The real problem with Housing in Ireland

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

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

If you want to argue that the price of rent/housing has zero relationship on housing supply, work away my friend.

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

Sure, its looks great on paper to say this... however, we know from evidence from decades of research that rent controls, not matter how much nice and fluffy langauge one uses about doing 'other' things as well, almost always makes the issue worse.

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.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about..

Acutal evidence.

https://housing-futures.org/2018/06/11/the-european-union-state-aid-and-social-housing-2/

The European Union, State Aid and Social Housing

I am now shifting to the Netherlands where I will spend some time with the Aedes Company. They provide both advocacy and training to social housing companies here in the Netherlands. While here, I will also visit with member companies to better understand Dutch social housing and the differences here compared to Germany and the USA. One of the most interesting topics to me is the role of the European Union in social housing. One of the big issues that became apparent before coming here is the role the EU plays in a topic called State Aid. State Aid is defined as using taxpayer resources to provide help to organizations in a way that gives an advantage over others. Some State Aid is illegal under European Union (EU) rules because it distorts competition in a way that is harmful to citizens and companies in the EU. The definition of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) is an important one in this context. (SGEI’s) are economic activities that public authorities identify as being of particular importance to citizens and that would not be supplied (or would be supplied under different conditions) if there were no public intervention. Examples are transport networks, postal services and social services. This blog consists of several sources. I used sources as needed but all credit goes to the sources listed at the end of this blog.

Issue: In the last decade, various complaints were filed with the EU regarding social housing activities in the Netherlands and Sweden. The nature of the EU’s response or the country in questions response raises questions to the scope that a housing agency or entity can receive government assistance to provide housing to middle or higher income groups. Below are case studies from both countries.

Case Study 1: The Netherlands: The Dutch situation is different from most other EU members because of the size of the sector. No other EU country has a housing stock with a share of 32 per cent social housing. The size and diversity of the Dutch social housing stock constitutes a point of concern for the level playing field between social and profit-making housing providers. This led the Dutch Association of Institutional Investors (IVBN) to file a complaint to the European Commission. The complaints focused on the fact that social housing companies in the Netherlands were developing higher end real estate. This meant the associations were challenging the private sector in the upper portions of the real estate market. The housing association received many opportunities that the private market did not. Because of this, the IVBN believed the housing associations were receiving an unfair advantage. In particular:

State guarantees for borrowings from the Social Housing Guarantee Fund-Lending to housing associations is guaranteed by a fund from a group called the WSW. WSW pools the resources and power of all housing associations, while WSW’s obligations ultimately guaranteed by the state. Housing Associations benefit because of lower rates due to the backing of public funds.
Support from the Central Housing Fund(CFV)-The CFV provides aid to housing associations that have insufficient financial means to fund important investment projects or to secure their financial continuity. The aid from the CFV is financed from a general levy on all the housing associations and not from general taxation. In other words, the CFV basically redistributes funds from financially healthier housing associations towards weaker ones.
Sale of public land by the municipalities at prices below market value-This support is available to housing associations for social housing development.
The EU Commission ruled on each of these complaints in the context of illegal state aid. The results are as follows:

WSW lending allows the housing associations an advantage as the promises reduce borrowing costs. It is selective, as only housing associations profit from such guarantees while private landlords and real estate developers do not. The final guarantee by the state is free, which represents a transfer of state resources. The measure enhances the housing associations’ competitive position in regards to their competitors like private landlords and developers. The `EC considers that the measure distorts competition. The Commission considers that given the high level of cross-border investment in real estate and the significant role of the housing associations in the Netherlands, the measure is liable of affect intra-community trade. At the very least, such support acts as a deterrent for foreign investors who may consider real estate investments in the Netherlands.
On point two, the commission once again stated that the fund was set up and run by the state and serves as an instrument of state policy. Therefore the measure involves a transfer of state resources. The decision on this point refers to the Court of Justice’s decision in the Pearle Judgment.
Buying land at below market prices was also seen as a benefit. It is an act of the state (sold by municipalities), selective (only targeted at housing associations) and there is a transfer of state resources in the form of revenue. It distorts competition and affects intra-Community trade.

