Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis?

NIMAN

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

They have already put 5 billion forward for social housing.

As a hard working mortgage paying tax payer I think thats enough for now thanks.

Yeah I guess you are right, its not a lack of money that's the problem, theres something else. Must be the planning of how to use the money.

After all, €5bn being spent on any problem should go a long way to solve it. We are meant to have 8,000 homeless, so say that is 5000/6000 families who need houses.

I'm no Maths expert, but €5bn should be able to easily sort out 6000 new homes.

So why isn't it?

Mooooo

If I was homeless and in receipt of welfare with a family I would jump at any offer to get a home be that in leitrim or anywhere. Refusing a house because it's not where you want, unless it is too far from current employment, is just not on imo

Cina

NIMAN wrote: »

Yeah I guess you are right, its not a lack of money that's the problem, theres something else. Must be the planning of how to use the money.

After all, €5bn being spent on any problem should go a long way to solve it. We are meant to have 8,000 homeless, so say that is 5000/6000 families who need houses.

I'm no Maths expert, but €5bn should be able to easily sort out 6000 new homes.

So why isn't it?

we have 5000/6000 homeless families but a hell of a lot more than that who want to leech free housing off the government, they're just... not homeless.

Also, feck 'em. Couldn't believe seeing RTE News on Christmas Day and them interviewing this wan with 8 kids (!!) who was just handed a brand spanking new house in Dublin for basically free (and her partner too), moaning about how for the last two Christmas her and her mountain of kids were sleeping "in a house that wasn't theirs". After the sh*t I went through last year to buy a property and the debt I'm in now after getting one, they can all get f*cked.

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What a load of absolutel horse ****.

Yes. Typical left wing begrudgery. Just because someone else got off their butts and made a living for themselves rather than waiting for the gubberment to live their lives for them.

whisky_galore

whisky_galore wrote: »

And most of these developments are still standing and lived in today.

But, how many are privately owned? Bought out by tenants (or their families) and sold on.

These type houses should never be privately owned, but kept in the ownership of the local authorities. (Mind you, if they were kept by the LAs, I wouldn’t have the home I now live in)

Wheeliebin30

Cina wrote: »

we have 5000/6000 homeless families but a hell of a lot more than that who want to leech free housing off the government, they're just... not homeless.

Also, feck 'em. Couldn't believe seeing RTE News on Christmas Day and them interviewing this wan with 8 kids (!!) who was just handed a brand spanking new house in Dublin for basically free (and her partner too), moaning about how for the last two Christmas her and her mountain of kids were sleeping "in a house that wasn't theirs". After the sh*t I went through last year to buy a property and the debt I'm in now after getting one, they can all get f*cked.

Lol!!!

Wanderer78

suicide_circus wrote:

The haves and the have nots. That's capitalism baby.

It doesn't necessarily have to be as such, I do agree with those that say, it's our form of capitalism that is the main fault, I.e. neoliberalism. Capitalism has many great features that benefit all, if only we could fix these faults.

suicide_circus wrote:

Through various loopholes we can lose our home through no fault of our own. That's a stressful way to live and benefits the economy and the society in no way.

Believe it or not, some say, 'increasing worker insecurity' is actually good for the economy, Alan Greenspan being one such person!

banquo

Yesterday I worked out that to buy the same house my parents did, accounting for inflation and at the price it'd go for today, we'd be paying the cost of 6.5 of those houses. Mental.

Could the rise of AirBnB be the cause of fewer houses available? This is an interesting thread. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=105669907#post105669907

whisky_galore

suicide_circus wrote: »

Society is divided into two camps

First: Those who already own a home and/or property.

Second: those who do not.

It is in the economic interest of the first group that the second group continue to be landless.

That's all well and good, but what if the kids of (property-owning) parents can't get accom for the little dears for college, or the kids hang around the home place for far longer than is healthy or normal because they can't get a place? Or they just shake the dust of this country off their feet and emigrate?

How are all these new businesses and business expansions (lauded by govt and the media of course) going to house all the workers for the new jobs they are churning out?

The country is turning into a place where the only ones who can manage are the very well off and those on benefits suckling on the teat of the State.
How long can that go on for?

Is it not in everyones interests that it is sorted then?

padd b1975

lawred2 wrote: »

Maybe if the state collected a reasonable amount of direct taxes from the lower paid (those seeking social housing for life) then the exchequer might be in a position to afford such largesse. Instead we get bleeding heart politicians hollowing out the tax base and then crying into their cornflakes about every crisis under the sun that the state can't afford to fix.

€73,000,000 in outstanding local authority rent being paid would help too.

