Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Horsebox9000

Seriously... I'm baffled by this
https://twitter.com/ohnofalafel/status/1191471042109284352

What do people think?

[url]

https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089[/url]

Quantum Erasure

https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089




click onto his twitter, the thread is worth reading

Atlantic Dawn

How much is "cost rental" of property built on publically owned lands?

Gatling

Kip of a place ,

Let me guess they wanted 100% social housing where people just stop paying rent

Cookie_Monster

Gatling wrote: »

Kip of a place ,

Let me guess they wanted 100% social housing where people just stop paying rent

they'll get it too, no one is going to be stupid enough to pay full market prices in an estate like that, why would you?

Gatling

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they'll get it too, no one is going to be stupid enough to pay full market prices in an estate like that, why would you?

The estate should be flattened and replaced with affordable housing not social housing the place for most part was a no go zone

purifol0

Everyone hating on Gary Gannon for this but cmon its entirely FG's fault if thats the best deal the councillors could get in years. The SocDems aren't the policy makers and FFG are in govt nearly a decade.

Just a throwback to 2017 after the Taoiseach was posing on Twitter with a hard hat and shovel swaggering about a new estate of affordable homes, Eoin O broin lambasted him for reckoning that 400k was affordable:

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2017/11/08/i-cant-answer/

Things have gotten steadily worse.

Varik

Idiots seem to just be going after him for the 310k, they seem to think that's going to be the going rate for any of them.

Value he put up was literally the max they could be, they can't be higher than that as it's the max for the Affordable Housing scheme. Which is a stupidly good deal in itself, better than anyone is going to get normally.

Most don't seem to realise that it's part of a scheme, that it's an "Affordable House" and not a house that is affordable. Tweeting that they won't get a mortgage off AIB for 310k, and completely obvious that that's the point.

StupidLikeAFox

Apparently a couple on 25k each would be eligible for those 310k houses under a rebuilding Ireland loan. Repayments of 1k per month That is very affordable in my book

joeysoap

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Apparently a couple on 25k each would be eligible for those 310k houses under a rebuilding Ireland loan. Repayments of 1k per month That is very affordable in my book

Would they still have to have a deposit?

FTA69

The usual nonsense of decanting public wealth into the hands of developers again. This is the same process that has ruined working class areas of London and Paris. Near me, hundreds of local authority flats were rezoned to a developer who promptly demolished them and then built a load of luxury flats which were sold off-plan to
Investors who now charge people a fortune in rent to live in.

What Ireland needs is a system of mass state-built housing that is affordable to rent by working people, not flogging off the family silver to landlords and developers. There is no “market solution” to the housing situation, that nonsense has failed in every major city.

lola85

FTA69 wrote: »

The usual nonsense of decanting public wealth into the hands of developers again. This is the same process that has ruined working class areas of London and Paris. Near me, hundreds of local authority flats were rezoned to a developer who promptly demolished them and then built a load of luxury flats which were sold off-plan to
Investors who now charge people a fortune in rent to live in.

What Ireland needs is a system of mass state-built housing that is affordable to rent by working people, not flogging off the family silver to landlords and developers. There is no “market solution” to the housing situation, that nonsense has failed in every major city.

Where do they build though?

Every development is been met by objections from the locals backed by local TDs.

Then when they bring in fast track planning they have people like Pat Kenny ranting on the radio about it.

Saint Anne’s.
Coolock.
Inchicore.
Clondalkin.

This crisis won’t be solved as there is too many obstacles by NIMBYS and red tape.

Fr_Dougal

A foreva home should be free. Can’t be paying for your own house.

is_that_so

FTA69 wrote: »

The usual nonsense of decanting public wealth into the hands of developers again. This is the same process that has ruined working class areas of London and Paris. Near me, hundreds of local authority flats were rezoned to a developer who promptly demolished them and then built a load of luxury flats which were sold off-plan to
Investors who now charge people a fortune in rent to live in.

What Ireland needs is a system of mass state-built housing that is affordable to rent by working people, not flogging off the family silver to landlords and developers. There is no “market solution” to the housing situation, that nonsense has failed in every major city.

