Sinn Fein - 230k cap on affordable housing

Hubertj

predictable but pathetic populist boll*xology from SF. If programme for government included 1 million house, SF would say 2 million. And 24% people voted for these spoofers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sinn-fein-call-for-230k-cap-on-price-of-affordable-urban-housing-1009670.html

19233974

Hubertj wrote: »

predictable but pathetic populist boll*xology from SF. If programme for government included 1 million house, SF would say 2 million. And 24% people voted for these spoofers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sinn-fein-call-for-230k-cap-on-price-of-affordable-urban-housing-1009670.html

Although unrealistic, SF are not the people who got us into the absolute sh*tshow of a situation with the housing market. So your anger should probably be redirected to the people actually responsible for the housing crisis

The Belly

Hubertj wrote: »

predictable but pathetic populist boll*xology from SF. If programme for government included 1 million house, SF would say 2 million. And 24% people voted for these spoofers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sinn-fein-call-for-230k-cap-on-price-of-affordable-urban-housing-1009670.html

People voted for them as there is was no other choice. What is important is that people who never would vote SF are sending out a signal to FF FG that the old policys cant continue.

Since 2008 wages are stagnent the cost of living and taxes have continued up and the ability to afford a average house is beyond most people.

Effectively gutting middle Ireland.

SF's past and all the other reasons the media give don't cut it anymore. Voters are willing to take the risk as no other options are available.

Hubertj

19233974 wrote: »

Although unrealistic, SF are not the people who got us into the absolute sh*tshow of a situation with the housing market. So your anger should probably be redirected to the people actually responsible for the housing crisis

i agree with you but contributions like this from SF do nothing to help. First of all it is populist crap. Secondly, they are trying to deflect from the carry on last week - Paddy Holohan being put forward as mayor and then the party attending the funeral of a murdering terrorist in contravention of all guidelines.

fliball123

Hubertj wrote: »

i agree with you but contributions like this from SF do nothing to help. First of all it is populist crap. Secondly, they are trying to deflect from the carry on last week - Paddy Holohan being put forward as mayor and then the party attending the funeral of a murdering terrorist in contravention of all guidelines.

There needs to be more transparency and more accountability for government , all of them will sell you the sun moon and stars to get a bit of power. I would like all parties to come out with their top 10 things they want to achieve with full costings of where the money is coming from if they got into power. Then after the 4 years depending on how much they have done this would be reflected in their pensions as in if they got 1 thing achieved they receive 1/10th of their pension and so forth. The only way to put manners on politicians is by hitting them where it hurts "the pocket"

19233974

Hubertj wrote: »

i agree with you but contributions like this from SF do nothing to help. First of all it is populist crap. Secondly, they are trying to deflect from the carry on last week - Paddy Holohan being put forward as mayor and then the party attending the funeral of a murdering terrorist in contravention of all guidelines.

FF havent exactly covered themselves in glory over the last week either. Im not a SF supporter, beyond their top 3-4 guys the rest are absolute idiots, and i think most people are aware of that. However i think they will provide good opposition and actually challenge some of the ludicrious policies of the govt. in regards to housing instead of the yes men that FF provided over the last number of years.

They got their votes based on the desire for change and SF were the only option as an alternative.

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split

maxwell smart

I hope people realise this is all political point scoring as there is no hope of either side doing anything like they have promised.

Eoin is asking for the government to double it's commitment but at the same time saying they are incapable of delivering the original commitment.

This is why people are completely pi**ed off with politics and are beginning to lean towards populist platforms which have no substance behind them (although in fairness that's what we have always had, just without the extreme views).

All parties are in it for one thing, themselves

Naos

How much would it cost to build the house that is capped at 230k?

Truthvader

Where's Francie?

This thread has been critical of Sinn Fein for about an hour now and still no sign

Yurt2

Truthvader wrote: »

Where's Francie?

This thread has been critical of Sinn Fein for about an hour now and still no sign

You weren't long answering the batsignal yourself.

