General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you read my comment it was regarding how I've been told on here that their is no profit to be made building houses, (regarding the LA's/State hiring contractors/developers for building our own for use as social). Here we have a developer set to make a fortune building and on public land, (currently). Also it's likely the tax payer will be paying for the LA/state to use some as social housing once completed. Also part of the developers pitch was he'd have some as affordable, starting at 700,000 I believe.

I am sure that you are aware that the unions have a deal with the Government that all staff are permanent. That means that the cost of a local authority building social housing includes the cost of keeping the builders/electricians/plumbers etc. on permanent contracts for the rest of their working life. That makes the cost uneconomical. Such are the basic facts.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am sure that you are aware that the unions have a deal with the Government that all staff are permanent. That means that the cost of a local authority building social housing includes the cost of keeping the builders/electricians/plumbers etc. on permanent contracts for the rest of their working life. That makes the cost uneconomical. Such are the basic facts.

Not at all. Completely wrong. Councils have building inspectors and the like who oversee and check contractor work on behalf of the council. If you need a plumbing issue sorted the council call a private contractor to carry it out.
Most councils have maybe three or four staff involved in such activities including a clerk.
The LA's/state hire contractors all the time.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you read my comment it was regarding how I've been told on here that their is no profit to be made building houses, (regarding the LA's/State hiring contractors/developers for building our own for use as social). Here we have a developer set to make a fortune building and on public land, (currently). Also it's likely the tax payer will be paying for the LA/state to use some as social housing once completed. Also part of the developers pitch was he'd have some as affordable, starting at 700,000 I believe.

You've been told there is no profit in councils building affordable/council housing. This person won't be doing that, he will be building private housing in which there is a lot of profit. If the council is selling it off at market rates, then really what is the point?

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

You've been told there is no profit in councils building affordable/council housing. This person won't be doing that, he will be building private housing in which there is a lot of profit.

No, again, I was told it was too expensive to build so there was no profit in it. This man will be doing alright out of it.
My point is instead of building we are enabling others to build and we'll likely be buying or renting off them when construction is complete.

Podge_irl wrote: »

If the council is selling it off at market rates, then really what is the point?

They don't and people would get housed.
Affordable housing is when homes are sold at a profit, but at a rate affordable to those within a set income bracket, who cannot afford a home at market rate.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Not at all. Completely wrong. Councils have building inspectors and the like who oversee and check contractor work on behalf of the council. If you need a plumbing issue sorted the council call a private contractor to carry it out.
Most councils have maybe three or four staff involved in such activities including a clerk.
The LA's/state hire contractors all the time.

So the LAs should tender out to get the work done?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I can solve the housing crisis. Well I know a man who can.
I've been told numerous times that the state/LA's paying for builds to use as social, (to be rented out based on income) or affordable housing (to be sold at profit) wouldn't work because it is so expensive to build there's no money in it.
Well this man here is due to be making profit off public land. We should hire him to government post haste.



Not to mention gaining 'preferred bidder' status despite a shady record

But when they do, you criticise them?

Strange.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

So the LAs should tender out to get the work done?

Yes, like they do currently. I genuinely can't believe this is news to you. We've gone over it time and again. We are not talking giving trowels to clerical officers, no.

blanch152 wrote: »

But when they do, you criticise them?

Strange.

Strange if you are pretending you don't get my point in an effort to score points. If you disagree, just disagree.

My issue is we are selling public land in the hopes the private market will ease the crisis, which hasn't worked so far.
We should be building our own affordable and social housing not buying at market rates to use as social or depending on the private market to supply affordable or rentals while in this worsening crisis.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

My issue is we are selling public land in the hopes the private market will ease the crisis, which hasn't worked so far.
We should be building our own affordable and social housing not buying at market rates to use as social or depending on the private market to supply affordable or rentals while in this worsening crisis.

I think they are selling public land just to sell public land that they aren't using and make some money out of it. Unless you mean more generally.

I really don't understand your logic on this anyway. That a private developer is able to make a profit by building and selling full price lots does not reflect anything on a council's ability to make money on tendering out to build social and affordable housing.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think they are selling public land just to sell public land that they aren't using and make some money out of it. Unless you mean more generally.

I really don't understand your logic on this anyway. That a private developer is able to make a profit by building and selling full price lots does not reflect anything on a council's ability to make money on tendering out to build social and affordable housing.

