Whatever happened to the housing crisis ?

AndyBoBandy

Simple solution then....

You don’t pay your €5 a week ‘rent’ it’s either deducted from your dole. Or you don’t pay and build up 2 months arrears, you’re out on the street, and blacklisted. Never get a house again.

Jinglejangle69

end of the road wrote: »

nope, it's the council's fault that they won't use the remedies available to deal with non-payers once it becomes clear that someone is refusing to pay, not that the rent is not paid in the first place, for which is the fault of the non-payer refusing to pay.
perhapse another read of my post will make it clear as it was quite clear what was being said.

The councils who the majority were Sinn Féin.

Are you admitting your party failed miserably comrade?

Jinglejangle69

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Simple solution then....

You don’t pay your €5 a week ‘rent’ it’s either deducted from your dole. Or you don’t pay and build up 2 months arrears, you’re out on the street, and blacklisted. Never get a house again.

They will just go to the papers blaming Leo.

Get on the radio and TV standing beside Mary Lou.

Back in a house the next month.

Job done.

AndyBoBandy

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They will just go to the papers blaming Leo.

Get on the radio and TV standing beside Mary Lou.

Back in a house the next month.

Job done.

It’s a pity our government politicians don’t have the balls to tell these people to get absolutely fcuked, in full view of the public.

We could even end up with a majority government out of that sort of political attitude.

end of the road

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They will just go to the papers blaming Leo.

Get on the radio and TV standing beside Mary Lou.

Back in a house the next month.

Job done.

that is why deducting it at source is the best option.
the rent actually gets paid and we don't end up with whatever costs there may be from refusing to house these people.

efanton

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

Simple solution then....

You don’t pay your €5 a week ‘rent’ it’s either deducted from your dole. Or you don’t pay and build up 2 months arrears, you’re out on the street, and blacklisted. Never get a house again.

It might surprise you but that's basically what the existing council tenancy agreements say.

There are strict rules regarding a council tenancy, unfortunately they are not strictly applied. If councils almost never enforce their own rules is it any surprise that many ignore them.

Also its worth noting, that it is not predominantly the unemployed that owes the councils rent. The vast majority of rent arrears is rent owed by those who actually have jobs and can best afford them.
Dublin City council is now owed €33 million in rent arrears from its council housing tenants.
Yet it is those that are working that owe the highest amounts of arrears. Just under €15 million was owed by the council’s best-paid tenants – those with household incomes of more than €800 a week. the council rents are based on the income of the highest earner in the household, and child allowance and other benefits related to children are not included in the calculation of rents.
The reality is those that are working and are council tenants are far more likely to default than those living entirely of social welfare by a very high margin.

Dublin City council have enforced only one eviction, yes one single eviction, since 2014.

There are at least 25 tenants in the top qualifying wage bracket owing more than €27,000 each in unpaid rents. These people are earning more than €800 per week after taxes and deductions so can well afford their rents

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/top-earning-city-council-tenants-most-likely-to-default-on-rent-1.4106254

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/


It could be fairly argued that council rents are too low, that antisocial behaviour is far to high in social housing estates, and that the breaking of other rules such as the keeping of horses, ponies, and other livestock, and vandalism has increased.
Yet FF and FG have been in government over the last twenty years and never once addressed this. Not once have the councils been forced to enforce their own rules and not once has a government in the last twenty years proposed an adjustment in the way that rents are calculated.

If people feel they must point fingers then they are very definitely pointing their fingers in the completely wrong direction. Its not those that are living solely on social welfare that are most to blame, in fact it is those that are council tenants and working full time that are most likely to default. Rules are there that are perfectly adequate to ensure there is no arrears, no antisocial behaviour, and no keeping of horses ponies and other livestock but it has been the FG and FF governments that refuse to enforce their own rules.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

It might surprise you but that's basically what the existing council tenancy agreements say.

There are strict rules regarding a council tenancy, unfortunately they are not strictly applied. If councils almost never enforce their own rules is it any surprise that many ignore them.

They are rarely applied because if they do, we will have the usual cranks and malcontents come out of the woodwork, with their megaphones, decrying the cruel councils, on why they are throwing Sharon and her 4 kids out onto the street...
No Local Authority wants that PR, so they just ignore it and sweep it under the carpet.

Dublin City council have enforced only one eviction, yes one single eviction, since 2014.

