The real problem with Housing in Ireland

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

They funded it long after rates disappeared.

That you need a new tax or raise taxes to build is miselading.

They can find 23 million for a white water rafting facility and 50k football birthday parties.

Central government isn't paying for the white water rafting facility - the business rates payers of Dublin city are.

Central government isn't paying for 50k football birthday parties - the FAI is.

The biggest problem with the social housing issue is that the system was designed so that ongoing local authority rents and household rates would pay for future builds. Once local authority tenants stopped paying, and the council stopped collecting, then there was no money in local authorities for new builds. The FF decision to abolish rates had previously drastically cut the money available.

If we actually collected the rents, and also brought back household rates, there would be plenty of money for social housing without attacking the poor income tax payer living in rented accommodation.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

You're talking about a persistent supply problem. I explicitly said rent controls are not intended to fix supply problems - that other policies are needed to address that.

Nobody advocates rent controls combined with doing nothing about supply - that would be completely stupid.

Rent controls have almost always failed in fixing housing issues. This time around it would be no different.

State Aid is a bullshit argument that everyone opposed to government just regurgitates on a whim. There are zero issues with the state hiring people and building enormous amounts of housing.

Oh but there is. I think you need to do more research on that one before you come back with a rebuttal.

markodaly

beauf wrote: »

They funded it long after rates disappeared.

That you need a new tax or raise taxes to build is miselading.

They can find 23 million for a white water rafting facility and 50k football birthday parties.

Ah, the great ol, 'I dont want to pay to fix the problem' malarky.

The great social housing builds of the 1930's and 1950's was primarily funded through rates. Social housing builds began declining once rates disappeared.
If as a country we are serious about fixing this issue, we need to look at increasing rates again.

The last two points are strawmen, one was a decision by DCC, the other was the FAI, nothing to do with 'da guberment'.

X111111111111

various artistes wrote: »

These headline figures are a bit misleading.

The typical asking price for a house in a local authority built estate in North and West Dublin is typically somewhere from 160,000 (Ballymun, Darndale) to 200,000 (Tallaght and Clondalkin seemingly start around 170- 180k, Blanch a bit higher). Areas closer to town, such as Cabra, or relatively close to rail lines, such as Edenmore and Kilbarrack, are artifically inflated to up to 290k. Even living within a short drive of the train seems to inflate Coolock somehwhat

Nearby private estates in Dub 24/ 22/ 15 typically range from 220K to upwards of 260K, and Ballyfermot is still quite affordable given it's not far from town.

When you see a teacher or an accountant moaning on the Independent that they had to buy in Naas because they couldn't afford Dublin, what they actually mean is that they could easily afford Dublin, but they couldn't afford the parts of Dublin that teachers were able to settle in 20 years ago, or in the days of 100 percent mortgages (Castleknock, Raheny, Navan Road). I'm not advocating teachers should live in Darndale, but there's little wrong socially with the bulk of Clonsilla, Hartstown, Huntstown etc. Some folks just have notions.

Put it this way, when was the last time you read an electrician or a plumber moaning he was priced out of Dublin.

You don't.

Because these lads aren't afraid to live somewhere where people talk with a working class accent.

Agree 100%.

Iv'e a friend who bought in Tallaght for not bad money (210k last year) and he and the wife are 3 minutes walk from a Luas stop. He's actually an electrician also

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I am often amused by people romanticly looking back to the 1930's or 1950's when Ireland built social housing.

These houses were often small two up, two down houses with no central heating and terrible insulation with one bathroom to be shared by all. But they were sturdy and housed people.
The law now however states that all houses need to be A2 rating minimum, which is a very high standard of energy efficeny. This makes houses much more expensive and complicated to build.

Put simply, there is a much much higher level of regulation, standards, red tape and compliance to build anything in Ireland, therefore we cannot look back. We need to look forward and up and build up.
Do you think the government in the 1930's had to put up with well funded residents groups bringing cases to the courts over some enviromnental impact study that was or was not done or trying to use EU law to stop a block of much needed apartments or such with TD's trying to win support by objecting to housing developments?

We are drowning in layers and layers of procedure and rules, along with all the other fore mentioned issues.

We've covered this. People also use to live in slums, until the social housing concept. Progressing with the time, I thought would have been common sense. The idea anyone suggested we replicate homes from the 1930's and 50's down to the lead pipes is childish diversion that nobody takes seriously.

