nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis?

Idbatterim

Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis? The only time the scum bags we elect to the dail are interested in us, is come election time. I have voted fg previously, I'm done with them. If they think a few euro a week decrease in USC is enough to keep people onside.

These same people who will be paying e700 plus for an average bedroom in an average house in an average part of Dublin IF they can even secure a viewing!

People protested about water, this scandal is off the wall in comparison. This situation is ruining lives and costing people a fortune, unlike water!

The only time they ever budge here, i.e. Politicians is when pressure is put on them and they collapse like a house of cards, as their populist nature compels them to.

Whatever ideological reason they have against solving the issues show a disgusting lack of empathy. I don't see what their issue is, their mates in the banks, the estate agents will be creaming it in with more building. More jobs, more lpt...

It's taken them 3 years minimum into the crisis to acknowledge the fact that apartment building is prohibitively expensive and wait more years for action. 3 years! 3 years of misery for tens of thousand of people of not more. What's the problem? They are overpaid, do nothing but talk it seems to me.

So there you go coppinger etc. Someone ill probably never agree with on economic policy etc, but organise a protest for this issue and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you!

After the previous water crisis and protest and where that lead to. The government will do a pretty quick about turn this time! Particularly as an election could be held any time!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Vronsky wrote: »

The problem is, like your post above illustrates is that amateur landlords expect renters to pay their mortgage for them and anything less than having the full mortgage covered by the rent is seen as a problem for them. It's not, and it's a distortion created by the pr machine of the landlords. .

What determines an amateur landlord? You're probably describing any individual that bought a house. :rolleyes:

And how sure are you about this expectation of the mortgage definitely being paid by renters?

I charge 800 pm. My mortgage is 733.26pm, my life assurance is 23.12pm, and my mortgage cover is 66.52pm. So between my mortgage/insurance cost's I'm making a loss of 21.90 per month. That's not even taking into account the extra costs such as management fees, paying for repairs, moderate requests from the tenant for extra installations. etc.

Now I could increase the rent on my property to be more in line with others in Cork, and then, my tenant would seek somewhere cheaper to live and since she has a stable job with a family most other landlords will offer discounts to get her. So I charge more, lose out on a reliable tenant and get in single professionals instead who do far more in damages, who I have to chase for payments, etc.

Amateur landlord... Yup. I'm curious,Vronsky... Do you have a property and are you renting it out to anyone?

A landlord should not expect to be able to put down a 20% deposit and walk away from a house that will in all probability have at least doubled in value by the end of the mortgage term and reap a 10x return on his initial investment

We no longer do. That dream scenario ended well over a decade ago for individual buyers. And doubling in value? lol. Now that's funny. It happened for my parents who bought in the 60s but for the rest of us buying within the last 10-20 years? Very few people would have been that lucky.

Quick edit: I'm sure there are individuals and companies making a killing out there on rents. I suspect it's happening in Dublin, and in very select areas of other cities... but I do get tired of this belief, that alll landlords are making decent money from renting. Many of us are scraping along hoping the market rises enough that we can sell and make a slight profit.

Beta Ray Bill

First off, there is no homeless crisis

I've said it before on this forum (Quoting myself from a different thread):

grahambo wrote: »

I keep hearing about "The Homeless" problem

In my eyes the only people that can help the homeless are themselves.

There are 3 kinds of homeless people
1: Young women in their 20's with kids and the father "isn't around"
2: People with serious drink/drug problems
3: People who have genuinely lost everything through a series of bad events <= These are the vast minority

There is no helping 1 and 2, and they are the vast majority.

I saw on RTE news earlier in the week some woman living in a hotel for the last few years with 4 kids, the youngest of which was only a couple of months old, finally got a house off the council.

WTF was she doing having another kid when she already had 3 and was living in the hotel?
Her eldest child (7 or 8 years old maybe) had to be put up in a separate room because for insurance reasons the hotel can't have more than 4 people in a room.

