Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

Idbatterim · 23-11-2017 11:50AM

A good article in the indo today on failure to provide social housing and how looking for private sector to fix it is a mistake.

https://m.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/the-right-moves-has-the-government-learned-nothing-from-the-disastrous-crash-36344429.html

JP Liz V1 · 23-11-2017 04:03PM

Leo and Francis should step down imo

James Brown · 23-11-2017 04:12PM

Good loser wrote: »

Funny in all your confused and confusing posts you rarely resort to numbers. Why is this?

Could you tell us rationalists how much money the Govt should spend directly on social housing in 2018/2019/2020? In millions or billions?

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

And you, who won't pay water charges or LPT, want them to build more and more.

That's either waffling or hypocrisy or both.

It's quiet simple.
First off I never said we should stop funding emergency accommodation and put the money towards Social housing. That was a egregious 'misunderstanding' on behalf of others.
Money would be better spent on social housing. We should be in a place where money we use towards emergency accommodation goes towards funding social housing.
If we had not begun to follow the current tried and failed model of relying on the private market, we wouldn't be in this worsening mess.
We should have, and it's never too late, worked towards Social Housing stock. It's been put forward that FG are well aware things aren't great regarding the crises, (housing/homelessness) but one has to wonder why they persist with policies that make both worse?
Back to funding, no, I cannot supply figures, that's why I've not supplied figures. If I was putting myself forward as the man to solve everything I'd be lying. I also can't supply facts or figures on how emergency accommodation is funded, yet here we are.

Here is it is; We spend on emergency accommodation, as a supposed stop gap measure. We are becoming more and more dependent on it and grants subsidies to enable the public, tax payers included, to put a roof over their head. Some to the tune to 55k per annum from the tax payers pocket.

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

If they generated nothing, it would still be saving money on emergency accommodation fees and we'd have property. How about looking at it like every house we build saves us a potential 55k a year? And we've a house?

Social housing would be better value for the tax payer.
Where will the money come from? I'm not sure but I know if they wanted to fund it, the state would fund it. Like we do other things of far far less importance or urgency. We can find increasing sums for emergency accommodation. The money has to come from somewhere. I think it's where it's going that might be the issue upsetting some Tories. Happier to see it go to gougers over the tax paying public? Is this the real problem? Wouldn't it be swell if we had of built up housing stock back in the heady days of 'these things take time'?
The private sector want to profit, and fair play to them. The well being or value for money of the tax payer is not their concern.

As regards LPT, I'm against it for home owners, not property investors/landlords. If you are making a business of housing, speculating, investing, you should be taxed, especially heavy while we go through these crises. Allowing the people be gouged and priced out of the purchase/rental market in a crisis is wrong. Some form of emergency legislation needs to be brought in in my view. Varadkar needs to, for the first time in his career, put up, and take these issues seriously not downplay them or give lip service.

What form would this legislation take? Dig your own rabbit hole for that one.

Why the IW/metering/consultants cluster f*** got easy money and support than something we need immediately and far more urgently, I'll never understand.

These are my thoughts/opinions. Anyone jumping in to defend their Fine Gael for the sake of the party, is missing the concept. As I've said before, I would be more than happy if Fine Gael took charge of this. I couldn't care less which party or politician gets the brownie points.

In short, what Fine Gael are currently doing is not helping. One can easily argue they are making things worse. The new housing plan is more of the same. The only things of note are their fudging of the terminology for social housing, to 'public' and other grand bluster.

McMurphy · 23-11-2017 04:38PM

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

I think you might have missed the part where one of the main reasons people were advocating more emphasis on getting our social housing programmes in order was because even if a family live in the house for 40 years "free" the state still own a house at the end of it.

Currently throwing the hotels and bed and breakfast owners etc the cash, we're left with diddly squat.

Its not a hard concept to understand unless one wanted not to - purposely.

blanch152 · 23-11-2017 04:54PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I think you might have missed the part where one of the main reasons people were advocating more emphasis on getting our social housing programmes in order was because even if a family live in the house for 40 years "free" the state still own a house at the end of it.

Currently throwing the hotels and bed and breakfast owners etc the cash, we're left with diddly squat.

Its not a hard concept to understand unless one wanted not to - purposely.

That isn't true, in that we usually agree to sell it to them at far less than real value.

James Brown · 23-11-2017 04:58PM

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't true, in that we usually agree to sell it to them at far less than real value.

And this was carved in stone for Moses' perusal?
Tenant purchase and not paying rent/evictions, are all issues that can be adjusted/dealt with. They have only so much bearing on the concept as we/state/LA allow.

McMurphy · 23-11-2017 05:04PM

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't true, in that we usually agree to sell it to them at far less than real value.

Waffle.

If they qualified to buy the house, it meant they qualified for a mortgage.

If they qualified for the mortgage, presumably they were working.