FWIW, FF's new housing minister is giving figures of 160-180k and 250k for larger housing units for affordable purchase.

SF's costings were more or less in the same ranges I think I recall and were based off constructions by housing associations they wish to scale up.

Knock yourselves out...

The_Conductor

Guys- if this thread descends into various political factions bashing lumps out of each other- I will close this thread without hesitation.
This is your one and only warning.

Eric Cartman

while I am absolutely loathe to agree with SF in any capacity but.. ,

230k is 207k (90%) and a 23k deposit

207k / 3.5 is 59k household income under ICB rules

from the CSO :

The median gross income per household was €45,256 in 2016, see Table 1.1.

Even their 230k cap is not affordable to the average household.

45,256 x 3.5 = 158.4k ( @ 90%) + deposit (17.6k) = 176k is the price an affordable house should be .

I don't usually agree with caps and other crap like this but I would thoroughly agree that no developer/council/policitian/planner should be able to call an affordable house 'affordable' unless its 176k or less. If you're planning rules or development plans stipulate that there has to be affordable housing, it should have to be affordable by that metric.

Assetbacked

I posted in the other thread, but the fact FF, FG and the Greens are now huddled together means that, if voters are not happy with the housing situation and want an alternative at the next election, they will look for an alternative party which means SF gain even further. Like it or not (I don't like it), the fact housing (in particular rent) has gone to Celtic Tiger levels in a very short space of time, is coming at a cost to the younger generations and this will be even further reflected in their voting preferences (i.e. SF popularity) over the coming elections unless something dramatic changes.

Fred Cryton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

while I am absolutely loathe to agree with SF in any capacity but.. ,

230k is 207k (90%) and a 23k deposit

207k / 3.5 is 59k household income under ICB rules

from the CSO :


Even their 230k cap is not affordable to the average household.

45,256 x 3.5 = 158.4k ( @ 90%) + deposit (17.6k) = 176k is the price an affordable house should be .

I don't usually agree with caps and other crap like this but I would thoroughly agree that no developer/council/policitian/planner should be able to call an affordable house 'affordable' unless its 176k or less. If you're planning rules or development plans stipulate that there has to be affordable housing, it should have to be affordable by that metric.

Does that CSO figure include all households, even pensioners?


I saw somewhere the average salary of full time worker was €49k. So surely the average household income of a household where at least one person was working full time and earning €49k, would be a lot more than €49k. You might have two people in the household both earning the average of €49k which would be €100k.

19233974

Eric Cartman wrote: »

while I am absolutely loathe to agree with SF in any capacity but.. ,

230k is 207k (90%) and a 23k deposit

207k / 3.5 is 59k household income under ICB rules

from the CSO :


Even their 230k cap is not affordable to the average household.

45,256 x 3.5 = 158.4k ( @ 90%) + deposit (17.6k) = 176k is the price an affordable house should be .

I don't usually agree with caps and other crap like this but I would thoroughly agree that no developer/council/policitian/planner should be able to call an affordable house 'affordable' unless its 176k or less. If you're planning rules or development plans stipulate that there has to be affordable housing, it should have to be affordable by that metric.

Tbf o broin is an actual expert in this area and it is definitely possible, big issue is land cost. The state being the biggest land owner obviously solves this problem.

3 bed terrace at 160sqm, at €1200 per sqm and you have your house for 192k.

So plenty of room for that target provided the state provides the land, which isnt a bad deal considering they are signing up for insnae 25 year leases at 2k per month or 750k per unit off some of the REITs and private developers.

Yurt2

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Does that CSO figure include all households, even pensioners?


I saw somewhere the average salary of full time worker was €49k. So surely the average household income of a household where at least one person was working full time and earning €49k, would be a lot more than €49k. You might have two people in the household both earning the average of €49k which would be €100k.

Average Vs median

Median is obviously has more utility when we're talking about housing affordability.

If you take 9 public servants and Bono, and calculate the average income vs the median income, you'll get two very different answers.