There are a few issues now in the housing market. The private end of it seems to be reaching a balance between supply and demand. Where there is still a massive issue is in social housing, itself a victim of low building outputs and large sell-offs. This seems to be underway, albeit very slowly. We also need apartments, lots of them, in urban centres. That's a planning authority remit with all the regulations they apply to them.

FTA69

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

A foreva home should be free. Can’t be paying for your own house.

I don’t get this “foreva home” b*llocks that comes up everytime someone suggests building social housing.

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

The amount of money it takes to buy a home in terms of percentage income has skyrocketed, rents are through the roof and the idea that a cabal if developers are going to provide enough housing to meet the common good has been shown across the world to be utter rubbish.

The system is bigger than w*nkers like Gary Gannon or Hazel Chu so bashing them as people is probably the wrong approach, but the current housing situation is a farce and needs a radical overhaul.

lola85

FTA69 wrote: »

I don’t get this “foreva home” b*llocks that comes up everytime someone suggests building social housing.

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

The amount of money it takes to buy a home in terms of percentage income has skyrocketed, rents are through the roof and the idea that a cabal if developers are going to provide enough housing to meet the common good has been shown across the world to be utter rubbish.

The system is bigger than w*nkers like Gary Gannon or Hazel Chu so bashing them as people is probably the wrong approach, but the current housing situation is a farce and needs a radical overhaul.

We’re on course to build 11,000 social houses this year.


How much more do you think we should build?

Gatling

lola85 wrote: »

We’re on course to build 11,000 social houses this year.


How much more do you think we should build?

Currently over 100,000 families + and singletons waiting on social housing across the country I'd imagine that they all want a new house

Scoundrel

What always baffles me about debates like this is that there are people who are happy to be ripped off by private developers and banks and almost revel in the fact that they spend a huge % of their income just to have a have a place to sleep and go apoplectic with rage when people suggest that Government should build housing for all not scumbag speculators and profiteers.

is_that_so

Gatling wrote: »

Currently over 100,000 families + and singletons waiting on social housing across the country I'd imagine that they all want a new house

There are a lot of vacant houses in the country, although it has to be said some in places people couldn't be expected to live but there seems to be work ongoing on that.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/home-ownership/vacant-homes/vacant-homes

lola85

Gatling wrote: »

Currently over 100,000 families + and singletons waiting on social housing across the country I'd imagine that they all want a new house

Unfortunately that would cost about 100 billion.

Horsebox9000

FTA69 wrote: »

I don’t get this “foreva home” b*llocks that comes up everytime someone suggests building social housing.

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

The amount of money it takes to buy a home in terms of percentage income has skyrocketed, rents are through the roof and the idea that a cabal if developers are going to provide enough housing to meet the common good has been shown across the world to be utter rubbish.

The system is bigger than w*nkers like Gary Gannon or Hazel Chu so bashing them as people is probably the wrong approach, but the current housing situation is a farce and needs a radical overhaul.

Is Gary really the wanker though? You talk about a housing crisis and he finally got some movement on that site. If he stayed the same and asked for 100% social there the council would have been blamed for nothing being built.
So surely a mix of private and public housing is the perfect recipe everyone has been looking for and it's still an issue.


The forevea home I imagine is aimed at Margaret Cash who was told he her compatriots that she deserved a forever home for ... well for what I don't know... but it seems there is a very small group of people in receipt of social who think they are owed a forever home from the government.

suicide_circus

can someone explain to a simpleton what this is about?

Horsebox9000

suicide_circus wrote: »

can someone explain to a simpleton what this is about?

So site was vacant for years
People wanted it 100% social but government wasn't going to fund that.
Private developer stepped in and people said they can't afford it and it will be out of touch for the area.
Site is sold but Gary managed to secure near 300 social and affordable houses out of the deal from the private developer.
Locals protest because he couldn't get everything for free and they can't comprehend what max value means
This is the sad truth
Tl;dr bunch of knackers protesting over something not being free enough

Boggles

Bartra has agreed to sell around 30% of the 824 planned homes at market value to an approved housing body to be used as affordable rental units

Hang on, it's public land and the developer will sell the houses back at market value?

I thought the idea of giving developers land was that the houses would be "affordable" i.e below the crazy market value.