For the slow learners...

The EU did not believe renting out housing to households that were not low income consisted of a public service. The EU did recognize that a housing company needs flexibility to operate and that empty units are negative. However; permanent extra capacity was not deemed by the EU as a public provision and furthermore it disturbed the completion on the real estate market. The EU believed that extra stock beyond what is necessary should be sold off and any market rate development activity should be done on the private market without any public involvements or help. Lastly, social housing should be aimed at those who are disadvantaged or low income

TLDR, if as you propose that the state, just hires directly loads of builders and developers and creates some sort of semi-state development company, they will be under the cross hairs of the EU Commision in regards EU competition law and state aid. It will be a legal minefield.

This is not to say, the state cannot do anything, but they will certainly have to be very very careful in what they can do and their remit will certainly be much less than what the state did in the 1950's and 1930's.

In other words, populist proposals for the state to just build houses for everyone is illegal under the eyes of the EU.

markodaly

Idbatterim wrote: »

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:

I know its popular to hate these 'vulture funds'.. while many of them are actually REIT's something people argued for in the past.
Also, anyone who has a private pension will more than likely own a slice of this as well.
People want their pensions to grow while hating REIT's.... doesnt really make sense.

smurgen

markodaly wrote: »

If you want to argue that the price of rent/housing has zero relationship on housing supply, work away my friend.





Sure, its looks great on paper to say this... however, we know from evidence from decades of research that rent controls, not matter how much nice and fluffy langauge one uses about doing 'other' things as well, almost always makes the issue worse.



Again, you have no idea what you are talking about..

Acutal evidence.

https://housing-futures.org/2018/06/11/the-european-union-state-aid-and-social-housing-2/


For the slow learners...



TLDR, if as you propose that the state, just hires directly loads of builders and developers and creates some sort of semi-state development company, they will be under the cross hairs of the EU Commision in regards EU competition law and state aid. It will be a legal minefield.

This is not to say, the state cannot do anything, but they will certainly have to be very very careful in what they can do and their remit will certainly be much less than what the state did in the 1950's and 1930's.

In other words, populist proposals for the state to just build houses for everyone is illegal under the eyes of the EU.

Big deal. There's plenty of business practices in Ireland that are more of less illegal in the EU as a whole and completely out of kilter e.g our insurance industry and our mortgage industry. How come when it's items that may make things cheap for the average Joe we simply must follow the rules?

markodaly

smurgen wrote: »

Big deal. There's plenty of business practices in Ireland that are more of less illegal in the EU as a whole and completely out of kilter e.g our insurance industry and our mortgage industry. How come when it's items that may make things cheap for the average Joe we simply must follow the rules?

Can you elaborate on this, by say pointing to EU rulings on the matter?

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

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.

A Conflict of Interest isn't a logical fallacy - it's a Conflict of Interest...do you just believe anything a financial advisor or commision-based broker tells you?

markodaly wrote: »

If you want to argue that the price of rent/housing has zero relationship on housing supply, work away my friend.

What part of rent controls are not intended to fix supply, they are for capping rents do you not understand?

Nobody in this thread has suggested implementing rent controls, while doing nothing about supply.

You're just arguing with a straw man, here. Nobody has presented rent controls as solution for the supply problem, so it's a bit odd you keep pretending that people are.

markodaly wrote: »

Sure, its looks great on paper to say this... however, we know from evidence from decades of research that rent controls, not matter how much nice and fluffy langauge one uses about doing 'other' things as well, almost always makes the issue worse.

There is zero evidence that rent controls combined with a massive government-led accommodation construction boom, to provide supply meeting demand for accommodation, leads to a worse situation - because it's basic economics that if you build a shitload of accommodation to meet demand, you resolve the problem.

You're such a fan of supply-and-demand based economics, then work it out: Government massively increasing the supply of accommodation, to match demand, fixes the problem - even with rent controls.

markodaly wrote: »

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about..

Acutal evidence.

https://housing-futures.org/2018/06/11/the-european-union-state-aid-and-social-housing-2/

Not a single one of the 4 cases in that link applies.