Eric Cartman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Does that CSO figure include all households, even pensioners?


I saw somewhere the average salary of full time worker was €49k. So surely the average household income of a household where at least one person was working full time and earning €49k, would be a lot more than €49k. You might have two people in the household both earning the average of €49k which would be €100k.

two people earning 49k or above in a household is absolutely no average here.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geographicalprofilesofincomeinireland2016/incomeinireland/

Nearly two thirds (62.6%) of Irish households had a gross income of less than €60,000 in 2016. In contrast, only 14.1% had an income above €100,000, see Figure 1.2.

theres only 248,000 pensioners in Ireland. theres 2.4 million in the 'labour force' (not pensioners, disabled, in school, kids etc..)

176k is closer to the real figure than 230k for housing affordability. Its why I used median income rather than average. SF's number only helps those few at the top of that 62% and those above it, 230k represents less than 50% of the populations affordability.

Fred Cryton

Thing is, should we really be including households that are earning minimum wage? Not everyone is in a position to buy a home and people in minimum wage jobs whose employment is precarious (see the recent COVID-19 layoffs) would not exactly fit the bill.

To me affordability means a single person earning 50k being able to buy a home, or a couple earning up to 80k combined. An average nurse or primary school teacher.

The Belly

The Belly wrote: »

People voted for them as there is was no other choice..

There was plenty of choice, people are just too stupid to do anything but believe bull and ignore the good job FG has done over the last few years.

Idbatterim

Kyle Slimy Barn wrote: »

There was plenty of choice, people are just too stupid to do anything but believe bull and ignore the good job FG has done over the last few years.

Troll attempts need to be a bit more subtle...

Hubertj

19233974 wrote: »

Tbf o broin is an actual expert in this area and it is definitely possible, big issue is land cost. The state being the biggest land owner obviously solves this problem.

3 bed terrace at 160sqm, at €1200 per sqm and you have your house for 192k.

So plenty of room for that target provided the state provides the land, which isnt a bad deal considering they are signing up for insnae 25 year leases at 2k per month or 750k per unit off some of the REITs and private developers.

what is he an expert in? From what i can see he has never had a job in private sector. Does he have any experience in construction, QS etc? Its easy to write a book about how things should be done in theory...

Eric Cartman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Thing is, should we really be including households that are earning minimum wage? Not everyone is in a position to buy a home and people in minimum wage jobs whose employment is precarious (see the recent COVID-19 layoffs) would not exactly fit the bill.

To me affordability means a single person earning 50k being able to buy a home, or a couple earning up to 80k combined. An average nurse or primary school teacher.

dual civil servant households never had an issue getting a mortgage.

Your average is still two professionals, nobody is advocating for a mortgage for 2 people stacking shelves for 9.80 an hour having a mortgage but if you had a couple where he’s on 35 and she works part time for 10-15k a year , that couple are not at the bottom rung, its quite average and they should be able to get a house

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Troll attempts need to be a bit more subtle...

It's not a troll attempt it is facts. SF are a basket case and anyone voting for them hasn't two brain cells to rub together.

19233974

Hubertj wrote: »

what is he an expert in? From what i can see he has never had a job in private sector. Does he have any experience in construction, QS etc? Its easy to write a book about how things should be done in theory...

How many other ministers have a book on the housing market? I have actually read it, having years of experience in construction and its extremely well researched and gives a really comprehensive view of what is a very complex problem. So i would say from a ministerial viewpoint he is an expert, and the ideal person to make policy decisions.

But you are obviously commenting having never read the book, yet seem to be happy with the likes of eoghan murphy? I take it his arts degree makes him an expert in your eyes?

Hubertj

19233974 wrote: »

How many other ministers have a book on the housing market? I have actually read it, having years of experience in construction and its extremely well researched and gives a really comprehensive view of what is a very complex problem. So i would say from a ministerial viewpoint he is an expert, and the ideal person to make policy decisions.