Beta Ray Bill

Place it perfect for high density housing.
Close to the centre or town on what is now an absolute dump of an area

Map View link:
https://goo.gl/maps/yAUWCmAdBkWjcPXj8

Street View link:
https://goo.gl/maps/tCozWwSYUTQM5we19

The problem isn't the buildings, it's who going to be moved in to what is now a very exclusive/hipster area of Dublin

ednwireland

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on, it's public land and the developer will sell the houses back at market value?

I thought the idea of giving developers land was that the houses would be "affordable" i.e below the crazy market value.

surely the council is contracting the builder, getting the social housing atbuild cost and allowing the builder to make some money on selling the 164 units.

oh wait ..... that would be sensible

suicide_circus

god forbid some people not reliant on the state might be able to live near the city centre

Beta Ray Bill

suicide_circus wrote: »

god forbid some people not reliant on the state might be able to live near the city centre

I get what you're saying.
I think this mainly a younger generation though, late 20's that want to live in or very close to the city centre.
Usually they are employed by large multi nationals and have a good wage.

It's not unreasonable for them to want to live close to where they work.

What they would argue though is that: it is unreasonable that people who have never worked get to live there for free or very little because they're from there

Tricky issue to solve.
Gentrification is generally a bad thing, however, the middle class are paying for the running of the country at them moment and can't really big ignored.

seamus

It's Paul Murphy and Rise rabble-rousing.

They want the government to build 1950s-style state housing ghettos.

I'm not a big fan of absolutely relying on the private sector for housing stock, but we have a crisis, and it needs solving. Every new unit helps regardless of who builds it.

"Gentrification" being a bad thing is imported from overseas. In other countries, chunks of property in an area is bought up and upgraded. The local authority is then bribed to bring in laws forcing existing property owners to improve their property. They have no money, so they're forced to sell up for peanuts and move out.

This doesn't and can't happen in Ireland. Gentrification means that existing property owners see the value of their properties increase without doing a thing. They can hang around all they like or they can sell up at a tidy profit. People in local authority housing are unaffected.

You do hear some people complain that it's ruining the "culture" of the city centre, but basically what they mean is that they don't want to see young Irish people who aren't from the inner city or foreigners start moving in. So this argument can fvck right off.

Beta Ray Bill

I'd have to disagree with you a bit on the Gentrification

I'm working up the top of Camden St and there is big developments going on up here.
Anyone who owns property up here is seeing it's value rise because of all modern buildings going up.

Lots of derelict buildings and substandard rental accommodation because the owner is waiting for the buy out.

Same is happening in East Wall.
If you look at East Wall on the maps it's completely surrounded with modern offices and apartment blocks, property is very expensive there now. If you're from there and want to buy a a house there, the likely hood is you wont be able to.

But again, it's the people that are driving the economy that want to live there.

I think ultimately there needs to be a Social Housing/Urban development policy in place that everyone (councils/government/developers) across the country implement and adhere to.
Basically a 20 year plan on "what" is acceptable to go where.

seamus

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

If you're from there and want to buy a a house there, the likely hood is you wont be able to.

I don't see the issue tbh. I appreciate that it's frustrating, but there's no good reason why anyone should be entitled to buy where they grew up.

I think ultimately there needs to be a Social Housing/Urban development policy in place that everyone (councils/government/developers) across the country implement and adhere to.
Basically a 20 year plan on "what" is acceptable to go where.

This I agree with. A solid spread of social housing is essential. It does no-one any good to force all social tenants into a single area, or out of cities (or upmarket suburbs). Previous policies have been painfully weak, allowing developers to buy their way out of providing it.

Beta Ray Bill

seamus wrote: »

I don't see the issue tbh. I appreciate that it's frustrating, but there's no good reason why anyone should be entitled to buy where they grew up.

I agree with you. However, there are a huge number of people that do not agree with us.
And ultimately it comes down to numbers and votes (every 5 years).

I think on this too, it's not even that they cant live where they grew up, it's that they can live within 10km of where they grew up.
Hence as a result they have no social supports etc, which is why people resist it some much.

It's an exceptionally complicated issue to solve.

seamus wrote: »

Previous policies have been painfully weak, allowing developers to buy their way out of providing it.

Or joining together and dumping all their social housing obligations into one area.