No sign of the Dad (Dad's)

I know a Homeless guy in Raheny, He lives in St Annes park. His family don't want anything to do with him as he a terrible alcoholic.
He needs to sort himself out before anything can be done to sort him out with accommodation.

There is a reason as to why people are homeless, and generally the reason is because they have serious antisocial/substance abuse/addiction issues.
No amount of money will be able to help them.
There's no helping someone that won't help themselves.

I know the above is harsh, but it's very true.

In terms of Private housing, we're still reeling from the 2008 crash (YES, 10 years on!)

Couple of previous posters has said that everyone hates Developers and have no time for them.
This is very true, it should be noted that everyone also includes the Bank's.

You may have noticed in Dublin City there is a massive amount of building work going on at the moment
The Crane count is quite high, nearly boom time high.
But most of what's being built is commercial office blocks, and there is a reason for this, which I will get to.

The Banks are effectively state owned now or the state has a large amount of input into how they operate.
The last thing the state wants to have to do it to bail out the banks again. Yes there was a ruling that states that an EU Country is no longer obligated to bail out their banks if it ever came to that. But that doesn't mean they can't. If it came to it again, the Government would bail out the banks despite not being legally obligated to do so.

So how does this explain why all we are seeing is big office blocks being built?
Quite simple really, the Banks are being told to only lend to Developers that are guaranteed to be able to pay back the loans they are given.
Loaning to a Developer to build something huge like Capital Dock makes perfect sense.
1 Loan, 1 Developer, 1 Building, 1 Buyer for the Building.
There is low risk there despite the amount of money lent as the buyer would have already been lined up before hand.
We are also in the middle of Brexit, Good office space is hard to come by in Dublin.
Also if there was another crash, It'll be easy for a Bank to Evict the tennants and reclaim the property if they ever needed to.
It's low risk!

Now lets compare that to a Developer who wants to build a housing estate:
1 Loan, 1 Developer, 50 Buildings, No Buyers until the houses are completed (No one is going to fall for the deposit on a house not built yet scam during the boom again)
Time has finally thought the Banks that there is high risk involved with Houses.
They may lend for a higher interest rate but at that point the Developer is no longer making enough profit for it to be worth his/her while. (These guys don't get out of bed for anything less than a few million)
The Developers that want build houses are being told to go out to the market to secure funding for the Build. IE Offering "Investment Opportunities" to people like us.
But remember, everyone hates Developers and we don't trust them either. So very few people will invest in these "Opportunities".
If there was another crash, the bank is going to have a difficult time getting those houses back if there a people living in them or renting them.
It's high risk... Safe as houses term doesn't apply anymore

So ultimately the reason there is little of none housing development happening is because Developers are having a hard time securing funding to do these builds, due to the level of risk associated with them.

In terms of Social housing, we're still reeling from the 70's/80's Council Estate builds and the 10% rule in the Boom (If that makes sense)

Here's a great Idea:
Lets build a bunch awful looking houses, and pack as many of them into an area as we can.
Then we'll move in a bunch of low paid workers, people that don't work, people with addiction issues, single mothers with loads kids, people with all sorts of social problems into this area.
Then we'll provide f*ck all services to the place and perform no maintenance in the area.
And lets see what happens....

The result as we all know was the likes of places like:
Darndale
Kilbarrack
Whitechuch
Jobstown
etc

And parts of:
Finglas
Clondalkin
Ballymon
etc

The Irish council estate, a Pillar of poor social housing planning.
And I'm not being a snob, I grew up in Kilbarrack. The place was a Kip! and I mean a total DUMP!
So much to the extent that 2 Roddy Doyle Films were made there: The Snapper and the Van (of which I have a cameo role in!)
Anyone that thinks it's a good idea for councils to start building this type of estate again needs their f*cking head examined.
The councils realise this too, so that's why no more of them are being built.