This answered your question above.
Who controlled DCC from 2014-2019....

Yeap SF and a bunch of left-wing parties.

So, voting for the parties is seen as a sop to these people, while others have to work for a living, pay rent, pay a mortgage, and so on. Its why the last LA elections chucked these people out on their ear.

If left-wingers actually enforced some rules and told those people screwing the system to cop on, their vote would double overnight. Instead, they defend the indefensible.

Yet FF and FG have been in government over the last twenty years and never once addressed this. Not once have the councils been forced to enforce their own rules and not once has a government in the last twenty years proposed an adjustment in the way that rents are calculated.

This is funny, you are blaming FF and FG for not telling/making SF led councils to follow the rules?

If people feel they must point fingers then they are very definitely pointing their fingers in the completely wrong direction. Its not those that are living solely on social welfare that are most to blame, in fact it is those that are council tenants and working full time that are most likely to default. Rules are there that are perfectly adequate to ensure there is no arrears, no antisocial behaviour, and no keeping of horses ponies and other livestock but it has been the FG and FF governments that refuse to enforce their own rules.

It's more complicated than that.

First of all this is Ireland. We have plenty of rules and laws, expect they are rarely enforced, and if they are then, as I mentioned, cue a media circus with a SJW element in some media just ready to jump on the bandwagon. Twitter would explode

Being Ireland, rules are there to be bent, ignored or broken.

You are blaming FF and FG for all this. You, like I, want them to be harder on this issue, but you think the likes of SF will go in and actually enforce the rules, rules they themselves ignored while in charge of many Local Authorities?
Talk about passing the buck and being fanciful.

FG and FF would be more than happy to enforce the rules I imagine if there was no political repercussions for them.
However, SF et al would love to jump up and down and cue some fake outrage if FF and FG ever went down this road.
Ireland is weird that way. Its why you can not pay your mortgage for 10 years yet still expect to live in the same house.
FG and FG would be branded Tories, or West Brits, Black and Tans, etc... if they ever actually laid down the law of enforcing rules already in place and some people lap it up.

In summary, its an easy fix alright, but we Irish are very VERY funny about this stuff.

efanton

SF do not control even close to a majority of councils in Ireland.In fact they only have a majority in two none of which are in Dublin city or county
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Irish_local_elections

Despite what you claim FF and FG control the vast majority of councils in this country and have done for decades.

Who said I personally was blaming anyone?
People have commented on the forum suggesting that it was the unemployed and those who leech of the state that were responsible for rent arrears, which is plainly untrue. The vast majority of the debt owed in council rent arrears is from people who are actually working but refuse to pay their rent.

County councils are answerable to government, and at no point did any government insist that councils enforce their rules nor did they make any attempt to adjust the way that rents are calculated or increase them. So trying to accuse any other party or independents of allowing rent arrears to build up simply will not wash and is without doubt totally untrue.

The county manager or Chief Executive who is ultimately responsible for rent collection and recovery of debt is not appointed by councillors. He/she is recruited through a competitive recruitment process organised by the Public Appointments Service and formally appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.
Clearly county councillors can not be held responsible for the massive rent arrears debts that have built up, that is the responsibility of the county manager appointed by a government minister.

There is nothing complicated about the law or the rules. If laws or rules are being flagrantly broken and ignored then that is a matter for the state to address. Suggesting that council will not collect rents because it would be bad PR is ridiculous. I'm sure the majority of the public would support any government that would ensure rents are collected because that means the roads and other local public services would have the funding to actually be repaired and maintained.
I am equally sure that any councillor who would complain or protest about councils enforcing rules, recovering debts, and as a last resort enforcing evictions would be on very shaky ground and unlikely to be reelected.
In fact I am reasonably positive that as long as the council had made every effort to engage with a tenant in arrears and made provision for the arrears to be recovered in an affordable manner, any councillor no matter which party they represent would support the councils actions.

The reality is the very people who complain most about those living in social housing or on social welfare are the very ones that have elected FF and FG governments.
They can hardly complain, when the party's they support refuses to do nothing when elected to government.
They also probably do not realise that it is not those that are living on social welfare that are racking up the massive rental debts but those who are working and fortunate enough to have a council tenancy as well. Maybe they do but conveniently omit that fact when making their complaints.

