Ronan plans to sell €960,000 apartment to council for social housing

AmberGold

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ronan-plans-to-sell-960-000-apartment-to-council-for-social-housing-1.4476385

Couple of points on this article assuming its correct;

1. WTF is the Government doing spending €960K of our money on a 88 sq meter apartment for social housing.

2. On the basis the above is a one off I also note "one-bedroom apartments potentially costing the council a variety of prices ranging from €419,020 to €637,705"

Astonishing waste of public resources as they spend €66M on 101 apartments with an average cost of €660K each!

Kivaro

News like this does not shock me anymore.
Meanwhile, a good chunk of people who went to work this morning in order to pay for these social housing projects are struggling themselves; just about keeping their heads above the water.
It is a ludicrous situation.

There's no excuse for letting the property market get so out of whack that the costs run so high and then prop it up with government spending.

suicide_circus

Public policy is ideologically wedded to having a representation of social housing in all developments even if it's a colossal waste of money

kildare lad

You could build 9 or 10 town houses for that price.

kildare lad

It's mind boggling looking at the stupidity of people in power here . Why not build social housing outside of Dublin on cheaper land . You could build 5 or 6 times the amount of houses outside of the capital at them prices.



https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/glenveagh-to-charge-council-up-to-791-500-for-family-apartments-1.4456642


Glenveagh, one of the State’s best known housebuilders, expects to charge Dublin City Council €33.44 million for 71 social housing units at a major development on Sheriff Street.

In a letter to the city council about how it might meet its Part V social housing obligations under the plan, Glenveagh estimated that the units might cost the council up to €791,531 each.

That price relates to six three-bed apartments it is offering the council in the 702 unit scheme.

The builder is also planning to sell 14 two-bed apartments to the council at a price of €641,899 each and 41 one-bed apartments for €408,074 each. Glenveagh is also planning to offer the local authority 10 studio apartments at a price of €297,323 each.

whippet

kildare lad wrote: »

Why not build social housing outside of Dublin on cheaper land . You could build 5 or 6 times the amount of houses outside of the capital at them prices.

because we developed ghettos of unemployment, crime and drug usage with this policy in the 70s & 80's

timmyntc

suicide_circus wrote: »

Public policy is ideologically wedded to having a representation of social housing in all developments even if it's a colossal waste of money

If the council buys 1 social unit in even the most expensive estates, the value of all other units will fall.
Council probably deliberately put the worst tenants in the nicest places, and then when prices fall through the floor theyll buy another few. genius

Developers know the council will pay.
Unlike most modern sophisticated high rise cities we will be left with a scrote infested slum.

This won't end well for sure. Tonnes of apartments down that way already acquired by the council and dished out.

neon123

whippet wrote: »

because we developed ghettos of unemployment, crime and drug usage with this policy in the 70s & 80's

Surely there needs to be some sort of middle ground though? I understand the need to spread people around to avoid epicentres of unemployment, but reasonableness seems to be absent in these situations where limited public resources are used to pay for high end plush apartments. Whats worrying is the lack of pushback that these type spends receive.

CrazyFather1

kildare lad wrote: »

It's mind boggling looking at the stupidity of people in power here . Why not build social housing outside of Dublin on cheaper land . You could build 5 or 6 times the amount of houses outside of the capital at them prices.

Already plenty of houses outside of Dublin. Fact is the homeless people won't move to them. You will find loads of cases when houses are offered but because they are not in XYZ area they are rejected.
People know if they hold out for long enough they will get a house for life, rent free in the exact area they want. While everyone else is crying about "da poor homeless".
The biggest change that should be made is taking rent from source, millions of rent is not collected every year because the social housing tenants refuse to pay it.

biko

I'm so happy to pay tax for someone else to live in a house I could only dream of living in.

Pete_Cavan

That's what the developer wants to charge the council, not necessarily what the council would pay. The development itself can't progress until they have an agreement with the council on Part V so the council is in a strong negotiating position.