In the 90's building boom, we then had flurry of single mothers looking for houses, for them and they 3 kids from 3 different Dads (It was no longer and Sin to have a child outside of Wedlock...).
The councils solution again was a poor one. Of all Private building developments 10% of the houses built would be for social housing units.
Que the building of places like Tyrells Town.
Developers knew they'd have no chance of selling a house if potential buyers knew there was going to be social housing mixed in with private houses.
I for one wouldn't buy a house if I knew Mary and her 5 kids from 5 different Dads was moving in FOR FREE next door.
Developers moved their "quota" of social housing units to the edge of their developments or into a Development all by itself and rented or sold to the council.
As far as I am aware this has since stopped, and rightly so.

The new Plan now since 2010 is for the council to just buy houses that are on the market and move people on the waiting list into them.
I know of people who have literally begged their neighbors not to sell to the council. No one wants to do in their neighbors or friends, so this process is slow.

The Market...... (I f*cking hate that term :mad: )
I looked on Myhome.ie in November, there were 4049 property's for sale in Dublin.
Break that down:
2887 Houses
952 Apartments
81 Sites
17 Investment property's
3 Agricultural property's

As far as I can see there is no real shortage of supply in terms of buying. (Otherwise those numbers would be far lower)
I would imagine a large number of these properties are places where some has died and the house is now permanently vacant.
Most houses I've looked at need a serious amount of modernisation.

It should be noted that there were only 447 property's to rent in Dublin at that time.
This is VERY low. There are a large number of hedge funds sitting a vast numbers of vacant properties waiting for their value to go up however.

The Rent prices are so high because of this (The HAP Scheme)

House prices are so high because of constant government interference in "The Market" :mad:, the most recent of which was the HTB schema which saw every house in the country increase by €20,000 overnight.

More interesting reading, according to property price register the following number of homes were sold in each year:

2010 - 6930 Properties sold
2011 - 5897 Properties sold
2012 - 8910 Properties sold
2013 - 10371 Properties sold
2014 - 14163 Properties sold
2015 - 15408 Properties sold
2016 - 15722 Properties sold
2017 - 13387 Properties sold (as of November)

So that's basically it.
This is why there is f*ck all houses to rent/buy and f*ck all social housing.

PS sorry for the long post

Vronsky

astrofool wrote: »

Two reasons.

Many landlords bought when prices were high, and have large mortgages on the property, so even though rents are high, they barely cover the mortgage (before other costs such as wear and tear, idle periods, tenancy registration etc.) come into play.

Secondly, because we don't let landlords run a business. There is no incentive for a landlord to be a good landlord as they don't get tax deductions on all the money they put in, they can't claim all the interest as a business cost and all the laws are stacked against them if they get a bad tenant. If they are lucky, based on the value of the asset, they may make a 5-6% return on their investment. If a tenant overholds, if they damage the property, if interest rates rise, then the landlord will make a loss.

The only way to make money as a landlord is to be the absolute worst type of person imaginable, don't put any money into the property, give tenants the very minimum that is required, ignore the tenancy laws, as the fine is often cheaper than letting them stay in the property while the PRTB makes it's decision (that will often fly in the face of common sense anyway). I can see why people are selling up or treating their tenants like sh*t and getting as much rent as they can to avoid going under.

Not a landlord btw (and never intending to be one, in Ireland at least).

The problem is, like your post above illustrates is that amateur landlords expect renters to pay their mortgage for them and anything less than having the full mortgage covered by the rent is seen as a problem for them. It's not, and it's a distortion created by the pr machine of the landlords. A landlord should not expect to be able to put down a 20% deposit and walk away from a house that will in all probability have at least doubled in value by the end of the mortgage term and reap a 10x return on his initial investment.

jiltloop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They were actually designed to protect borrowers as well.

[Deleted User]

FTA69 wrote: »

Rent is through the roof in Cork and Dublin , we are being perpetually gouged by a class of landlords and we also spend a fortune every year paying rent allowance to private landlords as opposed to building sustainable social housing. In Ireland tenants have very little rights compared to Europe, paying through the nose for crap accommodation with short term leases.

I have a family in my house in Cork, and I'm charging below the market values because I'd like to keep them. Why? because the vast majority of tenants I had previously didn't care about the state of the house (serious damages incurred), or the rental agreement they signed up to (damages, pets, smokers, skipping on leaving, etc).

