Advertisement
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)

Where's the "social justice" in the Government hoovering up new homes?

  • 16-05-2021 6:47pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    Here's the nub of the issue.



    The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



    The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


    Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Fann Linn


    Here's the nub of the issue.



    The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



    The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


    Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.


    People working can and do qualify for social housing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    People working can and do qualify for social housing.


    Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Fann Linn


    Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

    Not the point. Many give semi d social homes won't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭ oceanman


    Here's the nub of the issue.



    The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



    The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


    Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.
    you can always choose to live somewhere else...


  • Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭ B2021M


    Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

    Its gone beyond ridiculous now. I wonder will people finally see whats going on.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Not the point. Many give semi d social homes won't.


    Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Fann Linn


    Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

    You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,602 ✭✭✭ Jinglejangle69


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    People working can and do qualify for social housing.

    Majority don't work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Fann Linn


    Majority don't work.

    Guessed you'd be along. I know. But others do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭ B2021M


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.

    But some people earning far more than 42k cant afford to buy similar homes. Isnt that the point?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 645 ✭✭✭ Fred Cryton


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.


    And why can't they be housed far more cheaply outside the M50? They are dependent on the State after all.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Fann Linn


    B2021M wrote: »
    But some people earning far more than 42k cant afford to buy similar homes. Isnt that the point?

    Exactly. But that's the criteria that's in force at the moment. Where I'm living the qualification rates are 26k. Everything is relative.

    It's the price of housing that's skewed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,605 ✭✭✭ oceanman


    B2021M wrote: »
    But some people earning far more than 42k cant afford to buy similar homes. Isnt that the point?
    because they are buying...as opposed to renting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,656 ✭✭✭ Fann Linn


    And why can't they be housed far more cheaply outside the M50? They are dependent on the State after all.

    Again. Not all are. Nurses, Gardai teachers, journalists. All options out of reach.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭ jrosen


    The real issue is that the state will end up paying millions and never have anything to show for it. In 25 years those people housed will still need a place to live.
    I heard someone recently comment on a development near to me. They claimed its costing close to 1million per year to house all the families, cover the maintenance of the estate and the homes. Approx figure based on averages they were aware of in similar size development. Now thats really ****ed up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 484 ✭✭ B2021M


    oceanman wrote: »
    because they are buying...as opposed to renting.

    Probably couldnt afford to rent them either. Plus theyd have more take home pay if their taxes werent subsidising this system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,064 ✭✭✭ Yellow_Fern


    jrosen wrote: »
    The real issue is that the state will end up paying millions and never have anything to show for it. In 25 years those people housed will still need a place to live.
    I heard someone recently comment on a development near to me. They claimed its costing close to 1million per year to house all the families, cover the maintenance of the estate and the homes. Approx figure based on averages they were aware of in similar size development. Now thats really ****ed up.

    I am very uncomfortable with the current situation but the idea that building is always better because 'the state will have something to show for it is' a sunk cost fallacy. The rent social tenants pay is so tiny that it would never pay for the costs. What matters is the total cost of each arrangement, not whether the state gets ownership because they cant possibly exploit its actual capital value.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,350 ✭✭✭✭ pjohnson


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.

    When is it anything else? :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,308 ✭✭✭✭ One eyed Jack


    The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


    No, we won’t :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,602 ✭✭✭ Jinglejangle69


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    Guessed you'd be along. I know. But others do.

    Just stating a fact for the discussion.

    Not my fault you don't like that fact.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

    Well done, we need people like you to judge others and punish them accordingly, for their low moral standards.

    Off to the workhouse and laundries with those women of loose morals.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,608 ✭✭✭ jrosen


    I am very uncomfortable with the current situation but the idea that building is always better because 'the state will have something to show for it is' a sunk cost fallacy. The rent social tenants pay is so tiny that it would never pay for the costs. What matters is the total cost of each arrangement, not whether the state gets ownership because they cant possibly exploit its actual capital value.

    I see the point. But with the number of people looking to be housed by the state unless the state start to build themselves they will continue to buy up housing stock and pay rents to landlords. Still leaving those wanting to buy with little option.


  • Registered Users Posts: 663 ✭✭✭ Burt Renaults


    Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

    KSS7xAQM.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 16 hustlenbustle


    Isnt the problem that after leasing these homes the state will have nothing after a certain amount of years its money down the drain. They should instead be building council houses but not in the most expensive areas. Rents should be paid or taken at source and they should be strictly managed with evictions promptly for anti social behaviour. Of course the state would have far more housing if they didnt allow tenants to buy out their council houses which was foolishly done in the past. If you want to buy a house then do so _ but leave the council house for someone else who needs a home.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,232 ✭✭✭ DubInMeath


    Here's the nub of the issue.



    The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



    The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


    Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.

    Oh the humanity.
    Also bullsh1t


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,421 ✭✭✭✭ Thelonious Monk


    Where's our Eric these days?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,421 ✭✭✭✭ Thelonious Monk


    Isnt the problem that after leasing these homes the state will have nothing after a certain amount of years its money down the drain. They should instead be building council houses but not in the most expensive areas. Rents should be paid or taken at source and they should be strictly managed with evictions promptly for anti social behaviour. Of course the state would have far more housing if they didnt allow tenants to buy out their council houses which was foolishly done in the past. If you want to buy a house then do so _ but leave the council house for someone else who needs a home.

    I think they should build in the most expensive areas, leafy South Dublin suburbs etc. There's no way the Garda would ignore anti social behaviour in these areas so everyone would be kept in line. Housing and crime taken care of, win win.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I think they should build in the most expensive areas, leafy South Dublin suburbs etc. There's no way the Garda would ignore anti social behaviour in these areas so everyone would be kept in line. Housing and crime taken care of, win win.

    Snore


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,710 ✭✭✭ growleaves


    Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

    Not sure why poor work ethic has been thrown in there. Do you think a young girl on her own with two or three children can also be a software programmer?

    There's no 'solution' for single motherhood. Putting single mothers into institutions is seen as a societal crime. Therefore they have to be housed.

    Do you favour the re-introduction of Christian taboos on fornication and the encouragement of early marriage?

    Or do you think single mothers should be put in smaller/cheaper housing units or what?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭ Jizique


    jrosen wrote: »
    The real issue is that the state will end up paying millions and never have anything to show for it. In 25 years those people housed will still need a place to live.
    I heard someone recently comment on a development near to me. They claimed its costing close to 1million per year to house all the families, cover the maintenance of the estate and the homes. Approx figure based on averages they were aware of in similar size development. Now thats really ****ed up.

    And the buyers, the recipients of this largesse, at a risk free yield of 4-5% will pay no tax on their income; if I was to buy an investment property, I would be taxed at >50% on the income.
    When 20 year risk free investments (govt bonds) yield 1%, giving any investor a guarantee f 5%, state sponsored, is robbery, complete and utter robbery and reflects poorly on any politician or public servant who puts a deal like this in place.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement