Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Senature

Social housing arrears should be almost non-existent. Rents should be deducted at source from social welfare payments or via reduced tax credits like they currently do with property tax. Rents should also be based on the type of property rather than the household finances e.g. a 3 bed semi with a garden should cost more than a 1 bed apartment in the same area. This would also do away with a lot of the cute hoor type scamming such as under declaring income or stating only one adult lives in the house to get a lower rent. None of this would be difficult to implement, especially for new tenancies.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Like I all ready explained it's best practice for the council to replenish housing stock, newer for older.

Retro fitting 50-60 year old houses is very expensive as in on going maintenance, if the tenant is merely renting the council is responsible for this maintenance.

Also areas of social housing where they can be anti social behavior will organically rise out of that if more people start to own their own homes.

It's not just the cost, it's the value.

The benefits completely out weigh the negatives.

Anyway AFAIK they have stopped the scheme which is a pity.

But if they don't actually need to build new stock, then keeping old stock in good condition becomes much easier.
No need for more land, no need to pay for new houses.

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

The 2016 Incremental Tenant Purchase Scheme was introduced under the Housing (Sale of Local Authority Houses) Regulations 2015, and came into effect on 1 January 2016.

To qualify for the scheme, you must have:

***Been getting social housing support for at least a year***

An annual income of at least €15,000 per year. (Your annual income can be a combination of your gross income from wages and your income from some social welfare payments. You will not qualify if your income is only from social welfare payments.)
You may be able to get a local authority mortgage.

You will get a discount of 60%, 50% or 40% off the purchase price of the house. The level of the discount depends on your income. An incremental charge, equivalent to the discount, will be placed on the house. Over a specified period of years, this charge will reduce to nil in annual increments of 2% of the total value of the house, unless you resell the house or breach the conditions of sale during this specified period.

Found the details.
I was familiar with the tenant purchase scheme.

An incremental charge, equivalent to the discount, will be placed on the house.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/buying_your_local_authority_house.html

You get a discount based on income.
You have to pay back any discount you get over a number of years and it reduces over time. I don't see the problem?
It's basically affordable housing for people on low incomes.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

But if they don't actually need to build new stock, then keeping old stock in good condition becomes much easier.
No need for more land, no need to pay for new houses.

I get your point.
An issue would be folk will remain renting rather than buying if their only option is to leave their community, so they'd be keeping the stock anyway.

Currently we are selling or part selling land for private builds and buying private builds to use as social housing, which is completely nuts.

Scoundrel

lola85 wrote: »

Do you mean housing for everyone?

Why should some people have to buy off a private developer and be fleeced as you say while others don’t?

Housing for everyone provided by the government I’m all for.

I’d personally have a lot more money in my pocket each week.

Yes absolutely the government should be providing housing for everyone payed for through tax and of course an affordable mortgage would be payed each month by householders. IMO private development is the cause of the crisis

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Found the details.
I was familiar with the tenant purchase scheme.



You get a discount based on income.
You have to pay back any discount you get over a number of years and it reduces over time. I don't see the problem?
It's basically affordable housing for people on low incomes.

You don't pay back the discount. That only happens if you sell the house. If you stay in the house for a prescribed time (15, 20 or 25 years, depending on discount you received) you never pay back the difference.

Boggles

bubblypop wrote: »

But if they don't actually need to build new stock, then keeping old stock in good condition becomes much easier.

Keeping 50-60 or older houses in good condition will never become easier.

I mean for example a roof only has a certain life span.

Bringing houses built in the 50s-60s-70s-80s up a couple of BER ratings can be astronomical if even possible sometimes.

Best practice is to use the money not maintaining these houses to replenish stock, get the old ones off the books.

Of course in this example we are giving the developer land and buying the houses back off them at market value.

It would be like you own a site of land, you hire a builder to build a house for you and including in the bill is the price of the land you own.

Loony Tunes.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

that made you laugh out loud?

Yes .

And I didn't keep referencing the article lol

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't pay back the discount. That only happens if you sell the house. If you stay in the house for a prescribed time (15, 20 or 25 years, depending on discount you received) you never pay back the difference.

Sounds fair enough.

A lot of this goes back to the idea that people with less money can buy or rent a house when others of us with more money cannot.

Working people not being able to pay rent or buy is a state government/LA created problem.
People worse off, availing of state aid is the state/LA's filling a need created by reliance on the private market.

In the not too distant future most of us will be renting off a handful of vulture fund/property investor groups. The state/LA's will be supporting many of us with our tax monies. This of course is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.

Gatling

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sounds fair enough.

A lot of this goes back to the idea that people with less money can buy or rent a house when others of us with more money cannot.

