Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Right to a house?

Options
1234568

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Come off it.

    Public money being used to fund individuals to build their own home is still "private profit".

    You're conviently ignoring that AIB (state owned) already funds Joe blogs at rates far better than the 4-5% developers will pay.

    Who benefits if smaller developers are encouraged to compete in the market? How does more competition and increased supply lead to higher prices exactly?

    Agreed, if and when they sell. But it's a person building a place to live in. Not to fund stock for selling at profit.

    Nope. They're a business (allegedly) not a 100% tax funded, answerable to the tax payer public body. By the by, AIB doesn't have to pay tax on any profits for the next thirty(?) years.

    It's about them not falling. When you can avail of more favourable loans you've more leeway to up your profit margin, without raising prices, but you can of course. You also don't have to lower them if your customer base is partially state funded to meet the price you set.

    More housing would work in a free market, but the housing industry in Ireland doesn't operate in one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    Agreed, if and when they sell. But it's a person building a place to live in. Not to fund stock for selling at profit.

    But a developer is an entity building a home too. Lots of them. And it's building them a hell of a lot more efficiently than the individual.

    Either way, your gripe was that it was public money funding a private entity. I don't get why the individual building a cottage on the side of a mountain should get prefererential treatment over a developer building 100 houses in Dublin (with 10 of them allocated back to the state at a reduced price!)
    It's about them not falling. When you can avail of more favourable loans you've more leeway to up your profit margin, without raising prices, but you can of course. You also don't have to lower them if your customer base is partially state funded to meet the price you set.

    NAMA is offering these loans to smaller developers who are otherwise priced out of the debt markets. These are the guys who will be undercutting Cairn and Ballymore to build small estates cheaper. The big guys are sitting on land banks, in no hurry to build. Competition will help change that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,868 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    .

    (By the way, if NAMA gave individuals loans to build their own homes at rates more favourable than any bank was willing to there'd be sherry spilling in Fine Gael branches throughout the land.)

    .

    The biggest environmental problem in this country is the sheer amount of one-off housing built outside cities over the last twenty years. We will never be able to provide services to them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    But a developer is an entity building a home too. Lots of them. And it's building them a hell of a lot more efficiently than the individual.

    That's not so. Using your money to build a home to live in or using your money to make a profit, you don't see any of. Two separate things.
    Either way, your gripe was that it was public money funding a private entity. I don't get why the individual building a cottage on the side of a mountain should get prefererential treatment over a developer building 100 houses in Dublin (with 10 of them allocated back to the state at a reduced price!)

    I completely agree. Yet we are favouring the developer in the hope house prices might fall as a result.
    NAMA is offering these loans to smaller developers who are otherwise priced out of the debt markets. These are the guys who will be undercutting Cairn and Ballymore to build small estates cheaper. The big guys are sitting on land banks, in no hurry to build. Competition will help change that.

    Here's hoping prices will fall so.
    blanch152 wrote: »
    The biggest environmental problem in this country is the sheer amount of one-off housing built outside cities over the last twenty years. We will never be able to provide services to them.

    Off point. We are using our money to fund the private profits of developers, quite within their rights, to continue gouging us in the market.
    If we are giving private developers favourable loans, under cutting financial institutions, using NAMA as a bank, does it not contravene EU competition laws?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    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.

    My point is that the council should own the private element as well. They should retain ownership of the entire site and just set different rent bands in order to achieve a mixed-tenure - because the point again is, even market rates are simply to expensive for the majority of ordinary people right now. They need to be artificially deflated as a matter of urgency, not in five or ten years, or quality of life will suffer across the board. The council should be contracting people to build on these sites but retaining ownership of 100% of the units.

    Essentially what I'm saying is that in the past, there were two categories of rent - market rents for the majority and social rents for the less well off. There now need to be three, IMO - social rents for the less well off, some kind of neutral rents on council owned land for ordinary people who can't afford category three, which is the absolutely insane private rental market where people are paying upwards of €1,000 per month to rent a tiny room with what is essentially a portaloo in the corner and you have to sit on the toilet in order to have room to cook.