You don't seem to know what State Aid is. You're just making shit up to muddy the waters. That's all anyone who ever brings up 'State Aid' does.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

I know its popular to hate these 'vulture funds'.. while many of them are actually REIT's something people argued for in the past.
Also, anyone who has a private pension will more than likely own a slice of this as well.
People want their pensions to grow while hating REIT's.... doesnt really make sense.

Well maybe people should look to move their money out of pension pots with unethical investments then.

Idbatterim

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fil-to-back-legislation-that-would-implement-statewide-rent-freeze-38771077.html

Interesting article. Fg are just out to screw anyone that isn’t a homeowner. They are all homeowners ... ff and sf seem to agree that the situation is scandalous. Fg don’t

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

A Conflict of Interest isn't a logical fallacy - it's a Conflict of Interest...do you just believe anything a financial advisor or commision-based broker tells you?

Again, you didnt even listen to the podcast, you are aruging on who he is, not on the points he raised, so all your points on this is mute and can be safely ignored. And your argument is a fallacy. You are attacking the person, not the argument.

What part of rent controls are not intended to fix supply, they are for capping rents do you not understand?

Nobody in this thread has suggested implementing rent controls, while doing nothing about supply.

You're just arguing with a straw man, here. Nobody has presented rent controls as solution for the supply problem, so it's a bit odd you keep pretending that people are.

This is tiresome. Rent controls as has been studied and proven for decades makes the supply issue worse and harder to solve over the mean.
You want to claim a win by mere boredom than anything by pointing to a 'best case' scenario that rent controls will have no baring if the state does X
This is of course a nonesense.

There is zero evidence that rent controls combined with a massive government-led accommodation construction boom, to provide supply meeting demand for accommodation, leads to a worse situation - because it's basic economics that if you build a shi/size]tload of accommodation to meet demand, you resolve the problem.

Evidence you say? Haha. Moving the goalpost.

Rent controls does more harm than good. There is mountains of evidence for this. You just want to shift the narrative and goal posts as per my point above.


Essentailly you are for rent controls (despite evidence to the contrary) as the government could impliment a solution that renders the negative effects of rent controls null and void, except you do not detail that solution. Its pie in the sky utopians as if it was that simple

You're such a fan of supply-and-demand based economics, then work it out: Government massively increasing the supply of accommodation, to match demand, fixes the problem - even with rent controls.

If the state massively increases supply then rent comes down on its own accord. Rent controls will drive away private investment and harm the supply side of things, something you think the state can just solve overnight, but as we have seen, saying and doing is very different and in actuality of the outcomes are very different from the intention. Eventually you will learn this.

Even during the 1950's/1930's goldern era of social housing builds, the private sector still built 2/3 of houses in the country. Maybe the state should do 100% of this, but again, this would be illegal under EU law, which brings us to...

Not a single one of the 4 cases in that link applies.

You don't seem to know what State Aid is. You're just making shit up to muddy the waters. That's all anyone who ever brings up 'State Aid' does.

I guess we can ignore the rulings of the EU commision, because you said so and it does not fit your overall argument. Another fallacy. You are on the way to collecting them all at this stage.

markodaly

Idbatterim wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/fianna-fil-to-back-legislation-that-would-implement-statewide-rent-freeze-38771077.html

Interesting article. Fg are just out to screw anyone that isn’t a homeowner. They are all homeowners ... ff and sf seem to agree that the situation is scandalous. Fg don’t

I dont think anyone accepts that the position is either fair, not sustainable but one has to decide the best course of action to increase supply.
FG are correct here, rent controls will damage supply and could put us back years. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

Again, you didnt even listen to the podcast, you are aruging on who he is, not on the points he raised, so all your points on this is mute and can be safely ignored. And your argument is a fallacy. You are attacking the person, not the argument.

You don't understand what is and is not a fallacy. I didn't attempt to rebut his arguments - because his arguments aren't worth spending the time listening to in the first place, given that he has strong Conflicts of Interest and it looking like he is simply a lobbyist.

