Should we stop building social housing?

Sheeps

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

That is part of the mechanism in places like Germany.


Maybe some people don't want the prices down.

Yeah, I gather that there's a force trying to keep prices inflated, and I'm guessing that's because a large portion of the vote for Fine Gael comes from the 35-60 age bracket (Average first age of a first time buyer is 34 and average mortgate duration is 30 years) . It's a shame really, because the people the councils are competing with (alongside the cash buyer REITs) are almost always on entry level housing units, which compounds the affordability issue for first time buyers.

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

But then they'll just be having lots of kids in even worse conditions creating lots more even bigger scumbags with even less opportunities. I'm not a fan of people getting free houses in cities but I can't really see any realistic solution apart from trying to help people be better members of society and isolating them to sink estates in the middle of nowhere or fecking them out on the streets just isn't going to work either.

The reason we have a growing culture of delinquency is the system is too forgiving towards those who chose to be a drain on the state - tax payer

We need a complete rethink and it starts with not taking a single thing which liberals say serious on the matter, we have done the endless carrot thing with tinkers and other pariahs for thirty years and things have never been worse yet we are expected to unconditionally believe that the kitty Hollands and aine lawlors know what is needed ( inevitably more public spending)

This isn't Sudan or Syria, folks have no excuse for barbaric behaviour.

fussyonion

The One Doctor wrote: »

Nobody pays that for social housing. The absolute minimum payment is €32.50 per week. Bills are the tenant's responsibility.

Another Journal.ie/Indo shill. Expect to see an article shortly.

Not true. My neighbour pays €30 rent a week.

rob316

fussyonion wrote: »

Not true. My neighbour pays €30 rent a week.

A single person on the dole will pay about 20 a week.

I live in social housing. I pay my rent by direct debit on time every week, I take pride in my home, I pay the higher end of rent but it should probably be more as it's not near reflective of the private market. Private rents go up, council rents don't move.

Affordable housing is the way to go not social housing, give people the pride of owning their own home. A working couple on a modest salary should be able to buy a nice 3 bedroom home close to the city.

Owning your own home should be the goal for everyone.

fattymuatty

We rent social housing and pay the maximum rent you can pay which isn't far off private rent for an unfurnished falling apart house(we live in a small town in the West), we pay on time always. Rent for those paying the maximum amount seems to go up every year as they raise the cap, it doesn't go up for those paying less very often. Most people in our estate either work or are pensioners, there are only 20 houses on our estate though. There is only 1 family I can think of in the estate that fit the stereotype given here and they are travellers. The minimum rent you can pay is 30e so no one is paying 20e.

We are just regular folk working, raising kids and trying to save for a mortgage. We are grateful that we don't have to worry about landlords selling up or being evicted and our children have a stable home whilst we save for a mortgage. Everybody should have that but it isn't our fault as social housing tenants that they don't.

rob316

fattymuatty wrote: »

e are just regular folk working, raising kids and trying to save for a mortgage. We are grateful that we don't have to worry about landlords selling up or being evicted and our children have a stable home whilst we save for a mortgage. Everybody should have that but it isn't our fault as social housing tenants that they don't.

Same, my young family can live together in a nice home while we work towards our forever home which will be soon.

Grateful for the major helping hand we have.

Again there is 7 houses in our block, all working families, I can think of maybe 2 people that don't work.

mariaalice

rob316 wrote: »

Same, my young family can live together in a nice home while we work towards our forever home which will be soon.

Grateful for the major helping hand we have.

Again there is 7 houses in our block, all working families, I can think of maybe 2 people that don't work.

Your are not gettin it the posters dont want to here about you and ther rest like you, a lot of the posters have constructed a group to blame or the cause of all their ills..i.e its the reason they are paying so much tax, its the reason they are commuting so far, its the reason they are, according to one poster going to money lenders to pay for school expenses.

It is an illogical and unhealthy coping mechanism.

friendlyfun

Balanadan wrote: »

Why do some working people get free houses and others don't?

