Article on inefficiencies in social housing allocations

Cyrus

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/comment-we-cannot-allow-tenants-to-act-as-if-they-own-houses-37456377.html

from Brendan Burgess and Karl Deeter

Samuel T. Cogley

Nail, head.

I had no idea the situation was so perverse.

Cyrus

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Nail, head.

I had no idea the situation was so perverse.

this is a proper scandal, it wont get any traction though

ednwireland

Cyrus wrote: »

this is a proper scandal, it wont get any traction though

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

Cyrus

ednwireland wrote: »

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

im sure there is a far more efficient allocation of the existing accommodation,

but you are right theres nothing in it for a politician

AlanG

A very interesting article. It would address many of the issues and if there is a crisis then it should be treated as such.

Amirani

ednwireland wrote: »

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

Agreed.

Regarding alternative accommodation; given we have a housing crisis, why not enforce sharing of council housing? If there's a 4 bed council house with 2 people living in it, why not move in another 2 council tenants? It happens in private rental sector the whole time.

Fian

And not only do we have a homeless problem, we also have an overcrowding problem. In the Dublin City Council area, there are 18 cases of a family of five or more living in a one-bed housing unit. Conversely, there are 118 individuals living in a four-bed house. This is wrong.

This is crazy. I understand that people should not be uprooted willy nilly or unecessarily adn that people should eb enabled to put down and maintain roots in a community. But allowing an individual to remain alone in a state owned four bed house while simultaneously squeezing a family of five into another one bed unit, simply because the individual got the four bed "first" when presumably they had children living with them is absurd. the State has a duty to the family of five that outweighs the convenience of that individual.

I had no idea the system worked like this.

MayoSalmon

Fian wrote: »

This is crazy. I understand that people should not be uprooted willy nilly or unecessarily adn that people should eb enabled to put down and maintain roots in a community. But allowing an individual to remain alone in a state owned four bed house while simultaneously squeezing a family of five into another one bed unit, simply because the individual got the four bed "first" when presumably they had children living with them is absurd. the State has a duty to the family of five that outweighs the convenience of that individual.

I had no idea the system worked like this.

Only in Ireland...the sense of entitlement is second to none.

L1011

UK "bedroom tax" has had disasterous impacts so any similar setup here would require treading extremely carefully.

The Iveagh Trust has done some specific work on building new, one bed units specifically designed for older people with facilities to assist them; offered solely to those who can vacate a larger council property. The councils should be doing this themselves - carrot not stick, and providing something that other countries already have; also avoids any legal issues about the lifetime tenancies if it is does entirely voluntarily. That would be the bulk of cases like this.

As goes single people inheriting tenancies to a larger unit - inheriting tenancies at all needs to be done away with - if they still meet social housing criteria they should be put to the top of the list for a correctly sized unit to get the large one released.

GGTrek

L1011 wrote: »

UK "bedroom tax" has had disasterous impacts so any similar setup here would require treading extremely carefully.

Disagree on this statement only. The bedroom tax partially achieved some of its objectives which was to force people depending on benefits to downsize.
This is recent research from the LSE which is a bastion of left wing ideology and disagrees with your statement:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1537.pdf
Just because lefty journals like the Guardian dislike the bedroom tax, it does not mean it is bad policy. In my opinion it is a very good policy. Taxpayers resources are not infinite and have to be managed efficiently. It actually shows how much on the left current Irish parties policies are compared to the UK spectrum.
It is the other side of the coin of the vacant tax imposed on property owners.

L1011

GGTrek wrote: »

Disagree on this statement only. The bedroom tax partially achieved some of its objectives which was to force people depending on benefits to downsize.
This is recent research from the LSE which is a bastion of left wing ideology and disagrees with your statement:
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1537.pdf
Just because lefty journals like the Guardian dislike the bedroom tax, it does not mean it is bad policy. In my opinion it is a very good policy. Taxpayers resources are not infinite and have to be managed efficiently. It actually shows how much on the left current Irish parties policies are compared to the UK spectrum.
It is the other side of the coin of the vacant tax imposed on property owners.

