Fr McVerry supporting lessons in how to occupy properties

BBFAN

Hitman3000 wrote:

Always amuses when I see the free houses crap being thrown out. Not a day goes by on boards than someone doesn't say it. It's an expectation now tradition if you will.

Free house = automatic 10 likes. Makes them feel better to get the likes.

BBFAN

the_syco wrote:

Thus far, the government is only helping the non-working people. Seems they should get houses near the family, while those who work should pay full whack 2 hours away from their job.

Plenty of working people on HAP.

Homer

BBFAN wrote: »

Free house = automatic 10 likes. Makes them feel better to get the likes.

Better known as the charge of the like brigade!

McMurphy

CruelCoin wrote: »

It's only investing if it delivers a return.

Spending 250k for example on a home and charging €80p/w (fairly common rate) would take 3125 weeks to be paid off, or 60 years.
Pity the house would be knocked down as being unfit for purpose well before then.

My parents live in a house that's more than 60 years old, what's happened to modern building technology that they're practically disposable nowadays in your eyes

The houses need to be built in affordable areas, and charged a reasonable rent, otherwise it's not investing, but rather pissing money up the wall.

Would you consider the current situation of throwing it to the private landlords or hoteliers an investment or pissed up against a wall?

Hitman3000

Johnny Dogs wrote:

My parents live in a house that's more than 60 years old, what's happened to modern building technology that they're practically disposable in your eyes

Wheeliebin made this claim too although he claims the house would have to be knocked after 55 years. I thought standards had improved. My parents house is a former council house built in 1952 by Roscommon county council. 70 years old now.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So basically you haven’t really answered any of my questions?????

No costing, no number of houses that you think we need and some rabble about Leo and nama.

How predictable, just like the left and Sinn Féin, no credible solutions just bluster.

You don't like the answer and you completely dodge my question.

My idea is more social and affordable housing. How many and when depends on government will and the market, how it's effected. You don't want to build so many you kill the market, but you want to build enough to cool pricing.
You can get f***ed if you think I'm calculating that.
You tell me where the 2.5bn came from? Just because Leo has his money earmarked for a terrible policy, that doesn't make it a better policy.

Again, which is cheaper and better value for the tax payer:
Buying houses to rent out as social housing.
Renting from private landlords for housing
OR
Building our own and renting out at a reasonable rate to working tax payers?

Chinasea

BBFAN wrote: »

Free house = automatic 10 likes. Makes them feel better to get the likes.

If you don't work, have no intentions of working (for no good reason) then yes, they are free, and not only that, they are furnished, maintained and guaranteed for life.

What about the millions of Euros racked up in rent arrears also in social housing . Why is this simply tolerated. The rent is ridiculously low as it is.

You can try and shut this point of view down, but the likes of me who graft and scrape by and are happy to contribute for the greater good, are sick of this entitled crapology.

NIMAN

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Wheeliebin made this claim too although he claims the house would have to be knocked after 55 years. I thought standards had improved. My parents house is a former council house built in 1952 by Roscommon county council. 70 years old now.

I have a family member living in a terraced house in Derry thats 101yrs old.

Squatter

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Wheeliebin made this claim too although he claims the house would have to be knocked after 55 years. I thought standards had improved. My parents house is a former council house built in 1952 by Roscommon county council. 70 years old now.

Does that mean that in Roscommon 2018-1952 = 70?

Or do you expect the house to still be there in four years' time?

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

its free.

when you dont work for something and you get it from money you have handed to you for doing nothing, its free.

this is true for a great deal of people on the housing list.

we will disagree about this, but the above is a fact.

NB i worked years in social housing. wheres your expertise coming from?

Do they not charge rent based on income? Isn't the list designed to put those in most need at the top?
Stats for this 'great deal'? I'm legit confused, have you seen the unemployment figures?
I'd wager it's more working tax payers on low income needing a dig out, which I'm fine with.

McMurphy

Chinasea wrote: »

If you don't work, have no intentions of working (for no good reason) then yes, they are free, and not only that, they are furnished, maintained and guaranteed for life.

What about the millions of Euros racked up in rent arrears also in social housing . Why is this simply tolerated. The rent is ridiculously low as it is.

You can try and shut this point of view down, but the likes of me who graft and scrape by and are happy to contribute for the greater good, are sick of this entitled crapology.