171170

Scoundrel wrote: »

What always baffles me about debates like this is that there are people who are happy to be ripped off by private developers and banks and almost revel in the fact that they spend a huge % of their income just to have a have a place to sleep and go apoplectic with rage when people suggest that Government should build housing for all not scumbag speculators and profiteers.

I was quite happy to enrich the small builder who built my house and I'm far happier that he and his men were able to earn a few bob to raise their kids instead of allowing the politicians and officials responsible for building the National Childrens' Hospital to take over the building of "housing for all".

Every cent that governments spend comes, ultimately, from taxes, and I'm paying far too much tax as it is without pandering to the "free forever home" desires of the loonie left.

seamus

There's a lot of unreasonable talk on every side here.

Not everyone can afford to buy or build a house. They need to live somewhere, whether that's provided by public or private means.

Construction cannot take place on a one-off basis. You can't build every house using a small builder. It's doesn't scale, in any sense of the word.

Governments cannot be large developers. That doesn't scale either. They contract construction work out to private developers.

Thus, if housing need is to be addressed, it requires private building firms capable of producing large projects.

"Private developers" and "vulture funds" (i.e. Professional landlords) have become the new buzzwords of hate in this debate. But realistically without either of them, our housing crisis would be twice as bad; nothing getting built and rental properties owned by cowboy small landlords.

Fr_Dougal

seamus wrote: »

"Private developers" and "vulture funds" (i.e. Professional landlords) have become the new buzzwords of hate in this debate. But realistically without either of them, our housing crisis would be twice as bad; nothing getting built and rental properties owned by cowboy small landlords.

Reits are inflating rents. Granted the majority of them raise accommodation standards, but the rates they charge are higher than the norm. Private landlords are adjusting their rents accordingly.

riffmongous

seamus wrote: »

I don't see the issue tbh. I appreciate that it's frustrating, but there's no good reason why anyone should be entitled to buy where they grew up.

I'd disagree with this, I think there are many good social reasons for it, community, social networks etc that are very beneficial for the people themselves. The problem is you can't really put a number on it, although considering the spiralling cost of childcare maybe soon you can if you consider how much could be saved by having your school and grandparents nearby

Idbatterim

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

A foreva home should be free. Can’t be paying for your own house.

They don’t pay anyway. Sure they are given free money every week , everything is free! Paid for by the working poor living in **** situations themselves!

How many units did this estate originally comprise of ?

The left ranting and raving there aren’t enough homes. Then lose their minds when anything over four floors is permitted. The more units in a development, the more social and affordable you get as a result. True morons !

riffmongous

Why can't the state build the houses themselves? It can be done successfully, *if it's done properly*

I've always been a fan of the Viennese approach to housing and only a few months ago there was an exhibition on it in Dublin too. It would require a huge change in practices across society of course (it was achieved in the 20/30s in Vienna) but it is proven to work

In Vienna, forty-five percent of housing is classified as social or affordable, and people can earn as much as €53,000 a year and qualify for city-owned and subsidised apartments. Often ranked first in international quality of living scales, over the last 100 years the Austrian capital has developed a means tested cost-rental housing model, where rents are based on construction and maintenance costs instead of market fluctuations.

The scheme provides homes for around one in four people in the Austrian capital. Wiener Wohnen, the authority which manages more than 220,000 homes in Vienna, receives almost €500m annually from the city in subsidies, €212m of which it spends on building apartments. The scheme is funded by a property tax and the authority builds on average 7,000 apartments each year.

In contrast, there were just 4,251 social houses built in Ireland last year, comprising of 2,022 local authority builds and 1,338 delivered by approved housing bodies.

http://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/

Idbatterim

Yeah the Vienna model is excellent. Assume it would take a far bigger contribution from the Skangers receiving their free housing to finance it though ? That’s the thing , the sheer amount of resources I.e money they have didn’t on them , fcuks hundreds of thousands of working people !

Don’t pay lpt, management fees etc in their free house , anything breaks, ring the council. How did this swamp get to that point ?!

Many of these salt of de earth locals are nothing and will never be anything except parasites off the taxpayer. “ our land “ they’ll want to come into your home next and claim it in the name of the people!

Gatling

riffmongous wrote: »

http://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

Where do they build though?

Every development is been met by objections from the locals backed by local TDs.