It partially achieved its objectives at a huge societal cost. I said it had disastrous impacts, not that it didn't work!

loyatemu

It's similar to the problem in the private sector. There's a real lack of options for people to trade down to smaller properties.

There's also a disincentive for tenants to move to a smaller unit if they think there's any chance they may be able to buy their house, as the discount is worth a lot more in a larger property.

L1011

loyatemu wrote: »

There's also a disincentive for tenants to move to a smaller unit if they think there's any chance they may be able to buy their house, as the discount is worth a lot more in a larger property.

Something else which really should be stopped...

4ensic15

Trading down is stressful and carries risk. This is often too much for older people. They often don't have cash for a deposit until they sell their own house and if they sell without buying they are left homeless and are involved in renting contracts and then getting involved bidding wars on a new property. There is a risk that if the property market moves up after they have sold they may lose the capital sum they had hoped to realise by trading down.
As usual, nothing is being done about this, which doesn't actually involve building but is administrative.

noodler

4ensic15 wrote: »

Trading down is stressful and carries risk. This is often too much for older people. They often don't have cash for a deposit until they sell their own house and if they sell without buying they are left homeless and are involved in renting contracts and then getting involved bidding wars on a new property. There is a risk that if the property market moves up after they have sold they may lose the capital sum they had hoped to realise by trading down.
As usual, nothing is being done about this, which doesn't actually involve building but is administrative.

This is true of anyone.

The difference in this example is that taxpayer is paying for this person's house presumably for their entire life until they became old.

4ensic15

noodler wrote: »

This is true of anyone.

The difference in this example is that taxpayer is paying for this person's house presumably for their entire life until they became old.

A younger person may have access to cash to pay for a deposit and so will be able to participate in a chain. An older person will not have the means to accumulate cash or borrow on a bridging basis. They will also have much less experience of the rental market and will not be attractive as a tenant.


I do not understand the reference to the taxpayer. the old person owns a house outright and wishes to downsize. It is costing the taxpayer indirectly if they can't downsize as it means a new house of the same size has to be built rather than a smaller unit. This worsens the housing supply.

Mrs OBumble

4ensic15 wrote: »

A younger person may have access to cash to pay for a deposit and so will be able to participate in a chain. An older person will not have the means to accumulate cash or borrow on a bridging basis. They will also have much less experience of the rental market and will not be attractive as a tenant.


I do not understand the reference to the taxpayer. the old person owns a house outright and wishes to downsize.

In this case we are talking about social housing tenants, so the taxpayer is paying.


In general older people are not poor. Some are, for sure. Many aren't. Their pension plans often give them lump sums which make good deposits.

4ensic15

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

In this case we are talking about social housing tenants, so the taxpayer is paying.


In general older people are not poor. Some are, for sure. Many aren't. Their pension plans often give them lump sums which make good deposits.

I was responding to a comment about the private sector. The downsizing process is too daunting for many elderly people. Even in publicly provided housing many of them will have lived in the house for decades and have the same neighbours for all that time. They will quite likely have the experience of trying to get the house in the first place and experienced various difficulties with housing in their early years. Not surprisingly they are reluctant to move.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

I was responding to a comment about the private sector. The downsizing process is too daunting for many elderly people.

You keep spouting this as if somehow people lose their faculties the minute they retire. Most of the retired/elderly I know would run rings around their younger counterparts both financially and in terms of what they're capable of.

To suggest anything but a minority of elderly/retired people can't downsize because they're all too poor and incapable smacks of personal prejudice more than anything else.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

You keep spouting this as if somehow people lose their faculties the minute they retire. Most of the retired/elderly I know would run rings around their younger counterparts both financially and in terms of what they're capable of.

To suggest anything but a minority of elderly/retired people can't downsize because they're all too poor and incapable smacks of personal prejudice more than anything else.