If only we lived in a democratic state where we had a govts capable of legislating so as these things aren't tolerated /**looks off into the distance with dreamy eyes**

I wouldn't say I'm in a minority when I say those availing of social housing who should and could be paying their contributions - should and could be made to do so.

In before someone blames Sinn Fein or Paul Murphy though.

James Brown

the_syco wrote: »

...

Thus far, the government is only helping the non-working people. Seems they should get houses near the family, while those who work should pay full whack 2 hours away from their job.

..

What's the unemployment rate? Aren't these people vetted based on need? Doesn't welfare cut you off if you simply don't like to work?

This is not true. Developers get loans from NAMA at a cheaper rate of interest than from financial institutions are willing to offer. This means they get cheaper loans and build for selling for profit on the private market. The very taxpayers providing these cheap loans are then gouged if they try rent or buy these properties.
Then, the housing minister buys some of them at market rates to use as social housing, because building homes to use as social housing is a free house.
Then we've government funded private landlord industry. Not to forget NAMA selling properties to Noonan's Cerberus only to have the state buy them back down the road.

What people aren't realising or the party faithful won't admit is the state is buying social housing to rent out.
Yet when you suggest building our own social housing you get hit with rent arrears, people getting free houses and all that.
Firstly, tax payers are getting hit in the housing crisis it's not the dutch gold want something for nothing cliche.
Secondly, we are providing housing, just from the private landlords and buying from private market, but you won't hear any negative talk about the tenants wanting something for nothing, getting a free house and rent arrears.
It's the same people except instead of building our own to house them we are buying off the market.
Seriously it's base level economics ffs.

BBFAN

Chinasea wrote: »

If you don't work, have no intentions of working (for no good reason) then yes, they are free, and not only that, they are furnished, maintained and guaranteed for life.

What about the millions of Euros racked up in rent arrears also in social housing . Why is this simply tolerated. The rent is ridiculously low as it is.

You can try and shut this point of view down, but the likes of me who graft and scrape by and are happy to contribute for the greater good, are sick of this entitled crapology.

Not trying to shut it down at all. It's just an obvious lazy rant. Free house, free house, free house. No-one else sick of hearing it no?

James Brown

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

If only we lived in a democratic state where we had a govts capable of legislating so as these things aren't tolerated /**looks off into the distance with dreamy eyes**

I wouldn't say I'm in a minority when I say those availing of social housing who should and could be paying their contributions - should and could be made to do so.

In before someone blames Sinn Fein or Paul Murphy though.

Eoghan Murphy, Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government...I just knew Mick Wallace was behind it the cur!

Hitman3000

Squatter wrote:

Does that mean that in Roscommon 2018-1952 = 70?

Sorry about the mistake with the maths but I'm sure you get the point.

oceanman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do they not charge rent based on income? Isn't the list designed to put those in most need at the top?
Stats for this 'great deal'? I'm legit confused, have you seen the unemployment figures?
I'd wager it's more working tax payers on low income needing a dig out, which I'm fine with.

id wager you are absolutely right...unemployment is at an all time low now.
it wont stop the same crowd banging on about how they pay for everything though!

James Brown

oceanman wrote: »

id wager you are absolutely right...unemployment is at an all time low now.
it wont stop the same crowd banging on about how they pay for everything though!

I always answer that the same way:

Go out and get a better higher paying job and stop whinging expecting everyone else to look after you

oceanman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I always answer that the same way:

Go out and get a better higher paying job and stop whinging expecting everyone else to look after you

indeed....all so very simple.

Chinasea

BBFAN wrote: »

Not trying to shut it down at all. It's just an obvious lazy rant. Free house, free house, free house. No-one else sick of hearing it no?

That is ironic.

There is nothing lazy about questioning as to where the money comes from to build, maintain, furnish, administer and provide social housing to the demographic who have contributed (for no good reason) nothing whatsoever.

tabby aspreme

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

My parents live in a house that's more than 60 years old, what's happened to modern building technology that they're practically disposable nowadays in your eyes?

House walls built 60 years ago from concrete and stone, modern house walls built using timber , gypsum, paper, and mouse food membranes.

Hitman3000

tabby aspreme wrote:

House walls built 60 years ago from concrete and stone, modern house walls built using timber , gypsum, paper, and mouse food membranes.

Rubbish.