    I'm advocating for a full scale intervention to deflate the rental market. I'm not just talking about building social housing for the massively disadvantaged, I'm suggesting that the council should start building housing en masse just for ordinary people who simply can't afford what now qualifies as a "standard" market rate. Peoples' housing simply shouldn't be subject to the merciless concept of supply and demand - it isn't morally justifiable any longer.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    I'm advocating for a full scale intervention to deflate the rental market. I'm not just talking about building social housing for the massively disadvantaged, I'm suggesting that the council should start building housing en masse just for ordinary people who simply can't afford what now qualifies as a "standard" market rate. Peoples' housing simply shouldn't be subject to the merciless concept of supply and demand - it isn't morally justifiable any longer.

    While your ideas may indeed be good and noble, dont expect the council to do any of them.

    DCC (an area i'd say is ground zero for high rents) are busy fighting with Bob Geldof, flying the Palestinian flag and now arguing about the interior decor of the council chamber :pac:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/off-with-their-heads-in-council-chamber-row-ppwq0f7fw


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,868 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    While your ideas may indeed be good and noble, dont expect the council to do any of them.

    DCC (an area i'd say is ground zero for high rents) are busy fighting with Bob Geldof, flying the Palestinian flag and now arguing about the interior decor of the council chamber :pac:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/off-with-their-heads-in-council-chamber-row-ppwq0f7fw

    The current set of DCC members are the biggest joke ever, every single one of them should be turfed out at the next election. They don't have a single achievement to their name during their time in office.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The biggest environmental problem in this country is the sheer amount of one-off housing built outside cities over the last twenty years. We will never be able to provide services to them.
    No need to, they provide their own services. And still pay the development levies and the property tax.

    Actually the biggest environmental problem in Wicklow is probably the large town of Arklow which discharges raw sewage into the local river estuary.
    "One off" houses further inland have their own private sewage systems, and where people also draw water from their own well, there is a strong incentive to ensure that the groundwater in the vicinity is protected to a high standard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,868 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    recedite wrote: »
    No need to, they provide their own services. And still pay the development levies and the property tax.

    Actually the biggest environmental problem in Wicklow is probably the large town of Arklow which discharges raw sewage into the local river estuary.
    "One off" houses further inland have their own private sewage systems, and where people also draw water from their own well, there is a strong incentive to ensure that the groundwater in the vicinity is protected to a high standard.

    So hospital services are provided to every rural hamlet?

    We already know the higher cost of one-teacher and two-teacher rural schools.

    The provision of government services such as education, health, road maintenance, library, policing, etc. to dispersed locations carries an environmental cost as well as a financial cost, hence the worldwide trend towards urbanisation.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,714 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The current set of DCC members are the biggest joke ever, every single one of them should be turfed out at the next election. They don't have a single achievement to their name during their time in office.
    I think that is rather unfair.
    They did vote to fly the Catalan flag for a month!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    blanch152 wrote: »
    So hospital services are provided to every rural hamlet?
    No. There is no hospital in Co.Wicklow. Just a few health clinics. Are people in these "hamlets" demanding hospitals?
    Your argument that rural dwellers are living in an unsustainable way is hogwash. They are almost always productive, resilient, uncomplaining and independent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    recedite wrote: »
    Your argument that rural dwellers are living in an unsustainable way is hogwash. They are almost always productive, resilient, uncomplaining and independent.

    Most are in fairness to them. But parish pump politics and pandering to rural voters leads to situations like the Limerick - Ballybrophy €760 per passenger train fair.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Most are in fairness to them. But parish pump politics and pandering to rural voters leads to situations like the Limerick - Ballybrophy €760 per passenger train fair.
    IMO subsidising Iarnrod Eireann is a separate issue, its a legacy of the CIE unions being too influential. Most rural dwellers use private transport or private operator buses because its cheaper, even after the train fare is subsidised. A lot of tourists and the elderly (with free transport) do use the trains though.
    Put somebody like Michael O'Leary in charge of the trains and he'll soon have them running at a profit, with bums on seats, and with cheaper fares.


  • Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    recedite wrote: »
    Put somebody like Michael O'Leary in charge of the trains and he'll soon have them running at a profit, with bums on seats, and with cheaper fares.

    Put somebody like Michael O'Leary in charge of the country and it would not bode well for rural Ireland.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    recedite wrote: »
    them running at a profit, with bums on seats, and with cheaper fares.
    The trains would run from Mallow (called "Cork") and Galway to Heuston with a single stop in Portlaoise (called "Limerick East"). MOL's success with Ryanair is almost entirely down to price sensitivity rather than efficiency. He realised that air travel was so expensive and infrequent for most people that they would be willing to sacrifice a lot of service for a lower price.

