Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Dyr

Worth remembering that large tracts of housing in Dublin and beyond was social housing, Marino etc. We just did it better back then

Same with farms, most of our farmers are on "forever farms" that their forefathers bought for a pittance from the state

I've no problem with the idea that citizens should not be indebted to a bank for the rest of our lives just to have a place to live. Big problem with the idea of people expecting everything be provided for them by the taxpayer including a house next to their Mammy.

Boggles

Bambi wrote: »

Same with farms, most of our farmers are on "forever farms" that their forefathers bought for a pittance from the state

Well not exactly. It didn't belong to "the state" to begin with. The forefathers were paying to get back their forefathers land.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

Allowing tenant purchases is an inherently good thing, I know from first hand experience and I'd hazard a guess that long term for "DE TAX PAYER" (which also includes the person buying the home which seems to be forgotten) it's cheaper.

But above all costs, it's value is immeasurable.

It depends.

If one wants to continue the ideology of private property ownership over social good, then maybe. But what you are doing is giving one generation a benefit and denying the other generation the same opportunity to live in social housing.

Also, if one truly believes in social housing then you cannot believe in the ideology of selling it off i.e. privatising it.

They do not sell off social housing units on the continent. Why is that?

We are forever telling ourselves and comparing ourselves to the Danes, Austrians, Finns, Swedes in all kinds of social policy. The reason we cannot implement any or much of it is that we, the Irish people, want things to remain as they are, hence the over-reliance on private property. We will tweek around the edges and then wonder why it failed while it worked in Denmark... yeap you guessed it.

If we really really really wanted to take the Austrian framework to provide social housing, then we need to ditch our obsession with selling social houses to its occupants. As I said, you cannot have your cake and eat it.

Dyr

Boggles wrote: »

Well not exactly. It didn't belong to "the state" to begin with. The forefathers were paying to get back their forefathers land.

Let's be honest here, it belonged to the state of the time or was privately owned, we can bitch about how they acquired it but once we gained independence we accepted all that private ownership was legitimate

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

If one wants to continue the ideology of private property ownership over social good,

In the examples I gave clearly private property ownership is for the social good.

I have seen it first hand.

markodaly

Boggles wrote: »

In the examples I gave clearly private property ownership is for the social good.

I have seen it first hand.

So it's anecdotal, good to know.

Boggles

markodaly wrote: »

So it's anecdotal, good to know.

It's a implemented strategy I have seen work and that does work.

Do I remember you saying before you grew up in social housing?

Or am I thinking of someone else?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

In the examples I gave clearly private property ownership is for the social good.

I have seen it first hand.

Your examples are that anti social behavior is curtailed when social houses are sold & become private. Oh and that people take more pride in their own home than a council owned one.
So basically, you are actually against social housing for many of the same reasons as others on this site.

A real believer in social housing would believe it should stay in state ownership for the good of those who cannot house themselves.

Boggles

bubblypop wrote: »

Your examples are that anti social behavior is curtailed when social houses are sold & become private. Oh and that people take more pride in their own home than a council owned one.
So basically, you are actually against social housing for many of the same reasons as others on this site.

A real believer in social housing would believe it should stay in state ownership for the good of those who cannot house themselves.

I'm a believer in affordable housing, for everyone.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

I'm a believer in affordable housing, for everyone.

So, the state should build & sell houses cheap to people who can afford to buy them
They should provide social housing for those who cannot house themselves
Two different things.

Which, I have no issue with, by the way

James Brown

Bambi wrote: »

Worth remembering that large tracts of housing in Dublin and beyond was social housing, Marino etc. We just did it better back then

Same with farms, most of our farmers are on "forever farms" that their forefathers bought for a pittance from the state

I've no problem with the idea that citizens should not be indebted to a bank for the rest of our lives just to have a place to live. Big problem with the idea of people expecting everything be provided for them by the taxpayer including a house next to their Mammy.

Little problem. These people don't call the shots. They get options and are left waiting until those options come up and if they refuse for no good reason they lose their spot on the list.

