The real problem with Housing in Ireland

markodaly

Exhibit A:


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-council-pays-195-000-a-year-for-empty-building-1.4102262

Dublin City Council is paying almost €200,000 a year to lease a historic city centre building it planned three years ago to turn into a homeless hostel, but has never used.

In late 2016, number 21 Aungier Street, one of the city’s oldest buildings, was leased by the Peter McVerry Trust for emergency accommodation for up to 25 homeless adults. The council agreed to pay the rent of €16,250 a month.

However, in early 2017 Dublin Civic Trust, which restored the building in the 1990s when it had been derelict and under threat of demolition, objected to the development which it said could compromise its historic fabric.

Following the intervention of the civic trust, the Department of Heritage ordered work be halted pending an application for consent. No application was made.

Exhibit B:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/residents-group-challenge-planned-chapelizod-social-housing-development-1.4102307

A residents’ group has initiated a High Court challenge over Dublin City Council’s plans for a 71-apartment social housing development in Chapelizod. Mr Justice Michael MacGrath granted leave to the Chapelizod Community for Democracy and Sustainability company to bring a judicial review against the council, the Minister for Housing and the State.

Housing is a hot topic for many people, especially the young and poor. Yet, when local government issue plans to house people, every malcontent, quango, residents group, or gob****e who has something to lose raises an objection and plans fall flat on their faces.

This.Is.Ireland

We are obsessed with consensus and building agreement, with people who have no intention of giving up their little corner of the world, because it may affect them negatively somehow.

The issue is not with a Minister, or a government or a political party per say. It is with the Irish psyche that thinks they are the modern manifestation of Bull McCabe, who has to protect their front corner of a front garden, or their property price above all civic, community and national considerations.

It is also not only related to housing. It stems across much of our society from public transport, health and education.

Why is a council paying for rent on a property for a charity? Let them sort it themselves since they have all the answers.

Dravokivich

Inter departmental bickering is not why people are struggling to afford a place to live in.

Plumbthedepths

Thread to deflect attention away from the governments handling of the housing crisis. Original I think not.

markodaly

Dravokivich wrote: »

Inter departmental bickering is not why people are struggling to afford a place to live in.

That is the symptom of a larger issue.

If there are plans for high rise apartment blocks you can be sure that An Taisce will object, to take one example. You can also be sure half a dozen other groups, from the Irish Georgian Society to a hodgepodge of residents groups will object.

Plumbthedepths

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-defends-objections-to-constituency-development-claiming-area-has-been-blighted-36155759.html

Leo claimed in another article that the housing crisis keeps him awake at night, I doubt his sincerity tbh.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Thread to deflect attention away from the governments handling of the housing crisis. Original I think not.

We are just waiting to see who will arrive with the link to the objection that Varadkar made about five or six years ago to a four-storey development.

What nobody will tell you about that development is that there is a new application gone in for build-to-rent shared accommodation on that site. Varadkar hasn't objected this time, but plenty of our protest party politicians have.

Edit: Ooops, you beat Johnny, Matt and the others to it

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

We are just waiting to see who will arrive with the link to the objection that Varadkar made about five or six years ago to a four-storey development.

What nobody will tell you about that development is that there is a new application gone in for build-to-rent shared accommodation on that site. Varadkar hasn't objected this time, but plenty of our protest party politicians have.

Edit: Ooops, you beat Johnny, Matt and the others to it

We? Is there a few of ye gathered around the keyboard? Btw Leo's objection was 2 years ago Feb 2017 to be exact. At least read the link before you make a fool of yourself.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

We? Is there a few of ye gathered around the keyboard?

The boards audience in general, it is getting very easy to predict what gif or link will be produced next from the stock selection.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

The boards audience in general, it is getting very easy to predict what gif or link will be produced next from the stock selection.

Ah so you're like another regular poster who likes to speak on behave of an imaginary collective. Anyway any thoughts on the hypocrisy of a politician who claims to be sleepless about the housing crisis yet objected to badly needed housing in his constituency?

_Brian

Personally I think the problem is that all landlords have been demonised, there was a concerted effort to tax them heavily as a punishment.

Renting a property is no longer a very profitable business and many decent landlords left the market rather than become slum landlords which seem to be plentiful now, not because of an increase in the numbers of them but rather by a loss of decent landlords.

A rental sector cannot work unless it is very attractive for landlords. Buying and renting a house out is a massive risk, there needs to be substantial payback.

Landlords were driven out in droves and so the rental stock dwindled at a time the demand increased and so the remaining properties have increased in rent to meet demand.