Generally on Internet forums, you put arguments in your own words, not just fob people off with random links.

markodaly wrote: »

This is tiresome. Rent controls as has been studied and proven for decades makes the supply issue worse and harder to solve over the mean.
You want to claim a win by mere boredom than anything by pointing to a 'best case' scenario that rent controls will have no baring if the state does X
This is of course a nonesense.

You're the only person here talking about rent controls in isolation - as if we're going to do nothing else to work on alleviating supply.

You're simply rebutting the same straw man again and again - nobody here is advocating only rent controls, without policies to alleviate supply.

markodaly wrote: »

Evidence you say? Haha. Moving the goalpost.

Rent controls does more harm than good. There is mountains of evidence for this. You just want to shift the narrative and goal posts as per my point above.


Essentailly you are for rent controls (despite evidence to the contrary) as the government could impliment a solution that renders the negative effects of rent controls null and void, except you do not detail that solution. Its pie in the sky utopians as if it was that simple

Again, you don't understand how to apply that fallacy - you are in fact limiting the range of the goalposts, by trying to exclude government housing/accommodation construction - which is what I pretty much always say is the needed solution to the housing/rental crisis.

You have zero evidence that anything bad happens with rent controls combined with an adequately sized government housing/accommodation construction project - because there is no such evidence.

markodaly wrote: »

Even during the 1950's/1930's goldern era of social housing builds, the private sector still built 2/3 of houses in the country. Maybe the state should do 100% of this, but again, this would be illegal under EU law, which brings us to...

No it wouldn't you have provided no evidence of this - just tried to fob me off with a link - where all 4 cases in that link don't address the specific issue.

markodaly

KyussB wrote: »

You don't understand what is and is not a fallacy. I didn't attempt to rebut his arguments - because his arguments aren't worth spending the time listening to in the first place, given that he has strong Conflicts of Interest and it looking like he is simply a lobbyist.

When Karl Deeter steps in, as a presenter on the Tonight Show, is he also acting as a lobbyist? Very convenient to take that approach in life, saves you have to challenge yourself.

All in all, still a fallacy.

Generally on Internet forums, you put arguments in your own words, not just fob people off with random links.

I made my argument, multiple posts of it. I just posted up the link as a matter of interest as he had something interesting to sat. Listen to it, don't listen, I really do not give a **** tbh, but don't turn around and attack the argument when you have not even bothered to listen to what he had to say. Just ignore it, like most other normal people.

Also, funny coming from you, seeing as you love posting up links yourself.
Are you going to produce the Bank Of England link about the creation of money in this thread? :pac:

You're the only person here talking about rent controls in isolation - as if we're going to do nothing else to work on alleviating supply.

You're simply rebutting the same straw man again and again - nobody here is advocating only rent controls, without policies to alleviate supply.

Who is 'we' here?
The state?

Sure, 'we' are going to adopt rent controls and at the exact same time embark down the path of perfect policymaking to provide a multitude of homes for all. As if one can just magic away 30 years of inertia by a stroke of a pen.

Are you really that gullible? You do know this is Ireland, right?

You have zero evidence that anything bad happens with rent controls combined with an adequately sized government housing/accommodation construction project - because there is no such evidence.

This is comedy gold. You essentially want me to prove a negative.
Your argument boils down to the fact that in the event of rent controls combined with adequate state-provided housing construction that rent controls won't be an issue. The term adequate is key here of course because it is subjective. What exactly is adequite. 10,000 builds a year? Where are they going to be located? Who are they going to cater for? How do we fund them?

What I can point out though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that rent controls do more harm than good. It's near indisputable. This is combined with attempts to provide social housing, in the likes of Berlin or San Francisco. I am sure the policymakers think that their actions are/were adequate but they will be mistaken, as is usually the case when it comes to people who believe in the divine power of the state to solve all.

No it wouldn't you have provided no evidence of this - just tried to fob me off with a link - where all 4 cases in that link don't address the specific issue.

You do not have a notion or a clue. It was explicit in the EU commission ruling in regards to Holland.