IngazZagni

I don't believe the council has bought anything, yet. This development is still in the early stages of planning and is due to be a high end residential building and as part of the rules the developer must offer around 10% of the units for social housing. This doesn't need to be actually bought by the council though and what will probably happen is that 101 units will be provided in other mid range developments.

Mixing social housing with private is a good idea in general but it's not a good deal for taxpayers to have social housing in luxury developments such as this.

biko

biko wrote: »

I'm so happy to pay tax to pay for someone else to live in a house I could only dream about living in.

That in essence is the madness of it all!

kildare lad

whippet wrote: »

because we developed ghettos of unemployment, crime and drug usage with this policy in the 70s & 80's

Yes I see your point but the council paying 700,000 plus for a two bed apartment is a piss take.

Gunmonkey

Can someone answer me something; with this whole "mandated % of all new builds be social housing", does this mean:

A) - the developer has to hand over the houses to the State at affordable rates

- the State is mandated to buy these housing units from the developer at whatever price they demand

Because if it is B...how in the hell was this ever allowed? How is this not just a bailout for the developers again? And PBP and the usual crowd are demanding the State buy a higher percentage of all new builds!

Fecking madness.

Geuze

https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/part-v-overview/


A Part V agreement is an agreement between a developer and the planning authority which outlines the conditions by which the developer will meet their obligations. As such, when submitting a planning application, developers must specify how they intend to comply with these obligations.

It is no longer possible for developers to fulfil Part V obligations through financial payment, making available serviced sites on the development or by transferring undeveloped land outside the application area. Instead, the options for compliance include:

• Section 96(3)(a): transfer of land, the default option for the developer (which must be accepted by the local authority); and

• Section 96(3)(b): building and transfer of houses on-site; transfer of houses on land off-site within the function area; grant of a lease of houses on or off-site within the function area; or a combination of two or more of the options under section 96(3)(b).

If an alternative option is submitted under 96(3)(b), it is incumbent on the local authority to ensure it attains an equivalent planning return. The compensation payments made by the local authority is proportionate to the “existing use value” as per the date that planning permission is granted.

Planning applications must now incorporate developers’ proposals for complying Part V and it is now compulsory that a Part V agreement is reached between developers and local authorities before a commencement notice is issued. The proposal is not required to be overly detailed but must outline:

• how the applicant intends to discharge their obligation as regards a selection of a preferred option from the options available under the Act;

• details in relation to the units or land to be provided; and

• indicative costs.

subpar

He has no intention of selling anything in that development to the City Council for social housing or does the City Council have any intention to buy them.

It is merley an advertising stunt by Ronan . He wiil meet his obligations under the Act by agreeing a financial settlement with the Council in lieu of property.

In fairness it looks like a stunningly impressive development and will enhance the North Docklands.

marieholmfan

whippet wrote: »

because we developed ghettos of unemployment, crime and drug usage with this policy in the 70s & 80's

North Strand wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Hollybank wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Summerhill wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Sherriff Street wasn''t a ghetto I suppose?


The areas that people were moved from had huge social problems and so did the areas that they were moved to.


Anyway the answer is CPO low density inner city , knock it down and rebuild high denisty inner city.

banie01

Deleted User wrote: »

There's no excuse for letting the property market get so out of whack that the costs run so high and then prop it up with government spending.

An eye wateringly expensive example of corporate socialism IMO.
There is really strange and almost feudal notion of property equalling wealth that persists here.
Yes, it's capital, but it's not productive capital, and the only means of making it productive is to massage the inputs to drive inflation in the purchase price.

That this is supported by our government placing floors on rental prices via HAP and the other rental support schemes is bad enough, but!
To then see the Government engage in artificial inflation of the assets themselves is frankly mental!

The Government needs to step back from supporting private investors and developers and take a far more holistic social housing view.
Developing estates and ghettoisation that occurred with the mass building projects of the '30s through to the '80s are problematic.

The fact is that that type of development is a store of social issues, but surely if the Government start authorising the Local Authorities, or even instituting a State house building agency?

It could build mixed-use - social and private housing akin to those already being provided at inflated costs by Private developers and Housing associations at far more competitive costings and as a result also go a huge way towards rebalancing both the input costs and the asset values.