But you are obviously commenting having never read the book, yet seem to be happy with the likes of eoghan murphy? I take it his arts degree makes him an expert in your eyes?

I wouldn’t give my hard earned money to SF or the animals they stand in front of. Clearly FF and FG made a balls of housing policy. I never said they didn’t. SF are full of crap the same as all the others.

Cuddlesworth

Eric Cartman wrote: »

dual civil servant households never had an issue getting a mortgage.

They do now. New entrants earn much less then their older counterparts and the 3.5 rules limit them.

Cuddlesworth

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They do now. New entrants earn much less then their older counterparts and the 3.5 rules limit them.

Dual CS house could have a combined income of under €50k.

Eric Cartman

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Dual CS house could have a combined income of under €50k.

There we go, thus making 230k houses not ‘affordable’ , 179 but lets round it to 180k, 180k is an affordable house

19233974

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There we go, thus making 230k houses not ‘affordable’ , 179 but lets round it to 180k, 180k is an affordable house

yes but 230k is likely the minimum price you could realistically build a 3 bed for in dublin if you included land costs. and 230k is sure as hell better than what we have at the moment, if it ever came to pass.

The only way of solving this is for the government to build, otherwise we are relying on deals with REITs etc. for the provision of housing which is insanity

Eric Cartman

19233974 wrote: »

yes but 230k is likely the minimum price you could realistically build a 3 bed for in dublin if you included land costs. and 230k is sure as hell better than what we have at the moment, if it ever came to pass.

The only way of solving this is for the government to build, otherwise we are relying on deals with REITs etc. for the provision of housing which is insanity

There is absolutely no way you could build a house for 230k inside the m50 or even outside it where there is reliable public transport aslong as you have to buy land. I think the idea of ‘affordable’ dublin housing without a massive government subsidy is pretty much dead.

If you look on daft for 3 beds and soecify all of dublin and dublin commuter towns, 175k limit, you get a few in oarts of clondalkin that I wouldnt let a dog live in, places in need of atleast 100k of resfurbishment, drogheda and portarlington.

Idbatterim

Kyle Slimy Barn wrote: »

It's not a troll attempt it is facts. SF are a basket case and anyone voting for them hasn't two brain cells to rub together.

I hear about 50,000 social houses. Listen , nobody gives a toss about them , people in general that vote for ffg , won't be qualifying for social houses. Many would have been those on the bread line themselves, qualifying for nothing and paying extortionate rent etc... paying a marginal tax rate of fifty percent over a pittance. To compensate for no water charges , as good as no lpt , as good as green motor tax now for most cars...

Ffg are done if they dont alert put housing for workers, cant wait to see how the next few years pan out... it must devastate them , that the young and young ish have had enough. Throwing more money at pensioners isnt enough to buy them power any more... normally corrupt incompetent disgraces.

Fg have presided over nearly a decade of free housing for some , prime location, a rated homes. Endless welfare etc , sf cant do much worse. At least However they may address the issue of housing for the working poor and middle class ...

19233974

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There is absolutely no way you could build a house for 230k inside the m50 or even outside it where there is reliable public transport aslong as you have to buy land. I think the idea of ‘affordable’ dublin housing without a massive government subsidy is pretty much dead.

If you look on daft for 3 beds and soecify all of dublin and dublin commuter towns, 175k limit, you get a few in oarts of clondalkin that I wouldnt let a dog live in, places in need of atleast 100k of resfurbishment, drogheda and portarlington.

well you definitely can, if it was a government initiative the land would have to be provided. Which is a small problem in the grand scheme of things as the state owns a hell of a lot of land!

you could easily build 3 beds for 230k, and go a long way towards relieving the pressure on the system. Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

DubCount

230k....how do you reduce the cost to achieve this? Reduce wages for those in the building trade, reduce VAT on property, reduce charges by local authorities to connect services, reduce building regulations on energy efficiency etc. ......

I would to see 3 bed houses in Dublin for that price, but who takes the pain to achieve it.

