General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

I think you'll find people had problems with SF using the lads in balaclavas without being in power.:angel:

Sorry, I don't get your opinion on anything here other than a dig at SF?
Do you think you'd be kicking off if SF were sending lads in in balaclavas to remove people in the same circumstances or not?
Do you think government policy is saving the tax payer money or losing it while the crisis worsens?
Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis? What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

If you're just interested in dropping in for japes, my apologies.

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

I think you'll find people had problems with SF using the lads in balaclavas without being in power.:angel:

Sorry, I don't get your opinion on anything here other than a dig at SF?
Do you think you'd be kicking off if SF were sending lads in in balaclavas to remove people in the same circumstances or not?
Do you think government policy is saving the tax payer money or losing it while the crisis worsens?
Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis? What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

If you're just interested in dropping in for japes, my apologies.

(1) I'd say if they were using unreasonable force or sending in gardai[or at least individuals wearing gardai clothing] without the garda id[which these gardai had], I'd be outraged
(2)I consider all forms of  rent allowance, housing assistance, social housing a pig that eats the sow. To me it's all waste due to the poverty trap it creates. Long term dependence on welfare is dangerous for the individual receiving it. 
(3) In as much as there is a problem, yes I do believe central governent[the Leo and Eoghan of your post] is more competent than the LAs, who have created the crisis by insisting on low density planning in the face of all arguments. A FG LA is a misnomer, I don't know if there are any single party majority LAs, but I'd say a FG LA would prob be more open to high density housing[possibly as a chance for the councillors to ingratiate themselves with central FG hq tbf] whihc would alleviate the problem.

There's my argument, feel free to cherry pick, ignore and forget as suits your delusions and agenda.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sorry, I don't get your opinion on anything here other than a dig at SF?
Do you think you'd be kicking off if SF were sending lads in in balaclavas to remove people in the same circumstances or not?
Do you think government policy is saving the tax payer money or losing it while the crisis worsens?
Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis? What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

If you're just interested in dropping in for japes, my apologies.

(1) If Sinn Fein were sending lads in balaclavas anywhere, I wouldn't be surprised as they have form for supporting that kind of thing, but I would be against it. On the other hand, the Gardai had id and were protecting themselves from the sort of disgusting behaviour they were subject to at previous similar protests.

(2) I don't understand your question about saving money, and it appears to have little relevance to the discussion

(3) Yes, the LAs are now the biggest stumbling block to improving the housing situation. New building guidlines, new planning guidelines, new finance etc., have all been put in place by central government - time for the LAs to get on with it.

(4) I would hope that DCC, the biggest problem of the LAs, would, under different leadership, abandon its extremely stupid low-rise policy, and stop objecting to developments


Now, a question for you, why do you always mention Leo and Eoghan in your posts? Do you have some strange fixation for them? You never mention any other politician by name, such as the DCC councillors responsible for the mess there? Why this peculiarity?

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

(1) I'd say if they were using unreasonable force or sending in gardai[or at least individuals wearing gardai clothing] without the garda id[which these gardai had], I'd be outraged

So yes or no? You created your own question there.

Red_Wake wrote: »

(2)I consider all forms of  rent allowance, housing assistance, social housing a pig that eats the sow. To me it's all waste due to the poverty trap it creates. Long term dependence on welfare is dangerous for the individual receiving it.

You didn't answer the question. Is the current tactic of putting tax payer money into cheap loans to developers, buying houses off the market to use as social housing a good deal for the tax payer, not forgetting it doesn't work as the crisis worsens and we spend on 'emergency accommodation'?
 

Red_Wake wrote: »

(3) In as much as there is a problem, yes I do believe central governent[the Leo and Eoghan of your post] is more competent than the LAs, who have created the crisis by insisting on low density planning in the face of all arguments. A FG LA is a misnomer, I don't know if there are any single party majority LAs, but I'd say a FG LA would prob be more open to high density housing[possibly as a chance for the councillors to ingratiate themselves with central FG hq tbf] whihc would alleviate the problem.

You didn't answer this one either.

Do you think Eoghan and Leo are being hampered by the LA's in tackling the crisis?

Is there anything Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently if the LA's weren't there, taking that the LA's are part of the problem? What is it Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently? I suggest the LA's are not stopping them so blame for bad policy at national level lies completely with them. Do you disagree?

What do you think an all FG LA might do differently and how would that differ from current Eoghan housing policy?