Not only have a large cohort of the mooching classes secured their "forever home" ©Erica Fleming, they've now decided not to bother their holes paying what is pretty much a token rent.

zell12

67.6% of the population own their home (mortgaged/otherwise).
They will vote for those who protect the rising 'value' of their investment.
They object to planning, housing supply, densification of residential areas etc. through our elected representatives, purely to maintain the 'value'.

They will pass on the investment to their offspring, who have the exact same objective.
That is why the housing crisis will worsen and continue for years to come.

homerjay2005

Deleted User wrote: »

5) Highrises

....will never be built here because people will object to them when they go to planning.

likewise, social housing targets cannot be met, in part due to people objecting to them. people just do not want to live besides people who maybe anti social.


and building houses isnt the answer, it maybe part of the answer but theres several others.

screamer

Ah there's been housing problems for every single generation for hundreds of years. What use is a protest? Pure waste of time and effort. Theses issues have been around forever and will be...

RocketRaccoon

NIMAN wrote: »

Yeah I guess you are right, its not a lack of money that's the problem, theres something else. Must be the planning of how to use the money.

After all, €5bn being spent on any problem should go a long way to solve it. We are meant to have 8,000 homeless, so say that is 5000/6000 families who need houses.

I'm no Maths expert, but €5bn should be able to easily sort out 6000 new homes.

So why isn't it?

So homeless people should basically be given a free house while people like me and my wife have to pay extortionate rent while working 40 hours every week to try and keep a roof over our kids heads?

lawred2

suicide_circus wrote: »

Society is divided into two camps

First: Those who already own a home and/or property.

Second: those who do not.

It is in the economic interest of the first group that the second group continue to be landless.

This increases the value of the first groups' assets and allows them to charge higher rents to the second group.

Whatever a government does to alleviate the suffering of the second group, it's seen as punishing the hard work of the first group.

The haves and the have nots. That's capitalism baby.

My wife and I are in the second group. We dont want free anything. We've worked all all our lives and paid our taxes. We claim no social benefits.

We are a necessary cog in the economy and we make the first group feel more wealthy.

Remaining landless would not necessarily be a problem if we had guaranteed security of tenure in terms of our rental lease.

Through various loopholes we can lose our home through no fault of our own. That's a stressful way to live and benefits the economy and the society in no way.

I don't rent anything buddy

Sebastian Dangerfield

zell12 wrote: »

67.6% of the population own their home (mortgaged/otherwise).
They will vote for those who protect the rising 'value' of their investment.
They object to planning, housing supply, densification of residential areas etc. through our elected representatives, purely to maintain the 'value'.
QUOTE]

I wouldn't. I bought my house to live in in, not to speculate value. I would support any reasonable measures to make housing affordable for those who work to pay for it.

I paid through the hoop for my house, and our quality of life suffered as a result (wife unable to spend more time with kids etc) but I accepted the price and got on with my life - it's not something I think about regularly, so long as I can afford the mortgage.

I'm as against the "free forever home" movement as anyone but I have no desire to see working people mortgaged to the hilt when they finally buy a home, or live in fear that they may not be able to afford their next rent increase (my sister was in that boat just recently). If there was some middle ground that could be found, I would actively support it where possible.

wakka12

homerjay2005 wrote: »

....will never be built here because people will object to them when they go to planning.

likewise, social housing targets cannot be met, in part due to people objecting to them. people just do not want to live besides people who maybe anti social.


and building houses isnt the answer, it maybe part of the answer but theres several others.

Umm capital dock is under construction? May not be huge but its certainly a good start. 40 story tower under planning for cork docklands too

knipex

suicide_circus wrote: »

Society is divided into two camps

First: Those who already own a home and/or property.

Second: those who do not.

It is in the economic interest of the first group that the second group continue to be landless.

This increases the value of the first groups' assets and allows them to charge higher rents to the second group.

Absolute nonsense

The vast majority of homes in Ireland are exactly that Homes, owned by people who either have or had mortgages..

A small percentage are owned by property rental companies who do have a vested interest in rents remain high. However these in the main are large pension funds or investment funds that operate in residential markets all over the world. They are more interested in a modern, established, secure and mature rental market generating steady long term returns than anything else.

Another small percentage are normal people who in the bubble bought second homes to act as pensions or were stuck in negative equity on properties they could not sell and had no option but to rent. They are not getting taxed to the extent that they cannot make a return and would love to sell out.

The final group are the vulture funds out to make a quick buck. They are not a major player in the grand scheme of things and are not a great cabal secretly making government policy.

Idbatterim

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

So homeless people should basically be given a free house while people like me and my wife have to pay extortionate rent while working 40 hours every week to try and keep a roof over our kids heads?

this is the thing thought! the situation is a total and utter joke! I actually dont blame people for gaming the system if it is there to be gamed! firstly they arent the ones making the rules. Secondly, the government has created and maintains this situation! The situation you describe is why I said a protest should be arranged, not just for the welfare for lifers, they can join in too, not that I agree with them, but also for the hundreds of thousands of others f**cked over byu this crisis, which is simply down to government not wanting to do much about it and us the people not pushing them to do something about it!

Here is the alternative for the get nearly free housing brigade! What is the alternative, be a martyr and pay off probably the equivalent of a million euro for a modest house or apartment when you factor in the purchase price and mortgage over 30 years?

there is all this **** talk "there isnt money" there is a billion a year i.e. 1,000,000,000 that they can pull out of their ass to buy elections. They make all of the crazy decisions regarding tax and expenditure. I.e no water charges, as good as no property tax, hundreds of thousand of low earners paying virtually into the system by way of direct taxation. Charging an insane anti jobs anti enterprise rate of tax on a relatively low income... the lowered vat rate of 9% v 13.5% in the hospitality industry costs the exchequer 500,000,000 a year, source below! I could go on forever, where we are at, is after decades of appalling economic mismanagement and vote buying!

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/lower-vat-rate-for-hospitality-sector-may-be-abolished-1.3150019

knipex

NIMAN wrote: »

Didn't the Gov say recently they plan to put €1.5bn into a rainy day fund next year?

That would build plenty of houses if the will was there.

Rainy day fund is as much a priority as housing but even if it wasn't 1.5 billion wouldn't make a dent in this years demand..

Assuming a €250K build cost 1.5 billion would buy you 6,000 houses..

Do the math

zell12

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

I wouldn't. I bought my house to live in in, not to speculate value. I would support any reasonable measures to make housing affordable for those who work to pay for it.

If you sold your house, would you accept 20% off the market price, so that a low income family could afford it?
The answer is no.
Your house is your primary asset, whether or not you view it as such.
Multiply that across 67.6% of the population

Sebastian Dangerfield

Idbatterim wrote: »

this is the thing thought! the situation is a total and utter joke! I actually dont blame people for gaming the system if it is there to be gamed! firstly they arent the ones making the rules.

So the people who dishonestly, sometimes fraudulently, snap up the available houses aren't to blame, but the government are to blame for not building more houses which would ultimately end up going the same way? Why do you feel individuals have no responsibility whatsoever?

So if a councillor got someone moved up to the top of the list in your area, that would be ok would it? Sure the system is there to be gamed!

RoboRat

Vronsky wrote: »

That's not the point I was making at all, I fully expect landlords to charge market rent. What I am saying is that just because market rent is below a mortgage payment does not automatically mean the landlord is making a loss. Despite the whinging of landlords, most will make a decent return once they sell up

In fact, as long as the annual percentage rate of property prices rises is greater than mortgage interest rates, then property will be a profitable business even if it is left vacant.

I bought my house in 2005 for €253,000. It was a wreck but the best I could afford within a reasonable commute to work (Clane). I put the bones of €25k into it to get it to a good standard (the house was gutted and rewired, re-plumbed, walls re-plastered, new sanitary ware, new windows, new gas central heating, garden completely dug up and landscaped plus much more). I stayed there for about 6 years until I got married and we had our first child.

I rented the house out for €700 p/m initially, the mortgage was costing me €990 per month. The tenants stayed 2 years and then moved on, new tenants paid €750 and stayed 8 months after they stopped paying rent after 6 months, The house was thrashed and I spent a further €2,000 to get it somewhat back to normal.

New tenants came and were paying €870 (I was now paying €1,100 mortgage as my TRS had finished) they stayed 2 and a half years until June 2016, I then decided to sell and had to invest a further €4,000 to get it back to a standard to maximise the sale price. The contents were a write off so you can write down €6,000 as I couldn't sell them.

I sold the house for €220,000 so therefore my net loss on the original cost was €33,000.
Add the €25,000 invested to refurbish the house initially.
Add the amount I was paying to top up the mortgage of €18,160
Add the clean up costs (excl. general maintenance) €6000
Add writing off the contents/ appliances/ furnishings €6000
Total net loss is €88,160

I'm sure my experience is not unique and I sold the house as I was sick to my back teeth of the stress of dealing with tenants.