It's about social and affordable housing, the proven concept. The saving for the tax payer, the increase in state/LA owned housing stock.
So it's red tape stopping us? Sure...okay...
We shouldn't be building sub standard housing, like many of the apartment unsafe private builds, no.

Idbatterim

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/editorial/editorial-housing-requires-a-proactive-approach-38763577.html

Housing requires a proactive approach

The Central Bank Governor, Gabriel Makhlouf, arrived here from New Zealand under a cloud. It was a small cloud involving neither corruption nor incompetence, and was insufficient to convince those who recruited him that his expertise and experience did not fit the bill.

Nevertheless, it seems to have encouraged politicians, banking chiefs and others to pile in on the governor in an effort to get him to relax the rules that regulate the mortgage market. But the governor is not for turning.

The argument put forward in favour of an element of deregulation suggests that more people need to be assisted in getting a mortgage so they can get a foot on the property ladder; and that this, in turn, will help relieve pressure in the rental sector.

This presupposes that everyone has an entitlement to own their home and that renting is a only a temporary and, in some ways, inferior form of housing. But in this age of practically full employment, it may be true that almost anyone who wants a job can find one. But it does not follow that almost anyone can earn a wage that would support a mortgage.

The main restriction on the mortgage market is the limit of three and a half times' gross annual income which some feel is too little because of current house prices. But this is not meant to equate to the price of a house, unless we are going to go back to 100pc mortgages. It is also meant to encourage saving for a deposit.

To do otherwise is to risk a return to the situation where property buyers take on unsustainable debt and could end up losing their homes. Current prices, according to the Central Bank, would be 26pc higher than they are if restrictions had not been applied. As it is, house prices rose 1.1pc in the year ending September last. Those calling for deregulation seem to have forgotten the lessons of the very recent past and appear willing to take a dangerous chance with the economy.

However, if the governor can get across the message that change of the type sought is not coming - and he could hardly have made his intentions in this regard more plain when he stated that the regulations are "a permanent feature of the Irish market" - then the mortgage market will absorb this position and adjust accordingly, perhaps even allowing for a little more reality to come into the price structure. For it is more affordable houses for purchase that are needed, not access to cash to fund current unrealistic prices.

It is true that the mortgage market and the rental sectors are allied, but they are not necessarily inextricably linked, certainly not to the extent that only a liberalisation of mortgage rules can solve the crisis in renting.

The rental market needs specific measures aimed at curing its ills, as it follows the mortgage market with an upward spiral of 5.2pc in the year to September last. These measures relate largely to the rights of tenants and landlords, as well as the creation of a public housing stock for rent at affordable rates.

Some see constitutional protection of some property rights as inimical to the common good in this regard, but there is much that can be done as things stand. However, if it can be shown that constitutional change is necessary to achieve equity and fairness, and end the curse of homelessness, the Government should not shy away from such action.

But in the meantime, a much more radical and pro-active approach than we have seen heretofore, is needed; and needed urgently.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Another misleading nonsense figure.

It will cost the government more in what statistic?

Over 30 years? 20? 5?

What do we do with the family on HAP in the meantime as we put the money from HAP into building social housing?

Can’t do both with the same money, but I know you socialists have no grasp of where money comes from.

20 years it says. Did you not read it?

Don't take it from HAP? Had a similar conversation when 'emergency accommodation' was the new thing.
After refusing to build social housing in any meaningful numbers for almost a decade, I didn't think even any blueshirt brethren would have the gall to turnaround and re-use the 2011 mantra, 'it can't be done over night'. It'll never get done if you never make a start.

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We've covered this. People also use to live in slums, until the social housing concept. Progressing with the time, I thought would have been common sense. The idea anyone suggested we replicate homes from the 1930's and 50's down to the lead pipes is childish diversion that nobody takes serio
It's about social and affordable housing, the proven concept. The saving for the tax payer, the increase in state/LA owned housing stock.
So it's red tape stopping us? Sure...okay...
We shouldn't be building sub standard housing, like many of the apartment unsafe private builds, no.

Can you put up the cost analysis of how many social houses you want built and how it will save the taxpayer?

Cheers.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

20 years it says. Did you not read it?

Don't take it from HAP? Had a similar conversation when 'emergency accommodation' was the new thing.
After refusing to build social housing in any meaningful numbers for almost a decade, I didn't think even any blueshirt brethren would have the gall to turnaround and re-use the 2011 mantra, 'it can't be done over night'. It'll never get done if you never make a start.

so if we don't take it from HAP, if we don't increase LPT, if we don't collect the rent from council tenants and if we don't re-introduce rates, where are the billions required for social housing going to come from?