If they were working, they presumably paid rent on the "free" house.

Lot of deflection and obfuscation going on here from yourself.

Idbatterim · 23-11-2017 05:11PM

bear in mind that a large percentage of the total figure of building a house, will go directly or indirectly back to government coffers very quickly.

blanch152 · 23-11-2017 05:44PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Waffle.

If they qualified to buy the house, it meant they qualified for a mortgage.

If they qualified for the mortgage, presumably they were working.

If they were working, they presumably paid rent on the "free" house.

Lot of deflection and obfuscation going on here from yourself.

No waffle, I have previously provided information on the series of different arrangements that allowed LA tenants to purchase houses from the State and sell on at huge profit.

oscarBravo · 23-11-2017 06:17PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

First off I never said we should stop funding emergency accommodation and put the money towards Social housing. That was a egregious 'misunderstanding' on behalf of others.

This is what you said, that was apparently egregiously misunderstood:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We'd be able to chip in a few bob savings from the 39m for Emergency accommodation last year for Dublin alone.

So apparently you don't want to stop funding emergency accommodation, but we'll be able to use the savings from not funding emergency accommodation to finance social housing.

Okay then.

James Brown · 23-11-2017 06:23PM

blanch152 wrote: »

No waffle, I have previously provided information on the series of different arrangements that allowed LA tenants to purchase houses from the State and sell on at huge profit.

All of these concerns can be adjusted by the tenancy agreement. None of it takes away from Social Housing being the better deal. As I understand it there is a grace period before you can sell a corporation home you purchased as a tenant. You must show you've permanent alternative accommodation. The buyer must be intending to use it as residence, not investment.

Actually:

If you purchased your property through the Affordable Housing Scheme, you may be subject to a clawback if you sell or re-mortgage it within 20 years of date of purchase. You pay back a percentage of the sale price to Dublin City Council, which is directly linked to the initial discount you received. This is known as the “clawback”. The clawback applies whether you have a mortgage from either Dublin City Council or a bank or building society.
http://www.dublincity.ie/housing-and-community-i-own-my-home-section/i-bought-my-home-council

We don't need further fudging or scaremongering.

James Brown · 23-11-2017 06:25PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is what you said, that was apparently egregiously misunderstood:

So apparently you don't want to stop funding emergency accommodation, but we'll be able to use the savings from not funding emergency accommodation to finance social housing.

Okay then.

I'll dumb it right down;
Money spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing.
If we were using/supplying social housing, we wouldn't need rely on/spend so much on, emergency accommodation. Not paying so much for one would free up money 'we don't have'. As we utilise one we need fund the other less. Getting close?

I've answered this. If you can't get it by now, I can't help you. Sorry.

johnnyskeleton · 23-11-2017 07:08PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll dumb it right down;
Money spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing.
If we were using/supplying social housing, we wouldn't need rely on/spend so much on, emergency accommodation. Not paying so much for one would free up money 'we don't have'. As we utilise one we need fund the other less. Getting close?

I've answered this. If you can't get it by now, I can't help you. Sorry.

Mod note:

Ok I think its best that you leave it there. Your point is that its a shame that money is spent on emergency accommodation and not on social housing, but you are not proposing anything specific re: changing the budget.

Other posters have pressed you on the point but you dont want to elaborate. Thats fine.

Now lets move on please.

oscarBravo · 23-11-2017 07:13PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll dumb it right down;
Money spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing.
If we were using/supplying social housing, we wouldn't need rely on/spend so much on, emergency accommodation. Not paying so much for one would free up money 'we don't have'. As we utilise one we need fund the other less. Getting close?

I've answered this. If you can't get it by now, I can't help you. Sorry.

<snip - see warning above re: moving on from this>

OMD · 23-11-2017 07:38PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Waffle.

If they qualified to buy the house, it meant they qualified for a mortgage.

If they qualified for the mortgage, presumably they were working.

If they were working, they presumably paid rent on the "free" house.

Lot of deflection and obfuscation going on here from yourself.

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

Why are the "left" in Ireland so bedded to this right wing Thatcherite policy?

jimmycrackcorm · 23-11-2017 07:52PM

OMD wrote:

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

In theory selling state housing to the tenants should be ok, but the crux of the problem is selling too cheaply and not reinvesting the proceeds in new housing.

oscarBravo · 23-11-2017 08:00PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

In theory selling state housing to the tenants should be ok...

Why? If they can afford to buy a house, shouldn't they buy one on the private market? If they can't afford a private house, why should the state reduce its housing stock?

McMurphy · 23-11-2017 08:02PM

OMD wrote: »

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

Why are the "left" in Ireland so bedded to this right wing Thatcherite policy?

Id be all foe keeping social housing stock in public/state ownership?

If only legislators had the ability to end such shenanigans?