McMurphy

tabby aspreme wrote: »

House walls built 60 years ago from concrete and stone, modern house walls built using timber , gypsum, paper, and mouse food membranes.

My own house was purchased a few years ago, "concrete built, better built" was the slogan I believe was used promoting them.

Isn't the above an extract from the 3 little pigs? Good job we've no wolves in Ireland.

the_syco

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

No chance of answering the question seriously no?

Either HAP pays for their rent, or landlords evict HAP tenants. If it wasn't illegal to refuse HAP, the LL's would probably just lower the rent, but many LL's would use this as a reason to get out of the system.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Surely investing in assets - be they state built social housing or state purchased from the private market makes much more sense than throwing cash away placing them in hotels, or funding private landlords assets - ie their mortgages with state cash?

Funding landlord assets is cheaper in the short term. The long-term view for most parties so far seem to be that they won't be in government to see a long-term plan through.

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

An post being kept afloat by way of eviction notices is scutter.

It was a joke. I was referring to how many evictions notices there'd be if the government decided to cut or eliminate HAP.

James Brown

Chinasea wrote: »

That is ironic.

There is nothing lazy about questioning as to where the money comes from to build, maintain, furnish, administer and provide social housing to the demographic who have contributed (for no good reason) nothing whatsoever.

Agreed, but people use that to ignore the vast majority of working tax payers in the throws of the housing crisis. They could be availing of social and affordable housing. The middle to low income tax payer would be getting a break.

You'd have to also ask, where the money comes from to buy, maintain, (furnish?), administer and provide social housing or privately rented by the state housing or hotel rooms?

The argument tends to be:
No social housing builds because free houses, rent arrears, wasters etc.
But we buy at market rates to house the very same people.

All I know is that building is cheaper than buying.

the_syco

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The argument tends to be:
No social housing builds because free houses, rent arrears, wasters etc.
But we buy at market rates to house the very same people.

Actually, no blocks of social housing, as any time estate are totally social housing, the place goes to sh|t after a generation or two if the families aren't working, and the kids see the social as a way of life, as opposed to a stop-gap.

If they build social and affordable together on a 1:10 ratio, the kids of social welfare have a better chance of befriending kids of families whose parent(s) work. The push for something better will ensure they're not all destined to be leeches.

Also, if it's all social housing, people will generally be moved around until the estate are full of people that no-one that works wants to be their neighbour.

Graces7

the_syco wrote: »

Actually, no blocks of social housing, as any time estate are totally social housing, the place goes to sh|t after a generation or two if the families aren't working, and the kids see the social as a way of life, as opposed to a stop-gap.

If they build social and affordable together on a 1:10 ratio, the kids of social welfare have a better chance of befriending kids of families whose parent(s) work. The push for something better will ensure they're not all destined to be leeches.

Also, if it's all social housing, people will generally be moved around until the estate are full of people that no-one that works wants to be their neighbour.

In the uk in my earlier years, we had huge council estates but were so used to them that that never happened. They were huge and we viewed them as for poorer folk. But I was at school with several kids from big estates and they were fine. The estates were built after the War as we were so badly bombed . Then came the tower blocks etc.

There is a series on youtube on "Benefits Britain. " If you think Ireland has an "entitlement culture"have a look. One man has 19 kids, more grands than you can imagine, even got registered disabled so he could get a mobility scooter. and got the council to knock 2 council houses into one to accommodate his "clan".. totally blase about it. Ireland has a long way to go.

tayto lover

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Wheeliebin made this claim too although he claims the house would have to be knocked after 55 years. I thought standards had improved. My parents house is a former council house built in 1952 by Roscommon county council. 70 years old now.

My parents house was built in 1784. An old town house. Very cold in the winter.

Johnnycanyon

I wanted to give back my 4 bedroom house to the council and build my own house on a site I have.. I was refused planning because" I am not from the area" although I only live 3 k from the site..Sad really!

Hitman3000

Johnnycanyon wrote:

I wanted to give back my 4 bedroom house to the council and build my own house on a site I have.. I was refused planning because" I am not from the area" although I only live 3 k from the site..Sad really!

Proper planning is sad?

marieholmfan

Johnnycanyon wrote: »

I wanted to give back my 4 bedroom house to the council and build my own house on a site I have.. I was refused planning because" I am not from the area" although I only live 3 k from the site..Sad really!

Sensible really!