And please be realistic with your answers, because it won't be from any of the following:

(A) Esrow account with Apple money
(B) The magic money tree
(C) Noonan (or his friends)
(D) John Delaney's birthday party
(E) Dara Murphy's overpayment
(F) Cancelling the whitewater rafting facility
(G) Cutting the pay of TDs
(H) Maria Bailey
(I) Any other proposal that is unrealistic or won't generate sufficient funds

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

20 years it says. Did you not read it?

Don't take it from HAP? Had a similar conversation when 'emergency accommodation' was the new thing.
After refusing to build social housing in any meaningful numbers for almost a decade, I didn't think even any blueshirt brethren would have the gall to turnaround and re-use the 2011 mantra, 'it can't be done over night'. It'll never get done if you never make a start.

It’s actually laughable that you think in 2011 when the IMF were in and we literally were borrowing day to day to keep the country afloat and when we had too many houses after the crash that you think the government should started to build social houses.

I dunno seriously.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-rent-freeze-4925675-Dec2019

FF are backing a rent freeze for 3 years, SF's idea. I did this in college in economics, when you do things like this less properties become available to rent, supply and demand 101. They need to be careful here, although I can't see this actually happening.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

Rent controls have almost always failed in fixing housing issues. This time around it would be no different.


Oh but there is. I think you need to do more research on that one before you come back with a rebuttal.

I keep telling you: Rent controls are not for fixing housing/supply issues - they are for capping rent.

You combine rent controls with other policies for alleviating suppply. I've said this 3-4 times to you now.

If you're claiming State Aid blocks government directly building housing (something they have always done, and still do today, just not in large enough numbers) - then you need something to back that up - the evidence is very much against you.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

It’s actually laughable that you think in 2011 when the IMF were in and we literally were borrowing day to day to keep the country afloat and when we had too many houses after the crash that you think the government should started to build social houses.

I dunno seriously.

If that's what I had said, sure. Knock your giddy self out.
Are you skipping the point completely now? Okey doke.

Building is cheaper than leasing, renting or buying.

HAP/Emergency accommodation monies are for that.

Maybe dismantle IW?

Jinglejangle69

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If that's what I had said, sure. Knock your giddy self out.
Are you skipping the point completely now? Okey doke.

Building is cheaper than leasing, renting or buying.

HAP/Emergency accommodation monies are for that.

Maybe dismantle IW?

So no cost analysis then?

For all your great ideas and bluster you can’t even produce the maths to prove your point.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

So no cost analysis then?

For all your great ideas and bluster you can’t even produce the maths to prove your point.

Just read that one. I've done it before on here. Not doing it again. You've been here before, said so yourself. You know this is a diversion tactic. How about you show me the savings we make leasing over and above building our own?

How do developers make money?
How do vulture funds make money?

They build or have built housing and the state/LA's lease, rent or buy it off them.
It's basic market place economics.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If that's what I had said, sure. Knock your giddy self out.
Are you skipping the point completely now? Okey doke.

Building is cheaper than leasing, renting or buying.

HAP/Emergency accommodation monies are for that.

Maybe dismantle IW?

Your analysis doesn't add up.

On the one hand, you have told us that there is no permanent welfare culture, that people will get jobs. As a result, there are no people who will be on the long-term HAP or in social housing.

On the other hand, if you are right about building being cheaper than leasing, renting or buying, then there must be long-term HAP.

Which is it?

beauf

blanch152 wrote: »

Central government isn't paying for the white water rafting facility - the business rates payers of Dublin city are.

Central government isn't paying for 50k football birthday parties - the FAI is.
....

Govt contributes to FAI and DCC funding

Sources of Council Funds
Goods & services, e.g. Housing Rents, Parking Fees, Planning Fees
Commercial Rates
Government Grants
Local Property Tax/GPG

The local authority said €8m will come from grants that have not yet been awarded. The remaining costs will come from local development levies and a further €8m from council reserves and borrowing.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Just read that one. I've done it before on here. Not doing it again. You've been here before, said so yourself. You know this is a diversion tactic. How about you show me the savings we make leasing over and above building our own?

How do developers make money?
How do vulture funds make money?

They build or have built housing and the state/LA's lease, rent or buy it off them.
It's basic market place economics.

Look at the Children's Hospital.

A private company proposed to build the Children's hospital on a greenfield site at Newland's Cross for €500m in 2006 and 2010. The then FF governments rejected the offer.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/developer-renews-offer-to-build-childrens-hospital-133491.html

Since then, the public sector has taken on the task and it will cost three times as much.