I know many other landlords in the same situation. We're charging less to keep people who will treat our properties with respect.

As for rights, consider the rental agreement when they sign up. My own tenants are well covered by both the law and the agreement itself. The issue is more with people agreeing to crappy conditions without reading the fine print. And frankly, from 15 years of renting my house, renters are quite often their own worst enemies. Ahh but renters are innocent for the behavior of other renters, but all landlords represent each other. That's convenient, isn't it?

TBH I would love to sell my townhouse for a "profit". As things stand though, I'd be lucky to make any actual profit once all the expenses are taken into account (last time I did the calculations I'd be making just over 10k loss). I bought my place to live in rather than as an investment, but right now, I'd be perfectly happy to see it gone.

Vronsky

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis? The only time the scum bags we elect to the dail are interested in us, is come election time. I have voted fg previously, I'm done with them. If they think a few euro a week decrease in USC is enough to keep people onside.

These same people who will be paying e700 plus for an average bedroom in an average house in an average part of Dublin IF they can even secure a viewing!

People protested about water, this scandal is off the wall in comparison. This situation is ruining lives and costing people a fortune, unlike water!

The only time they ever budge here, i.e. Politicians is when pressure is put on them and they collapse like a house of cards, as their populist nature compels them to.

Whatever ideological reason they have against solving the issues show a disgusting lack of empathy. I don't see what their issue is, their mates in the banks, the estate agents will be creaming it in with more building. More jobs, more lpt...

It's taken them 3 years minimum into the crisis to acknowledge the fact that apartment building is prohibitively expensive and wait more years for action. 3 years! 3 years of misery for tens of thousand of people of not more. What's the problem? They are overpaid, do nothing but talk it seems to me.

So there you go coppinger etc. Someone ill probably never agree with on economic policy etc, but organise a protest for this issue and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you!

After the previous water crisis and protest and where that lead to. The government will do a pretty quick about turn this time! Particularly as an election could be held any time!

Politicians are generally in the business of giving people what they want, so if there was an easy way for everyone to have an affordable home of their own they would do it. The simple truth is there is no easy way out.

The government cannot increase house building overnight for many reasons: the planning process which is designed to protect citizens from inappropriate development, the lack of capacity in the building industry, and thirdly a major intervention or signal that the government was about to embark on a major house building programme would depress all prices and cause trouble for the banks.

While the cost of building homes is high and chokes supply but reducing house building costs by 10% wouldn't reduce the cost of housing to the home buyer by a similar amount because demand exceeds supply. The expected price for a house has been established by the market so what you would have would be the developer pocketing what would have been tax. Prices are set by what people are willing to pay at the end of the day.

In any case there is a lot of building development coming to site. I would expect price stabilisation by the end of 2018 as pent up demand is finally relieved and more resources/labour from overseas are brought in.

cantdecide

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Stop with your sensible logic around here.

We need more shouting and rabble rabble.

What to we want? More social houses.

When do we want them? Now

Whos wants to pay for them? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Your response to the explanation of the reasons why people are suffering economical harm because of past mistakes and mishandling at all levels is to jeer?

The point is that there are far fewer meaningful and clear ladders of opportunity for younger people at work or those that made career choices at odds with the world we have found ourselves in today.

Please point to one post that calls for protests for free housing for all of us victims. Take your time and read slowly.

Sebastian Dangerfield

FTA69 wrote: »

I agree with this largely. It's galling to be smugly told "there is no housing crisis" by someone who bought a gaff in a rural area or whatever when you're caught spunking over half your income to live in a shoebox making some landlord a fortune. Young people working in our cities are being royally shafted and these are the people we need working in our urban areas to fuel our economy.

I think there are a couple of different arguments which are largely combined together under the term "housing crisis".

Firstly there's an affordability and supply issue for working people, which means that modest homes they would expect to be able to afford are well outside their reach, or they have to mortgage themselves to the hilt to get them, thus impacting their quality of life.