RocketRaccoon

Idbatterim wrote: »

this is the thing thought! the situation is a total and utter joke! I actually dont blame people for gaming the system if it is there to be gamed! firstly they arent the ones making the rules. Secondly, the government has created and maintains this situation! The situation you describe is why I said a protest should be arranged, not just for the welfare for lifers, they can join in too, not that I agree with them, but also for the hundreds of thousands of others f**cked over byu this crisis, which is simply down to government not wanting to do much about it and us the people not pushing them to do something about it!

Here is the alternative for the get nearly free housing brigade! What is the alternative, be a martyr and pay off probably the equivalent of a million euro for a modest house or apartment when you factor in the purchase price and mortgage over 30 years?

No I will not be part of any protest that allows people on the dole to basically own their own home for free while myself and my wife rent knowing that we will never own our own house as we are not able to save up for the deposit aswell as paying rent.

homerjay2005

knipex wrote: »

Rainy day fund is as much a priority as housing but even if it wasn't 1.5 billion wouldn't make a dent in this years demand..

Assuming a €250K build cost 1.5 billion would buy you 6,000 houses..

Do the math

money is not the solution to the current issues in relation to housing. the money is there. very little else appears to be.

Sebastian Dangerfield

zell12 wrote: »

If you sold your house, would you accept 20% off the market price, so that a low income family could afford it?
The answer is no.
Your house is your primary asset, whether or not you view it as such.
Multiply that across 67.6% of the population

I said I would support any "reasonable measure" to improve the societal problem. Its not for me to make a donation to another family - to suggest anyone would do so is absurd. If I've read your question wrong, and you are asking if government policy meant that housing prices in general came down, and both my house and the one I'm buying came down 20%, I would support that, yes. I bought my house to live in, not to act as a commodity.

I'm not denying that people with the attitudes mentioned exist - I just disagree with the statement that everyone thinks that way. Someone has been trying to build 6 houses behind us for the last 2 years. 2 houses in the row objected for what I consider to be ridiculous reasons (they also objected to an extension to our house that affected them in no practical way, before we bought it); after the council approved the plans, they appealed it to ABP and had it overturned. Those 6 houses now wont be built, and the company trying to build them is in danger of going bust. End result - financial difficulties for some and families not housed, so someone can be precious about their garden shed being overlooked.

I actually wrote a letter to the council in favour of it going ahead. It ultimately didn't make a difference, but not all people think the way you suggest.

RoboRat

homerjay2005 wrote: »

money is not the solution to the current issues in relation to housing. the money is there. very little else appears to be.

Money is not the solution
Highrises are not the solution
Giving free houses is not the solution

Decentralisation is part of a solution, there are many towns that are perfect for big businesses - they have the infrastructure and are on or very close to the main motorway network. If they were incentivised to go to them, it would make a lot more sense. Not to mention the extra jobs that would be generated locally. It would also mean there is not the same requirement for housing in Dublin if there are more opportunities outside of Dublin and people are not forced to the capital to get a job.

Incentivising employment either by more stringent criteria for social welfare, more spot checks or government sponsored childcare... this notion of 'I am better off on the dole' is wrong on so many levels. Social welfare is a safety net and should be treated as such.

Incentivising working from home, this is a massive bug bear for me. A lot of employees could easily work from home and they would have a better work/ life balance, less childcare costs, work harder, mean there is less traffic, less emissions, less accidents etc etc. If companies were given tax breaks, they would be inclined to offer it.

Having a proactive social housing department like in the UK, where as soon as you get notice to evict, you notify them so they can try and come to a solution before you are actually 'homeless' and if you wait until you are actually homeless, you are not a priority as if you're not bothered, why should the government.

Dr Crayfish

I just checked a house around the corner from me with the same spec as mine that's going for sale now. I bought mine just before it went completely crazy but the house that just went on the market is over 120k more expensive ffs.
It makes no odds to me because if I sold I'd have nowhere to live and wouldn't be able to afford anything in Dublin, but I would be completely screwed now if I hadn't bought at the time.
They need to start building and need higher buildings. They also need to get tough on non-working people demanding houses in prime real estate areas.

zell12

Sebastian Dangerfield wrote: »

I said I would support any "reasonable measure" to improve the societal problem. Its not for me to make a donation to another family - to suggest anyone would do so is absurd.
If I've read your question wrong, and you are asking if government policy meant that housing prices in general came down, and both my house and the one I'm buying came down 20%, I would support that, yes. I bought my house to live in, not to act as a commodity.

But it would not be a donation to another family, it would be getting a fair, moral price - not the best price - for an asset. Further, voters would be angry if their asset price fell tomorrow.
Government policy is to increase housing values, admitted by Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan and also Michael Noonan - they suffered no electoral damage for these statements