Yellow_Fern

19233974 wrote: »

well you definitely can, if it was a government initiative the land would have to be provided. Which is a small problem in the grand scheme of things as the state owns a hell of a lot of land!

you could easily build 3 beds for 230k, and go a long way towards relieving the pressure on the system. Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

If you give land away for free its just a handout to a certain class of society. Id much rather land be sold and used to pay for metros and public transport that would benfit everyone.

Yellow_Fern

19233974 wrote: »

Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

The gov doesnt do deals with REITs.

19233974

19233974 wrote: »

well you definitely can, if it was a government initiative the land would have to be provided. Which is a small problem in the grand scheme of things as the state owns a hell of a lot of land!

you could easily build 3 beds for 230k, and go a long way towards relieving the pressure on the system. Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

They would be small 3 beds. Even in the west build costs are minimum 155 euro a sq foot with a contractor (hence why I’m going direct labour myself). In Dublin that could easily be 170 to 180 a square foot. This is excluding land cost.

Yellow_Fern

Bear in mind that if you are using build cost estimates from a few years ago they are out of date, since NZEB regulations came in in last December.

Idbatterim

DubCount wrote: »

230k....how do you reduce the cost to achieve this? Reduce wages for those in the building trade, reduce VAT on property, reduce charges by local authorities to connect services, reduce building regulations on energy efficiency etc. ......

I would to see 3 bed houses in Dublin for that price, but who takes the pain to achieve it.

Reduce the government take. Adjust social housing rents from the near free amount they are now too.. let them implement a proper lpt too... I'd also abolish stamp duty if it's going to he your ppr

handlemaster

19233974 wrote: »

Although unrealistic, SF are not the people who got us into the absolute sh*tshow of a situation with the housing market. So your anger should probably be redirected to the people actually responsible for the housing crisis

Nor are they ones to get us out of it.

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There is absolutely no way you could build a house for 230k inside the m50 or even outside it where there is reliable public transport aslong as you have to buy land. I think the idea of ‘affordable’ dublin housing without a massive government subsidy is pretty much dead.

Except for the units that have already been built within the m50 under the O’Culann model, and some units for significantly less than that, for affordable purchase.

Too many people are completely psychologically wedded to developer led housing provision in this country.

There will also be massive slack in the construction industry over the next couple of years. It would be a ballsy guy to invest in office space or hotels in the next 24-36 months. Now is the perfect time to seriously ramp up affordable housing construction in the state.

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If you give land away for free its just a handout to a certain class of society. Id much rather land be sold and used to pay for metros and public transport that would benfit everyone.

What class of person would that be? A couple applying for a mortgage for an affordable home that they will maintain and raise a family in?

There's more than economics and differing views on how housing can be financed and reasonably paid for here, there's also nuclear powered snobbery.

Affordable housing should be the goal of the government. Locking huge amounts of people out of home ownership creates huge problems, not least the slow moving train crash of having hundreds of thousands (millions?) heading for being caught in the private rental trap in their old age. You, I, the next working generation and everyone else will end up paying through the nose for that disaster if we allow it to happen.

Old diesel

Yurt! wrote: »

Except for the units that have already been built within the m50 under the O’Culann model, and some units for significantly less than that, for affordable purchase.

Too many people are completely psychologically wedded to developer led housing provision in this country.

There will also be massive slack in the construction industry over the next couple of years. It would be a ballsy guy to invest in office space or hotels in the next 24-36 months. Now is the perfect time to seriously ramp up affordable housing construction in the state.

The Hugh Brennan model is excellent.

On the wider idea - I assume that 230 k is the capped cost to the buyer.

And there would be nothing to stop SF etc achieving the 230 k price by doing something like..


Price of house 270 k.

State support - 40 k.

Buyer still pays 230 k (270 k - 40 k).

Yellow_Fern

Yurt! wrote: »

Except for the units that have already been built within the m50 under the O’Culann model, and some units for significantly less than that, for affordable purchase.