James Brown · 23-11-2017 08:45PM

OMD wrote: »

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

Why are the "left" in Ireland so bedded to this right wing Thatcherite policy?

Not sure about it being the left. Sinn Fein are relativity left and they want tightening of the policy and agree it's generally bad practise. Also for many years, specifically through the 90's when tenant purchase policy was in and commonplace we'd many FG/FF heavy LA's.
I don't think it's a left or right issue as such. People use to rightly believe they should be able to own a house one day. That's changed and we need catch up to that reality. Maybe no government party wants to be the one to tell people that for most of them owning a home like your parents has practically become fantasy?
Knocking down housing estates for PPP wasn't a help either.

blanch152 · 23-11-2017 09:15PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Id be all foe keeping social housing stock in public/state ownership?

If only legislators had the ability to end such shenanigans?

I know, the councils have really let us down again.

McMurphy · 23-11-2017 10:02PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I know, the councils have really let us down again.

Councils legislate now?

Who knew

nlrkjos · 23-11-2017 10:05PM

My own estate is a former council social housing scheme built in the 40/50's, 76 well built houses all 3-4 bedroom with big gardens. They all came up for sale to tenants in the 80's at a cheap price when interest rates were 15 or 16 %. One comment I will make, since then, when it was "privatized", the estate has become much cleaner and has won a few local tidy town awards, I'm guessing that once people owned the house they became much more conscious of the look of the area, the residents assoc' is stronger and pro-active. So while it may be wrong to sell off social housing stock, the sale improved my area's general cleanliness and social interaction. Just saying.

blanch152 · 23-11-2017 11:20PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Councils legislate now?

Who knew

Eh, we were talking about councils selling off homes cheaply. What has that to do with legislation?

McMurphy · 23-11-2017 11:43PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh, we were talking about councils selling off homes cheaply. What has that to do with legislation?

I already explained.

You even quoted me.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Id be all foe keeping social housing stock in public/state ownership?

If only legislators had the ability to end such shenanigans?

blanch152 · 24-11-2017 12:59AM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I already explained.

You even quoted me.

But we don't need legislators to stop it, any of the councils could just refuse to sell the public stock of housing, of course, that would mean one of our so-called left-wing parties having to make a decision rather than just whinge and protest.

McMurphy · 24-11-2017 01:20AM

blanch152 wrote: »

But we don't need legislators to stop it, any of the councils could just refuse to sell the public stock of housing, of course, that would mean one of our so-called left-wing parties having to make a decision rather than just whinge and protest.

Councils could just refuse to do something, that someone might be legally entitled to do, by simply refusing it to happen, even if their legally obliged by legislation?

Have you thought this through?

Good loser · 24-11-2017 03:32AM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Councils could just refuse to do something, that someone might be legally entitled to do, by simply refusing it to happen, even if their legally obliged by legislation?

Have you thought this through?

Are you sure about this?

I would have assumed the option of engaging in the scheme is left to the Councils.

Good loser · 24-11-2017 03:47AM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I think you might have missed the part where one of the main reasons people were advocating more emphasis on getting our social housing programmes in order was because even if a family live in the house for 40 years "free" the state still own a house at the end of it.

Currently throwing the hotels and bed and breakfast owners etc the cash, we're left with diddly squat.

Its not a hard concept to understand unless one wanted not to - purposely.

Don't you see that the exact same dilemma presents itself to those that currently rent houses (and would prefer ownership)?
Your help to these people is to say 'stop paying rent and buy a house'.
But, but, but - - -etc

It all comes down to money (as usual) the Govt can no more pay for all the houses/apts needed, especially in Dublin, as the private individual can buy his own house. So both rent. Both with the same intention of paying as little rent as possible and for as short a length of time as possible.

So putting forward capital proposals without identifying the source of the money is waffling while those who refuse to pay nominated taxes like LPT and Water Charges are the hypocrites.

blanch152 · 24-11-2017 10:58AM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Councils could just refuse to do something, that someone might be legally entitled to do, by simply refusing it to happen, even if their legally obliged by legislation?

Have you thought this through?

You are not legally entitled to purchase your house under the scheme, the Councils can refuse to sell.

Section 22 (2) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 provides that:

"(2) A housing authority may sell an affordable house under this Part where the authority no longer requires the house for the purposes of affordable housing and the authority has allocated the dwelling to a household in accordance with an allocation scheme."

The key word is "may", which is used instead of "shall". In the case of all of the Dublin councils, they should not be selling any houses to tenants as they clearly require the houses for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, if any houses are being sold in Dublin, and are not available for the homeless as a result, it is clearly the fault of the councils as they have discretion under the Act.

There is no legal entitlement to buy a council house.

Chips Lovell · 24-11-2017 12:28PM

Hived off the election talk and moved it into the new thread. Maybe keep this one for the ongoing discussion of the government's handling of the homelessness crisis.

Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

Comments