If the state was going to take on the task to build ALL housing units, for everybody and everyone, then the EU would come down like a tonne of bricks.
There are limits to what the state can and cannot do now. The fact that you deny this makes you look like Nigel Farage.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

I know its popular to hate these 'vulture funds'.. while many of them are actually REIT's something people argued for in the past.
Also, anyone who has a private pension will more than likely own a slice of this as well.
People want their pensions to grow while hating REIT's.... doesnt really make sense.

I don't give fuppins ha' penny if their profits go to orphans or war widows. It makes fup all difference.

You can explain why you think we are in crisis, that doesn't take us out of crisis or solve anything.

James Brown

markodaly wrote: »

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.

Obviously. My mistake was assuming that was a given.

markodaly wrote: »

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.

So what? Sounds like you are making excuses. Houses are still being built, by who is the issue and for what.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

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.

Says who? Show one quote from any human being who expected this fixed over night or cut the bull.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

When Karl Deeter steps in, as a presenter on the Tonight Show, is he also acting as a lobbyist? Very convenient to take that approach in life, saves you have to challenge yourself.

All in all, still a fallacy.

You don't know how the Ad Hominem fallacy works. A person can't be guilty of Ad Hominem, when they explicitly refuse to engage in the persons arguments in the first place.

Ad Hominem is when you state an argument is wrong because of a persons reputation - I'm saying: Good luck getting me to waste my time listening to an audio stream you can't be arsed summarizing or putting into your own words, when the author has noteable Conflicts of Interest.

markodaly wrote: »

Also, funny coming from you, seeing as you love posting up links yourself.
Are you going to produce the Bank Of England link about the creation of money in this thread? :pac:

Sure, as requested, here you go - even just the bolded-text/bullet-points of the first page should be interesting to anyone - no Conflicts of Interest here:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf

markodaly wrote: »

What I can point out though is that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that rent controls do more harm than good. It's near indisputable. This is combined with attempts to provide social housing, in the likes of Berlin or San Francisco. I am sure the policymakers think that their actions are/were adequate but they will be mistaken, as is usually the case when it comes to people who believe in the divine power of the state to solve all.

I didn't say social housing - I said government providing a mix of for profit and social housing - enough to meet the demand needed, to alleviate the supply problem.

markodaly wrote: »

You do not have a notion or a clue. It was explicit in the EU commission ruling in regards to Holland.

If the state was going to take on the task to build ALL housing units, for everybody and everyone, then the EU would come down like a tonne of bricks.
There are limits to what the state can and cannot do now. The fact that you deny this makes you look like Nigel Farage.

Nobody is arguing for the level of social housing in the case study involving the Netherlands - there is no comparable situation to what I'm advocating in that link.

pinkyeye

blackbox wrote: »

I don't think anyone working for a charity should be paid. If they want to volunteer, fair enough.

What a silly idea. If you want a professional to run an organisation you have to pay them. :rolleyes:

jaxxx

Here's an idea (probably suggested already but no harm saying again):

- start building UP.


I'm not talking about skyscrapers, jesus no, but tall apartment blocks of good quality that are affordable. We can't keep building out laterally, eventually there's gonna be no space left! Plenty more space available in the sky!

pinkyeye

Naos wrote: »

One of the real problems is the sense of entitlement for a house.

There should be no houses provided, it should be apartments just like in every other European city, to the standard of every other European city.

Ah but not apartments in Dundrum though? According to the angry heads here. :rolleyes:

pinkyeye

The REAL problem with housing in Ireland is simple. The councils stopped building when they never should have.

For all those on here who are just here to moan about chancers/ fraudsters etc. think about it. Let's say we just decide to let everyone fend for themselves. Do you want to enjoy your lovely home and life and see children starving and dying on the streets? Or living in tenements? No you don't, so don't be silly.

Rent freeze at the moment is a really bad idea because if the Housing Minister is to be believed and they build at the rate they claim they will do then the price of housing and rent should come down. If a rent freeze comes in people are also stuck paying high rents don't forget.

Totally wrong time for a rent freeze.

blanch152

pinkyeye wrote: »

The REAL problem with housing in Ireland is simple. The councils stopped building when they never should have.