As regards the LA's, what do you think an all FG might be doing differently? I'm trying to see what you think FG would be doing if they had no LA obstacles. Would it be more of the current bad policies losing tax payer money down an ever growing hole or something they've not tried yet?

Red_Wake wrote: »

There's my argument, feel free to cherry pick, ignore and forget as suits your delusions and agenda.

Hold on there horse. I'm asking direct questions. You're the one responding with ifs and buts.

Government policy is making matters worse. They can find money for these things they put forward and nobody puts the source under any scrutiny, but suggest monies for social housing and good people like yourself would be talking magic money trees and skitting, skatting and be-boping.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Hold on there horse. I'm asking direct questions. You're the one responding with ifs and buts.

You might get some response to direct questions if you ever answered a single one yourself.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You'd be forgiven for thinking poor aul' young Eoghan has his hands tied yet himself and Leo are not calling for any radical changes. In fact they are pushing the failed policies and wasting tax payer money with gusto compared to the LA's.
No queries as to were the boyos got the recent cash fall for their latest waste of tax payer money. It certainly is magic.

The balaclava wearing thugs of mystery taking out the housing protesters are a throw back to the FG policing of the good old days of the law and order party. The protesters were engaged in an illegal act, but there's something blue shirty about state men carrying out tasks in disguise to hide their shame.
I can only imagine the hi-jinks and shenanigans on here if SF were in power under the exact same circumstances.

Disclaimer: This post has no substance, it's pure talking points and spin.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So yes or no? You created your own question there.

Untrue. The question has been answered it just wasn't answered to your liking.

You didn't answer the question. Is the current tactic of putting tax payer money into cheap loans to developers, buying houses off the market to use as social housing a good deal for the tax payer, not forgetting it doesn't work as the crisis worsens and we spend on 'emergency accommodation'?

You don't seem to have any real grasp on reality, let alone solutions to the housing crisis.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the government is putting taxpayer money into cheap loans for developers. However, if this were accurate it would be to the benefit of the housing crisis as opposed to a detriment. You don't seem to have an explanation of how this would be, if true, a bad thing.

Secondly, you're against Local Authorities buying houses off the private market to convert to social housing - also not clear on how this is a bad thing in your view. 

Is there anything Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently if the LA's weren't there, taking that the LA's are part of the problem? What is it Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently? I suggest the LA's are not stopping them so blame for bad policy at national level lies completely with them. Do you disagree?

Local Authorities are doing nothing. The best thing the Government could do would make you have an aneurysm; they could give tax breaks to developers for building social housing.

As regards the LA's, what do you think an all FG might be doing differently? I'm trying to see what you think FG would be doing if they had no LA obstacles. Would it be more of the current bad policies losing tax payer money down an ever growing hole or something they've not tried yet?

It's not the Government's job to build houses.

Government policy is making matters worse. They can find money for these things they put forward and nobody puts the source under any scrutiny, but suggest monies for social housing and good people like yourself would be talking magic money trees and skitting, skatting and be-boping.

Ah. But you don't have any solution either.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is there anything Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently if the LA's weren't there, taking that the LA's are part of the problem? What is it Leo or Eoghan might be doing differently? I suggest the LA's are not stopping them so blame for bad policy at national level lies completely with them. Do you disagree?


As regards the LA's, what do you think an all FG might be doing differently? I'm trying to see what you think FG would be doing if they had no LA obstacles. Would it be more of the current bad policies losing tax payer money down an ever growing hole or something they've not tried yet?

Government policy is making matters worse.

"New State agency to free up land for ‘150,000 homes over 20 years’
Land Development Agency will designate 30 zones in Dublin and 10 in Cork for building"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-state-agency-to-free-up-land-for-150-000-homes-over-20-years-1.3627335

The LDA will have compulsory purchase powers and are going to both release State land for development as well as acquire private land. Providing €1.25bn of funds to the LDA, they will require one-third of all properties to be affordable and a single person on up to €50,000 a year or a couple with a joint income of up to €75,000 a year will qualify for affordable housing.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Disclaimer: This post has no substance, it's pure talking points and spin.

You are mistaken. It's facts with opinion. That's how discussions work.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Untrue. The question has been answered it just wasn't answered to your liking.

Untrue. It was changed and then a new question was answered not mine. I suggest you read over it again.
I see you add nothing. If SF were doing the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances there'd be a turn in the tide of opinion on here, don't try codding.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You don't seem to have any real grasp on reality, let alone solutions to the housing crisis.

Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the government is putting taxpayer money into cheap loans for developers.

4% interest on state loans to developers
While some banks are only lending up to 60% of the cost of developing a housing estate or apartment block, it is understood that HBFI would provide around 80% funding or possibly more if the scheme is deemed particularly worthwhile.

HBFI will draw on the expertise of Nama which has already been working with a number of its debtors to get houses built. But it will be a separate entity to Nama.

Nama chairman Frank Daly said: “In practical terms it is making a fund of €750m available for lending to construction firms, to builders to property developers who might have sites on which they could build houses, but who have problems accessing finance.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/4-interest-on-state-loans-to-developers-460783.html

Nama would provide cheap loans to developers under new plan
Taoiseach Leo Varadkar last month announced the Government is preparing to repurpose Nama to help drive housebuilding. Sources said the new Nama would be focused on “developing the land it holds and lending to non-Nama developers to build at commercial rates”.

This could be done, according to the sources, by using the €1 billion in cash or equivalents Nama holds, raising its own funds on the markets to be used for loans, and by accessing the European Investment Bank.

Irish households now officially wealthier than during boom
Cost of building a new family home rose 7.5% in past year
Prospect of owning home ‘a pipe dream’ for many, says Shortall
Nama could provide loans with interest rates of between 4-6 per cent, well below rates offered by banks and financiers, which it is claimed makes it less viable to build new homes.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/nama-would-provide-cheap-loans-to-developers-under-new-plan-1.3241877

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

However, if this were accurate it would be to the benefit of the housing crisis as opposed to a detriment. You don't seem to have an explanation of how this would be, if true, a bad thing.

More private builds which people can't afford? How will that help? Your idea that simply having more homes built privately will solve everything is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Secondly, you're against Local Authorities buying houses off the private market to convert to social housing - also not clear on how this is a bad thing in your view.

Absolutely. Which is the better option for the tax payer; the state building social housing stock or buying it at market rates? 

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Local Authorities are doing nothing. The best thing the Government could do would make you have an aneurysm; they could give tax breaks to developers for building social housing.

That would be more waste. Essentially rewarding private developers for building homes they sell to the state at market rate. Do you know anything about finance?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's not the Government's job to build houses.

Now you're just copping out. I say it is. During a housing crisis the state should provide social and affordable housing. Or we could continue to aid developers in private profit and shovel money down the emergency accommodation hole. The governments has given itself the job of assisting private developers with private builds for private profit, but that's okay right?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah. But you don't have any solution either.

State built Social and affordable housing. Have you not been following this issue at all?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

"New State agency to free up land for ‘150,000 homes over 20 years’
Land Development Agency will designate 30 zones in Dublin and 10 in Cork for building"

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/new-state-agency-to-free-up-land-for-150-000-homes-over-20-years-1.3627335

The LDA will have compulsory purchase powers and are going to both release State land for development as well as acquire private land. Providing €1.25bn of funds to the LDA, they will require one-third of all properties to be affordable and a single person on up to €50,000 a year or a couple with a joint income of up to €75,000 a year will qualify for affordable housing.

More of the same bad policy.

There will be a requirement that 40% of homes built on State lands are social and affordable ones.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0913/993427-land_development_agency/

And were is this 1.2 Billion coming from the magic money tree? Seems the money is there if there's private profit to be made off the tax payers back.

FreudianSlippers

I see you're suggesting that the government is putting money into NAMA from the taxpayer and ignoring that what NAMA will actually provide is (from the article you actually quoted but obviously didn't digest) "the €1 billion in cash or equivalents Nama holds, raising its own funds on the markets to be used for loans, and by accessing the European Investment Bank"

More private builds which people can't afford? How will that help? Your idea that simply having more homes built privately will solve everything is absurdly simplistic and wrong.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=supply+and+demand

Absolutely. Which is the better option for the tax payer; the state building social housing stock or buying it at market rates? 

Neither.

That would be more waste. Essentially rewarding private developers for building homes they sell to the state at market rate. Do you know anything about finance?

More personal attacks... tisk tisk.

Now you're just copping out. I say it is.

Ok. I say it isn't.

During a housing crisis the state should provide social and affordable housing. Or we could continue to aid developers in private profit and shovel money down the emergency accommodation hole.

Or we could do something rational and do what the government has actually done with the LDA.

State built Social and affordable housing. Have you not been following this issue at all?