If it were a sensible long term business there would be more interest from business people to invest in property to let out. More property would be built to meet this demand and the market wound regulate price based on more supply of rental accommodation.

Through government policy landlords were driven out and as a result there is a mismatch between supply and demand.

ThunbergsAreGo

Big problem is people like to give out about it but in reality dont want anything to happen that would impinge on them.

The homeless situation is now an industry - the PMcV Trust employs over 500 people at an average wage of 35k.

People dont want to take people in and lose a bit of comfort. Over 10% of children that are homeless were born into it. Where are the families of these mothers that are letting this happen? Who cares if you need to sleep on a couch - your child/grandchild/neice should not be homeless.

whisky_galore

The "haves", i.e. generally older home owners, blocking the "have nots", generally younger people prevented from home ownership.
That and developers won't put up anything other than unaffordable luxury high end stuff, student accommodation or offices.

Plumbthedepths

whisky_galore wrote: »

The "haves", i.e. generally older home owners, blocking the "have nots", generally younger people prevented from home ownership.
That and developers won't put up anything other than unaffordable luxury high end stuff, student accommodation or offices.

So what should older home owners do? Just up sticks to a nursing home away from a community they have roots in or just die which?

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Ah so your like another regular poster who likes to speak on behave of an imaginary collective. Anyway any thoughts on the hypocrisy of a politician who claims to be sleepless about the housing crisis yet objected to badly needed housing in his constituency?

Varadkar objected, and the application has been replaced by a higher density application with more housing, for rental rather than for sale, so I think it worked out well, don't you?

https://bartracapitalproperty.com/developments/blanchardstown-communal-living/

Here is a link to the new development.

_Brian

whisky_galore wrote: »

The "haves", i.e. generally older home owners, blocking the "have nots", generally younger people prevented from home ownership.
That and developers won't put up anything other than unaffordable luxury high end stuff, student accommodation or offices.

How are older home owners blocking anyone ??

They bought and paid for their property, it’s theirs, one has a claim or right to it. How are they blocking anyone ??

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Thread to deflect attention away from the governments handling of the housing crisis. Original I think not.

There may be spin but there is also some very organised NIMBYism, especially the type that imagines social housing will be full of scumbags, drug dealers and will drag their own house values down. It never occurs to them that their site was once a field too.

Plumbthedepths

blanch152 wrote: »

Varadkar objected, and the application has been replaced by a higher density application with more housing, for rental rather than for sale, so I think it worked out well, don't you?

https://bartracapitalproperty.com/developments/blanchardstown-communal-living/

Here is a link to the new development.

You claimed the article I linked was from 5 or 6 years ago. It wasn't it was from 2 years ago there is even a copy of Leo's objection date stamped for Feb 2017. So I'm afraid when you are so obviously willing to lie I'll have to ignore you in future.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

There may be spin but there is also some very organised NIMBYism, especially the type that imagines social housing will be full of scumbags, drug dealers and will drag their own house values down. It never occurs to them that their site was once a field too.

True there is NIMBYism I linked an article where our Taoiseach is on record objecting to housing in his area.

ThunbergsAreGo

_Brian wrote: »

How are older home owners blocking anyone ??

They bought and paid for their property, it’s theirs, one has a claim or right to it. How are they blocking anyone ??

If you "downgraded" those living in social housing with excess rooms, you would go a long way to solving the housing issues

But the media would destroy a government who tried it

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

True there is NIMBYism I linked an article where our Taoiseach is on record objecting to housing in his area.

As has Ross and others, but it's politically expedient and anyone can object. Ross aside, none of them is involved in ongoing campaigns to find protected species and other excuses so they can have their walk in the fields.

whisky_galore

_Brian wrote: »

How are older home owners blocking anyone ??

They bought and paid for their property, it’s theirs, one has a claim or right to it. How are they blocking anyone ??

Blocking new developments. Happened in Cork, complaining of increase in traffic etc.

BarryD2

The OP is correct - Land & Property do figure highly in the Irish national psyche. Ownership and Value.

But what's to be done about it? You can't change the culture of a people that easily. So we'll carry on as is.

whisky_galore

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So what should older home owners do? Just up sticks to a nursing home away from a community they have roots in or just die which?

Objecting to planning, dry your eyes mate.

blanch152

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

True there is NIMBYism I linked an article where our Taoiseach is on record objecting to housing in his area.

And as has been pointed out, the Taoiseach's objection has led to an even more intensive scheme being applied for to An Bord Pleanala, to which the Taoiseach has not objected.

Does that mean he favours the higher density co-living scheme? And are you for or against that scheme?