Tell working families sorry you might never be able to buy your own home ,then tell them a family in social housing can buy their LA house after 24 months in it at a big discount ,
Meanwhile the working families face multiple hour commutes from outside Dublin or elsewhere while Johnny sit on his hole gets to choose what part of Dublin he chooses to live for next to nothing

James Brown

Gatling wrote: »

Tell working families sorry you might never be able to buy your own home ,then tell them a family in social housing can buy their LA house after 24 months in it at a big discount ,

The only issue there is the cap. What income is too high for social housing?
I'd suggest the best fix would be to approach your politicians on making affordable housing available to any family who don't make enough to afford to buy off market.
Why go after those worse off than you, who don't make the policies or make the housing crisis worse by pandering and catering for private developers?

We are engaged in a race to the bottom. 'If I can't afford it, why is somebody worse off getting it at a discount?'.
Should be looking to policy makers to improve everyone's lot, not take from those worse off.

Idbatterim

Scoundrel wrote: »

:rolleyes:this is absolute nonsense no one wants free housing just affordable state built housing in return for paying our tax yes there are perma dole wasters but they are a statistically insignificant amount of people. The private sector only build houses in order to make obscene profit often cutting corners to do so and successive governments have lazily dumped housing into their laps I'm arguing simply that in return for all the tax we pay the very least a government should do is provide housing for its people.

This shows the naïveté and I’m sick of hearing this BS! . The private house builders sole motivation like any company is profit. Or what am I missing. “The market , hasn’t solved the problem“. Companies are generally very efficient at what they do. It’s the politicans and civil servants that are responsible for this disgrace ! Surprise surprise they use spin doctors and keep pointing the blame at any one but themselves , not surprisingly and you and many others actually buy this narrative. It’s unbelievable stuff !

Idbatterim

bubblypop wrote: »

Not when there are not enough social houses it doesn't.
There are huge amounts of single people who bought their council houses cheap & now live alone in 3 bed houses.
Would make more sense for those people to rent a social house for an long as they need to, until such a time as they can afford their own home.
If they stay in social housing for their whole life, they get downsized to an appropriate residence at their needs change.

Like they do in any other country. Mad talk here though !!!

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Rent is based on income. The whole point is they pay next to nothing if they earn next to nothing.

You can't buy if you are in arrears or have a history of non-payment.

The discount below market is calculated based on how many years you payed rent there. People who lived in properties built in the 30's and 40's for decades, got offered a discount on current market value. I would guess in many cases the council made any money spent in construction back a number of times over.

What discount do I get it I get the opportunity to buy a place that’s rented on the private market , having paid a fortune at market rent for years or decades ?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sounds fair enough.

It's very fair, and in areas like mine (sh/t hole) it helps tame the place and calm people down as people, generally speaking, are more likely to take care of their house, and general area, once they are committed to it financially.



Our estate has a lot of anti social messing, but it's mostly caused by the stereotype social tenant. Driving through the estate, it can be obvious which houses are owned privately (generally taken care of and maintained) and which ones aren't.




People will give out about the scheme a lot, but i think it's a good one.

Gatling

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The only issue there is the cap. What income is too high for social housing?

Currently €42,000 (open to correction) is the cap in Dublin income wise for social housing , but a couple already in social housing could in theory earn double that and still pay a small subsidised rent ,
When they could actually afford to get a mortgage

kowloon

FTA69 wrote: »

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

I hear it all the time when it comes to adopting cats and dogs. Are people using it to describe houses purposely comparing the inhabitants to dogs or have I gotten this wrong?

James Brown

Gatling wrote: »

Currently €42,000 (open to correction) is the cap in Dublin income wise for social housing , but a couple already in social housing could in theory earn double that and still pay a small subsidised rent ,
When they could actually afford to get a mortgage

True. How many couples do we think are earning over or double €42,000, and have not been rent assessed since they start earning that much?
Rent is based on income. They assess income from time to time.

I would guess if you go into them looking to avail of such a scheme and have an income in the region of 80 grand, they tell you were to go. I would hope so anyway.

Gatling

kowloon wrote: »

I hear it all the time when it comes to adopting cats and dogs. Are people using it to describe houses purposely comparing the inhabitants to dogs or have I gotten this wrong?

It's the buzzword for people demanding social housing all I want is my foreva home I always promised my children

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Tell working families sorry you might never be able to buy your own home ,then tell them a family in social housing can buy their LA house after 24 months in it at a big discount ,
Meanwhile the working families face multiple hour commutes from outside Dublin or elsewhere while Johnny sit on his hole gets to choose what part of Dublin he chooses to live for next to nothing

Do you live in a cave somewhere, cut off entirely from society? People who live in Social Housing work FFS

:rolleyes:.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

People who live in Social work

Not all though ,

And now you will ask for proof followed by me laughing followed by deflections and roundabouts till a mod gets involved typical stuff

Gatling

Matt Barrett wrote: »

True. How many couples do we think are earning over or double €42,000, and have not been rent assessed since they start earning that much?
Rent is based on income. They assess income from time to time.