Elderly people don't lose their faculties when they retire. They are however cautious. If they have been householders for decades they won't know much about renting. Very few will want to sign a contract to purchase unless they have the money to complete in their hand.

Graham

4ensic15 wrote: »

Elderly people don't lose their faculties when they retire. They are however cautious. If they have been householders for decades they won't know much about renting. Very few will want to sign a contract to purchase unless they have the money to complete in their hand.

Seriously, quit the sweeping generalisations. They are not remotely accurate.

Gatling

I think they should bring leases that end when the youngest child turns 18 and are capable of supporting themselves,
Always hated the idea your housed on need but yet you could in theory end up with a load of single people living in 4/5 bed properties until their deaths , meanwhile families in desperate need of multiple room properties are left waiting 12+ years for a property .

lawred2

ednwireland wrote: »

the problem is the protests that would happen if a policy like this was implemented,the tds would be inundated and they don't like that.

I would think changing the letting terms from now on to say you will be reviewed if your circumstances change might be a way forward,

Also don't think there's enough alternative accommodation anyway to make it happen

That's the problem with national policy being drawn up and delivered by local politicians.

AndrewJRenko

I think the authors don't know the difference between houses and homes in communities.

Mrs OBumble

Gatling wrote: »

I think they should bring leases that end when the youngest child turns 18 and are capable of supporting themselves,
Always hated the idea your housed on need but yet you could in theory end up with a load of single people living in 4/5 bed properties until their deaths , meanwhile families in desperate need of multiple room properties are left waiting 12+ years for a property .

No in theory about it. It's happens regularly.

18 is perhaps a little too soon - many kids live at home while at college. So 23 might be more realistic. And rather than just end, they should come with automatic re-assessment and an offer of move to a smaller unit within the same rough area if there is still a housing need.

AndrewJRenko

Gatling wrote: »

I think they should bring leases that end when the youngest child turns 18 and are capable of supporting themselves.

Because it's generally easy for 18 year olds to find affordable housing?

mikemac2

Annamore Court in Ballyfermot is a scheme that maybe could be copied.

There were 38 small flats opposite the Fás centre that were closed for years and years. A shame just lying idle

Now 70 new units are on the site. Built to the best of standards though they are quite small as it’s a small site. The emphasis is have elderly residents move there and free up family homes in the area. I don’t have links and stats but I have read stories in the Northside people of Ballyer locals very happy to move there

Seems to be a success story by DCC and the Iveagh Trust who are partners on this

s7ryf3925pivug

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

4ensic15

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

Middle-class people are transient when they are single but they eventually get to buy a house.

Idbatterim

This country isnt capable of running itself! I think those morons in power thought they would be on easy street when the economy recovered!

Paying nothing for houses that their neightbours will pay over a million for when you factor in loan interest and that is after tax!

lookr

4ensic15 wrote: »

Middle-class people are transient when they are single but they eventually get to buy a house.

Is this a joke?

AndrewJRenko

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

As long as we have minimum wage jobs, you know, the people who serve our drinks, clean our toilets, mind our children and our elderly parents, all the meaningless jobs that we don't value much, we will have people who will need social housing.

lawred2

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

Middle class people don't rent rooms in shared houses.

Maybe young professionals do for a time but middle class people don't.

s7ryf3925pivug

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As long as we have minimum wage jobs, you know, the people who serve our drinks, clean our toilets, mind our children and our elderly parents, all the meaningless jobs that we don't value much, we will have people who will need social housing.

Clean my own toilet, look after my own kid, my wife looks after him while I work. Don't have time to go for drinks. Too busy working and spending time with my kid.

Didn't have a kid until I could afford to provide for him. I pay lots of taxes and resent when that money is misspent supporting the indolent, at whatever station in society.

Lots of people work hard and do everything right yet end up not having kids, leaving it too late, or not ever affording a home of their own.

In any case, social housing is fine. The sort of pandering described in the article is not fine though.

