "not up for discussion" in terms of potential policy changes we could make.

I'm not talking about social housing to house just the most destitute in our society (which we absolutely need, don't get me wrong) - I'm talking about a more fundamental drive to force the price of rent down by any means necessary, so that peoples' quality of life will stop plummeting as their rents skyrocket and they are left with less and less disposable income for anything else. So I'm not just talking about your classic "we'll build a few blocks of flats here and there for people on the dole", I'm talking about a much wider "this country's land is too expensive and the prices need to be forced down or we'll have an entire generation of people who are never able to live a decent life even with relatively high paid jobs".

EDIT: Again, healthcare is a good example of this. The reason we don't leave it entirely to the private sector is because if we did, thousands of ordinary people would end up priced out of healthcare and their quality of life would plummet as their health deteriorated and they couldn't afford to pay for it to be maintained. I really don't understand why people find it so outlandish to look at housing in the same context.

Consonata

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I agree. We need to be building more alright. But I think for a single development, 60 is enough. What we need are more developments.

Couldn't we be building building up and get more for a single development. Obviously not in isolation, building retail spaces and schools for new communities. Projects on a scale which haven't been done since the 60s

Seth Brundle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One of the "three Fs" back in the days of the Land League was "fair rent" - in other words, not just a rent which would turn a profit but also one which tenants could reasonably be expected to afford. That concept has gone out the window in favour of "if your decently paying job won't house you, tough sh!t, too bad". That's not the kind of society I want to live in, and I highly doubt most others want to live in it either. But since the Reagan / Thatcher era, it seems to be simply "not on the table" or "not up for discussion" in terms of potential policy changes we could make.

How do you propose defining what "fair rent" is?
What better way is there of defining a fair rent than the market rate?

Consonata

kbannon wrote: »

How do you propose defining what "fair rent" is?
What better way is there of defining a fair rent than the market rate?

Market rate, and then in certain circumstances, take a %age of income so we don't have people spending half to 2/3rds of their income on rent.

Seth Brundle

Consonata wrote: »

Market rate, and then in certain circumstances, take a %age of income so we don't have people spending half to 2/3rds of their income on rent.

What percentage if circumstances and what are these circumstances?
So some landlords can charge market rate whilst others will be limited in what they charge based on some arbitrary circumstances? I can see them lining up to exit the business!

James Brown

The market rate is artificially skewed against the consumer. People on low income get rent aid to assist, the same with buyers. This gives a false market rate.
When people can't afford rents, instead of them becoming lower, the state steps in with a tax funded dig out. Why would anyone drop prices? It's a fixed game.

If we're talking caps; how much a landlord can raise rent in a given period is the only reasonable route.

We are in the process of penalising the public, to maintain private profit margins in the housing industry.

Wheeliebin30

blanch152 wrote: »

The latest discussions in Dublin City Council are about whether portraits should be hung in the Council chamber. The level of debate is below that of a residents association. Not surprising given the current calibre of councillors, but they have the money, they have the resources and they have the tools to solve the housing problem, yet they refuse to use them or just don't know how to use them.

Majority sinn fein too.

If the "homeless" crisis was solved what use would they be?

Not much left to rant and rave about while offering no credible solutions.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The market rate is artificially skewed against the consumer. People on low income get rent aid to assist, the same with buyers. This gives a false market rate.
When people can't afford rents, instead of them becoming lower, the state steps in with a tax funded dig out. Why would anyone drop prices? It's a fixed game.

If we're talking caps; how much a landlord can raise rent in a given period is the only reasonable route.

We are in the process of penalising the public, to maintain private profit margins in the housing industry.

There is a relatively free market in the private sector, as things stand, so the market rent is just that. Because there are many, many players on both sides of the market that market cannot be manipulated in any significant way.

This is proved further by the climb in rents over recent years - reflecting under supply and scarcity. People can (and do) adjust to high rents by dropping their housing needs - extra people in a house, sharing rooms (I did it myself years ago) etc. Rents cannot inflate indefinitely - people will only pay over so much of their income.

For Forks Sake

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Majority sinn fein too.

If the "homeless" crisis was solved what use would they be?

Not much left to rant and rave about while offering no credible solutions.

Yep. Same council cut LPT by 15% (on some of the most valuable property i the country) and have the gall to whinge about lack of money for badly needed projects across the city

MayoSalmon

For Forks Sake wrote:

Yep. Same council cut LPT by 15% (on some of the most valuable property i the country) and have the gall to whinge about lack of money for badly needed projects across the city

SF are champagne socialists. They have no grasp of basic economics.

FreudianSlippers

Consonata wrote: »

Market rate, and then in certain circumstances, take a %age of income so we don't have people spending half to 2/3rds of their income on rent.

So wait... two identical apartments have a different rental price depending on the income of the tenants?

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It matters who owns it though. Because what we actually need, which nobody is talking about, is a fairly large scale artificial deflation of rental prices through artificially low rents backed by councils. That doesn't happen if you allow the private sector to *own* these sites after they have been developed - they are interested in getting as much money as they possibly can in return, not in "what can we do here to better society as a whole by correcting the overheated rental economy".

Just because it's a PPP thought doesn't mean the local authority doesn't own the public portion of the development. Take O'Devaney Gardens for example. Half of the 585 new homes will be private housing, 30 per cent will be social housing, and 20 per cent will be “ affordable” housing . That to me is the kind of mix we should be aiming for.

High rents at present are being driven by lack of supply. Best way to ease that pressure is building more houses.

recedite

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Just because it's a PPP thought doesn't mean the local authority doesn't own the public portion of the development. Take O'Devaney Gardens for example. Half of the 585 new homes will be private housing, 30 per cent will be social housing, and 20 per cent will be “ affordable” housing . That to me is the kind of mix we should be aiming for.

So different people paying different prices for the same thing.
To me that is wrong. There is no incentive to be that guy paying the top price.

Chips Lovell

Affordable housing schemes aren't new. They've never deterred people from paying market price for similar.

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

There is a relatively free market in the private sector, as things stand, so the market rent is just that. Because there are many, many players on both sides of the market that market cannot be manipulated in any significant way.

This is proved further by the climb in rents over recent years - reflecting under supply and scarcity. People can (and do) adjust to high rents by dropping their housing needs - extra people in a house, sharing rooms (I did it myself years ago) etc. Rents cannot inflate indefinitely - people will only pay over so much of their income.

...or become dependent on the state.
If you're selling and nobody is buying you've two options, lower your prices or find another career. That's not how the housing market works.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

...

High rents at present are being driven by lack of supply. Best way to ease that pressure is building more houses.

I believe NAMA loaning tax payer monies to developers, at more favourable rates than any other financial lender is willing to, is a good example of state interference in the market aiding artificial market pricing.

Building more private houses will only help if prices are driven down because of more supply. The state will ensure this doesn't happen, if it continues as is, (grants/subsidies etc.).

Seth Brundle

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So wait... two identical apartments have a different rental price depending on the income of the tenants?

Socialism: You have two cows. The government takes one of your cows and gives it to your neighbor. You're both forced to join a cooperative where you have to teach your neighbor how to take care of his cow.

:rolleyes: