Media bias

Last Stop

So this article went up on the independent today

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/anger-over-affordable-redevelopment-where-buyers-will-need-to-earn-at-least-108k-per-year-and-have-42k-savings-38489598.html

From the headline you’d think that’s madness but when you read the article, the €102k is the combined household income to purchase the most expensive type of property. The cheapest ones can be bought with €70k combined income.

I’m sorry but to be able to buy a home a stones throw from a Luas line and almost within walking distance of O’Connell St on an income of €35k is pretty good going.

I also noticed they had a little dig at the developer Barta as they are being the co-living proposal which has nothing to do with this development.

There is no doubt that the housing crisis is exactly that a crisis but this sort of media bias does not help matters.

Lux23

Barta are *****.

B_ecke_r

"Meanwhile, the unsubsidised housing will be some 40pc more expensive - putting it out of the reach of all but the elite and landlords. This is an atrocious waste of public land and money

fully agree with this. these units should all be same low price for affordable housing for working people.

jam_mac_jam

I don’t see why the government should be subsiding people on 100k to buy a house. There is something seriously wrong if this is needed.

There should be market driven methods to make housing more affordable such as granting more planning permission, stopping land hoarding, building upwards, penalties for undeveloped or vacant land in the city centre.

Why is the government using tax money to allow people who can afford a 420k house buy, this is insane. How much is the developer getting out of this.

charlietheminxx

Is this about a media bias or is this about the government essentially subsidising a developer to make "affordable homes" which it then turns out are unaffordable to a couple earning an average wage?

Market rate for the area isn't really relevant here, the developer didn't pay the market rate for a site in a prime location.

Xterminator

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

There is something seriously wrong if this is needed.

Well there is an understatement. Its a housing crisis, so yes there is plenty wrong.

jam_mac_jam

Xterminator wrote: »

Well there is an understatement. Its a housing crisis, so yes there is plenty wrong.

So address that instead of throwing money at some people who benefit instead of all.

godtabh

DCC needed Barta to build it. They werent going to build it themselves. Barta are a commercial enterprise. They will charge what the market will take based on what ever t&cs DCC put in place doing the deal.

The only people to blame here are DCC/the Goverment. If they want affordable houses build it themselfs and dont rely on prviate developers and/or landlords.

Old diesel

Last Stop wrote: »

So this article went up on the independent today

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/anger-over-affordable-redevelopment-where-buyers-will-need-to-earn-at-least-108k-per-year-and-have-42k-savings-38489598.html

From the headline you’d think that’s madness but when you read the article, the €102k is the combined household income to purchase the most expensive type of property. The cheapest ones can be bought with €70k combined income.

I’m sorry but to be able to buy a home a stones throw from a Luas line and almost within walking distance of O’Connell St on an income of €35k is pretty good going.

I also noticed they had a little dig at the developer Barta as they are being the co-living proposal which has nothing to do with this development.

There is no doubt that the housing crisis is exactly that a crisis but this sort of media bias does not help matters.

Article is fine - it's the idea that a 420 k house is suited to "an affordable house scheme" that's frankly a load of crap.

A house coming on council land or what was council land shouldn't need to cost 420 k.

If the "affortable" scheme is linked to utterly bonkers market values then surely that completely defeats the purpose of the scheme .

terrydel

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

So address that instead of throwing money at some people who benefit instead of all.

Thats not the fg way tho.
If theyd wanted to fix the housing crisis they would have, the current status quo is something they are more or less happy with. Job done for them.

Last Stop

Old diesel wrote: »

Article is fine - it's the idea that a 420 k house is suited to "an affordable house scheme" that's frankly a load of crap.

A house coming on council land or what was council land shouldn't need to cost 420 k.

If the "affortable" scheme is linked to utterly bonkers market values then surely that completely defeats the purpose of the scheme .

The article is completely bias against the developer. Why did they need to mention the co-living proposal? There is an art in journalism of subliminally influencing your audience and this article is a perfect example.