Yes let's drive up the price of rent even more! Genius idea! Did you come up with this amazing plan all by yourself?

maggot12345

I think more social housing should be built but managed better.
It's great when needed but shouldn't be assumed to be for life, if your circumstances change you should be expected to fund yourself in life. Move on and leave the house to someone else in need.
There should be periodic checks on household income so that if you earn more / pay more.
NO ONE should ever get away with not paying, it should be taken by direct debit at source as someone has said they do.
People must be expected to maintain lawns, gutters etc. themselves and all other day to day maintenance.
There must be evictions - after this has happened a few times those who misbehave and make others life a misery will learn to appreciate where they life more.
Social housing should always remain social housing, it should never be sold on. FF made a huge mistake in this and it should never have happened. A huge amount of stock was lost in this way.
Finally - not really to do with social housing but childrens allowance should be capped at 5 children.

Mad_maxx

mariaalice wrote: »

Your are not gettin it the posters dont want to here about you and ther rest like you, a lot of the posters have constructed a group to blame or the cause of all their ills..i.e its the reason they are paying so much tax, its the reason they are commuting so far, its the reason they are, according to one poster going to money lenders to pay for school expenses.

It is an illogical and unhealthy coping mechanism.

Those who don't take the p1ss and pay the contractual rent, dont neglect their home and don't disrespect their neighbours, are not who people have an issue with.

There is however a very high minority who say fcuk you to everyone, beit through withholding rent and causing endless nuisance in their communities.

I'm not opposed to the state being involved in housing but the system is completely unfit for purpose here in numerous ways.

Deebles McBeebles

fattymuatty wrote: »

We are just regular folk working, raising kids and trying to save for a mortgage. We are grateful that we don't have to worry about landlords selling up or being evicted and our children have a stable home whilst we save for a mortgage. Everybody should have that but it isn't our fault as social housing tenants that they don't.

No one has an issue with people like yourself. I certainly don't anyway. If I qualified for social housing I'd be in one asap.

Once again, we are differentiating between people like yourself and the multi-generational families who have never worked a day.

rob316

maggot12345 wrote: »

I think more social housing should be built but managed better.
It's great when needed but shouldn't be assumed to be for life, if your circumstances change you should be expected to fund yourself in life. Move on and leave the house to someone else in need.
There should be periodic checks on household income so that if you earn more / pay more.
NO ONE should ever get away with not paying, it should be taken by direct debit at source as someone has said they do.
People must be expected to maintain lawns, gutters etc. themselves and all other day to day maintenance.
There must be evictions - after this has happened a few times those who misbehave and make others life a misery will learn to appreciate where they life more.
Social housing should always remain social housing, it should never be sold on.

Removing people from the houses as their circumstances have changed wouldn't work, the houses would go to wreck and ruin if people don't treat them as their permanent homes. What if they lose their job after been removed and can't pay a mortgage anymore, they will end up back on the housing list.

We are all going to look for easy ways in life, more needs to be done to move the tenants of social housing towards affordable homes, the ones that can afford it. Their is a gap between social housing and your regular buyers that needs to be filled.

There is periodic checks on earnings, every december I fill in a rent review form.

Absolutely agree rent should be taken at source from SW or salary.

Only a small minority of council tenants take the piss when it comes to maintenance, most will treat their homes like they own them. I know a guy working in the housing department in my town and he said you have people calling up to have their bulbs changed, radiators bled, battery in smoke alarms etc - ridiculous really and taking total advantage.

100% agree you should not have the option to buy a social house and if you do it shouldn't be as generous as the current scheme.
For 10 years tenancy you can purchase your home for 60% off the market value, the council will even provide you with a mortgage and as long as you don't dispose of it before 25 years you don't have to pay back any of the discount.
Amazingly though there is very little take up in the scheme as the rent is so slow for many tenants and when you do the maths its not worth it.

branie2

No

Mad_maxx

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

No one has an issue with people like yourself. I certainly don't anyway. If I qualified for social housing I'd be in one asap.

Once again, we are differentiating between people like yourself and the multi-generational families who have never worked a day.

I'd focus on the non payers and anti social delinquents, if someone is unemployed but is compliant with their local authority housing arrangement, that's fine.