Then there is the "homeless" issue, which most people historically would interpret as those living on the streets, but lately can seems to be a fluid definition depending on which left wing lobbyist, interested party or populist politician is wielding it.

I would think most on here would agree that the first first definitely exists. There are extreme views on both sides for the second.

astrofool

jiltloop wrote: »

Can you explain how you think returns for landlords could possibly be low at the moment when rents are at an all time high?

Two reasons.

Many landlords bought when prices were high, and have large mortgages on the property, so even though rents are high, they barely cover the mortgage (before other costs such as wear and tear, idle periods, tenancy registration etc.) come into play.

Secondly, because we don't let landlords run a business. There is no incentive for a landlord to be a good landlord as they don't get tax deductions on all the money they put in, they can't claim all the interest as a business cost and all the laws are stacked against them if they get a bad tenant. If they are lucky, based on the value of the asset, they may make a 5-6% return on their investment. If a tenant overholds, if they damage the property, if interest rates rise, then the landlord will make a loss.

The only way to make money as a landlord is to be the absolute worst type of person imaginable, don't put any money into the property, give tenants the very minimum that is required, ignore the tenancy laws, as the fine is often cheaper than letting them stay in the property while the PRTB makes it's decision (that will often fly in the face of common sense anyway). I can see why people are selling up or treating their tenants like sh*t and getting as much rent as they can to avoid going under.

Not a landlord btw (and never intending to be one, in Ireland at least).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wheeliebin30

seamus wrote: »

It's funny how the proposal in the OP mirrors the "bank protests" of about a decade ago, where people were out protesting because they were unhappy, but they had no realistic proposals on how to fix things and barely a rudimentary grasp of the problem in the first place.

It's pretty clear that you have an us -v- them attitude in relation to wealth & property, which doesn't surprise me tbh going on your post history. You're way off the mark though in reality.

Selling:
Developers can make a shedload more money using their land to cram in loads of houses and sell them, than just sitting on it and letting prices rise. In an increasing market, €1m of land turns into €10m of land way quicker if you build and sell rather than speculate. Land banks are an essential part of being a developer and I'm sure they love seeing prices go up for doing nothing. But they don't arrange secret meetings where they conspire to not build for another year and gain 10% on their value of their banks. Why would I do that when I can turn that into a 50% gain with some building?

So why aren't they building? Well actually, they are. After five years of starvation, in 2017 we finally began to see the month-on-month stock of housing for sale stabilise despite a 10% jump in the volume of sales. This indicates that development is catching up to meet demand. However, five years of pent-up demand means there is going to be a squeeze period until that pent-up demand is relieved.

Why not develop faster? Because these things take time. A single person building a house on their own site may get it done in six months if they throw money at it. A developer putting down 300 homes will take 12-18 for the first properties to come online in a liveable, sellable state. The entire development can take 5-10 years to complete. That's the nature of building and development.

Encouraging faster and more aggressive building targets is exactly what caused the last major crash. We encouraged developers to aim for housing completion targets based on today's numbers rather than the numbers in five years time.

Likewise if you look at the housing figures today and aim to build that many houses, the target will have changed completely in five years time and you could easily crash the economy. Again.

How about the government? Well they can't develop faster much faster than private companies. The "rapid build" project we now know is a bit of a joke, it took 18 months to put 22 of them up. That's quick-ish I guess, but again proves that property is not a quick fix. If there are 1,500 homeless people today and nowhere to put them, then they're going to continue to be homeless for another 18-24 months no matter what anyone does, and no matter how many protests happen. The government are building houses. Protesting and whinging can't speed it up.

Renting:
There's no "landlord class" lording it over the peasants with their brandy and monocles. For the most part, it's just everyday people with properties for rent doing the best they can. Are rents going up because supply is constrained? Yes. Greedy landlords? No, that's a bit of a stretch. Some, perhaps, revel in the opportunity to grab some more cash.