Reliance upon Civic Society orgs to engage in housing provision, when that housing is in any event largely funded by the state!
Is a pathetic sop to "market forces" that is in no way a true reflection of the market.

PhilOssophy

Great little country, some poor sod will buy his own house in Dundalk/Gorey and commute at 7am to the offices next door to this place, while some layabout gets a house plonked under his asre and doesn't get out of bed before midday.
You couldn't make it up. You really couldn't.

Clicked on the OPs link and that apartment block looks awful. Really, it’s **** looking.

I live in Leitrim but even I know that Sherriff Street isn’t the best of locations. Why would someone pay crazy (really crazy) money to live there as it now is?

subpar

subpar wrote: »

In fairness it looks like a stunningly impressive development and will enhance the North Docklands.

Am I looking at the right development, the orange buildings?

hawley

What's the highest amount any council has paid for a unit or group of houses/apartments?

Rx713B

biko wrote: »

I'm so happy to pay tax to pay for someone else to live in a house I could only dream about living in.

A cousin of my girlfriend does just that - wouldn't have a massive amount of time for her - Doesn't work has lovely 2 bed apartment in a fairly affluent area south Dublin and her boyfriend stays over - has a couple of kids. I could not afford a mortgage on the apartment she has

Idbatterim

I am serious here now, why dont we increase the social housing budget by ten million a year and purchase a house for that amount
on Shrewsbury road every year? A sort of social housing lottery bonus..:mad:.

Ffg are done... varadkar was boasting g about how great Ireland's welfare state was the other day..... I'll put up his fg propaganda post later. If you ate an early ris and feeling squeezed and lied to by fg, its understandable. You are paying for the lunacy of the system here, there is no way that any other country has anything like it. It womt be touched with a bargelole by the media or politicians here though

Richard Hillman

The 960k apartment will be the penthouse, that will be off to sell to whoever can afford it. Probably a company that will rent it out on Airbnb.

The social apartments will be kept separate to the rest. Different lifts, entrances etc.

It's still sickening that people will get these for virtually nothing, a nominal rent, and the rest of us have to settle for living on the line just to pay rent, let alone being able to get a mortgage. Social housing used to be about people who were workers that were not able to buy. Now it's just about the loudmouths who go to the council office and shout the place down.

neon123

Rx713B wrote: »

A cousin of my girlfriend does just that - wouldn't have a massive amount of time for her - Doesn't work has lovely 2 bed apartment in a fairly affluent area south Dublin and her boyfriend stays over - has a couple of kids. I could not afford a mortgage on the apartment she has

From reading other posts and threads these types of scenarios seem to be widespread, but it seems that if these people don’t get handed them they’ll just piss and moan until they get their way. I never really understood how for example some young one with six kids etc will go the media and complain how the state isn’t looking after her needs and the public will fall over themselves to be sympathetic. There obviously needs to be some sort of social housing in a society but it should be better thought out to avoid people taking the system for a ride and happy knowing people won’t dissent for fear of being labeled a bigot.

Thelonious Monk

Who will stab and attack people and shop in their pajamas if we don't keep the inner city communities growing?
No surprise here though, lots of the fancy apartments around the IFSC and Grand Canal Dock have been given to people from Sheriff St and Pearse St flats etc in the last few years. My ex had a lovely apartment in Custom House Quay that she paid a few 100 grand for, and some of her neighbours were a nightmare, they were given the apartments on the social.
I am 100% behind social housing, but it's seriously unfair when you get free luxury apartments in the city centre. People like myself could never afford to live there, or anywhere within walking distance to town, and I've paid tax all my life.

DraftDodger

Kivaro wrote: »

News like this does not shock me anymore.
Meanwhile, a good chunk of people who went to work this morning in order to pay for these social housing projects are struggling themselves; just about keeping their heads above the water.
It is a ludicrous situation.

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Thelonious Monk

DraftDodger wrote: »

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Maybe they are, but that doesn't mean they should get apartments in the most expensive land in Ireland.