Being long term unemployed is an issue regardless of whether you own your own home or not. That's another topic however.

Mad_maxx

rob316 wrote: »

Removing people from the houses as their circumstances have changed wouldn't work, the houses would go to wreck and ruin if people don't treat them as their permanent homes. What if they lose their job after been removed and can't pay a mortgage anymore, they will end up back on the housing list.

We are all going to look for easy ways in life, more needs to be done to move the tenants of social housing towards affordable homes, the ones that can afford it. Their is a gap between social housing and your regular buyers that needs to be filled.

There is periodic checks on earnings, every december I fill in a rent review form.

Absolutely agree rent should be taken at source from SW or salary.

Only a small minority of council tenants take the piss when it comes to maintenance, most will treat their homes like they own them. I know a guy working in the housing department in my town and he said you have people calling up to have their bulbs changed, radiators bled, battery in smoke alarms etc - ridiculous really and taking total advantage.

100% agree you should not have the option to buy a social house and if you do it shouldn't be as generous as the current scheme.
For 10 years tenancy you can purchase your home for 60% off the market value, the council will even provide you with a mortgage and as long as you don't dispose of it before 25 years you don't have to pay back any of the discount.
Amazingly though there is very little take up in the scheme as the rent is so slow for many tenants and when you do the maths its not worth it.

30% of local authority tenants are in arrears, that's a very high minority taking the p1ss

Ush1

rob316 wrote: »

Removing people from the houses as their circumstances have changed wouldn't work, the houses would go to wreck and ruin if people don't treat them as their permanent homes. What if they lose their job after been removed and can't pay a mortgage anymore, they will end up back on the housing list.

We are all going to look for easy ways in life, more needs to be done to move the tenants of social housing towards affordable homes, the ones that can afford it. Their is a gap between social housing and your regular buyers that needs to be filled.

There is periodic checks on earnings, every december I fill in a rent review form.

Absolutely agree rent should be taken at source from SW or salary.

Only a small minority of council tenants take the piss when it comes to maintenance, most will treat their homes like they own them. I know a guy working in the housing department in my town and he said you have people calling up to have their bulbs changed, radiators bled, battery in smoke alarms etc - ridiculous really and taking total advantage.

100% agree you should not have the option to buy a social house and if you do it shouldn't be as generous as the current scheme.
For 10 years tenancy you can purchase your home for 60% off the market value, the council will even provide you with a mortgage and as long as you don't dispose of it before 25 years you don't have to pay back any of the discount.
Amazingly though there is very little take up in the scheme as the rent is so slow for many tenants and when you do the maths its not worth it.

What I don't understand is why is the cap so low on the max rent that can be charged when there is no equivalent cap on what the occupant can make in income?

Surely if you can afford market rents, you should have to pay them?

rob316

Again affordable state sponsored housing is the way to go.

The average council rent, is under €3000 per year I was reading up.

Let's say a young family moved into a 3 bedroom house in a main city, cost of the build was 300k. If they lived in that home for say 50 years, the council might only see a repayment in rent of €150k. All the while the council is responsible for any maintenance and repairs.

Selling that house for 200k to a low income family on a state sponsored mortgage makes far more sense and will drive down the private rental market, which in turn would drive down rent supplement payments. But this makes too much sense :rolleyes:

rob316

Ush1 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is the cap so low on the max rent that can be charged when there is no equivalent cap on what the occupant can make in income?

Surely if you can afford market rents, you should have to pay them?

Can anyone actually afford market rents?

karenalot

fattymuatty wrote: »

The minimum rent you can pay is 30e so no one is paying 20e.

A relative of mine pays €21 per week to South Dublin Co. Council (10% of relatives social welfare). Up to 2017 it was €18 per week. He is the sole occupant in a 3 bed house.

Ush1

rob316 wrote: »

Can anyone actually afford market rents?

Judging by the lack of available private rental accommodation, yes many can.

rob316

Ush1 wrote: »

Judging by the lack of available private rental accommodation, yes many can.

