Right to a house?

Bass Reeves

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I don't know how often an LA has to completely 'refurb' a house to the extent it costs the same as building it. Do you? It sounds like scaremongering. I've never heard of it. I'd expect in the last sixty or seventy years it's happened maybe.
We're talking about giving the tax payer breathing room with the availability of state owned rentals easing the market to an affordable extent, not giving everyone a house. Charging rent.

Next time you are in Limerick go up to the railway station and go up to the right of it and look and the nice new block of apartments. AFAIK these were orginall build in the 70's empty since the mid noughties, they were in a dire state by the time they were empty. All the talk is that it was just because of the fact they were flats. Down past the market something similar, give a spin through any major urban area and go through what will be termed Council estates and have a look.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Because I'm not suggesting we build houses until it runs out. I have access to calculators or are you suspecting I'm avoiding the sum to hide something, after providing the figures?

That's what's happening. There's no return on rent subsidies going to landlords and first time buyer grants going to developers. All helping landlords and developers keep their prices were they like. So much for the market.

It's like this; we can give people tax payer money to rent or buy privately. Or we can rent state owned properties out, sell at a reasonable rate. This will recoup money spent over time and cool the market in the process.

We are buying homes at the market rate to rent to council tenants, spending tax money on hotels, (39m last year), paying rents to private landlords etc.
This is policy at this stage. It's necessity due to poor housing strategy. These things take time, they've had time, so one can only conclude this is the plan. The plan doesn't work.

While I agree with you about the hotels unfortunately it is unlikely you could have a stock of houses at hand any stage to house people at a short notice. But there is little difference between giving rent to a private landlord who manages his own maintenance and having your own stock to rent. The rents will not cover the day to day maintenance and upkeep of these houses.

While agree that we have a poor housing strategy unfortunately resources are limited. The state has limited what buyers can borrow to try to cool the market, personally I disagree with mortgage interest relief but at the end of the day if it is so profitable to build houses what are developers rushing in to build houses to meet demand.

Part of the reason is the high costs of sites and I have often advocated a carrot and stick approach to this by using increased capital gains tax on development land to encourage its development. But it has not happened.

Some just can’t be helped. This is disgraceful. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/when-tenants-choose-to-abuse-the-roof-over-their-heads-823960.html

Bass Reeves

Deleted User wrote: »

Some just can’t be helped. This is disgraceful. http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/when-tenants-choose-to-abuse-the-roof-over-their-heads-823960.html

The big thing that we hear about from advoactes for social housing is security of tenure. That Tenants have no security and cannot make decision because they may be afraid of eviction.

What annoys most people is a fairly sizable section of these tensnts are unwilling to even carry out minimal maintenance on houses that they have at reasonable rents. My minimal I mean a bit of painting, keeping the house clean and tidy and no damaging it.

I was delighted this morning to see the Government to bring back whatr were previously call council loans for housing. The loan rate is 2.5% and can be for 90% of house price. Borrow's can borrow up to 350k in Dublin,Galway and Cork and 250K accross rest of country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/enviroment/2018/0122/934974-murphy-housing-loan/

This will at least put pressure on banks to reduce lending rates.

mikep

I found this line interesting:
There are about 4,600 on the housing waiting list, according to the council’s housing chief, Valerie O’Sullivan. At a recent CIF builders’ briefing in Páirc Uí Chaoimh, Ms O’Sullivan said that “only 2,500 of that number is actively engaging with us in search of housing”.

If that is the case across the country that would imply housing lists could be almost halved, I'n my opinion if you don't have a legitimate reason (illness etc) not to engage you should be removed from the list.

Interesting article.

"Others, he says, build up their time on the housing list to get a place they really desire."

Excuse me........ what? :pac:

Sounds handy!

recedite

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I was delighted this morning to see the Government to bring back whatr were previously call council loans for housing. The loan rate is 2.5% and can be for 90% of house price. Borrow's can borrow up to 350k in Dublin,Galway and Cork and 250K accross rest of country.

https://www.rte.ie/news/enviroment/2018/0122/934974-murphy-housing-loan/

This will at least put pressure on banks to reduce lending rates.

Yes this is a very significant development. Also I see its fixed for the entire duration of the loan - up to 30 years.
They should have set it to 2% to match the ECB inflation base rate targets IMO.
Only available to first time buyers though, so it won't benefit everybody.