Bubbaclaus

lawred2 wrote: »

Middle class people don't rent rooms in shared houses.

Maybe young professionals do for a time but middle class people don't.

What's your definition of middle class?

lawred2

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What's your definition of middle class?

well not just someone who works

lookr

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

lawred2 wrote: »

Middle class people don't rent rooms in shared houses.

Maybe young professionals do for a time but middle class people don't.

"Middle class" is a highly subjective term. I don't think it's hard to grasp the point Dimitri Clean Rapper is making. It is not an argument against social housing, but an argument against perverse incentives.

If you knew my salary, you would definitely consider me "middle class". I suspect you would also not consider the sacrifices I have made to get to that point. I do not have access to the same standard of housing as people earning considerably less.

Even the much milder government Home Loan scheme is a good example of this. Someone earning 45k can get a bigger mortgage with a much lower fixed rate than someone earning 50k - and can therefore outbid them.

I do not mind supporting people who are less fortunate through my taxes, but I take serious issue with a system that suggests I am a sucker for working as hard as I do.

lawred2

lookr wrote: »

"Middle class" is a highly subjective term. I don't think it's hard to grasp the point blergh is making. It is not an argument against social housing, but an argument against perverse incentives.

If you knew my salary, you would definitely consider me "middle class". I suspect you would also not consider the sacrifices I have made to get to that point. I do not have access to the same standard of housing as people earning considerably less.

Even the much milder government Home Loan scheme is a good example of this. Someone earning 45k can get a bigger mortgage with a much lower fixed rate than someone earning 50k - and can therefore outbid them.

I do not mind supporting people who are less fortunate through my taxes, but I take serious issue with a system that suggests I am a sucker for working as hard as I do.

I don't know what you earn.. I know what me and my wife earn.. and we've bought in what would have the outwardly appearance of your typical 'middle class' development..

Reality is different though.

We're skint the most of the time with mortgage, childcare and commuting costs.

Salaries both look good on paper however. Six figure household income.

Wouldn't consider us a middle class household all the same. Middle class people for me don't live paycheck to paycheck.

lookr

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't know what you earn.. I know what me and my wife earn.. and we've bought in what would have the outwardly appearance of your typical 'middle class' development..

Reality is different though.

We're skint the most of the time with mortgage, childcare and commuting costs.

Salaries both look good on paper however. Six figure household income.

Wouldn't consider us a middle class household however. Middle class people for me don't live paycheck to paycheck.

That is my point. I don't think of myself as middle class either, but that is what we are considered to be. In fact, this is what Leo Varadkar considers to be a middle class wage:

"It's between 35 and 40-something thousand, so I would go much broader than that, I would include people who are on the minimum wage, people who work very hard, but would be earning less than that"

:rolleyes:

You are middle class because your income level suggests that you are more fortunate than a significant chunk of the population, but less fortunate than your "betters". As you know, the reality is more complicated.

The problem is that our grotesque property market has dramatically changed what it means to be "middle class" in 2018.

loyatemu

mikemac2 wrote: »

Annamore Court in Ballyfermot is a scheme that maybe could be copied.

There were 38 small flats opposite the Fás centre that were closed for years and years. A shame just lying idle

Now 70 new units are on the site. Built to the best of standards though they are quite small as it’s a small site. The emphasis is have elderly residents move there and free up family homes in the area. I don’t have links and stats but I have read stories in the Northside people of Ballyer locals very happy to move there

Seems to be a success story by DCC and the Iveagh Trust who are partners on this

I've seen similar schemes in the UK - my retired aunt and uncle moved into one such scheme, downsizing from a larger (council) flat. There's a caretaker on site, most of the residents are retirees, they go on coach trips to the seaside at the weekends, to the bingo etc - they seem very happy with it.

On the private sector side - they're building loads of apartments by the harbour here in Greystones and I've heard it said the developers are planning to market them at trader-downers as the town is full of retirement age people rattling around in semi-Ds or massive Edwardian piles (the apartment are likely to be eye-wateringly expensive though).