For all those on here who are just here to moan about chancers/ fraudsters etc. think about it. Let's say we just decide to let everyone fend for themselves. Do you want to enjoy your lovely home and life and see children starving and dying on the streets? Or living in tenements? No you don't, so don't be silly.

Rent freeze at the moment is a really bad idea because if the Housing Minister is to be believed and they build at the rate they claim they will do then the price of housing and rent should come down. If a rent freeze comes in people are also stuck paying high rents don't forget.

Totally wrong time for a rent freeze.

The councils stopped building because their income from household rates disappeared, and tenants stopped paying rent, something like 60% of local authority tenants are in arrears thanks to the entitlement class.

pinkyeye

blanch152 wrote: »

The councils stopped building because their income from household rates disappeared, and tenants stopped paying rent, something like 60% of local authority tenants are in arrears thanks to the entitlement class.

No the councils stopped building because of the recession, the recession is well over.

Nothing to do with rent arrears.

Idbatterim

The council are in arrears, because they can’t deduct rent from welfare or revenue. That should be the first step. The entitlement class will keep on taking the piss as long as our farcical system encourages and facilitates it ...

Jinglejangle69

Anyone listening to Pat Kenny now on newstalk?

Talking to a lad living in a hub with his missus.

Has 2 kids and his missus is expecting ANOTHER baby in January.

Just wants a house from the government.

Pat asked him does he think he’ll get a job in the future.

Probably not he said.


Give me a ****en break please!!!!!!

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Anyone listening to Pat Kenny now on newstalk?

Talking to a lad living in a hub with his missus.

Has 2 kids and his missus is expecting ANOTHER baby in January.

Just wants a house from the government.

Pat asked him does he think he’ll get a job in the future.

Probably not he said.


Give me a ****en break please!!!!!!

Yeah, nothing to do with housing policy. Did he also interview a working single lad who had to move back in with his parents, for balance like?

Here's fun*, as you're so outraged by this go vote FG

*the joke being your constant defense for the party who created and supports these situations.

Mad_maxx

pinkyeye wrote: »

No the councils stopped building because of the recession, the recession is well over.

Nothing to do with rent arrears.

Councils decided to farm out the provision of accommodation to the private sector as its politically toxic to evict the officially vulnerable

The media and the political left hate the landlord sector anyway so let them deal with that was the view of the local authorities

James Brown

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Councils decided to farm out the provision of accommodation to the private sector as its politically toxic to evict the officially vulnerable

The media and the political left hate the landlord sector anyway so let them deal with that was the view of the local authorities

Says who?
During the celtic tiger boom everyone was land obsessed. The LA's and state couldn't get rid of housing stock and land quick enough. This was greed and nothing to do with rent arrears, unless of course you can link to some evidence.

Mad_maxx

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Says who?
During the celtic tiger boom everyone was land obsessed. The LA's and state couldn't get rid of housing stock and land quick enough. This was greed and nothing to do with rent arrears, unless of course you can link to some evidence.

All the evidence that you can carry that rent arrears when it comes to local authority housing is at crisis levels

Calhoun

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Councils decided to farm out the provision of accommodation to the private sector as its politically toxic to evict the officially vulnerable

The media and the political left hate the landlord sector anyway so let them deal with that was the view of the local authorities

Indeed I would say this is the biggest roadblock to social housing, not just the eviction of tenants not paying but also the lack of control over their own housing stock.

To ensure the social housing is getting best bang for it's buck people should be moved around based upon need.and within reason. Mainly what I am pointing at is an older couple living in a family home, when there are families in need.

James Brown

Mad_maxx wrote: »

All the evidence that you can carry that rent arrears when it comes to local authority housing is at crisis levels

So none. Okay.

Rent arrears doesn't justify buying over building. It's the same tenants getting both.
So if you cut our nose to spite our face you are costing us more buying houses to use as social housing than you would be building.

NIMAN

It appears there plenty of money in homelessness.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-charities-have-millions-in-the-bank-but-spend-big-to-ease-major-crisis-38805181.html

All the groups involved seem to have plenty of cash reserves and assets.