Its depends on your definition of been able to afford it. If it means been nearly on the bread line because you have to pay it and you are over the threshold for HAP then I don't agree. It's breaking most people in the middle.

Ush1

rob316 wrote: »

Its depends on your definition of been able to afford it. If it means been nearly on the bread line because you have to pay it and you are over the threshold for HAP then I don't agree. It's breaking most people in the middle.

There would be more council housing available and more revenue if max rent caps were increased.

I have a close relative who is a housing offer in DCC. Had a tenant paying the max but was actually 4k in arrears. He was a lecturer on 120k and was complaining about having to pay back the unpaid rent.

I would call this going against the "spirit" of social housing, not just the arrears but the discounted rent also.

Tony EH

rob316 wrote: »

Its depends on your definition of been able to afford it. If it means been nearly on the bread line because you have to pay it and you are over the threshold for HAP then I don't agree. It's breaking most people in the middle.

Exactly.

Just because somebody can spunk all of their wages on something, it doesn't mean they can "afford" it.

kowloon

NoteAgent wrote: »

Misery has been caused by government intervention. If taxes were lowered, this would incentivise more building of houses and thus fix the supply problem.

Every government quango thats been set up to deal with something like this has been a complete and utter failure. The beauty of capitalism in this scenario is that there is a huge demand for houses. Just leave the private builders to it, lower taxes, lower regulation, etc and the houses will be built, house prices will drop due to increase in supply and the market should come back to equilibrium

I agree, we should lower taxes and regulations to allow as much money as possible to flow unimpeded to the top of the food chain, to the leaders and job creators. Then, like a shower of gold, the wealth will trickle down onto the undeserving scum below. We need to get back to the good days of selling more and more property to each other with as little regulation as possible.

hatrickpatrick

Ush1 wrote: »

What I don't understand is why is the cap so low on the max rent that can be charged when there is no equivalent cap on what the occupant can make in income?

Surely if you can afford market rents, you should have to pay them?

No one should be paying the current market rents, as a democratic society we should be deciding that it is unacceptable to charge that much for a basic necessity such as accommodation.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No one should be paying the current market rents, as a democratic society we should be deciding that it is unacceptable to charge that much for a basic necessity such as accommodation.

im in complete agreement with this

how dyou get there from here, bearing in mind youve to form a government and keep a majority to do so, you have a few years max and you want a political career afterwards

end of the road

maggot12345 wrote: »

I think more social housing should be built but managed better.
It's great when needed but shouldn't be assumed to be for life, if your circumstances change you should be expected to fund yourself in life. Move on and leave the house to someone else in need.
There should be periodic checks on household income so that if you earn more / pay more.
NO ONE should ever get away with not paying, it should be taken by direct debit at source as someone has said they do.
People must be expected to maintain lawns, gutters etc. themselves and all other day to day maintenance.
There must be evictions - after this has happened a few times those who misbehave and make others life a misery will learn to appreciate where they life more.
Social housing should always remain social housing, it should never be sold on. FF made a huge mistake in this and it should never have happened. A huge amount of stock was lost in this way.
Finally - not really to do with social housing but childrens allowance should be capped at 5 children.

i believe social tenants are responsible for maintenance of lawns. however unless private rental tenants are expected to be responsible for fixing gutters etc, then the council should be responsible for it as part of heavy maintenance. it is not the tenant's house and if something goes wrong, unless they are the specific cause of that going wrong, then it is unfair for it to come back on them because they essentially helped the council out.
evictions won't make those who misbehave etc appreciate anything tbh. if they are anti-social then they are anti-social and proper education of people at a young age is probably the only way to sort that out.
capping benefits ultimately doesn't work. people end up suffering as in the case of children's allowence, children over the cap would likely still be had.

The Enbalmer

Social housing=antisocial problems

kowloon

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Social housing=antisocial problems

And all these now homeless people, do they somehow know their place and stay off our lawns?
If they move to housing provided by the market with no subsidies it'll be a return to densely packed tenements. I can't see that playing out well.

Wanderer78

The Enbalmer wrote:

Social housing=antisocial problems

Humans = antisocial problems