It seems you're not up to speed on this matter yourself.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

More of the same bad policy.



And were is this 1.2 Billion coming from the magic money tree? Seems the money is there if there's private profit to be made off the tax payers back.

So unless it's a free corpo house you get, you're against it. Gotcha.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer this one either.
Hold on there horse. I'm asking direct questions. You're the one responding with ifs and buts.

You know the way you give out about people not answering questions, as in the above post where you three times mention it. Well, are you going to answer my question to you anytime soon?

blanch152 wrote: »

Now, a question for you, why do you always mention Leo and Eoghan in your posts? Do you have some strange fixation for them? You never mention any other politician by name, such as the DCC councillors responsible for the mess there? Why this peculiarity?

Now, a question for you, why do you always mention Leo and Eoghan in your posts? Do you have some strange fixation for them? You never mention any other politician by name, such as the DCC councillors responsible for the mess there? Why this peculiarity?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So unless it's a free corpo house you get, you're against it. Gotcha.

You've obviously no idea about the housing crisis or are unwilling to comment on posts without fudging or derailing.

NAMA is loaning money to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to.
The developers then build and on occasion sell to the state at profit. Or sell on the market at profit having been aided by NAMA.
I think this is not a good deal for the tax payer.

State social housing builds or buying at market rates? You answer 'neither'. That's either you don't know or at best a cop out.

A state built social home is a better deal for the tax payer than buying at market rates and using as same. That's very simple.

Ok. I say it isn't.

You dodge direct questions and disregard fact.
You don't seem to want to discuss sensibly, so I'll leave you to it.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You dodge direct questions and disregard fact.

Can you answer my questions, please?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've obviously no idea about the housing crisis or are unwilling to comment on posts without fudging or derailing.

NAMA is loaning money to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to.
The developers then build and on occasion sell to the state at profit. Or sell on the market at profit having been aided by NAMA.
I think this is not a good deal for the tax payer.

State social housing builds or buying at market rates? You answer 'neither'. That's either you don't know or at best a cop out.

A state built social home is a better deal for the tax payer than buying at market rates and using as same. That's very simple.



You dodge direct questions and disregard fact.
You don't seem to want to discuss sensibly, so I'll leave you to it.

As I said, you don't seem to be up-to-speed on the developments re LDA (etc.) and requirements for social/affordable housing by developers.

You also seem to have conveniently missed where it said NAMA was going to use its own funds as well as market-raised funds to provide these loans.

So you seem to be a bit confused between the taxpayer money being used to build social housing and market money being loaned to developers.

I'm starting to wonder what kind of economic qualifications would qualify someone to give an opinion on the economic options to increase supply of housing stock?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

As I said, you don't seem to be up-to-speed on the developments re LDA (etc.) and requirements for social/affordable housing by developers.

You also seem to have conveniently missed where it said NAMA was going to use its own funds as well as market-raised funds to provide these loans.

So you seem to be a bit confused between the taxpayer money being used to build social housing and market money being loaned to developers.

I'm starting to wonder what kind of economic qualifications would qualify someone to give an opinion on the economic options to increase supply of housing stock?

Every red cent NAMA has is the tax payers. Every red cent NAMA may borrow is borrowed on behalf of the tax payer. Where do you think the need and purpose of NAMA came from?

You are fudging. The state currently finances private builds for private profits. The state also buys houses off the market to be used as social housing. NAMA has actually sold properties to Noonan's Cerberus, for the state to buy back at a later date. And of course as you dodge and duck these points I don't know where you stand on these things.

Current policy is wasting tax monies as the crisis worsens.
State social housing and affordable builds is a better deal for the tax payer. If you are genuinely interested in discussing it, you tell me what's a better deal for the tax payer?

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Current policy is wasting tax monies as the crisis worsens.

This seems to be solely about value for money, to you.

Clear this up for me: if there were two approaches, one which cost the taxpayer less but left people homeless for longer, and one which cost more but housed people sooner, which would you choose?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Every red cent NAMA has is the tax payers. Every red cent NAMA may borrow is borrowed on behalf of the tax payer. Where do you think the need and purpose of NAMA came from?

You are fudging. The state currently finances private builds for private profits. The state also buys houses off the market to be used as social housing. NAMA has actually sold properties to Noonan's Cerberus, for the state to buy back at a later date. And of course as you dodge and duck these points I don't know where you stand on these things.

