The social housing list in Dublin

jrosen

bubblypop wrote: »

'it's just not fair' ?

Its not just about being fair. I think people who are working and providing for themselves without state support should at the very least expect to have "more" than someone who is relying on state support.

But aside from that its about cost. There is not an endless pit of money and every penny that is spent housing someone should be spent well. The state should be looking at lower cost accommodation and one way to reduce cost would be to build smaller unit. Reduce land cost, reduced build cost. Close to me there is a small development that is long term lease. It 100% social. All people housed in homes that at minimum costs 380K based on the property price register for the area. There is no value add, high cost homes, high cost location, long term lease at the end means no asset for the local authority unless they are willing to buy them after renting them for 25 years.

One big problem that the councils.caused.for.themselves was selling off their social housing. I understand what posters are saying about value for money, of course now, they dont have the land or the houses.
There should be no more selling of state assets.

Where do you house the people in the list now though?

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

One big problem that the councils.caused.for.themselves was selling off their social housing. I understand what posters are saying about value for money, of course now, they dont have the land or the houses.
There should be no more selling of state assets.

Where do you house the people in the list now though?

And not treating people like renters. Should be a review every 5 years with people rehoused according to need.

Families in houses, retired in apartments (you could make them retirement friendly etc), and maximise the beds by need.

But there is no political will anywhere to sort this pyramid scheme, nor any will in the media to report properly on it.

ThunbergsAreGo

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

And not treating people like renters. Should be a review every 5 years with people rehoused according to need.

Families in houses, retired in apartments (you could make them retirement friendly etc), and maximise the beds by need.

But there is no political will anywhere to sort this pyramid scheme, nor any will in the media to report properly on it.

Agreed.
Only problem is adult kids not moving out to their own place!
A normal housing market would normally sort that out.

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

Agreed.
Only problem is adult kids not moving out to their own place!
A normal housing market would normally sort that out.

But then the need is still there, the house is being fully used.

Social housing having more rights then renters is ridiculous

mohawk

bubblypop wrote: »

One big problem that the councils.caused.for.themselves was selling off their social housing. I understand what posters are saying about value for money, of course now, they dont have the land or the houses.
There should be no more selling of state assets.

Where do you house the people in the list now though?

They definitely shouldn’t of done this. I know loads of families who bought their council house they are very comfortable financially now and have lovely homes that they really looked after. They raised 6,7,8 kids in three bed terraced houses. I don’t begrudge those families a thing in life and buying the council house gave them great security. My head says the state should of kept ownership and my heart says but all those nice families.
Also I couldn’t imagine raising a family in a home for 20 years and then sent off to some retirement village. Leaving behind all your neighbours and no room to have your kids and grandkids stay for a few days.

ThunbergsAreGo

mohawk wrote: »

Also I couldn’t imagine raising a family in a home for 20 years and then sent off to some retirement village. Leaving behind all your neighbours and no room to have your kids and grandkids stay for a few days.

Then own your own house..

By staying in a house to "have grand kids over", you are preventing a family being housed.

Obviously don't mean you specifically..

I can't imagine paying extortionate rent all my life in an apartment and having to bring my family up in one as I can't afford to buy/rent a house without commuting two to three hours a day.

jrosen

Whats Daragh O'Brien up too with the caps on the shared equity? Does anyone else feel they are stupidly high? If someone can afford to enter into a shared equity agreement with a LA for a property worth almost 500K surely that same person should reduce their expectation and buy a home using a traditional mortgage but for much less?

I remember years ago with the shared ownership it went the same way, people using it as a means to buy a larger home for less money. People who had no problem securing a traditional mortgage.

Jizique

jrosen wrote: »

Whats Daragh O'Brien up too with the caps on the shared equity? Does anyone else feel they are stupidly high? If someone can afford to enter into a shared equity agreement with a LA for a property worth almost 500K surely that same person should reduce their expectation and buy a home using a traditional mortgage but for much less?

I remember years ago with the shared ownership it went the same way, people using it as a means to buy a larger home for less money. People who had no problem securing a traditional mortgage.

Complete and utter madness, but FF and builders...

I don't believe any government really wants to help people buy, they want to help builders

Idbatterim

QUOTE=Geuze;117159537]The LPT is one of the best taxes. That is widely agreed.

Most commentators suggest it should be expanded.[/QUOTE]
In a properly run country it would be. Here we have nothing but exemptions and many homeowners paying nothing or as good as nothing... then everyone under declaring their home value. To raise way less than they were increasing welfare every year, during the boom that ended as covid hit... there are far far too many here, with lpt and income tax, contributing a hell of a lot less than they would it other countries. But as its Ireland, you can be damn sure ffg wont be going after those paying way less than their fair share, as it would be " regressive " funny how they never report from the other side, from the oppressed paying in way more than their fair share. But as everyone's votes count equally they can absolutely screw the mid and particularly high earners...