Then when they bring in fast track planning they have people like Pat Kenny ranting on the radio about it.

Saint Anne’s.
Coolock.
Inchicore.
Clondalkin.

This crisis won’t be solved as there is too many obstacles by NIMBYS and red tape.

Where isn't the problem. Often, the people were moved out of 100% social housing estates under a promise of regeneration. Then a number of years later private developers are seemingly calling the shots and it's which offer the LA's go for, leaving, quite rightly, some very pissed off people expecting to be brought back in, as promised. There should be zero private builds on public land, especially land formally 100% social housing, during a prolonged worsening housing crisis. LA's/State should not be pandering to private millionaires.
If you are ever passing through Dublin go down Cork Street. It's wall to wall private apartment blocks with cookie cutter Spar or centra every few hundred yards. A dead zone community wise.

lola85

Boggles wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

60 million in arrears is DCC.

Beta Ray Bill

riffmongous wrote: »

I'd disagree with this, I think there are many good social reasons for it, community, social networks etc that are very beneficial for the people themselves. The problem is you can't really put a number on it, although considering the spiraling cost of childcare maybe soon you can if you consider how much could be saved by having your school and grandparents nearby

I know a person that brought his Mother over from Hungary to look after his kid in his 3 bed apartment.

Ended up saving a fortune.

I get what you're saying about the sense of community, however some aspects of social housing particularly HAP for single mothers have a severely damaging effect on community/family ties.

I know a few single mothers on HAP after their Ex's ****ed off and left them raising their kid(s) 5/6 days of the week.
It's a miserable and lonely existence, they have one night a week they can get out if they're lucky and have money. Some of them work part time when their kids are in school (hard to get this kind of work). They're not skangers etc, just normal people that haven't had a great run. They'd be lucky if they got to talk face to face to another adult in any given week.

I get they feel they need their own space, especially with kids. But for young mothers in particular, I genuinely feel they'd be better off living at home with their parents. Having on site/at home/on premises (or whatever you want to call it) support from family is very beneficial. It gives the woman a chance to get back on her feet, get a good job, go back to college, bit more free time, more money, etc.
I know a few single mothers that are living at home too, and there's absolutely no question that women living with their parents are far happier.

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

That's another huge issue, non-payment.
Private land lord is more likely to pursue money owned than the government is.

Boggles

lola85 wrote: »

60 million in arrears is DCC.

Did I say there wasn't arrears?

The vast majority of people in social housing pay their rents, the poster I was responding to has quite a history of generalization and hyperbole.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

Lol some people.


Not all of them no .

Still no a hope they would pay €600+ pm for an apartment then whatever for a 3 bed with front and back gardens

Idbatterim

Yeah as we have total spineless parties and an invertebrate as Taoiseach , trying to change the gravy train now would be problematic. Welfare should be frozen for years. Spend the money on far more worthy and needy areas !

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Still no a hope they would pay €600+ pm

Of course people would pay, they are affordable homes where you are allowed own one if you earn less than €53,000.

NasserShammaz

Gatling wrote: »

Kip of a place ,

Let me guess they wanted 100% social housing where people just stop paying rent

The people who lived there previously are under the mistaking impression they own the land because they were in the flats freeloading, now they think their poxy kids should be housed in the new development " so as to be close to their ma"

ask anyone in the area who the protesters are and they will tell you it's the same people who made the place a sh$whole in the first place.

Social housing for working poor not long term dole mongers

riffmongous

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

I think you missed the point of the article, social housing is available for almost everyone earning up to 3,300 a month.

That's the average rent across everyone in the system, related to an original means testing. So "Six hundred euros is an average rent for a fifty-square-meter, two-bedroom apartment close to the city centre" is the equivalent in Dublin of people who are qualified professionals in a ****ty houseshare at the moment

Beta Ray Bill

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeah as we have total spineless parties and an invertebrate as Taoiseach , trying to change the gravy train now would be problematic. Welfare should be frozen for years. Spend the money on far more worthy and needy areas !

That's not a good idea.
There are a lot of people out there that genuinely need welfare.
Old
Sick
Disabled
People who've been left as a full time single parent
People who're going through a tough/difficult time in their career

I get that there are a huge amount of spongers.
But here's the thing; EVERYONE has a story as to why they ended up where they are.