Current policy is wasting tax monies as the crisis worsens.
State social housing and affordable builds is a better deal for the tax payer. If you are genuinely interested in discussing it, you tell me what's a better deal for the tax payer?

So you admit it's costing the taxpayer nothing extra. Great.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you admit it's costing the taxpayer nothing extra. Great.

The state using tax payer money is financing private developers in the gain of private profit while supporting the tax payer in a crisis is avoided.
It is cheaper for the state to build social and affordable housing. Currently we are spending more as the crisis grows. These are facts.

It's obvious you're only interested in one-upmanship.
I'm here to discuss politics and government policy.
You're ignoring and dodging and fudging for sport. Good day.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The state using tax payer money is financing private developers in the gain of private profit while supporting the tax payer in a crisis is avoided.
It is cheaper for the state to build social and affordable housing. Currently we are spending more as the crisis grows. These are facts.

You keep putting this position forward, yet I haven't seen a single fact to back up what is just your opinion.

It is certainly true that you believe that it is cheaper for the state to build social and affordable housing, but I haven't seen a single piece of credible evidence that this is anything more than an opinion of yours.

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you admit it's costing the taxpayer nothing extra. Great.

The state using tax payer money is financing private developers in the gain of private profit while supporting the tax payer in a crisis is avoided.
It is cheaper for the state to build social and affordable housing. Currently we are spending more as the crisis grows. These are facts.

It's obvious you're only interested in one-upmanship.
I'm here to discuss politics and government policy.
You're ignoring and dodging and fudging for sport. Good day.

The state is giving low interest loans. Presumably all this money is expected to be paid back. 

You could argue there's an opportunity cost for the period of the loan due to the initial sum not being available, but as the state will be reaping a profit on the loan[presumably a small profit tbf], but as this costs nothing in the long term, it could be agued that it's the cheapest option, albeit with an element of risk[developers could go bust] and an opportunity cost[money not spent elsewhere].

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

The state is giving low interest loans. Presumably all this money is expected to be paid back. 

You could argue there's an opportunity cost for the period of the loan due to the initial sum not being available, but as the state will be reaping a profit on the loan[presumably a small profit tbf], but as this costs nothing in the long term, it could be agued that it's the cheapest option, albeit with an element of risk[developers could go bust] and an opportunity cost[money not spent elsewhere].

Yes. I said the state is loaning tax payer money through NAMA to private developers who will make private profit. We are lending at a rate of interest far lower than financial institutions are. This is to encourage new builds, but they are private builds which will be sold at market rate.
So as I said, NAMA is financing private builds with loans using tax payer monies for the profit of private developers. It's a win for them and the tax payer has more options on homes many can't afford. Then as is often the case, the tax payer provides grants to buyers or subsidises rents on these private builds. Or even worse, maybe the state buys them at market rate after giving a cheap loan so the private builder could gouge the tax payer and/or state come sale time. This is bad policy IMO.

How is any of this a better deal for the tax payer than state built affordable or social housing? We are spending money to make matters worse, where the more better deal for the tax payer is also one that will help lessen the effect of the crisis and in turn lessen the reliance on emergency accommodation and private entities.

You've not answered my earlier questions.
Do you think current policies such as the above are a better deal for the tax payer? We know they make the crisis worse. Leo's 'no quick fix' is an insult considering his slow fix makes matters worse. I'd like to know when he's thinking of starting a fix at any pace.
His and Eoghan's new gimmick is more of the same. Only 40% of the publicly owned land will be ear marked for social or affordable housing. Is this the work of the dastardly LA's? No. While they carry blame they are not stopping Leo and Eoghan from any new direction.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

You keep putting this position forward, yet I haven't seen a single fact to back up what is just your opinion.

It is certainly true that you believe that it is cheaper for the state to build social and affordable housing, but I haven't seen a single piece of credible evidence that this is anything more than an opinion of yours.

Do people really need proof that it would be more economically sensible to build something, that they then own as an asset than perpetually paying for someone else's asset, ie a private landlords mortgage or the use of a hoteliers facilities?

Short term, of course the two may overlap, but long term?

C'mon this isn't rocket science here.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Do people really need proof that it would be more economically sensible to build something, that they then own as an asset than perpetually paying for someone else's asset, ie a private landlords mortgage or the use of a hoteliers facilities?

Short term, of course the two may overlap, but long term?

C'mon this isn't rocket science here.