    The same innovations he used for Ryanair don't apply to IR. So there's no evidence he be any good at it.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,269 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    My point is that the council should own the private element as well. They should retain ownership of the entire site and just set different rent bands in order to achieve a mixed-tenure - because the point again is, even market rates are simply to expensive for the majority of ordinary people right now. They need to be artificially deflated as a matter of urgency, not in five or ten years, or quality of life will suffer across the board. The council should be contracting people to build on these sites but retaining ownership of 100% of the units.

    I see where you're coming from now, but I'd prefer the private component to be sold rather than rented. You've more chance to build a stable community if you have a decent portion of owner occupiers than if everyone is renting. That's particularly the case in Ireland, where most people regard private rentals as a transient phase before buying rather than a long-term option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    This thread has devolved into a discussion of basic economics on one hand versus fantasy nonsense on the other.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    I see where you're coming from now, but I'd prefer the private component to be sold rather than rented. You've more chance to build a stable community if you have a decent portion of owner occupiers than if everyone is renting. That's particularly the case in Ireland, where most people regard private rentals as a transient phase before buying rather than a long-term option.

    Is there any sort of compromise where someone could pay a sort of "once off" price to live in a particular place indefinitely, but that it reverts to the council if they move or die while living there?

    Basically my point is that council owned land should ultimately remain council owned indefinitely. Otherwise, the amount of state owned land to house people on gets smaller and smaller over time, until the council is faced with the choice of either (a) the (currently politically unpalatable) compulsory purchase route it adopted in the early 20th century, (b) buying private units at market value for social housing, or (c) simply doing nothing at all. Our current strategy seems to be a mixture of the latter (b) and (c) options, which is moronic in the extreme.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    We need enforced checks and balances in place. Deciding whether or not to increase or lower welfare rates, give or cut the christmas bonus is just PR if we're not rooting out fraud.

    There were schemes were a person buys half a house and the LA remains the owner of the other half. The buyer pays half the mortgage and rent on the other half with the option to buy the council out at a later date. We need more of this for the tax payer who has no quality of life or security to speak of.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    blanch152 wrote: »
    The biggest environmental problem in this country is the sheer amount of one-off housing built outside cities over the last twenty years. We will never be able to provide services to them.

    What services are needed that didn’t already exist or are paid for by the builder?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    What services are needed that didn’t already exist or are paid for by the builder?

    The postal service - the local lads at home drive miles and miles burning diesel and time (all cost) to possibly only delivering 1 or 2 letters at a time up long country lanes.

    The electricity network has miles and miles and miles of poles and cabling that need to be maintained. (all cost)

    THis country has a very large local road network that needs to be maintained. I know the local roads dont get done regularly but they need tar every few years. (half a mile of tarmac to anly maybe 2 houses)

    The ambulance ambulance and fire services. Its easier to provide these to a large population in a small area than a dispersed pop. in a large area.
    Id rather have a full time brigade immediately coming to help me than waiting on the local retained crew to gather and roll. (No offence to them, they are very good guys).

    Provision of local health services, doctors, public health nurses etc

    Theres plenty of good planning reasons to have people live in towns rather than widely dispersed across the countryside in one offs.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The postal service - the local lads at home drive miles and miles burning diesel and time (all cost) to possibly only delivering 1 or 2 letters at a time up long country lanes.

    The electricity network has miles and miles and miles of poles and cabling that need to be maintained. (all cost)

    THis country has a very large local road network that needs to be maintained. I know the local roads dont get done regularly but they need tar every few years. (half a mile of tarmac to anly maybe 2 houses)

    The ambulance ambulance and fire services. Its easier to provide these to a large population in a small area than a dispersed pop. in a large area.
    Id rather have a full time brigade immediately coming to help me than waiting on the local retained crew to gather and roll. (No offence to them, they are very good guys).

    Provision of local health services, doctors, public health nurses etc

    Theres plenty of good planning reasons to have people live in towns rather than widely dispersed across the countryside in one offs.

    All the above already exist before any new houses are built. Those of us who choose to live in the sticks know what we’re letting ourselves in for. There are many expenses involved compared to urban dwelling that we accept as part of country living.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,548 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    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.