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

As has Ross and others, but it's politically expedient and anyone can object. Ross aside, none of them is involved in ongoing campaigns to find protected species and other excuses so they can have their walk in the fields.

Hypocrisy on behave of the Taoiseach to object yet claim homelessness causes him sleepless nights. It's apparent to others if the Taoiseach is willing to put his more vocal constitutes ahead of housing they too will feel safe in objecting. Surely as leader he should lead by example to his subordinates?

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Hypocrisy on behave of the Taoiseach to object yet claim homelessness causes him sleepless nights. It's apparent to others if the Taoiseach is willing to put his more vocal constitutes ahead of housing they too will feel safe in objecting. Surely as leader he should lead by example to his subordinates?

Not if he wants to keep his seat and he is local! I'd give them a pass on this as long as we see some results and those are very, very slow. Worth noting here that the objection in the OP is a carbon copy of what happened in Raheny on the northside of Dublin. There, they have now gone for higher density in a new application.

Plumbthedepths

whisky_galore wrote: »

Objecting to planning, dry your eyes mate.

You need to explain yourself and not assume people can correctly guess what you're alluding to...mate.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if he wants to keep his seat and he is local! I'd give them a pass on this as long as we see some results and those are very, very slow.

Yeah it would be terrible in a politician worked for the greater good instead of their own self interest. Not really public service is it?

Kidchameleon

Having that many social houses in a small area like Chapelizod would destroy it

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yeah it would be terrible in a politician worked for the greater good instead of their own self interest. Not really public service is it?

Politics is compromise and something you have to bend quite a bit. If they don't get elected they can't remain a politician. The public and voters largely don't give two hoots about the greater good. For them that means a TD representing their local interests. He's done well enough on the greater good anyway on SSM, the repeal of the 8th.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

Politics is compromise and something you have to bend quite a bit. If they don't get elected they can't remain a politician. The public and voters largely don't give two hoots about the greater good. For them that means a TD representing their local interests. He's done well enough on the greater good anyway on SSM, the repeal of the 8th.

SSM and the 8th were Labour projects. Leo jumped when he saw how the wind was blowing.

Tacitus Kilgore

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

SSM and the 8th were Labour projects. Leo jumped when he saw how the wind was blowing.

Yea I'd say he was definitely against ssm before he realised the public support

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

SSM and the 8th were Labour projects. Leo jumped when he saw how the wind was blowing.

He was always behind both anyway, no less than the 60 odd percent who also supported them.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote: »

He was always behind both anyway, no less than the 60 odd percent who also supported them.

Ah no he wasn't, he has spoken out against abortion and was silent on SSM until it become advantageous to be on the side of history.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Ah no he wasn't, he has spoken out against abortion and was silent on SSM until it become advantageous to be on the side of history.

One could object to abortion and still want to repeal the 8th. SSM was greater good and really no big deal to most voters.

_Brian

whisky_galore wrote: »

Blocking new developments. Happened in Cork, complaining of increase in traffic etc.

People can object all they want, it’s only upheld if it turns out as a genuine concern. They are as citizens entitled to object.

blanch152

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Yea I'd say he was definitely against ssm before he realised the public support

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

Snickers Man

_Brian wrote: »

Personally I think the problem is that all landlords have been demonised, there was a concerted effort to tax them heavily as a punishment.

A rental sector cannot work unless it is very attractive for landlords. Buying and renting a house out is a massive risk, there needs to be substantial payback.

I find the thrust of this point of view pretty hard to take. Although it is a familiar one. "I'm not going to do this if you're going to tax me. I should be able to keep all the profits of my hard work (or my hard working piece of inanimate real estate) for myself."

We all think that. Everyone from Leona Hemsley, the notorious Queen of Mean who is famous for saying that "Taxes are for little people". As a "big person" she clearly felt she should not be so encumbered. But really what she was saying is that "taxes are for OTHER people" And everyone, from Hemsley to Niall Quinn to the People before Profit crowd firmly believes that.

Niall Quinn wants tax breaks for League of Ireland clubs to grow soccer. (We shouldn't have to pay tax. Some other sucker can do that.)

Paul Murphy et al don't want to pay for water charges (We shouldn't have to pay for treatment and delivery of an essential resource. Other, supposedly rich, suckers should have to pay for that.)

And now poor struggling put-upon property owners shouldn't have to pay tax on the income they receive for sitting on their arses and maybe unblocking the odd drain or putting up the odd shelf (or paying somebody else to do it--typically cash in hand of course, can't let the taxman know about that, hur, hur).

Get real!