James Brown

bubblypop wrote: »

So, the state should build & sell houses cheap to people who can afford to buy them
They should provide social housing for those who cannot house themselves
Two different things.

Which, I have no issue with, by the way

Not different at all.
People can't house themselves if their income falls below the level required.
Purchasing requires you earn a certain wage. Getting social housing requires you earn a certain wage.
The indo and the like throw in the chancer of the week stories to angry up the blood so we blame those less well off for our ills.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

Bit of a ramble there Matt.

I am sorry, but if you are advocating giving people up to a 50% discount on a house, paid for by the tax payer, then you can take a hike.

Social housing is that, social housing, not a shortcut to own a 400,000 house for 200,000 paid over 25 years, while the guy next door has to foot the entire bill and then subsidise the family next door. In no universe is that fair.

I understand that there may be limited cases where property can be sold, but it should be done so, where the tax payer recoups costs at a minimum and it should be sold at market rates, not a huge discount.

Regardless, if we are to take the European model and not the UK/Irish model, the property will remain in the hands of the LA/State. We need to chill a little on property ownership in this country. Owning a property is not a 'right' and its highly amusing that some people point to Austrian provisioning of social housing as a plus, but then with a straight face advocate selling off these units for a song under a UK/Irish framework, because that is how we always did it here....

You cant have your cake and eat it too.

We've covered this before and I think, giving the benefit of the doubt, that you pretend not to understand.
Let's knock each slice of baloney out of the park:

if you are advocating giving people up to a 50% discount on a house, paid for by the tax payer

If I grow an apple and it costs me 5c and I sell it to you for 7c instead of 10c like the man up the street sells them for, nobody is paying for that, it's not a discount and I'm making 2c instead of 5c. There is no loss to me. I'm ahead 2c.

I understand that there may be limited cases where property can be sold, but it should be done so, where the tax payer recoups costs at a minimum and it should be sold at market rates, not a huge discount.

When the tenant or person buys the house, there is no loss to the tax payer. Absolutely none. Zero. Once again you are confusing less profit, with losing money spent.
If I sell a pie which cost me 1 euro to create, for 2 euro. I'm making a euro, even if a man up the street is selling the same kind of pie for 3 euro. I'm not left short, I'm still coming out a euro ahead in profit.

On owning. A house was commonly the only asset working people could aspire to.
The trouble is the people with the most money are buying up all the houses to rent them to people with less money. Therefore unless you are relatively wealthy you will always be a tenant beholden to a market where rates are driven by sales. If wealthy people are spending large sums to buy houses, the prices will not come down. With rents, if you can't afford rent, the government might sudsidise you, rents won't come down if they are being met.
What does this mean for the working tax payer? He/She is forever beholden to the profit margins of a few. You work hard, pay tax and die having made a few rich people a little richer.

Boggles

bubblypop wrote: »

So, the state should build & sell houses cheap to people who can afford to buy them
They should provide social housing for those who cannot house themselves
Two different things.

Which, I have no issue with, by the way

Not exactly.

But we have tried it one way for 30 odd years now, it's been a spectacular failure.

Building more houses only leads to more expensive houses.

99nsr125

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Time limited food stamps as the main welfare distribution in the USA seems to make people very motivated to get work for some bizarre reason.

They don't put up with cradle to grave welfare sh!t there.

Mrs Cash would be actually street homeless (or quite possibly dead) over there and that's no exaggeration! You are just not allowed live that lifestyle without the consequences.

That is in no way better, it is appalling.
We are better than that.

Don't forget about the cost of crime, prisons, lawyers . . .
those societies are burdened with.

Our way *is* better

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If I grow an apple and it costs me 5c and I sell it to you for 7c instead of 10c like the man up the street sells them for, nobody is paying for that, it's not a discount and I'm making 2c instead of 5c. There is no loss to me. I'm ahead 2c.

Housing is very different to the mass market goods or commodities like apples, or iPhones or shoes. Principally because one cannot export/import houses or apartments and they need to be built on land. If it were that simple, we can simple order a bunch of houses from China on the cheap.