Jim2007

Bass Reeves wrote: »

I was delighted this morning to see the Government to bring back whatr were previously call council loans for housing.

recedite wrote: »

Yes this is a very significant development. Also I see its fixed for the entire duration of the loan - up to 30 years.

All that does is increase the number of buyers in the market and increases the price of houses in the lower end of the market.

Until Ireland adapts a more central European type housing policy with a strong emphasis on the development of proper rental market, it is just a political game.

seamus

Bass Reeves wrote: »

What annoys most people is a fairly sizable section of these tensnts are unwilling to even carry out minimal maintenance on houses that they have at reasonable rents. My minimal I mean a bit of painting, keeping the house clean and tidy and no damaging it.

And a fairly sizeable section of landlords would go crazy and withhold deposits if a tenant had the gall to do a bit of painting, hang a couple of pictures or change a light fitting.

They're two sides of the same dysfunctional market - landlords see tenants as temporary interlopers staying in their house, and tenants see landlords as cheap money-grabbers living a life of luxury.

Because we don't have the benefit of a renting "culture" as they have elsewhere, we may have to go full on crazy and put some really basic things into law - such as the right of a tenant to redecorate as they see fit provided they restore the property at the end of a tenancy, and an obligation to put deposits in an escrow account and a legal ban on any "additional" deposits made directly to the landlord.

tringle

seamus wrote: »

And a fairly sizeable section of landlords would go crazy and withhold deposits if a tenant had the gall to do a bit of painting, hang a couple of pictures or change a light fitting.
.

Our tenant painted murals on all the walls with poster paint....superheros, hearts and flowery things. It took 6 coats of paint and is still showing through. She called me to say the toaster was on fire and stained the wall and I said not to worry about it. An hour later she called wanting to know when I was buying her a new toaster as her 4 year old was waiting on his lunch.

I have no problem with making small changes or even breaking things but you must replace them, leave the house as you found it.

We rented a house and the immersion went, the only source of hot water in a house with 3 babies. We bought a new one a installed it and out of courtesy told the landlord. He said he would pay for it, we daid we weren't looking for the money...just letting him know. When we left 6 months later he refunded us the cost saying the old one was 20 years old and someone else would get the benefit of the new one. We had the house repainted before we left (three toddlers equals messy walls)

It just takes a bit of common sense on both sides but common sense isn't so common any more.

I welcome the new inititave for first time buyers, it certainly helped a lot to buy in 70s.

Bass Reeves

seamus wrote: »

And a fairly sizeable section of landlords would go crazy and withhold deposits if a tenant had the gall to do a bit of painting, hang a couple of pictures or change a light fitting.

They're two sides of the same dysfunctional market - landlords see tenants as temporary interlopers staying in their house, and tenants see landlords as cheap money-grabbers living a life of luxury.

Because we don't have the benefit of a renting "culture" as they have elsewhere, we may have to go full on crazy and put some really basic things into law - such as the right of a tenant to redecorate as they see fit provided they restore the property at the end of a tenancy, and an obligation to put deposits in an escrow account and a legal ban on any "additional" deposits made directly to the landlord.

In the case above I am not talking about private rentals I was making the point about those tenants that are in long term council houses and paying very modest rents.

I agree that private landlords put clauses in rental agreemenst. However this may because that tenants can exit on quite short notice and landlords have to get the house up to sctrach to let again. Some rentals are quite shortterm and having to paint houses that a tenant may have used really dark colours and done a bad wall paper job to will all cost money to get back up to rental spec.

seamus

Bass Reeves wrote: »

In the case above I am not talking about private rentals I was making the point about those tenants that are in long term council houses and paying very modest rents.

I agree that private landlords put clauses in rental agreemenst. However this may because that tenants can exit on quite short notice and landlords have to get the house up to sctrach to let again. Some rentals are quite shortterm and having to paint houses that a tenant may have used really dark colours and done a bad wall paper job to will all cost money to get back up to rental spec.

And these (and tringle's example), are all just symptoms of the same problem. We've a vicious cycle where nobody treats renting as a long term option, so they don't create agreements or arrangements that encourage long-term renting, so people don't treat rentals as long term...

Everyone puts in the minimum effort because they expect to get burned. In the end it doesn't really matter who the landlord is, the tenant doesn't do the basic maintenance work because they've too many stories of landlords being assholes about it when they did. And landlords are assholes about it because they've loads of stories about tenants who painted ugly murals on the bedroom walls and then left the house in a jock.