Salty

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's exactly what I'm saying, which means that unfortunately prices and rents are going to shoot through the f*cking roof once again. We need more housing right now and once this crisis is over there'll be yet another new generation looking to move out and start their own lives, yet there'll have been a gigantic pause in the entire construction sector, both state funded and private. The result of this is almost inevitably going to be yet another clusterf*ck of obscenely high opportunistic rents and house prices.

This resonates so much with me. I want nothing more than to just move out for good and buy my own house with himself. It feels further and further away every day to be honest, especially at the moment. If I can't buy a house, I probably won't have any children. Don't know why I bothered to educate myself...so I could pay taxes?

Deleted User wrote: »

I lived with my parents until I got married. My kids lived with me until they were able to afford their desired home. We took personal responsibility. Lived within our means.

Yep was living at home, working away and saving. Got made redundant. Had to move three hours away for a new job as there were no jobs in field in my local/commutable area, not even in my local province. It's not as simple as you make out and I'm sick to my back teeth of people implying all of us young people don't know the meaning of hard work and sacrifice. Don't believe everything you see on instagram; the vast majority of us are working our holes off with no reward, not swanning around in Bali.

markodaly

efanton wrote: »

SF do not control even close to a majority of councils in Ireland.In fact they only have a majority in two none of which are in Dublin city or county
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Irish_local_elections

I thought we were talking about 2014 as that is a date you gave.
Is it true or not that since 2014 up till the last Local Elections that SF controlled DCC?

County councils are answerable to government, and at no point did any government insist that councils enforce their rules nor did they make any attempt to adjust the way that rents are calculated or increase them. So trying to accuse any other party or independents of allowing rent arrears to build up simply will not wash and is without doubt totally untrue.

No, they are not. County councils are the Local Government branch of our system. They are answerable only to the locality.

However, your point is odd. Council houses are the remit of local government, as is the collection of rent, yet you want to blame the central government for this.
The point about DCC and SF remains.

The county manager or Chief Executive who is ultimately responsible for rent collection and recovery of debt is not appointed by councillors. He/she is recruited through a competitive recruitment process organised by the Public Appointments Service and formally appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government.
Clearly county councillors can not be held responsible for the massive rent arrears debts that have built up, that is the responsibility of the county manager appointed by a government minister.

A few things:
The Local Government Reform Act of 2014 gave the power to County/City Councils to veto these appointments or even remove them for misbehaviour.
The Chief Executive is the implementor of policy, a policy laid out by the elected council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Government_Reform_Act_2014

If councils are so unhappy that they are not collecting rent arrears they can remove the Chief Executive and formulate a new policy that will help collect this rent.

Its simply a sop to point all the blame at one person, that of the chief executive and for the remaining councillors to wash their hands clean of it.
Vey VERY convenient politically though.

There is nothing complicated about the law or the rules. If laws or rules are being flagrantly broken and ignored then that is a matter for the state to address. Suggesting that council will not collect rents because it would be bad PR is ridiculous. I'm sure the majority of the public would support any government that would ensure rents are collected because that means the roads and other local public services would have the funding to actually be repaired and maintained.

Ah come here you see how it works.
Just look at some of the stuff written when Margaret Cash was on her crusade for her forever home by taking over a Garda station and posting up some photos on Twitter.
Look at the stuff written when Erica Fleming was on her own crusade.

But then, after a while, we get something nearer the real story.
Margaret Cash is a convicted criminal, who inherited €100,000 and bought her son a Pony for his birthday.
https://www.thesun.ie/news/3719782/homeless-margaret-cash-mum-left-her-100k-will/
https://www.thesun.ie/news/4593918/homeless-margaret-cash-new-pad-son-pony-birthday/

Erica Fleming, a SF activist and party member, was outed as a fraud, who preferred the limelight, and turned down two housing offers.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-campaigner-erica-refused-two-house-offers-34981951.html

Now, you see how it should work and how it does work.

Neither of these people should have been given an inch of airtime, but the usual cohorts lapped it up.
Now, can you imagine if the same County/City Councilors actually went about evicting en-mass people from houses? There is a very good reason why its rare, its because they don't want the trouble.

I am equally sure that any councillor who would complain or protest about councils enforcing rules, recovering debts, and as a last resort enforcing evictions would be on very shaky ground and unlikely to be reelected.
In fact I am reasonably positive that as long as the council had made every effort to engage with a tenant in arrears and made provision for the arrears to be recovered in an affordable manner, any councillor no matter which party they represent would support the councils actions.