I'd suggest building social housing.

For the third time, likely last, I was told there's no money in building. This lad looks like he'll do well out of it.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd suggest building social housing.

For the third time, likely last, I was told there's no money in building. This lad looks like he'll do well out of it.

When?

Please point to where this happened as I don't recall suggestions that LAs tender out for building private, full price dwellings on their unused land ever really coming up but maybe I missed it. And I can't imagine anyone ever suggested that all the housing developers out there do it at a loss for their sheer love of the industry. I mean, it's self-evident that you can make money building houses in general, otherwise no one would do it.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

When?

Please point to where this happened as I don't recall suggestions that LAs tender out for building private, full price dwellings on their unused land ever really coming up but maybe I missed it. And I can't imagine anyone ever suggested that all the housing developers out there do it at a loss for their sheer love of the industry. I mean, it's self-evident that you can make money building houses in general, otherwise no one would do it.

Never said such a thing. You certainly missed my comments.

Numerous times it has come up that there's no profits in building and like you I have put forward the same query. Was also told we'd not enough builders yet that man seems to have sourced the trades people.

If developers can make a profit building to sell or rent out, the LA's/state can build in the least for a smaller profit on affordable housing sales.
The sad thing is there's a strong possibility we'll be buying or renting some of these properties once completed.

tobsey

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We should be building our own affordable and social housing not buying at market rates to use as social or depending on the private market to supply affordable or rentals while in this worsening crisis.

No we shouldn’t. We did that lots of times and ended up with hellholes that were a living nightmare for the decent people in the areas. They ended up seriously disadvantaged with high crime rates and low education rates. It was only after the private purchase schemes that allowed those renting to buy the property that we’ve seen the so called gentrification of the areas and they are now showing an improvement in quality of life for the residents. If we built social housing developments again the same things would happen.

You could argue that if we invested further in the new social housing developments to provide better services and supports we could prevent the issues of the past, however that would simply add to the overall cost and negate any savings achieved by having them built and owned by the state.

James Brown

tobsey wrote: »

No we shouldn’t. We did that lots of times and ended up with hellholes that were a living nightmare for the decent people in the areas. They ended up seriously disadvantaged with high crime rates and low education rates. It was only after the private purchase schemes that allowed those renting to buy the property that we’ve seen the so called gentrification of the areas and they are now showing an improvement in quality of life for the residents. If we built social housing developments again the same things would happen.

You could argue that if we invested further in the new social housing developments to provide better services and supports we could prevent the issues of the past, however that would simply add to the overall cost and negate any savings achieved by having them built and owned by the state.

We did that lots of times and it improved the lives of many in much the manner you describe above.
As a tax payer it makes more sense to me to go the social/affordable route. A lot of the criticism comes from those who'll spout 'free house' and go on paying private enterprise. Such views are cutting your nose to spite your face IMO.

We would have such problems for any new housing and they would need be addressed any way. Renting from private landlords/companies or buying at market rate to use as social or paying hotels is not the way to continue. And I'd suggest the year on year worsening crisis backs up that assertion.

beggars_bush

If you sell the public land it is gone out of our ownership for ever and into private hands

Build social and affordable houses/apartments on the site and so what if you don't make a profit. Are all public schemes now meant to turn a profit?

Think of all the social housing built in the 60s and 70s. Was profit making a consideration in that?

abcabc123123

We should be building public rather than social housing, ie housing should be provided by the state but be available to everyone. Public housing should be mixed income rather than low income.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If developers can make a profit building to sell or rent out, the LA's/state can build in the least for a smaller profit on affordable housing sales.
The sad thing is there's a strong possibility we'll be buying or renting some of these properties once completed.

Oh, great this chestnut again.

Tell me, who will build these houses for the Local Authorities or the State? School children?

markodaly

beggars_bush wrote: »

If you sell the public land it is gone out of our ownership for ever and into private hands

Build social and affordable houses/apartments on the site and so what if you don't make a profit. Are all public schemes now meant to turn a profit?

Think of all the social housing built in the 60s and 70s. Was profit making a consideration in that?

People hark back to the times when we built lots of houses in past generations, but things have changed.