However, a large chunk are renting out properties they bought at the height of the boom. They're repaying boom-size mortgages, but the prices of their properties haven't recovered. So they can't sell it, and their mortgage is relatively large. So when a rent increase is available, they're going to take it so they can get closer to covering the whole mortgage. Right or wrong, that's how it is, and it's what you would do too.

The rental market unfortunately can't come right until the pent-up demand is relieved. No amount of rules and regulations can suddenly make properties appear out of thin air to rent and put downward pressure on rents. Put very restrictive caps on rents and supply will be even further constrained by landlords delisting or selling up.

Any emergency/panic/knee-jerk changes we make today will bite us in five years' time. I guarantee it. Stick with our current scenario, where output is slowly increasing and the government is building some homes, and by 2021/22 we'll be in a far better and more sustainable position.

Stop with your sensible logic around here.

We need more shouting and rabble rabble.

What to we want? More social houses.

When do we want them? Now

Whos wants to pay for them? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Wheeliebin30

Mayne if Jacinta and her 4 kids and her mysterious partner didnt demand a 4 bedroom house next to mammy and Chelsea there might be houses available for People working and contributing to the system.

Whoever screams the loudest.....

seamus

It's funny how the proposal in the OP mirrors the "bank protests" of about a decade ago, where people were out protesting because they were unhappy, but they had no realistic proposals on how to fix things and barely a rudimentary grasp of the problem in the first place.

FTA69 wrote: »

....
gouged by a class of landlords
...
high rents and high land value suits them down to the ground.
...
cabal of developers to dictate (we all know what happened last time.)

It's pretty clear that you have an us -v- them attitude in relation to wealth & property, which doesn't surprise me tbh going on your post history. You're way off the mark though in reality.

Selling:
Developers can make a shedload more money using their land to cram in loads of houses and sell them, than just sitting on it and letting prices rise. In an increasing market, €1m of land turns into €10m of land way quicker if you build and sell rather than speculate. Land banks are an essential part of being a developer and I'm sure they love seeing prices go up for doing nothing. But they don't arrange secret meetings where they conspire to not build for another year and gain 10% on their value of their banks. Why would I do that when I can turn that into a 50% gain with some building?

So why aren't they building? Well actually, they are. After five years of starvation, in 2017 we finally began to see the month-on-month stock of housing for sale stabilise despite a 10% jump in the volume of sales. This indicates that development is catching up to meet demand. However, five years of pent-up demand means there is going to be a squeeze period until that pent-up demand is relieved.

Why not develop faster? Because these things take time. A single person building a house on their own site may get it done in six months if they throw money at it. A developer putting down 300 homes will take 12-18 for the first properties to come online in a liveable, sellable state. The entire development can take 5-10 years to complete. That's the nature of building and development.

Encouraging faster and more aggressive building targets is exactly what caused the last major crash. We encouraged developers to aim for housing completion targets based on today's numbers rather than the numbers in five years time.

Likewise if you look at the housing figures today and aim to build that many houses, the target will have changed completely in five years time and you could easily crash the economy. Again.

How about the government? Well they can't develop faster much faster than private companies. The "rapid build" project we now know is a bit of a joke, it took 18 months to put 22 of them up. That's quick-ish I guess, but again proves that property is not a quick fix. If there are 1,500 homeless people today and nowhere to put them, then they're going to continue to be homeless for another 18-24 months no matter what anyone does, and no matter how many protests happen. The government are building houses. Protesting and whinging can't speed it up.

Renting:
There's no "landlord class" lording it over the peasants with their brandy and monocles. For the most part, it's just everyday people with properties for rent doing the best they can. Are rents going up because supply is constrained? Yes. Greedy landlords? No, that's a bit of a stretch. Some, perhaps, revel in the opportunity to grab some more cash.

However, a large chunk are renting out properties they bought at the height of the boom. They're repaying boom-size mortgages, but the prices of their properties haven't recovered. So they can't sell it, and their mortgage is relatively large. So when a rent increase is available, they're going to take it so they can get closer to covering the whole mortgage. Right or wrong, that's how it is, and it's what you would do too.