Or lending money so they can build homes we later buy off them at market rates.
How folk can't see this as a bad deal than financing our own builds is beyond believable.

I think the denial car clocked over. They've exhausted the 'where will the money come from' pitch and reverted back to a blank slate of needing it all explained again.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Do people really need proof that it would be more economically sensible to build something, that they then own as an asset than perpetually paying for someone else's asset, ie a private landlords mortgage or the use of a hoteliers facilities?

Short term, of course the two may overlap, but long term?

C'mon this isn't rocket science here.

Firstly, when you take into account that the local authorities can't be bothered/are unable to collect rent, then yes. Any analysis would have to take into account that additional element of incompetence that the LAs have.

Secondly, lending money to developers at low interest to build private housing, of which an element must be affordable housing can deliver a multiple of private housing as the only cost to the exchequer is the element of subsidisation in the interest, which means the cost could be as low as 1% of the cost of building social housing, assuming that the LAs could manage to keep the cost of building social housing at the same level as the private sector. It 10% of each private development is earmarked for affordable housing, then you probably get at least 10 times as many houses built for the same money as letting the LAs do it. You see, two different models can have two different outcomes.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Firstly, when you take into account that the local authorities can't be bothered/are unable to collect rent, then yes. Any analysis would have to take into account that additional element of incompetence that the LAs have.

Unable to collect rent wouldn't matter in the long run, there's still an asset that they own. Not so in a private landlord/ hotel arrangement.

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Unable to collect rent wouldn't matter in the long run, there's still an asset that they own. Not so in a private landlord/ hotel arrangement.

Its a derailment that's been put to bed. As I say we've gone full circle. Even Leo rolled out 'no quick fix' near 8 years in.
It avoids the uncomfortable reality that the vast majority suffering the housing crisis are working tax payers.

I asked directly which was the better deal;
Building and renting our own, even taking into account arrears.
Or Buying off the market and using as social housing anyway? On the fourth time I gave up asking.

We can either build and rent our own to people or buy off the market and rent to the very same people or pay gouging private landlords to house the very same people.
It's a nonsense to continue as is, that anyone believes this is the way to go, considering the crisis.

We can build and rent out or we can buy at market rates and rent out.
Currently government is wasting our tax money while exacerbating the crisis due to stupidity or intent.

Wheeliebin30

I’m doing some general maths here.

Government builds house for 300,000.

Rents it for let’s say 400 a month.

Would take approx 60 years just to break even by the the house would be nearly done to be knocked.

This whole asset talk doesn’t make any sense.

Building 100,000 social houses would bankrupt the country.

Sam Russell

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m doing some general maths here.

Government builds house for 300,000.

Rents it for let’s say 400 a month.

Would take approx 60 years just to break even by the the house would be nearly done to be knocked.

This whole asset talk doesn’t make any sense.

Building 100,000 social houses would bankrupt the country.

Well, when you do the maths, remember the contributions.

1. Site cost - already owned by Gov.

2 Labour cost - 30% goes to Gov in taxation.

3. Private developer gets margin of 16% - avoided if Gov ageny does the developing.

4, Social housing goes to homeless so saving cost of emergency accommodation.

5. Affordable housing is not sold at a loss - as site cost is recovered.

6. Rest of development subsidises the other two categories.

The ratio of each category should be a third each. The construction should be carried out by registered competent builders.

Geuze

blanch152 wrote: »

It is certainly true that you believe that it is cheaper for the state to build social and affordable housing, but I haven't seen a single piece of credible evidence that this is anything more than an opinion of yours.

This is true.

Obviously, as the developers margin is not involved, there's a 50k cost cut straight away.

The DPER has recommended more building and less pending on HAP, as paying inflated rents is more expensive than building houses:

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0721/980007-social-housing-george-lee/

Geuze

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/07/19.-current-and-capital-expenditure-on-social-housing-delivery.pdf


Key Findings

 Based on the limited available data, indicative cost analysis across six Local Authorities indicates that over the
long term, the relative cost effectiveness of each of the delivery mechanisms differs across areas.

 It is estimated that, based on the Local Authority areas analysed, the net present cost (NPC) of delivering units
through mechanisms such as HAP, RAS and leasing is higher than construction and/or acquisition in Fingal and
Meath where prices within the general housing market are higher, while the NPC of those mechanisms is
generally either at or below the estimate for construction in other areas where prices in the wider market are
not as high (e.g. Mayo and Tipperary).

Geuze

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m doing some general maths here.