So, it is clear that when the public sector builds something itself, it costs three times as much as when it buys it from the private sector. That is clear evidence that would lead you to conclude that it would be cheaper to buy privately built housing as well. That is the hard reality of what happened with the children's hospital.

Can you explain, giving examples from the last 20 years, how it will be cheaper to build ourselves?

blanch152

beauf wrote: »

Govt contributes to FAI and DCC funding

"local development levies and a further €8m from council reserves and borrowing."


That means that €17m will come from council funds that could be spent on social housing, with only €8m in sports grants from the government.

Idbatterim

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-rent-freeze-4925675-Dec2019

FF are backing a rent freeze for 3 years, SF's idea. I did this in college in economics, when you do things like this less properties become available to rent, supply and demand 101. They need to be careful here, although I can't see this actually happening.

I'd would question people opinion or motives on this. Prices are already insane, whats going to happen? they dont get a little more "insane" the vulture funds etc are creaming it off on high rents on BTL etc. I am sure there MIGHT be some arguments against them, it may slow down building. But thats where you just have an appropriate vacant site levy, to stop the bull****.

These issues have been dealt with and addressed adequately in other non banana republics, decades ago! But yet, somehow, Ireland is different :rolleyes:

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Your analysis doesn't add up.

On the one hand, you have told us that there is no permanent welfare culture, that people will get jobs. As a result, there are no people who will be on the long-term HAP or in social housing.

On the other hand, if you are right about building being cheaper than leasing, renting or buying, then there must be long-term HAP.

Which is it?

No I never not did I haven't.
Taking reading into it and inferring to new heights.

What?
Social housing is to supply housing for people on lower incomes. We will always have people in society who are on low income or unemployed.
I have said fraudsters are not the big problem. I have said people gaming the system should be dealt with. These are all different topics.
Basically do we want to build our own or rent/lease/buy our own at market.

How about you tell me why rent/leasing/buying is cheaper for the tax payer?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Look at the Children's Hospital.

A private company proposed to build the Children's hospital on a greenfield site at Newland's Cross for €500m in 2006 and 2010. The then FF governments rejected the offer.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/developer-renews-offer-to-build-childrens-hospital-133491.html

Since then, the public sector has taken on the task and it will cost three times as much.

So, it is clear that when the public sector builds something itself, it costs three times as much as when it buys it from the private sector. That is clear evidence that would lead you to conclude that it would be cheaper to buy privately built housing as well. That is the hard reality of what happened with the children's hospital.

Can you explain, giving examples from the last 20 years, how it will be cheaper to build ourselves?

Eh, t'wasn't FF pushed to use Jamebo despite advice against it.
Wasn't the FF health, finance ministers took their eye off the ball.

It's clear they made a balls of the NCH, yes.
Just because the FG government are incompetent, (giving the benefit of the doubt) doesn't mean the principle isn't sound.
The alternative would be a private company building the NCH and selling it to us at a profit. So take the cost to build and add on whatever they feel is a fair price.
Any way, we have also seen that the FG government makes a balls when going the other route too. Broadband, Irish water metering. Both private companies paid to provide a service. Not working out well either, but a different field.
Developers build to sell at profit. People pay developers to build. You can pay someone to build for you or you can buy at their profit off the market. Building is cheaper. When leasing, in the long run, building is cheaper.
You seem to be making excuses for policies you've never come out in support of, just to knock alternatives, which you sometimes claim, or thank posters who claim, are never forthcoming.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Eh, t'wasn't FF pushed to use Jamebo despite advice against it.
Wasn't the FF health, finance ministers took their eye off the ball.

It's clear they made a balls of the NCH, yes.
Just because the FG government are incompetent, (giving the benefit of the doubt) doesn't mean the principle isn't sound.
The alternative would be a private company building the NCH and selling it to us at a profit. So take the cost to build and add on whatever they feel is a fair price.
Any way, we have also seen that the FG government makes a balls when going the other route too. Broadband, Irish water metering. Both private companies paid to provide a service. Not working out well either, but a different field.
Developers build to sell at profit. People pay developers to build. You can pay someone to build for you or you can buy at their profit off the market. Building is cheaper. When leasing, in the long run, building is cheaper.
You seem to be making excuses for policies you've never come out in support of, just to knock alternatives, which you sometimes claim, or thank posters who claim, are never forthcoming.