That model involved getting cheap land and development levy waivers. If you try to scale that mode, local authorities will need raise money from elsewhere. There is no free lunches. Why not just cut waiver development levies for all? This model also restricts resale of the property, meaning the house has less intrinsic value. It is a nice option but they are no bargains.

Yurt! wrote: »

What class of person would that be? A couple applying for a mortgage for an affordable home that they will maintain and raise a family in?

There's more than economics and differing views on how housing can be financed and reasonably paid for here, there's also nuclear powered snobbery.

Why should low income renters subsidize middle income who are privileged enough to buy these houses?

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That model involved getting cheap land and development levy waivers. If you try to scale that mode, local authorities will need raise money from elsewhere. There is no free lunches. Why not just cut waiver development levies for all? This model also restricts resale of the property, meaning the house has less intrinsic value. It is a nice option but they are no bargains.

Why should low income renters subsidize middle income who are privileged enough to buy these houses?

Low income renters are precisely the type of folks the current government plans (and the SF plans which are by in large similar) will have the boot removed from their neck by means of affordable purchase, or if they're not able to get access to a mortgage, cost rental.

People caught in the rental merry go round have been subsidising 'other classes' for quite long enough.

You're opposed to a workable solution staring you in the face for ideological reasons.

On your first point, you express concern for local authorities ability to raise revenue if development levies are waived, and then in the next sentance suggest waiving development levies for all (?).

Yellow_Fern

Yurt! wrote: »

Low income renters are precisely the type of folks the current government plans (and the SF plans which are by in large similar) will have the boot removed from their neck by means of affordable purchase, or if they're not able to get access to a mortgage, cost rental.

People caught in the rental merry go round have been subsidising 'other classes' for quite long enough.

You're opposed to a workable solution staring you in the face for ideological reasons.

On your first point, you express concern for local authorities ability to raise revenue if development levies are waived, and then in the next sentance suggest waiving development levies for all (?).

The point is this scheme is not so different to just raising income taxes and building more social houses or increasing income taxes and rolling out HAP to those on lightly higher incomes. More of the same.

fret_wimp2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Why should low income renters subsidize middle income who are privileged enough to buy these houses?

Privilege doesnt come into it for most people. People work hard to get educated, pay for school, move to where the work is, upskill and put in long hours in the office, do without nice things & save aggressively to afford these houses.

Nowhere in that do i say that low income workers dont work hard, im sure most do too, but the idea that all people who have and can afford houses are privileged is just wrong.

nerrad01

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If you give land away for free its just a handout to a certain class of society. Id much rather land be sold and used to pay for metros and public transport that would benfit everyone.

do you realise how much we are spending on HAP and providing hotels and other forms of private rental accomodation? you are already giving it away! may aswell get something for the money in the form of social housing stock

Hubertj

We need to deliver affordable housing as the current system doesn’t look sustainable. I don’t know if the new government policy is the right way. What ever happens, we need to increase supply and a % of that supply has to be delivered at a lower cost so that can it can be sold/rented at a lower rate to people that qualify for it (dunno the criteria). I just have no confidence that public service can deliver at scale efficiently.

perfectkama

nerrad01 wrote: »

do you realise how much we are spending on HAP and providing hotels and other forms of private rental accomodation? you are already giving it away! may aswell get something for the money in the form of social housing stock

Do you realize that 1/2 of it goes back to revenue as tax?
de private thing doesn't need exp management or risk of non payment of rent which is rife in state housing DOH....

Yellow_Fern

nerrad01 wrote: »

do you realise how much we are spending on HAP and providing hotels and other forms of private rental accomodation? you are already giving it away! may aswell get something for the money in the form of social housing stock

I am not convinced that any of these plans are massively cheaper. I would say though that HAP is a significant prosupply measure and there is no doubt that it incentivised house construction. Cutting development levies for all builders would be another prosupply measure.There is no magic solutions, just small differences, small benefits to some of these models. The smartest ones are where there is intelligent incentive structures ie. profit incentives.