If there are families crammed into one-bedroom apartments, while empty-nesters are living the 3 or 4 bed council houses, perhaps they could be incentivised to swap? I know people on here will have a knee-jerk negative reaction to giving LA tenants any further perks, but moving home is disruptive, particularly if you're asking people to leave the homes they've raised their families in. It would be cheaper than building new units anyway.

Here we go

Smart and logical but not a snowballs chance in hell will it happen

4ensic15

lookr wrote: »

Is this a joke?

You should know. You posted it!

Samuel T. Cogley

Sleepy

Is this news to anyone?

Our social housing stock is woefully utilised and sold off at ridiculous discounts

The "right to buy" can be an effective means of fixing the mistakes of the past (overly-high concentrations of social housing in a given area) but it's a policy that needs to be used carefully and only where it's appropriate, with discounts on a sliding scale (highest discounts being given to the early purchasers, much smaller discounts available to the last few sales and a cut-off where, say, 10% of the remaining units in an area are left as social housing at which point either no units should be sold, or units should only be available to be purchased by sitting tenants at market value (i.e. at a level that enables the council to replace that unit).

IIRC, the maximum rent any social tenant can be asked to pay is something like €400 a month, regardless of the household's income or wealth. A single lottery winner could be paying a fraction of the market rent for a council-maintained 5 bedroom house in Malahide simply because they inherited their parents tenancy from Fingal County Council.

AndrewJRenko

mikemac2 wrote: »

Annamore Court in Ballyfermot is a scheme that maybe could be copied.

There were 38 small flats opposite the Fás centre that were closed for years and years. A shame just lying idle

Now 70 new units are on the site. Built to the best of standards though they are quite small as it’s a small site. The emphasis is have elderly residents move there and free up family homes in the area. I don’t have links and stats but I have read stories in the Northside people of Ballyer locals very happy to move there

Seems to be a success story by DCC and the Iveagh Trust who are partners on this

Is there anything hugely novel about this? Surely lots of councils have done a range of sheltered housing type schemes for older people, with on-site supports to varying degrees? They are great for people 'trading down', and often good for returning emigrants too.

Sleepy wrote: »

A single lottery winner could be paying a fraction of the market rent for a council-maintained 5 bedroom house in Malahide simply because they inherited their parents tenancy from Fingal County Council.

Yeah, this could happen. But it almost certainly didn't - or if it did, there are one or two cases nationwide, so it's not a great scenario to build policy around.

NIMAN

As someone else just finding out this stuff for the 1st time, more shocking stats that show we could probably solve this so-called housing crisis fairly easily if we applied some logic.

But alas we won't, cos it would offend the mob and the media would love nothing more than to cover a couple getting evicted from their 4 bed home which is too big for them.

Very biased reporting in Ireland, doesn't seem to ever change. Peter Casey will speak his mind, as will the like of these 2 guys who published this. I like seeing them on panels, they tell it like it is.

Wanderer78

NIMAN wrote:

Very biased reporting in Ireland, doesn't seem to ever change. Peter Casey will speak his mind, as will the like of these 2 guys who published this. I like seeing them on panels, they tell it like it is.

Lock'em up, Lock'em up, Lock'em up!

Here we go

Does it mention how houses/flats can be passed down form generation to generation by putting a name on the floor even if they don't live there ?

mad m

My grandparents had a council house since it was first built, 2 up, 2 down . Grandparents, 2 uncles and my mam and I lived in it back in the late 70’s, early 80’s. A uncle who is 71 lives in it now. Totally under utilized. He was reared in the house so to get him to move to a smaller apartment who be a shock to him.

He was asked years back did he want to buy it but declined. This house would suit a family, local schools, park etc.

Wheeliebin30

Did I just hear on fm104 news a housing agency building 300 houses to add to the 5,000 they already built?

The cost is 50 euro a week for life they said and it’s the same for their kids for life and won’t change?????