A reasonable tax levy on the cash return of a property investment (ie the rent accruing from it) is perfectly justifiable. I would instead put a whopping punitive tax on perfectly viable housing stock that is just sitting there gathering rot. There is a house on my street, less than 30 years old that is in just that position because the poor put-upon landlord can't be bothered for reasons best known to himself to rent it out as he used to do.

He should be given a choice: pay x percent annual tax on the market value of the vacant house or y percent on the income accruing from the tenants rent where y is very much less than x.

But to say that he should have it both ways: no chance!

Tacitus Kilgore

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

Yes, he also hates Indian people don't ya know

Nermal

Why do multiple arms of the state need to waste resources fighting each other in court? Why can't central government just make a decision that can't be appealed?

Kidchameleon

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

Being gay does not mean one is automatically in favor of SSM. There are many valid and understandable problems with it, particularly when it comes to the raising of children (Male and female role models etc.). Being gay does not preclude one from rational and honest thought and I say this as a person who voted in favor of SSM...

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There are many valid and understandable problems with it, particularly when it comes to the raising of children

Nonsense.

Your spiel about role models is absolute balderdash. Are you saying that kids being raised by two lesbians will suffer problems due to a lack of strong male role models in the house? Half the gaffs on my road growing up had auldfellas who were drunkards or liked to use the wife and/or kids as a punching bag whenever they looked at them sideways. Should they have been banned from getting married?

Kidchameleon

Deleted User wrote: »

Nonsense.

Your spiel about role models is absolute balderdash. Are you saying that kids being raised by two lesbians will suffer problems due to a lack of strong male role models in the house? Half the gaffs on my road growing up had auldfellas who were drunkards or liked to use the wife and/or kids as a punching bag whenever they looked at them sideways. Should they have been banned from getting married?

I probably worded that wrong apologies. I should have said there are valid "concerns" as opposed to "problems". Anyway there is mountains of evidence that shows children are better off with a mixture of male and female role models. Note I used the term "better off" not "doomed". Again, I voted in favor of SSM despite these concerns.

This line of discussion is off topic so back to housing...

I take your point. My point, however, is that having same sex parents in no way impinges upon whther or not a child has strong male and female role models.

Just because there is both a mother and father at home (versus having two Das) doesn't mean that the former is worse off or that the latter will not have strong role models of either sex.

Idbatterim

Op you are one hundred percent right. But in other countries they don’t facilitate this bull****. How will you ever please everyone? I believe in Spain for big infrastructure, they have a very , very brief public consultation period here. I’m sure others countries don’t bother with them at all, their likely the ones that get stuff built. What happens here ? Endless public consultation, they probably have a public consultation for the local animals in the area ...

Varik

Would say statistically ssc are probably on the upper end of the parents, just due to all the extra hurdles they have and there being little chance of any surprise pregnancies.

Since there's no DIY option for male couples, I'd say they're also probably in the upper end on income too and while money doesn't solve everything it does remove a lot of problems.

Idbatterim

markodaly wrote: »

That is the symptom of a larger issue.

If there are plans for high rise apartment blocks you can be sure that An Taisce will object, to take one example. You can also be sure half a dozen other groups, from the Irish Georgian Society to a hodgepodge of residents groups will object.

You are right mark. An taisce are pathetic. But they aren’t the ones making planning decisions

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

We are just waiting to see who will arrive with the link to the objection that Varadkar made about five or six years ago to a four-storey development.

What nobody will tell you about that development is that there is a new application gone in for build-to-rent shared accommodation on that site. Varadkar hasn't objected this time, but plenty of our protest party politicians have.

Edit: Ooops, you beat Johnny, Matt and the others to it

If the housing crisis , keeps him up at night. I hope he plans on submitting a letter of support for the development!

All of these rats want to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds !

Idbatterim

whisky_galore wrote: »

The "haves", i.e. generally older home owners, blocking the "have nots", generally younger people prevented from home ownership.
That and developers won't put up anything other than unaffordable luxury high end stuff, student accommodation or offices.

Nail on the head , but all businesses look to maximize profit. This just lets the wasters in local and national government off the hook. “ oh look a big bad business trying to maximize profit “

Idbatterim

is_that_so wrote: »

Not if he wants to keep his seat and he is local! I'd give them a pass on this as long as we see some results and those are very, very slow. Worth noting here that the objection in the OP is a carbon copy of what happened in Raheny on the northside of Dublin. There, they have now gone for higher density in a new application.

Bulk****. Varadkar coujdceacily afford to lose the votes of a few selfish morons and still win his seat, would actually make him more voteable. How many non homeowner working people has he deceived !