Wishful thinking on your behalf I am afraid.
The banks, a private institution with no fear of the electorate can rarely if ever get a house back on the books and evict someone. What chances are there a councilor who will back some anti-Tennant rules and policy?

Again, this is Ireland. The councilor in question may as well just state his undying love for the Black and Tans, they would be that popular.

In Ireland, we have a weird mix of progressive media who love a hard-luck story, a rabid loud-mouthed dumb left-wing and violent Irish nationalists who view chucking someone out on the street, even though it's warranted as a crime against the Irish nation, its people and blood.

I agree on what should happen, but I am not stupid either.

The reality is the very people who complain most about those living in social housing or on social welfare are the very ones that have elected FF and FG governments.
They can hardly complain, when the party's they support refuses to do nothing when elected to government.
They also probably do not realise that it is not those that are living on social welfare that are racking up the massive rental debts but those who are working and fortunate enough to have a council tenancy as well. Maybe they do but conveniently omit that fact when making their complaints.

Perhaps you are right, yet people view FF and FF as 'right' wing, when really in an international context they are not.
Do you think any other party is going to go after these people in rent arrears?

SF actively supports these chancers because they are core voters. You said it yourself
PBP/SOL is very public about supporting illegal acts of not paying rent and squatting in a house.
The Unions have Labour in their pocket so no go there.

So, where do you think this change is going to come from?

efanton

So in short, everything is SF fault. Every failure of the previous FF ad FG government is SF fault. Everything that that might go wrong in the future is SF's fault. Now that FF and FG have essentially become the same thing they and their supporters only have one party to blame.

You see what is happening here? FF/FG are blaming the party that has yet to go in to government for things it had no control of, and they will be damned if they will let them go into government just in case they are proven wrong yet again.

The reality is the ordinary voter has seen behind the mask, they no longer believe the lies, false promises and false accusations.

If FF/FG cant actually step up to the plate and really make the decisions this country needs then they should step aside, they talk a lot about making the tough decisions and making changes that benefits the majority of the people but for one excuse or another they never actually get around to doing that.

They claimed it was impossible for SF to build 100,000 homes during the election and yet to attract another party for their unholy coalition that is exactly what they promised last week in the Framework document. What is worse is that they claim that they can do with with no increase in income tax. At least SF were honest in their assessment that taxation would have to be increased by introducing a new tax band in order to pay for it.

FF, actually more specifically Micheal Martin, claimed
“… the best interests of the Irish people are not served by a government made up of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. We made it very clear to the Irish people and those voting for us that we would not go into government with Fine Gael and we’re remaining consistent and true to that commitment.”

During the election Martin refuted absolutely without any caveat
“any government involving Fine Gael is not change.” He later said: “we will not be entering into a grand coalition … the people want change … they want Fine Gael out of office … they’ve been there too long … they haven’t delivered on the key issues of housing and health and the impact of the costs living.” He described any u-turn on a coalition with Fine Gael as “Jekyll and Hyde behaviour “.

And that is the problem, FF and FG have for too long relied on this “Jekyll and Hyde behaviour “. Very few, even those that have voted for them, believe a word they say or any promise they make.

I do not believe for one second that the government cannot address the rent arrears. Making ridiculous excuses as to why they cannot is just laughable.
AS for SF councillor waiting in line to 'protect' those that abuse the system is laughable too. Dont forget for every one person abusing the system their are many more on the housing list hoping desperately to be assigned a home. Simple logic would tell you that they would get more people supporting them by forcing the county councils to enforce their rules than not and therefore they would be supporting more of their core voters by doing so.

AndyBoBandy

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

It’s a pity our government politicians don’t have the balls to tell these people to get absolutely fcuked, in full view of the public.

We could even end up with a majority government out of that sort of political attitude.

a decent proportion of council tenants are in arrears, if the government told those people to "get absolutely fcuked, in full view of the public" the lefties would orgasm with delight.

robinbird

Augeo wrote: »

a decent proportion of council tenants are in arrears, if the government told those people to "get absolutely fcuked, in full view of the public" the lefties would orgasm with delight.

Ironic but totally unsurprising the the focus of attack in on council tenants that are in arrears.