For one, a lot of the land that the state used is gone. Places like Ballyfermot cannot be rebuilt again, because they are already built up.
Secondly, the requirements and standards of new houses are much much higher
than the typical two up two down type of houses that were built previously.

People today, will not be satisfied to move into a old style 1930's two up/two down a house with no central heating, double glazing and a tiny bathroom.

From the figures banded about, it costs minimum €200,000 euro to build a typical bog standard 3 bed semi.
The costs are massive so its not cheap whatever way you cut it.

Dytalus

markodaly wrote: »

From the figures banded about, it costs minimum €200,000 euro to build a typical bog standard 3 bed semi.
The costs are massive so its not cheap whatever way you cut it.

Indeed. The ESRI's report which came out today even mentions housing in its conclusion at the end. Ireland has failed to provide adequate affordable housing to its people, but one of the biggest reasons is cost - they specifically say the cost of building needs to be brought down. In particular, it seems it's the cost of land they point to, not the cost of building.

Ultimately, a greater level of housing supply is required for the given level of house prices. This is particularly the case when one observes the recent work by Bricongne et al. (2019) which indicates that Irish house prices, when adjusting for dwelling size, are amongst the highest in the European Union. Increasing supply requires that the cost of producing a house in
the Irish market needs to be reduced. In particular, the high price of development land needs to be addressed with the introduction of the recent site tax a welcome but preliminary first step.

-ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary, Page 63

Local authorities, which are not actively seeking profits, might be somewhat cheaper than private industry which is. But if the biggest factor in the lack of housing (in particular, affordable housing) is the cost of land and development, then that's a problem that faces the LAs just as much as private developers.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Oh, great this chestnut again.

Tell me, who will build these houses for the Local Authorities or the State? School children?

Yes, Greta Thunberg and an Irish contingent of plucky pre-school labourers.

markodaly wrote: »

People hark back to the times when we built lots of houses in past generations, but things have changed.

For one, a lot of the land that the state used is gone. Places like Ballyfermot cannot be rebuilt again, because they are already built up.
Secondly, the requirements and standards of new houses are much much higher
than the typical two up two down type of houses that were built previously.

This was kicked off by an article where DCC was, (was mind not has) to sell off public land and for building houses no less.

markodaly wrote: »

People today, will not be satisfied to move into a old style 1930's two up/two down a house with no central heating, double glazing and a tiny bathroom.

Sez you. If that's all was on the table that would be a case of like it or lump it once health and safety is met, (unlike some private builds).

markodaly wrote: »

From the figures banded about, it costs minimum €200,000 euro to build a typical bog standard 3 bed semi.
The costs are massive so its not cheap whatever way you cut it.

State/LA would own a house and sell at a small profit or rent out, either would be cheaper than paying for rentals to private concerns or hotels or buying for 350,000+ to use as social.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes, Greta Thunberg and an Irish contingent of plucky pre-school labourers.

Bad satire aside, you admit that those building these 'cheap' houses will be the same builders, contractors and developers that build private housing.

So, why would they do it for the state cheaper?
Where is your savings coming from? The only saving to be had is by building on public land.

This was kicked off by an article where DCC was, (was mind not has) to sell off public land and for building houses no less.

You mean the SF dominated DCC council made a deal with a private developer to develop a site and provide housing? What part exactly do you object to and have you written to your local SF counselor about this?

Sez you. If that's all was on the table that would be a case of like it or lump it once health and safety is met, (unlike some private builds).

Ah bingo! It is no longer possible to build these houses unless you want to roll back piles of legislation in regards to building standards and energy conservation.
By all means, lobby your local TD or councilor for this.

State/LA would own a house and sell at a small profit or rent out, either would be cheaper than paying for rentals to private concerns or hotels or buying for 350,000+ to use as social.

Why would it be cheaper? Give us the exact breakdown of the savings here in terms of breakeven costs to provide housing, or are you fluffing your lines again.

If it was that cheap to develop these types of houses, why didn't the SF dominated DCC do this for its last 5-year term.
I think you have no clue about construction or housing.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Bad satire aside, you admit that those building these 'cheap' houses will be the same builders, contractors and developers that build private housing.

So, why would they do it for the state cheaper?
Where is your savings coming from? The only saving to be had is by building on public land.