    Because this gave rise to virtual Getto's. In theory you could say that you will go for a mixture of tenants. But it is unlikly that Tenants that are paying there own hard cash will move into such developments unless you subisdize(lower rent) compared to private rentals.

    At the first sign of anti-social behavior these tenants will exit these area's. Mixed developments require that you will also have owner occupier's. Will these individuals be will to risk buying property where 30-50% of the development is managed by a Council.

    The government has tried to involve Housing associations but the issue is proving a hard nut to crack.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Department of Housing figures show social housing delivery exceeded by nearly a quarter
    The Government has said it exceeded its target for delivery of social housing by 23% last year.

    The Department of Housing figures show just under 26,000 individuals and families got new social housing last year compared to the target of 21,050 units.

    The units include 2,245 homes newly built by local authorities or approved housing bodies or provided by developers under the Part V regulation, which requires developers set aside 10% of all dwellings for social and affordable housing.

    The new builds are a 242% increase on 2016.

    But the vast majority - 20,000 units - are subsidised rental accommodation under the Housing Assistance Payment scheme.
    https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0115/933430-housing-targets/

    So tax payer funded rent subsidies going to private landlords are 'social housing' now?
    With everyone moving from 'emergency accommodation' to Family Hubs, we'll have no crisis in no time at all.
    It's a pretty low PR move to simply rename or rebrand a growing problem.
    However, the number of people who are homeless is still increasing, with 5,524 adult individuals and 1,530 families homeless, with 3,333 in emergency accommodation last November.


  • Registered Users Posts: 945 ✭✭✭Colonel Claptrap


    So tax payer funded rent subsidies going to private landlords are 'social housing' now?

    This has been the case for years.

    What makes you think they are massaging the figures?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    This has been the case for years.

    What makes you think they are massaging the figures?

    I'm sure the numbers are legit, it's putting tax payer funded rent allowance under the umbrella of creating 'social housing' that's simply crap.

    Are you happy with more tax money going that route being spun as a victory of sorts when that model is not working?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,198 ✭✭✭Good loser


    I'm sure the numbers are legit, it's putting tax payer funded rent allowance under the umbrella of creating 'social housing' that's simply crap.

    Are you happy with more tax money going that route being spun as a victory of sorts when that model is not working?

    Of course the model is working. That's why the take up of the scheme is increasing all the time.

    You don't seem to appreciate that this is the cheapest way possible for the Govt at the moment to achieve it's objective of getting people into housing and keeping them there. When alternatives are available they can switch to those.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,013 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Good loser wrote: »
    Of course the model is working. That's why the take up of the scheme is increasing all the time.

    You don't seem to appreciate that this is the cheapest way possible for the Govt at the moment to achieve it's objective of getting people into housing and keeping them there. When alternatives are available they can switch to those.

    Agreed, but I'm more concerned for the tax payer. It's the most expensive way to partially stem the tide for the tax payer.
    By 'saving' money on not building social housing, we need spend on emergency accommodation and rent allowances. So I don't see the savings for the tax payer here.
    The point is they are selling the tax payer funding of rent supplements as a social housing creating win. It's nonsense PR spin.

    The model may be working, but not for the tax payer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,548 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Agreed, but I'm more concerned for the tax payer. It's the most expensive way to partially stem the tide for the tax payer.
    By 'saving' money on not building social housing, we need spend on emergency accommodation and rent allowances. So I don't see the savings for the tax payer here.
    The point is they are selling the tax payer funding of rent supplements as a social housing creating win. It's nonsense PR spin.

    The model may be working, but not for the tax payer.

    Hard to know. Failure to manage the stock of social housing on a proactive basis means that cost of provision is more than a one off cost. Travelling through Limerick lately by the railway station is an apartment complex that is being renovated. They were build in the early 70's from information I recieved and had to be evacuated in the late ninety's/early noughties mostly due to anti social behaviour. The tax payer may be better off with hard nosed private sector landlords rather than local authoritie's that are unable to manage housing stock. This is not just an isolated case there are several such area's in Limerick and this is replicated accross urban Ireland. I think there is even a similar such estate in Tuam but I may have wrong information

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,198 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Heard the other day of a plumber (self employed) asked whether he was interested in working on a scheme of 50 houses.

    He was reasonably interested but then heard it was for the Co Co. Lost interest at that - too much red tape for his liking.


Advertisement