The rental market unfortunately can't come right until the pent-up demand is relieved. No amount of rules and regulations can suddenly make properties appear out of thin air to rent and put downward pressure on rents. Put very restrictive caps on rents and supply will be even further constrained by landlords delisting or selling up.

Any emergency/panic/knee-jerk changes we make today will bite us in five years' time. I guarantee it. Stick with our current scenario, where output is slowly increasing and the government is building some homes, and by 2021/22 we'll be in a far better and more sustainable position.

What I find funniest at the moment is the crossover between the people who are shouting loudly about this crisis today, who also happen to be the people who were shouting loudly 7 years ago about how Ireland had enough housing stock for decades to come and heads should be rolling for it. These are all knee-jerkers, people who know that forward planning is the least popular kind of politics and just go for the outrage angle.

CrankyHaus

Good suggestion OP. Timing it on a weekend so working people could attend would be essential to prevent it being hijacked by the far left and the scroungers they opportunistically mobilise (This would still be a huge challenge).

Some of the "I'm alright Jack" types on here need to take a longer view and see this as a matter of enlightened self-interest.
Exorbitent rent and housing costs act as a drag on productive economic activity, harm competitiveness and fuel volatile investment bubles that crash the economy (like in 2008).
Shelter is essential to human survival, I'm surprised you can stand over rampant profiteering in its provision. Your children will have to live somewhere.

splinter65

cantdecide wrote: »

I normally hate when people reply using a single rolleyes smilie...

The polite answer is if you're one of the enormous number of people who isn't suffering and doesn't see people suffering because of the lack of accommodation, then you should be thankful. Congratulations for finding yourself sorted. That's not the world that hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in today.

I see lots of people sleeping rough because there’s not enough addiction services or mental health facilities.
I see lots of people in hotels because the conditions under which they will accept state funded housing cannot be met by the state.
I see CEOs of housing charities receiving huge salaries and using the media to push the notion that there is a housing emergency in order to stay on the gravy train as long as they can.
I see people taking no personal responsibilty whatsoever when it comes to providing for themselves and the children they’ve brought into the world.
I see left wing parties and independents suggesting that my 20 year old daughter living at home with me is actually homeless because the state have not provided a house for her to live in.
In fact these politicians are suggesting that anyone who doesn’t own a house outright, including myself, is, in fact, homeless.
If this is the crisis you are referring to then you really don’t want to go to some less fortunate parts of the world.

Wanderer78

splinter65 wrote: »

Can’t do that in the EU also the more money you print the less value it has

hmmm, qe is an interesting idea then and working well for the majority!

myshirt

You have to think through it from a practical and logical perspective.

There are more people with houses than there are without houses. Those with houses thus hold more power than those without houses. Old versus young perhaps. Plus homeless people don't vote remember, homeless people don't complain, how can they meaningfully mobilise when day in day out it is debilitating stress, hoping to make it to tomorrow, and praying that God answers. Homeless kids don't make much noise also, they just play with their superman and batman toys, dreaming that someday just like Superman helps people, maybe someone will come and rescue them or give a sh-t about them. But unfortunately, they won't.

Those with influence like to see house prices go up, that's how family wealth is held in Ireland. Those with mortgages on their balance sheet (i.e the banks) also like to see house prices go up. The financial system also likes to see more healthy balance sheets. Overall that benefits everyone in the long run, but only if one thing exists. And that is taxing it, and taxing unearned wealth / passive income.

Irish people don't like the idea of removing the PPR exemption, and don't like the idea of paying CAT / reducing the thresholds the way a cold hard analysis would dictate. That's the politics of it. We care about things, but as long as someone else pays for it or its not in our backyard.