I gave it the seriousness it was due.
Never said cheaper. Been over this before.
You pay me to build I get 200,000, (includes wages for me, labour, taxes, materials.) you get a house.
OR
I build for 200,000, sell to you for 350,000.

Building is cheaper than buying at market.
The builders would be paid the exact same wages regardless of who they are building for. This is very basic. That's why people have a career in both building to sell and building for others.

markodaly wrote: »

You mean the SF dominated DCC council made a deal with a private developer to develop a site and provide housing? What part exactly do you object to and have you written to your local SF counselor about this?

Oh FFS...
Firstly who cares if it were SF led? Secondly no they did nae. It's not yet approved. Did you read the article or following comments? At least Blanch shied off on the SF led thing.

I am pointing out that you can make money building. I am pointing out that this builder found bricklayers to build and is going to do so on public land. Public land you said we didn't have not two comments ago by the way.

markodaly wrote: »

Ah bingo! It is no longer possible to build these houses unless you want to roll back piles of legislation in regards to building standards and energy conservation.
By all means, lobby your local TD or councilor for this.

Nonsense. Calling out your silly comment on the two up two down. People would jump at it also if that's all that's on the table for social housing, that's all that's on the table.

markodaly wrote: »

Why would it be cheaper? Give us the exact breakdown of the savings here in terms of breakeven costs to provide housing, or are you fluffing your lines again.

To build a house for taxes, materials, wages etc, lets say 200,000, using your figures. You get a house built and paid for for 200,000.
OR
You buy the same type of house for let's say 350,000 on the market.

Developers build to sell.
Developers take on contracts to build for others.

Are we going to buy the NCH once it's built?

markodaly wrote: »

If it was that cheap to develop these types of houses, why didn't the SF dominated DCC do this for its last 5-year term.
I think you have no clue about construction or housing.

Or the FF/FG before them, who knows? Maybe some nice sweet deals for Noonan affiliated vulture funds? We can but hope things change with this FF/FG led DCC right?
I know basic math and likely more about houses than you and based on your questions certainly a hell of a lot more about how commerce works.

James Brown

Dytalus wrote: »

Indeed. The ESRI's report which came out today even mentions housing in its conclusion at the end. Ireland has failed to provide adequate affordable housing to its people, but one of the biggest reasons is cost - they specifically say the cost of building needs to be brought down. In particular, it seems it's the cost of land they point to, not the cost of building.


-ESRI Quarterly Economic Commentary, Page 63

Local authorities, which are not actively seeking profits, might be somewhat cheaper than private industry which is. But if the biggest factor in the lack of housing (in particular, affordable housing) is the cost of land and development, then that's a problem that faces the LAs just as much as private developers.

All true but doesn't take away from the fact that building is cheaper than buying or hotels or renting etc.

Idbatterim

All true but doesn't take away from the fact that building is cheaper than buying or hotels or renting etc.

yeah, assuming they dont give the properties away for nothing like in the past! :rolleyes:

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah, assuming they dont give the properties away for nothing like in the past! :rolleyes:

The Tenant purchase scheme?
Ironically I know many who grew up in previously owned council houses who begrudge anyone getting a 'foreva' home today.

I think after spending decades paying rent an option to buy at a reduced rate is fair enough but maybe not while we've a housing crisis.

beggars_bush

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The Tenant purchase scheme?
Ironically I know many who grew up in previously owned council houses who begrudge anyone getting a 'foreva' home today.

I think after spending decades paying rent an option to buy at a reduced rate is fair enough but maybe not while we've a housing crisis.

Selling off the housing stock has contributed to the problem
Also not building any housing for a few decades

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Never said cheaper.

You did.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If developers can make a profit building to sell or rent out, the LA's/state can build in the least for a smaller profit on affordable housing sales.

A smaller profit = cheaper.

You pay me to build I get 200,000, (includes wages for me, labour, taxes, materials.) you get a house.
OR
I build for 200,000, sell to you for 350,000.

Well taking aside that your numbers are off the wall, again I ask, who is doing the building for you, and I mean you as in the Local Authority or the State?

Building is cheaper than buying at market.

It depends. Certainly not around in many rural locations.

I am pointing out that you can make money building. I am pointing out that this builder found bricklayers to build and is going to do so on public land. Public land you said we didn't have not two comments ago by the way.