Government builds house for 300,000.

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/07/19.-current-and-capital-expenditure-on-social-housing-delivery.pdf

 Estimates of the cost for 2 and 3 bed units through LA direct construction have been provided by DHPLG based on the construction cost for units delivered between 2016 and 2017, cost guidelines for units in Q4 2017 and the
average tendered costs for units being delivered in 2018.

The estimated unit all-in costs (i.e. including land costs
and excluding abnormals) within the analysis range from €175,000 to €195,000 for a 2 bed and €190,000 to €210,000 for a 3 bed.

Geuze

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m doing some general maths here.

Government builds house for 300,000.

https://www.linesight.com/knowledge/2018/ireland/linesight-average-irish-construction-costs-2018

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/cost-of-building-a-new-family-home-rose-7-5-in-past-year-1.3624692

This is the hard construction cost, not the total cost.

Linesight estimates building 100sq m dwelling costs between €126,000 and €161,000

blanch152

Geuze wrote: »

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2018/07/19.-current-and-capital-expenditure-on-social-housing-delivery.pdf

 Estimates of the cost for 2 and 3 bed units through LA direct construction have been provided by DHPLG based on the construction cost for units delivered between 2016 and 2017, cost guidelines for units in Q4 2017 and the
average tendered costs for units being delivered in 2018.

The estimated unit all-in costs (i.e. including land costs
and excluding abnormals) within the analysis range from €175,000 to €195,000 for a 2 bed and €190,000 to €210,000 for a 3 bed.

It also states the following:

"There are also a number of wider policy considerations that are relevant including;
o effectiveness and targeting of support;
o sustainability and equity of tenant contributions across Local Authority areas; and
o appropriate and cost effective social housing stock management/renewal and the overall capacity of, and
impact on, the wider housing market"

When you take into account the complete incompetence of the LAs, especially those in the Dublin area, and adjust for the above factors, you may get a different result.

blanch152

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I’m doing some general maths here.

Government builds house for 300,000.

Rents it for let’s say 400 a month.

Would take approx 60 years just to break even by the the house would be nearly done to be knocked.

This whole asset talk doesn’t make any sense.

Building 100,000 social houses would bankrupt the country.

You will need to revise your figures.

The document provided by Gueze includes the following statement:

"Census indicates that the average weekly rent paid by those renting from a LA has increased from €59 per week in 2011 to €69 in 2016"

That translates to €280 per month, less than your €400.

Edward M

The support for govt is holding firm despite the crisis.
Fianna Fail is in freefall, they will soon have to ask themselves why?
The end of this govt could be brought about more by FFs unpopularity than by anything the govt is or isn't doing!
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0915/993987-opinion-poll-politics/

Wanderer78

Edward M wrote:

The support for govt is holding firm despite the crisis. Fianna Fail is in freefall, they will soon have to ask themselves why? The end of this govt could be brought about more by FFs unpopularity than by anything the govt is or isn't doing!

What crisis would that be?

Edward M

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What crisis would that be?

Take you pick, read the thread.
Housing, health, are but two.
Unless of course you can't see any crises?

Idbatterim

Unless ff back usc abolition or universal public housing, ie something significant, that fg won’t do. They are going nowhere... a fifty thousand grant for the housing crisis was their proposal last week, they never learn, morons, I’m delighted they won’t be crawling out of the hole they dug themselves a decade ago ...

Idbatterim

Wanderer78 wrote: »

What crisis would that be?

The housing catastrophe for a start ...

Edgware

The best thing that could happen is that FG would actually believe these polls. Underneath there is a very steady discontent with matters that someone with real leadership could solve. It is of course a matter of priorities. FG want to look after the lawyers and top medical professions rather than kids waiting for life changing scoleosis treatment.

Edward M

Edgware wrote: »

The best thing that could happen is that FG would actually believe these polls. Underneath there is a very steady discontent with matters that someone with real leadership could solve. It is of course a matter of priorities. FG want to look after the lawyers and top medical professions rather than kids waiting for life changing scoleosis treatment.

They will all look at this poll and worry, FF especially I think, and MM in particular, he isn't moving them forward in a popular way, is he?
Your end statement is a bit of a big point, how did you come to your conclusion on that?

blanch152

Edgware wrote: »

The best thing that could happen is that FG would actually believe these polls. Underneath there is a very steady discontent with matters that someone with real leadership could solve. It is of course a matter of priorities. FG want to look after the lawyers and top medical professions rather than kids waiting for life changing scoleosis treatment.