The thanks analysis again, I thank a lot of posts, I even thanked one of yours once. Why you bother scrolling through posts to analyse who is thanking who is beyond me? The only thanker I have ever noticed is davycc who always thanks but never posts, other than that I don't get into the detailed analysis that you do.

You still haven't demonstrated how the government building houses will be cheaper than buying them. In fact, by your list of disasters, all you have shown is that the public service is incapable of organising something as big as a massive capital housing project, bigger than the Children's hospital and bigger than broadband. You can't have it both ways.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The thanks analysis again, I thank a lot of posts, I even thanked one of yours once. Why you bother scrolling through posts to analyse who is thanking who is beyond me? The only thanker I have ever noticed is davycc who always thanks but never posts, other than that I don't get into the detailed analysis that you do.

You still haven't demonstrated how the government building houses will be cheaper than buying them. In fact, by your list of disasters, all you have shown is that the public service is incapable of organising something as big as a massive capital housing project, bigger than the Children's hospital and bigger than broadband. You can't have it both ways.

I have shown you up enough today in your efforts to make things personal. I have also asked you to play the ball not the man.

You are dishonestly inferring things which are not there. This is your style.

Just because the FG government are incompetent, (giving the benefit of the doubt) doesn't mean the principle isn't sound.
The alternative would be a private company building the NCH and selling it to us at a profit. So take the cost to build and add on whatever they feel is a fair price.
Any way, we have also seen that the FG government makes a balls when going the other route too. Broadband, Irish water metering. Both private companies paid to provide a service. Not working out well either, but a different field.
Developers build to sell at profit. People pay developers to build. You can pay someone to build for you or you can buy at their profit off the market. Building is cheaper. When leasing, in the long run, building is cheaper.

I have at great length shown it.
Again, how do developers make money? If buying is cheaper why are they in the building and selling business? Can you explain that?

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We've covered this. People also use to live in slums, until the social housing concept. Progressing with the time, I thought would have been common sense. The idea anyone suggested we replicate homes from the 1930's and 50's down to the lead pipes is childish diversion that nobody takes seriously.

Thats fine, but one has to then take on board all the extra red tape and costs, when building these new social houses. In other words, its much more difficult and expensive today than in 1950.

It's about social and affordable housing, the proven concept. The saving for the tax payer, the increase in state/LA owned housing stock.
So it's red tape stopping us? Sure...okay...
We shouldn't be building sub standard housing, like many of the apartment unsafe private builds, no.

Red tape is one thing holding us back, among others. Back in the day, a LA could bang up any old type of social housing. Sometimes they were good quality, sometimes not. Today, there are dozens of hoops one has to go through to even get a brick laid and angry residents ready to scupper plans.
This is not advocating substandard housing, but more of a point about the extra complexity that people do not take into account when talking about the golden era's of social housing builds.

markodaly

I would recommend listening to this podcast by Karl Deeter and Eamon Dunphy where he talks about the issues with housing holding us back.

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy/ep-570-we-have-to-be-honest-no-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis

Essentially he says the problem is not 'da guberment' its Irish Society.

Jinglejangle69

markodaly wrote: »

I would recommend listening to this podcast by Karl Deeter and Eamon Dunphy where he talks about the issues with housing holding us back.

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy/ep-570-we-have-to-be-honest-no-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis

Essentially he says the problem is not 'da guberment' its Irish Society.

Anyone who sits back and analyses the situation will see this.

Unfortunately we live in an age of wanting everything now and blaming the government for not getting it.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

I would recommend listening to this podcast by Karl Deeter and Eamon Dunphy where he talks about the issues with housing holding us back.

https://soundcloud.com/thestandwitheamondunphy/ep-570-we-have-to-be-honest-no-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis

Essentially he says the problem is not 'da guberment' its Irish Society.

The guy works for mortgage brokers and financial advisors, i.e. he might as well have a giant sign saying "Conflicts of Interest / Lobbyist" over his head.

markodaly

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/fianna-fail-rent-freeze-4925675-Dec2019

FF are backing a rent freeze for 3 years, SF's idea. I did this in college in economics, when you do things like this less properties become available to rent, supply and demand 101. They need to be careful here, although I can't see this actually happening.

They refused to back the idea 6 months ago, but FF are the masters of populist politics.

This WILL make the situation worse. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

The guy works for mortgage brokers and financial advisors, i.e. he might as well have a giant sign saying "Conflicts of Interest / Lobbyist" over his head.

Did you listen to what he said, nope... ok so.. well done on a great rebutal and pushing a logical fallacy at the same time. Quite an achievement.