Yes, you can make money building but it is largely location dependent. If you are building houses and selling them for €500,000 each then dare I say it you are making money, land costs being factored in.

What you are falsely inferring though is that the LA's can conjure up some magic trick and get all these houses built for next to nothing and we sell them to people of average or below-average means for a song.

Nonsense. Calling out your silly comment on the two up two down. People would jump at it also if that's all that's on the table for social housing, that's all that's on the table.

Nonsense is it?
Again, you show yourself as clueless.

Here is the link to the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive of 2010 (EPBD)
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-of-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive

It stipulates the regulation and energy efficiency required to build any new home.
It is impossible for LA's to build the old two up/two down style of housing we once built in the 30's or 50's , as it would against EU Law to do so.

There are new rules kicking in next year, which raises the bar even more. All homes will need to be A3 BER standards minimum with a move to A1. 10 years ago, you could build C3 or D rated homes. That is how much higher the requirement is.
This adds costs to a house but saves energy and fuel into the future.

Dont like it? Then I suggest you write to your MEP or campaign for Irexit.

To build a house for taxes, materials, wages etc, lets say 200,000, using your figures. You get a house built and paid for for 200,000.
OR
You buy the same type of house for let's say 350,000 on the market.

Your numbers are off the wall.

According to the Linesight, the hard cost of building a 100sqm home in 2018 was between €126,000 and €161,000. Cheap you might say, but that is only half the story.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cost-of-building-a-new-family-home-rose-7-5-in-past-year-1.3624692?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fconstruction%2Fcost-of-building-a-new-family-home-rose-7-5-in-past-year-1.3624692

That figure only accounts for the raw materials and the wages for labour. It is also ex-VAT which is 13.5%

We also need to add other costs to this, as the 'soft' costs.

Land (very expensive at the moment)
VAT (13.5%)
Finance costs (developers dont get free money)
Levies (which goes to the LA's)
Professional Fees
Sales/Marketing
Margin at about 11%

This means the it pushes up the cost of an average home to €330,000 in the greater Dublin area.
Taking out the Margin at 11%, that is no profit-taking for the developer you are still talking about €300,000
If you got free land you can reduce this down to about €240,000

So, to build a house with FREE land and the developer doing it with no profit in mind you pay €240,000

That is the bottom line, of and the figures I used are 3 years old (circa 2016), so are probably 20% lower than today, so in 2019 its really nearer the €275,000

https://www.newstalk.com/news/heres-how-much-it-costs-to-build-a-house-597037

I know basic math and likely more about houses than you and based on your questions certainly a hell of a lot more about how commerce works.

I sincerely doubt it, but believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

markodaly

Some more tidbits on this.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/the-myth-of-our-housing-market-1.3961731

It costs about €180,000 to build an average family home. That excludes the builder’s profit, the cost of the land used, and State taxes and levies, which all push up prices.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cost-of-rebuilding-homes-now-back-at-boom-time-levels-1.4019945

The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland’s (SCSI) annual house rebuilding cost guide suggests the cost of rebuilding a three-bed semi-detached home in Dublin is now €207,669, which is almost the same as it was in 2008.

These figures are not including land costs or the various associated taxes/levies.

That is why the average cost of a home in Ireland, is near the €300,000 mark and not the €200,000 mark

Some people here and in the media like to peddle myths that we as a nation can just click our fingers and build 50,000 homes in a year or two and sell them on for under €200,000 or such nonsense.

The only way to even approach this figure is to give land away for free.

Hotblack Desiato

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sez you. If that's all was on the table that would be a case of like it or lump it once health and safety is met, (unlike some private builds).

Whoopee! Let's build a ghetto! What could possibly go wrong!

When we built markedly substandard homes (mostly but not exclusively flats) in the past that only the most desperate / indigent local authority tenants would live in, it didn't end at all well.

These shoddy properties also cost a fortune to maintain and had a short life. They're all knocked or being very expensively rebuilt from a bare shell.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

You did.


A smaller profit = cheaper.