Usually It's capped at 15% of the principal earner but that only covers paid and taxable income for instance many families will declare one parent while denying all knowledge of their partners

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Found the details.
I was familiar with the tenant purchase scheme.



You get a discount based on income.
You have to pay back any discount you get over a number of years and it reduces over time. I don't see the problem?
It's basically affordable housing for people on low incomes.

Eh, no, you don't pay back the discount, the council writes it off, 2% a year.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/2016_02_19_-_tenant_information_booklet_-_tips_2016.pdf

It's all in the booklet - see pages 12 and 13.

It's a foreva house for half-price scheme.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh, no, you don't pay back the discount, the council writes it off, 2% a year.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/2016_02_19_-_tenant_information_booklet_-_tips_2016.pdf

It's all in the booklet - see pages 12 and 13.

It's a foreva house for half-price scheme.

Writes off what at 2% a year? I mean if you're not paying it back, what are they lowering by 2% a year?

The use of 'foreva' as it relates to housing tax payers is the height of ignorance, especially during the Fine Gael housing crisis. This 'us and them' approach is disgusting quite frankly. The only difference is income level. Being poor isn't a crime despite Fine Gael's best efforts to punish them.

We are engaged in a race to the bottom. 'If I can't afford it, why is somebody worse off getting it at a discount?'.
Should be looking to policy makers to improve everyone's lot, not take from those worse off.

What's your solution Blanch? You're a great hurler from the ditch but won't put your own ideas out there.

BattleCorp

Scoundrel wrote: »

Yes absolutely the government should be providing housing for everyone payed for through tax and of course an affordable mortgage would be payed each month by householders. IMO private development is the cause of the crisis

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the government should be providing houses for everyone. Is there even a country in the world that does that.......Oh yeah, North Korea does. It is absolutely unaffordable for the government to provide houses for everyone. There isn't enough tax revenue available to pay for it.

I don't see how private development caused this crisis either. Why do you think private development caused the crisis?

Idbatterim

I don’t agree with rio off housing. The culprits are the government, far too many are getting a ridiculously over the top deal and others are shafted as a result. I’m for a system that allows affordable housing to all. Increased funding for this , can come from the biggest piss take of all, virtually fre housing , joke rent. No lpt. That’s where another few hundred million a year come from , to start providing more housing for the hard working Masses. Big increase in lpt too !

James Brown

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the government should be providing houses for everyone. Is there even a country in the world that does that.......Oh yeah, North Korea does. It is absolutely unaffordable for the government to provide houses for everyone. There isn't enough tax revenue available to pay for it.

I don't see how private development caused this crisis either. Why do you think private development caused the crisis?

The government does provide housing for pretty much everyone. It's how much business we, the tax payer, wants to give to private business that's the only discussion AFAIC.

Affordable housing should be made available to anybody working who is not, by a specified margin, able to buy at the FG/FF artificially inflated market rate.

Fine Gael and Fianna Fail caused and exacerbate the housing crisis. LA's don't help either.

Idbatterim

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the government should be providing houses for everyone. Is there even a country in the world that does that.......Oh yeah, North Korea does. It is absolutely unaffordable for the government to provide houses for everyone. There isn't enough tax revenue available to pay for it.

I don't see how private development caused this crisis either. Why do you think private development caused the crisis?

Please. Asking how private developers caused the crisis, just feeds the trolls. I thought policy and planning in this area , and providing reasonably affordable property for those on low to lowish incomes was the states remit. But I’m clearly a moron!

Dyr

Land value in Dublin off the chart. Joe taxpayers land being handed over to private develpors for free

Dublin city council at its finest folks

Eric Cartman

1) we shouldnt be building social housing there anyway
2) the 164 'non price capped' houses, who in their right mind would spend presumably over 310k to live near that kip
3) affordable at 310k .....
"New figures from the Central Statistics Office show that median gross income for households stood at €45,256 in 2016" which x3.5 = 158k divide by 9 multiply by 10 and 176k buy with a 17.6k deposit is the cap at which a property should be titled "affordable" a cent above that and its out of reach of households on the median income.

Garry gannon really did try here, but not a chance was that deal going through, Id pity anyone putting money up for these at all, its going to end up with hard working people ending up in negative equity unable to jump up from a 2 bed apartment fierce quick.


A mix of 'affordable' and privately owned owner occupier mandate homes would have been the best for that site.