But to take our South Park economic logic, why would one sell an apple for 7c when the market rate is 10c. What extra value does one give that apple?

Only an idiot would sell an apple to someone on a Monday for 7c, that cost him 5c, only for that person to sell it on a Tuesday for 10c for no value-added.

When the tenant or person buys the house, there is no loss to the tax payer. Absolutely none. Zero. Once again you are confusing less profit, with losing money spent.

Of course, there is. First, it depends on the price one sells at. If you sell below the market value, then its a loss. A house is an asset, if you sell it for below market it is a loss, an there needs to be a write-down.
The LA/State/Taxpayer also has to replace the house for more social housing. This is not 'free' either and costs money. Also, land is finite.

If I sell a pie which cost me 1 euro to create, for 2 euro. I'm making a euro, even if a man up the street is selling the same kind of pie for 3 euro. I'm not left short, I'm still coming out a euro ahead in profit.

As I said, if you sell a pie for €2 but the guy up the road is selling the exact same pies for €3 then you are an idiot.

On owning. A house was commonly the only asset working people could aspire to.
[/QUOTE]

As I said, private property ownership in of itself is fine, but we in Ireland are obsessed with it. We perhaps need to reevaluate our relationship with private property.

The trouble is the people with the most money are buying up all the houses to rent them to people with less money.

Landlords are leaving the market in droves. What is happening though is large companies buy up blocks to rent out. This may not be a bad thing in of itself, it is how its done in Germany and the like. It drives the professionalism of the rental sector. The issue, of course, is supply which drives prices.

Therefore unless you are relatively wealthy you will always be a tenant beholden to a market where rates are driven by sales.

Not sales, supply.

If wealthy people are spending large sums to buy houses, the prices will not come down. With rents, if you can't afford rent, the government might sudsidise you, rents won't come down if they are being met.

Did you sleep through the last crash?

What does this mean for the working tax payer? He/She is forever beholden to the profit margins of a few. You work hard, pay tax and die having made a few rich people a little richer.

Very very Dickenson of you. Is that how it works in Germany and Austria, where homeownership is a minority?
This whole Bull McCabe attitude to property in Ireland is quaint and backward.

beauf

markodaly wrote: »

.... ...What is happening though is large companies buy up blocks to rent out. This may not be a bad thing in of itself, it is how its done in Germany and the like. It drives the professionalism of the rental sector. The issue, of course, is supply which drives prices......

Professionalism (driving profit) also drives up prices. It's like any privatisation the top expensive end has no problems with supply. While the low end of the market gets ignored. So this also reduces supply and compounds the shortage at the low end. It's doing the same with student housing.

But we are still championing "professionalism" while ignoring the full implications of it.

markodaly

beauf wrote: »

Professionalism (driving profit) also drives up prices. It's like any privatisation the top expensive end has no problems with supply. While the low end of the market gets ignored. So this also reduces supply and compounds the shortage at the low end. It's doing the same with student housing.

But we are still championing "professionalism" while ignoring the full implications of it.

Historically landlords were really a guy with one or two properties. The majority of landlords in Ireland own just one property, besides their principal residence.

Now we have large scale REIT's buying up entire blocks. This makes the sector more professional, legal and above board. This is how property is managed in many parts of the world, including places that we aspire to be like, Germany, Austria, Denmark and so on.

The issue is of course is supply. There are too few properties on the market at the moment. So, the issue is not per say REIT's buying up blocks, is that there are too few blocks for them to buy.

The alternative is of course, we engage in the historically traditional method of renting out a property, that is a renter engages with a part-time paddy landlord and all the risks associated with that.

Again, another case of wanting to have the cake and eat it.

beauf

It's because other countries have built in controls on profits and the provision of affordable and social housing.

It's not as simplistic big landlords good and small landlords bad as your suggesting. It's that in sustainable regulated environment you can create sustainable business models.

Not boom and bust like we have here. Big companies in Ireland are taking advantage of the lax rules and lack of controls to exploit market conditions.