What about the €900,000,000 a year the the government is giving to private landlords. Ever consider how much less tax you would have to pay if they were not making this massive wealth transfer.
And ever consider how much lower your rent would be if the massive government payments to landlords were not distorting the market.
Of course not. Much easier to attack and blame the poor.

ILoveYourVibes

Its still there.

Blaze420

robinbird wrote: »

Ironic but totally unsurprising the the focus of attack in on council tenants that are in arrears.

What about the €900,000,000 a year the the government is giving to private landlords. Ever consider how much less tax you would have to pay if they were not making this massive wealth transfer.
And ever consider how much lower your rent would be if the massive government payments to landlords were not distorting the market.
Of course not. Much easier to attack and blame the poor.

Absolute bull**** - the government wouldn't have to prop up the likes of HAP if people got off their lazy holes and paid their own way. You can't blame the landlords for that - we have a class of people in this country content to sit on their lazy arses and contribute **** all, but who still expect the rest of us to house & feed them.

robinbird

Blaze420 wrote: »

Absolute bull**** - the government wouldn't have to prop up the likes of HAP if people got off their lazy holes and paid their own way. You can't blame the landlords for that - we have a class of people in this country content to sit on their lazy arses and contribute **** all, but who still expect the rest of us to house & feed them.

The question to ask is in whose pockets does the €900,000,000 end up. It is the developers, the vulture funds and the private landlords that end up with the money. The poor are just the facilitators which they use to make it easier to justify the transfers. And how much less would rents be if the rental market was not subsidised to this extent. Now the argument always made is that this money doesn't just help big developers. It also is necessary to support the "accidental " landlords who are using their investment properties to fund their lifestyles and pensions. But is this subsidy justified. If an accidental landlord can't make a profit without government money then he should just leave the rental market and a first time buyer would buy the property to live in.

The problem is not the poor. It is that vested interest are using them to make massive money transfers to the rich.

end of the road

Blaze420 wrote: »

Absolute bull**** - the government wouldn't have to prop up the likes of HAP if people got off their lazy holes and paid their own way. You can't blame the landlords for that - we have a class of people in this country content to sit on their lazy arses and contribute **** all, but who still expect the rest of us to house & feed them.

of course they would have to either prop up hap or build houses because there are more in genuine need then the cohort you complain about, who by the way would never be able to pay their way even if they got off their holes as who would employ them.

efanton

Blaze420 wrote: »

Absolute bull**** - the government wouldn't have to prop up the likes of HAP if people got off their lazy holes and paid their own way. You can't blame the landlords for that - we have a class of people in this country content to sit on their lazy arses and contribute **** all, but who still expect the rest of us to house & feed them.

I totally agree. But for that you would have to ensure that the minimum wage was sufficient for those people to afford the going rate for rents.

The government has chosen to keep the minimum wage at a low level, and there is obviously a cost to that in rent subsidies or providing social housing.

Minimum wage at the moment is approximately €16,000 before tax and deductions. That's approx €1,350 take home per month. Subtract housekeeping, transport, and all the other usual monthly outgoings and it would be very hard if not impossible in some places to see how someone on minimum wage could even find a place to rent that they could afford. If they cant afford to live on minimum wages is it any wonder that so many are on HAP schemes.
Add to that the thousands who are on zero hours contracts who have no idea of how much they will earn in any given month.

So the question you should be asking yourself is do we want to increase the minimum wage, or do we accept that the lowest paid will need financial support from the government?

robinbird

Some of the biggest beneficiaries of government HAP money is the cuckoo funds. Without the support of the irish taxpayer they would not be not be as profitable

Article below from 2018. It has gotten a lot worst since and FF have now done a u- turn with their 25 year lease proposals and want to give even more money to the landlords.

Fianna Fáil deputy leader Dara Calleary criticised the Government for offering tax incentives to such funds, which have been buying entire blocks of apartments.

The corporate investors have been blamed for pushing up rental prices and squeezing first-time buyers out of the market.

“It’s pretty clear that Fine Gael are on the side of the cuckoos in relation to this one,” Mr Calleary told the Dáil.

He said cuckoo funds had purchased more than 3,000 units in 2018, with the benefit of Government tax incentives.

Mr Calleary added that these much-needed housing units were being snapped up before hard-working families had a chance to buy them.