Idbatterim

DraftDodger wrote: »

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Looooooooool! IF they are working , the taxes they contribute at those threshold directly are very little. Then the question is, are they even bothered paying the token gesture rent...

TomTomTim

DraftDodger wrote: »

People in social housing are in work this morning paying for it also.

Is there stats for this kind of stuff? I doubt there is, but there really should be.

DraftDodger

Idbatterim wrote: »

Looooooooool! IF they are working , the taxes they contribute at those threshold directly are very little. Then the question is, are they even bothered paying the token gesture rent...

Was going to respond then i noticed every other post by yourself seems to involve social housing bashing. Enjoy.

IngazZagni

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Am I looking at the right development, the orange buildings?

Heres a video of the proposed development. It's super cheesy but there's some good images of it from just before the 3 minute mark.

https://youtu.be/Nig_cQP-T94

Also the actual website with all technical information.

http://www.waterfrontsouthcentralshd.ie

um7y1h83ge06nx

Easy for council employees to spend that kind of money - it's not their personal money.

I don't think any individual or couple would spend nearly a €1M on an apartment in Ireland unless it was a crazy penthouse - this is an 88sqm 2 bed.

twowheelsonly

I love how these threads always turn in to tenant bashing as the default.

No mention of how the Politicians and their wealthy developer buddies have created this situation.

The cessation of direct building by Councils and the emergence of Public/Private Partnerships are what has directly led us to this situation. But sure, let's all complain about the tenant.

DraftDodger

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Maybe they are, but that doesn't mean they should get apartments in the most expensive land in Ireland.

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

whippet

marieholmfan wrote: »

North Strand wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Hollybank wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Summerhill wasn't a ghetto I suppose?
Sherriff Street wasn''t a ghetto I suppose?


The areas that people were moved from had huge social problems and so did the areas that they were moved to.


Anyway the answer is CPO low density inner city , knock it down and rebuild high denisty inner city.

I had never said anything about where they came from. But the developements of the 70s and 80s were a reaction to the conditions of the city centre slums and it didn't work.

I was reacting to someone suggesting making the same mistake again.

What is the solution now ? I don't really know ... but you can be sure that creating social housing pockets isn't the answer .. so naturally you need to then have mixed developments - and what is being suggested here is that people are not happy to have social housing in areas that are perceived to be upmarket.

so as a society we either want social housing projects as standalone projects or we want to cherrypick mid market areas .... so who decides what is justified?

Can anyone point to a sucessful project like this in a large european city ?

Gatling

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt for Johnny Ronan ,
His towers aren't going to get permission to be built they breach multiple planning restrictions as it is ,
By going to the media he's getting his name out there for whatever reason.
Nothing more

timeToLive

DraftDodger wrote: »

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

The problem is that people on 'high' incomes can't afford family homes either and yet they're given out to other people.


The actual rich people (Generational wealth, Tubirdy-ish types, CEOs, some politicians) are unaffected by any of it.

Thelonious Monk

DraftDodger wrote: »

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

I live in a social housing estate, in Dublin 5. I bought my property but many of my neighbours didn't. That's fine, it's a requirement in a civilised society.
However, why should people be given social housing in D4 and in Grand Canal Dock and along the Liffey?
Do you not think that's unfair when no one on less than 100 grand or so would ever be able to afford to buy something there?

IngazZagni

IngazZagni wrote: »

Heres a video of the proposed development. It's super cheesy but there's some good images of it from just before the 3 minute mark.

https://youtu.be/Nig_cQP-T94

Also the actual website with all technical information.

http://www.waterfrontsouthcentralshd.ie

I was looking at the wrong thing I was looking at the social housing development on sheriff street which really is **** looking.

That waterfront development looks amazing. Have they planning for the tallest buildings already? I hope so.

doublejobbing 2

Kivaro wrote: »

News like this does not shock me anymore.
Meanwhile, a good chunk of people who went to work this morning in order to pay for these social housing projects are struggling themselves; just about keeping their heads above the water.
It is a ludicrous situation.