Apologies, I'll make it simpler.
Cost is the cost to do something. In this case build a house. You pay the cost of wages, materials, taxes etc. You end up with a house you paid to be built and all involved got paid. That's the cost of building a house.
Now once you have that house you can sell it at market rates for as much as you can get or you can sell it above cost, making a smaller profit.
Profit is the gain you make over and above the cost.
If you are the council or state you can sell to people at a smaller profit because you are trying to supply affordable housing, by keeping the price lower than the average market rate.
So by the council/state taking a smaller profit, the house price is cheaper for the buyer. The cost is unchanged and if the house is sold at market rate or cheaper, this doesn't effect the cost and all concerned get paid the same.
So if you pay someone the cost to build you a house, how much you sell if for will not effect the cost, wages paid etc. of the build.
So paying to have a house built is cheaper than buying a house off someone else who built a house and is looking to make as much profit as they can.

markodaly wrote: »

YWell taking aside that your numbers are off the wall, again I ask, who is doing the building for you, and I mean you as in the Local Authority or the State?

I got the 200,000 off you Marko.
Pay a contractor to build. See above. People make a good living building for other people. If you wanted to build a house on some land what would you do? Likely hire a building contractor. The state/LA does/did/would do the same.

markodaly wrote: »

YIt depends. Certainly not around in many rural locations.

That's unlikely. If that were true nobody would ever build anything anywhere and would just buy houses built by...the faeries?

markodaly wrote: »

YYes, you can make money building but it is largely location dependent. If you are building houses and selling them for €500,000 each then dare I say it you are making money, land costs being factored in.

What you are falsely inferring though is that the LA's can conjure up some magic trick and get all these houses built for next to nothing and we sell them to people of average or below-average means for a song.

Last time. The cost would be basically the same. The council/LA choosing to take a smaller profit on sale would be the difference in price.

Cost
noun
an amount that has to be paid or spent to buy or obtain something.

Profit
noun
a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something.

markodaly wrote: »

Nonsense is it?
Again, you show yourself as clueless.

I contend if offered a two up, two down council house, people would jump at it.

markodaly wrote: »

Here is the link to the European Energy Performance of Buildings Directive of 2010 (EPBD)
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/energy-performance-of-buildings/energy-performance-buildings-directive

It stipulates the regulation and energy efficiency required to build any new home.
It is impossible for LA's to build the old two up/two down style of housing we once built in the 30's or 50's , as it would against EU Law to do so.

There are new rules kicking in next year, which raises the bar even more. All homes will need to be A3 BER standards minimum with a move to A1. 10 years ago, you could build C3 or D rated homes. That is how much higher the requirement is.
This adds costs to a house but saves energy and fuel into the future.

Dont like it? Then I suggest you write to your MEP or campaign for Irexit.

I said once health and safety is met. It's unfortunate I have to spell everything out. A two up, two down house built to current standards. How's that?

markodaly wrote: »

Your numbers are off the wall.
...

I sincerely doubt it, but believe what you want if it makes you feel better.

Again, I got the number of 200,000 off you.
In any case regardless of the cost, it's in the sale that the price becomes relevant. People sell for profit. If the LA/state sold for less profit, the house price would be cheaper. Remember we covered the difference between cost and profit earlier? The cost is the same if I built a house to sell or the council built a house to sell. The difference is I want to make as much profit as I can, the council can opt to sell at a lower profit to keep the price cheaper.

James Brown

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Whoopee! Let's build a ghetto! What could possibly go wrong!

When we built markedly substandard homes (mostly but not exclusively flats) in the past that only the most desperate / indigent local authority tenants would live in, it didn't end at all well.

These shoddy properties also cost a fortune to maintain and had a short life. They're all knocked or being very expensively rebuilt from a bare shell.

All very exciting points.
I'd suggest we don't build a ghetto.

If I lived in a slum I'm sure it would have seemed like luxury to me at the time.

No. I know thousands of these homes personally, that were built in the 1930's and onward, still being lived in.
Some for sure but you are being very broad and anecdotal.

We could continue paying rent to private companies, buying at market rates to use as social housing and availing of hotels while we watch the crises worsen I suppose. Only money.

Building social housing is cheaper than buying houses at market rates, (cost + profit) to use as social housing.

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If I lived in a slum I'm sure it would have seemed like luxury to me at the time.

Have you ever seen an Irish slum?
Me neither. I have seen slums though, in the likes of Africa, Asia and South America.

No. I know thousands of these homes personally, that were built in the 1930's and onward, still being lived in.

Do these houses greet you personaly in the mornings? :pac::o