“where housing is being built, these funds are swooping in with your encouragement to take these away from people who actually want to get on the housing ladder,” he said.

“Is it not time to shout stop?” he asked.

“Do the Government have any plans to review and restrict the taxation incentives that are available to these funds to use their corporate muscle to elbow out people who want to get a start on the housing market?”

Sinn Féin’s Pearse Doherty said cuckoo funds were pushing up house prices and squeezing first-time buyers out of the market.

He said in most cases these funds did not pay corporation tax, income tax or capital gains t

Eric Cartman

robinbird wrote: »

Ironic but totally unsurprising the the focus of attack in on council tenants that are in arrears.

What about the €900,000,000 a year the the government is giving to private landlords. Ever consider how much less tax you would have to pay if they were not making this massive wealth transfer.
And ever consider how much lower your rent would be if the massive government payments to landlords were not distorting the market.
Of course not. Much easier to attack and blame the poor.

And however many properties that represents, how much of that 900 million would we save if the government bought the land, built the houses and maintained those properties themselves ? because saying it would save 900 million is deceptive. I don't think you'd save a cent doing it internally.

robinbird

efanton wrote: »

I totally agree. But for that you would have to ensure that the minimum wage was sufficient for those people to afford the going rate for rents.

The government has chosen to keep the minimum wage at a low level, and there is obviously a cost to that in rent subsidies or providing social housing.

Consider though how much the 900 million a year in government subsidies is distorting the rental market and setting the rate. Without it the minimum wage would be enough to afford the going rate.

robinbird

Eric Cartman wrote: »

And however many properties that represents, how much of that 900 million would we save if the government bought the land, built the houses and maintained those properties themselves ? because saying it would save 900 million is deceptive. I don't think you'd save a cent doing it internally.

Spend the 900 million a year building public housing on public land. Charge rent based on income to those that are allocated the properties.
Rent prices would collapse without the subsidy. House prices would also decrease as some landlords left the market.
The winners - Those in need of public housing, those renting privately, first time buyers.
The big losers - They vulture funds, the cuckoo funds, the institutional investors, the landlords.

Eric Cartman

robinbird wrote: »

Spend the 900 million a year building public housing on public land. Charge rent based on income to those that are allocated the properties.
Rent prices would collapse without the subsidy. House prices would also decrease as some landlords left the market.
The winners - Those in need of public housing, those renting privately, first time buyers.
The big losers - They vulture funds, the cuckoo funds, the institutional investors, the landlords.

id agree with this. Almost all landlords price above hap/RA thresholds to avoid social tenants.

efanton

robinbird wrote: »

Consider though how much the 900 million a year in government subsidies is distorting the rental market and setting the rate. Without it the minimum wage would be enough to afford the going rate.

I would disagree. A landlord naturally is always going to set their rent at the highest that their tenants can afford.

If the cuckoo funds disappeared over night those apartments would either be bought by other landlords or bought by those seeking to buy their own home.
In either case the lowest paid wouldn't have a chance of getting one.

You would still be left with the issue of the lowest paid workers unable to afford the rents in the private rental market.

Also one of the biggest blunders that FG ever made was to get rid of the bedsits completely. While they were there single people on low wages were able to afford those rents. Now with them gone, and only more expensive apartments available that have been totally outpriced in the market. There is no provision any more for those on a low income in the private sector.
Had FG instead insisted that the councils built 1 bed apartments or provided incentives so that low cost accommodation was available much of the exiting demand for social housing would not exit.
Again a choice the government made, but every choice comes with a cost.

robinbird

efanton wrote: »

I would disagree. A landlord naturally is always going to set their rent at the highest that their tenants can afford.

If the cuckoo funds disappeared over night those apartments would either be bought by other landlords or bought by those seeking to buy their own home.
In either case the lowest paid wouldn't have a chance of getting one.

You would still be left with the issue of the lowest paid workers unable to afford the rents in the private rental market.

Landlords set their rents at the highest that they can get. At the moment this is at the HAP level set by the government which is far above what low paid workers can afford. Take away the HAP subsidy and the landlords would have no choice but to rent them at what low paid workers could afford or else leave the rental market and let them be bought instead by owner occupiers.
It is the HAP subsidy that is keeping rents high.

efanton

robinbird wrote: »

Landlords set their rents at the highest that they can get. At the moment this is at the HAP level set by the government which is far above what low paid workers can afford. Take away the HAP subsidy and the landlords would have no choice but to rent them at what low paid workers could afford or else leave the rental market and let them be bought instead by owner occupiers.
It is the HAP subsidy that is keeping rents high.