And another chunk of us have been set back months in our plans because Mehole left the border open over Christmas (or since last summer, to cast the net of blame more widely) and has condemned me to, at least, another month on a poxy 350 per week. Worked like a dog every hour I got last year to try get my own piece of FG's overpriced property pie.

marieholmfan

Blaming the apartments in Ballymun for the social problems lets the council off the hook for failure to provide facilities, it lets the lawmakers off the hook for failure to change the licensing laws, it lets the cops off the hook and it lets the citizens of Ballymun off the hook.


That said I agree with mixed social class development ; built by the state after the compulsory purchase of low density inner city.

Also what are your success criteria?

whippet wrote: »

I had never said anything about where they came from. But the developements of the 70s and 80s were a reaction to the conditions of the city centre slums and it didn't work.

I was reacting to someone suggesting making the same mistake again.

What is the solution now ? I don't really know ... but you can be sure that creating social housing pockets isn't the answer .. so naturally you need to then have mixed developments - and what is being suggested here is that people are not happy to have social housing in areas that are perceived to be upmarket.

so as a society we either want social housing projects as standalone projects or we want to cherrypick mid market areas .... so who decides what is justified?

Can anyone point to a sucessful project like this in a large european city ?

TomTomTim

DraftDodger wrote: »

Of course not that's ridiculous but this belief that people in social housing don't work or pay tax is ludicrous. Myself and my wife lived in social housing for 12 years me as a truck driver and herself as a nurse before we bought our own place. There are some who are lazy and don't bother their arse but the majority in the area we lived in worked, be it carers, cleaners, bus drivers etc... Social housing exists to cater for these people on low incomes and is the cornerstone of any properly functioning society.

If that were truly the case, we'd have little to no social issues from these areas.

Geuze

subpar wrote: »

He has no intention of selling anything in that development to the City Council for social housing or does the City Council have any intention to buy them.

It is merley an advertising stunt by Ronan . He wiil meet his obligations under the Act by agreeing a financial settlement with the Council in lieu of property.

It is no longer possible for developers to fulfil Part V obligations through financial payment, making available serviced sites on the development or by transferring undeveloped land outside the application area.

https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/part-v-overview/

doublejobbing 2

kildare lad wrote: »

It's mind boggling looking at the stupidity of people in power here . Why not build social housing outside of Dublin on cheaper land . You could build 5 or 6 times the amount of houses outside of the capital at them prices.

.

A co op firm in Ballymun built terraced housing on state owned land for affordable purchase, looking to make only something like 5% profit.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:5IUIHbbVidkJ:https://dublininquirer.com/2017/06/07/how-did-a-co-op-build-affordable-homes-in-ballymun-and-can-it-be-done-elsewhere+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

Contrary to what FG would tell you it does not cost 220- 380K to build a social/ affordable home. It only costs this because they want their developer pals to make a killing. Part V should not be about buying homes off the developer- it should be about the developer providing new build homes on council owned land for free. If there's 100 homes in a development, and 10 are to be sold to the council for 350K, instead have the council pay them 3.5 million to build TWENTY homes on council owned land. Then promote a "social mix" by offering half of them for affordable cost price purchase. This in turn brings down prices in the wider market.

Pretty much every council housing estate in the wider Dublin area (including Fingal, South Dublin) has an excessive amount of green space which the council owns, which should be used to infill more social and affordable homes, built for around the 170K mark by a state run not for profit company.

doublejobbing 2

whippet wrote: »

because we developed ghettos of unemployment, crime and drug usage with this policy in the 70s & 80's

No it didn't. A drunken, feckless parent will invariably raise useless kids whether they are housed in a Part V home surrounded by the children of Google workers and solicitors, or whether they live in Ballymun. The state has en masse been housing social tenants in private owned estates for 20 years now and it hasn't resulted in some sort of enlightenment.

Idbatterim

DraftDodger wrote: »

Was going to respond then i noticed every other post by yourself seems to involve social housing bashing. Enjoy.

Couldnt dream of affording that million euro luxury and to not work and live in it. But I'm paying for the likes of the lunacy, you thi k I going to say, ah contine on , its great? Funded by a marginal tax rate if fifty percent over a pittance of an income. Banana republic