420k for a 3 bed home inside the canal cordon is reasonable enough. Realistically if your on less than 50k a year and looking to buy a 3 bed inside the city then your not living in the real world. For those of you who say you should be able to, can you point to any city in the world when you can buy a 3 bed within 3km of the city for less than 400k?

Last Stop

B_ecke_r wrote: »

"Meanwhile, the unsubsidised housing will be some 40pc more expensive - putting it out of the reach of all but the elite and landlords. This is an atrocious waste of public land and money

fully agree with this. these units should all be same low price for affordable housing for working people.

“Working people”? This isn’t communist Russia, everyone is a working person. Some have more money than others yes but to suggest they didn’t work for it in the majority of cases is the complete opposite of the truth.
My understanding is that the private part of this development funded the affordable part. This is an excellent use of state lands while not burdening the states balance sheet even further. Would people rather the site sat ideal?

Old diesel

Last Stop wrote: »

B_ecke_r wrote: »

"Meanwhile, the unsubsidised housing will be some 40pc more expensive - putting it out of the reach of all but the elite and landlords. This is an atrocious waste of public land and money

fully agree with this. these units should all be same low price for affordable housing for working people.

“Working people”? This isn’t communist Russia, everyone is a working person. Some have more money than others yes but to suggest they didn’t work for it in the majority of cases is the complete opposite of the truth.
My understanding is that the private part of this development funded the affordable part. This is an excellent use of state lands while not burdening the states balance sheet even further. Would people rather the site sat ideal?

I'd rather the state balance sheet take a hit if it meant homes at 250 k a unit instead of 420 k myself.

Frankly I think someone needs to actually be accountable and explain where......

1) 420 k comes from for an affordable housing scheme . Whats the cost issue that makes 420 k a required figure .

2) what planet the original market value the 420 k is a percentage off came from.

lola85

terrydel wrote: »

Thats not the fg way tho.
If theyd wanted to fix the housing crisis they would have, the current status quo is something they are more or less happy with. Job done for them.

Ok fair enough.

So if this is the FG way what is the FF way of housing?

And which is better and which has us saddled with 240 billion debt.

What’s the proper way?

Ralph Ciffereto

Last Stop wrote: »

So this article went up on the independent today

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/anger-over-affordable-redevelopment-where-buyers-will-need-to-earn-at-least-108k-per-year-and-have-42k-savings-38489598.html

From the headline you’d think that’s madness but when you read the article, the €102k is the combined household income to purchase the most expensive type of property. The cheapest ones can be bought with €70k combined income.

I’m sorry but to be able to buy a home a stones throw from a Luas line and almost within walking distance of O’Connell St on an income of €35k is pretty good going.

I also noticed they had a little dig at the developer Barta as they are being the co-living proposal which has nothing to do with this development.

There is no doubt that the housing crisis is exactly that a crisis but this sort of media bias does not help matters.

The estate is going to be heavily council.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/o-devaney-gardens-site-construction-to-start-after-10-year-delay-1.3552375

This article only refers to 585 homes, of which 30 percent would be social.

Assuming 30 percent of the 800 are social, circa 266 social flats.

ALL of the full priced housing will be bought by BTL landlords, as nobody on high income will want to live in a 30 percent social estate, no matter what its location. 2500 a month, bunk bed city, 10 Brazillians to a flat.
2
The only young couples interested in buying the "affordable" homes will surely be from the area. Are there many young people fron the north IC, hard working people both working, with 42k savings and over 100k income?

There wouldn't be.

I can see the affordable homes becoming, well, affordable, once they figure out nobody is going to pay such an extortionate rate to live in O'Devaney Gardens.

As an aside point, have you ever actually met a Dub who bought and lives in the likes of the IFSC, Grand Canal Dock, Smithfield, or any of the other "luxury" developments around town?

I haven't. Irish people don't like apartment living, simple as.