The only leadership available is in FG.

Micheal Martin remains tainted by the FF government that ruined the country. Sinn Fein are justifiably not trusted by 80% of the country because of their recent past. Paul Murphy and the left can only lead a mob.

That leaves just FG. There is no other credible Taoiseach unfortunately.

Doesn't mean I will vote for them, but the above is what people will see.

PeadarCo

Edgware wrote:

The best thing that could happen is that FG would actually believe these polls. Underneath there is a very steady discontent with matters that someone with real leadership could solve. It is of course a matter of priorities. FG want to look after the lawyers and top medical professions rather than kids waiting for life changing scoleosis treatment.

Why are you surprised the economy is going very well. The housing crisis while an issue will take a few years to solve regardless of who's in charge. It also only impacts those who are renting and or looking to buy. If you own a home it has a positive impact as it increases your wealth on paper.

And who else do you vote for at the moment all political parties are trying to imitate FF in 02/03 spend spend and to hell about the future. Its crazy that there's any talk of tax cuts on a broad scale. The time to cut taxes is in a recession not a boom. Now is the time to increase taxes if anything.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why are you surprised the economy is going very well.

Probably a bit of a tangent here, but i'm surprised the economy is doing well.

Ireland is an outlier, maybe even a basket case, when it comes to sharp cuts in fiscal spending being associated with major periods of economic growth.

when discussing the fiscal consolidation of the late 1980's, early 1990s, the subsequent economic boom used to be regarded in the economic literature as if it were some freak anomaly, it went completely against the received wisdom. Now we've just repeated it.

No other economy that I'm aware of has experienced a massive consolidation/ economic boom sequence on this scale, certainly not twice!

I'm not saying this to be self-congratulatory towards Irish people or the Government, it's bizarre, and in fact rather than being congratulatory, it should make us question the scale of the recovery, or at least how that recovery is measured.

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Probably a bit of a tangent here, but i'm surprised the economy is doing well.

Why? we are a small open economy that's export focused. The US, EU and the UK have all been doing very well economically over the last few years. You would expect Ireland to be doing well as a result. The Irish electorate does not reward parties that implement counter cyclical policies. And to a degree it gets away with it because a lot of Irelands economic performance is determined in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin etc. Its why Brexit represents such a big challenge. Its also why leaving the EU would be catastrophic as we are heavily dependent on foreign companies.

PeadarCo

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why? we are a small open economy that's export focused.

That's far too vague an explanation to address what I'm talking about.

If we look back to the fiscal cuts of 1987-91, we see that the cuts were mainly on fiscal transfers (welfare) and on public investment. Similar cuts were undertaken from 2009, especially relating to public investment. On both occasions, there were large reductions in public-sector employment, largely due to early retirements and hiring freezes.

None of this (with the exception of a fall in unit labour costs), made the country more competitive to export markets; one would have expected the dramatic fall in public investment to have actually damaged competitiveness. but in fact private investment exploded on both occasions, and domestic demand rapidly recovered.

You can say this can be explained by the fact that Ireland is a small open economy, with a small fiscal multiplier (although the size of the multiplier is disputed in some ESRI research), but this is assertion not supported when we look at the recent examples of Portugal and Greece; of Denmark in the early 1980s, which initially seemed to recover, and then rapidly turned into a recession.

The Irish experience of 'expansionary fiscal contraction' is certainly an outlier, despite there being many examples of small open economies with which we might compare ourselves.

It is a uniquely Irish experience, and when something is described as 'uniquely Irish' in economics, I don't know about you, but for me, alarm bells start to go off.

PeadarCo

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

That's far too vague an explanation to address what I'm talking about.

My point is you are placing far far to much emphasis and importance of Irish fiscal policy in determining the performance of the Irish economy . There are certain key elements the corporation tax and a more general strategy of welcoming FDI into the country. But beyond that I would question the overall impact of fiscal policy to the countries overall performance provided its some what compenent at least some of the time and you don't go down the route of Venezuela etc. A small open economy like Ireland is heavily impacted by decisions made in other countries. All our major trading partners have preformed well over the last few years so you would expect the country to benefit to a large degree and obviously the opposite is also the case. Its also why Brexit represents a huge challenge and the result of the negotiations will probably have a larger impact on the performance of the Irish economy in the short to medium term than any decision made in the budget.