Which why the crisis is as bad as ever.

beauf

The issue is not simply supply either. It's demand. The population (immigration etc) is increasing faster than we can supply services. Housing, health, schools, policing, transport.

The demand is at the low end of the market but supply is being delivered at the high end.

Where we have cheap solutions like cycling, the govt ignores it. We keep voting these govt in. So as a people we can't be that interested in changing anything either. We are politically inert.

markodaly

beauf wrote: »

It's because other countries have built in controls on profits and the provision of affordable and social housing.

It's not as simplistic big landlords good and small landlords bad as your suggesting. It's that in sustainable regulated environment you can create sustainable business models.

Not boom and bust like we have here. Big companies in Ireland are taking advantage of the lax rules and lack of controls to exploit market conditions.

Which why the crisis is as bad as ever.

I never said it was simplistic, I alluded to the fact that the core issue is supply.

Also, we have had one property crash in the state's history, so it's rare.

To add, there are lots of rules and regulations. Property is one of the highest regulated markets we have in this country. That is why it is so expensive to build houses and units.

markodaly

beauf wrote: »

The issue is not simply supply either. It's demand. The population (immigration etc) is increasing faster than we can supply services. Housing, health, schools, policing, transport.

The demand is at the low end of the market but supply is being delivered at the high end.

Where we have cheap solutions like cycling, the govt ignores it. We keep voting these govt in. So as a people we can't be that interested in changing anything either. We are politically inert.

Well, we are part of the EU, our economy is good and wages are higher than those elsewhere so unless you are advocating returning Ireland back to the 80's economically, the issue is entirely supply.

Housing is being delivered at the higher end because it's too expensive to build at the moment. That is a regulation and tax issue.

I do not disagree with our electoral cycles and lack of vision in Ireland to adopt a more continental based social policy around housing and transport. But as I said, WE the Irish people do not want this stuff. We may say we do, but its all bull****, as when the chips are down we revert to Paddy 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes.

Just look at things like Metrolink or BusConnects as a prime example.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Little problem. These people don't call the shots. They get options and are left waiting until those options come up and if they refuse for no good reason they lose their spot on the list.

Untrue, the majority of people in hotels/b&bs have declined a property

NewbridgeIR

Horsebox9000 wrote: »

What do people think?

Oh No! Falafel has nothing to offer only hate. Just one of many bitter malcontents on Twitter.

jenna_haze

Most of those big housing developments around Dublin have one thing in common, 90%+ are not for sale, they will be for rent once completed.
Big north American & EU pension funds are the money behind the building, paddy going to be paying top dollar to keep these retirees in a good lifestyle.

Austria!

Matt Barrett wrote: »

When the tenant or person buys the house, there is no loss to the tax payer. Absolutely none. Zero. Once again you are confusing less profit, with losing money spent.

Sorry, where is the profit?

FreudianSlippers

beauf wrote: »

The issue is not simply supply either. It's demand. The population (immigration etc) is increasing faster than we can supply services. Housing, health, schools, policing, transport.

The demand is at the low end of the market but supply is being delivered at the high end.

Where we have cheap solutions like cycling, the govt ignores it. We keep voting these govt in. So as a people we can't be that interested in changing anything either. We are politically inert.

You've literally just described a supply-side problem

beauf

markodaly wrote: »

I never said it was simplistic, I alluded to the fact that the core issue is supply.

Also, we have had one property crash in the state's history, so it's rare.

To add, there are lots of rules and regulations. Property is one of the highest regulated markets we have in this country. That is why it is so expensive to build houses and units.

I'm saying what you said was simplistic. Yes we have lots of regulation. Very little enforcement. Hence all the scandals.

It's also expensive because it's heavily taxed. The build cost is something like 40-50%. Same with rent a lot of it tax aswell.

beauf

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You've literally just described a supply-side problem

I didn't say it wasn't supply. I said it's not simply supply.

FreudianSlippers

beauf wrote: »

I didn't say it wasn't supply. I said it's not simply supply.

Ok but what I'm saying is that literally everything you outlined is a supply-side problem.