I see your point. The HAP scheme was always going to be a bad idea, but it was a cheap alternative to actually building social houses.

The problem though is if HAP was removed now would there still be sufficient housing available to the lowest paid or for those on social welfare? The likelihood is rent would drop but not enough for them to become affordable to the low paid. Then you will have literally thousands of additional people homeless and insufficient social housing to house them. The housing waiting list would balloon to a level that could not be dealt with no matter how many social housing units were built. It would be an utter catastrophe.

robinbird

efanton wrote: »

I see your point. The HAP scheme was always going to be a bad idea, but it was a cheap alternative to actually building social houses.

The problem though is if HAP was removed now would there still be sufficient housing available to the lowest paid or for those on social welfare? The likelihood is rent would drop but not enough for them to become affordable to the low paid. Then you will have literally thousands of additional people homeless and insufficient social housing to house them. The housing waiting list would balloon to a level that could not be dealt with no matter how many social housing units were built. It would be an utter catastrophe.

Was that the case in 2014 when the HAP subisdy was a tiny proportion of what it is now. It went from 400,000 ot 700,000,000 as FG took care of their friends.

You are assuming that landlords would leave properties vacant out of spite rather than rent them for what people could afford. Don't think that would happen. And if renting became uneconomic for landlords because the subsidy was withdrawn then good riddance. Let them sell and make more properties available for owner occupiers.

efanton

robinbird wrote: »

Was that the case in 2014 when the HAP subisdy was a tiny proportion of what it is now. It went from 400,000 ot 700,000,000 as FG took care of their friends.

You are assuming that landlords would leave properties vacant out of spite rather than rent them for what people could afford. Don't think that would happen. And if renting became uneconomic for landlords because the subsidy was withdrawn then good riddance. Let them sell and make more properties available for owner occupiers.

And that massive jump happened when?

https://www.thejournal.ie/bedsit-rental-prices-779134-Feb2013/

Months after bedsits were abolished.

I'm not doubting that getting rid of HAP would release more homes for those that would wish to buy, and probably reduce the cost of purchasing a home, but it doesn't solve the problem of housing for the lowest paid who cannot even qualify for a mortgage or those living on social welfare.

Getting rid of HAP without making sure there was alternative affordable accommodation in place first, would be as disastrous as getting rid of the bedsits without making sure there was provision of cheap affordable accommodation for the low paid.

robinbird

efanton wrote: »

And that massive jump happened when?

https://www.thejournal.ie/bedsit-rental-prices-779134-Feb2013/


I'm not doubting that getting rid of HAP would release more homes for those that would wish to buy, and probably reduce the cost of purchasing a home, but it doesn't solve the problem of housing for the lowest paid who cannot even qualify for a mortgage or those living on social welfare.

Getting rid of HAP without making sure there was alternative affordable accommodation in place first, would be as disastrous as getting rid of the bedsits without make sure there was provision of cheap affordable accommodation for the low paid.

Would it? Really..If you replaced

Supply = X + €900,000,000 subsidy to landlords
with
Supply = X

What do you think would happen? Would landlords really leave properties empty rather that rent them for what people could afford

Plus you have a spare billion euro a year which could be used to do stuff like put unemployed construction workers to work building public housing.

efanton

robinbird wrote: »

Would it? Really..If you replaced

Supply = X + €900,000,000 subsidy to landlords
with
Supply = X

What do you think would happen? Would landlords really leave properties empty rather that rent them for what people could afford

Plus you have a spare billion euro a year which could be used to do stuff like put unemployed construction workers to work building public housing.

THe problem with what you are saying is you are assuming that landlords will stay in the rental business. Many will simply sell up which will mean a dramatic reduction in rental properties available. You can be certain that the vulture and cuckoo funds would sell up as well.

That will help those that are trying to get on the property ladder but be of no use to those who cant qualify for a mortgage or are on social welfare that are dependent of rental properties for a home.

I agree that that money would be better spent building more social housing and affordable housing, but you would still have a serious shortage until they were completed. Even then what they build in one year probably would not be enough.