Baby boomers often give out about Millennials wanting everything now and without putting in he work, when the reality is it's completely the opposite way around. Baby boomers lived in a fantasy where they overestimated the link between their effort and their own financial position, patting themselves on the back. They fail to realise the impact of economic decisions, they fail to realise that State borrowing is taxation delayed, they fail to realise who pays the bill. If it was true, then a man in the back arse of Timbuktu could be a millionaire by pure effort alone. The reality is it's not true. It's not all you. Stop patting yourself on the back. It's most prominent in the public service and in the transport sector where they are clinging on to exorbitant wages, pensions, etc etc that they never ever deserved. The impact of jobbridge, youth unemployment and a pensions bomb are still to filter through. Home ownership or stable rental housing are a pipe dream for young people, while these f#ckers sail off into the sun smoking cigars and eating lobster.

TLDR: Until we accept that baby boomers need to be taxed up to the bollix and not permitted to pass on wealth, we won't ever have social equality of opportunity to solve these housing issues.

splinter65

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Strangely enough, governments have the ability to just print the money they need without actually receiving it in taxes

Can’t do that in the EU also the more money you print the less value it has

cantdecide

splinter65 wrote: »

What crisis?

I normally hate when people reply using a single rolleyes smilie...

The polite answer is if you're one of the enormous number of people who isn't suffering and doesn't see people suffering because of the lack of accommodation, then you should be thankful. Congratulations for finding yourself sorted. That's not the world that hundreds of thousands of people find themselves in today.

splinter65 wrote: »

No. Because I want one. I see other people have houses and I want one.
I don’t want to hear about how they worked and saved for their house. I want one now so give it to me.

The point is that the world so many thousands find themselves in today, no amount of working or saving is sufficient. Earnings are too low. Contract employment being the only available to many people and housing costs in rent and purchase prices are gone to hell...

Jaysus read the papers will ya.

Idbatterim

511 wrote: »

I'd rather have a protest about too many immigrants clogging up the housing list and inflating property prices/rents. Property prices are driven by demand and immigration creates plenty of it. When demand exceeds supply, property developers can auction off the house with plenty of people bidding for it, selling well above its asking price.

Down in New Zealand, the 3 biggest parties all campaigned on reducing immigration to ease the strain on the housing market and infrastructure.

dont expect that here! you think any politician would even propose that here? go with the tide is their motto!

splinter65

D3V!L wrote: »

Thread TLDR = give me a free house because I deserve one

No. Because I want one. I see other people have houses and I want one.
I don’t want to hear about how they worked and saved for their house. I want one now so give it to me.

Idbatterim

splinter65 wrote: »

What crisis?

of course its not a crisis for hundreds of thousands. But it is for hundreds of thousands of others! let me guess, you arent paying astronomical rent or homeless?

Idbatterim

hawkelady wrote: »

What the op wants is for houses to be given to people who can't afford houses and he wants everyone to start marching for it ..... even the people who work hard to pay their own mortgage !!
Welcome to Ireland 2018

LOL! what I want is the government to allow higher density and actually make it worthwhile for builders to build, by reducing the ridiculous guidelines around apartments, what will that cost? nothing! nothing!

people trying to blame the issue on private developers who are out to make a profit and do what makes business sense like we all do! this is 100% of the governments making!

Builders start building in large amount and guess what? we get far more social housing! This isnt a money issue, this is an issue they obviously are ideologically opposed to.

Of course people here think I am referring just to the actual homeless without a roof over their head or those living out of hotels! No, I am also referring to people in Dublin being done on rent and with no chance of affording their own place, even earning 50k a year plus!

I read an article in the times the other day saying that a one bed apartment in some area of dublin with the current build and land price, would take a single earner to be on a minimum income of €87,000 a year to be able to afford the cheapest apartment in the the development!

splinter65

Idbatterim wrote: »

Is it time for mass protest at the housing crisis? The only time the scum bags we elect to the dail are interested in us, is come election time. I have voted fg previously, I'm done with them. If they think a few euro a week decrease in USC is enough to keep people onside.

These same people who will be paying e700 plus for an average bedroom in an average house in an average part of Dublin IF they can even secure a viewing!

People protested about water, this scandal is off the wall in comparison. This situation is ruining lives and costing people a fortune, unlike water!

The only time they ever budge here, i.e. Politicians is when pressure is put on them and they collapse like a house of cards, as their populist nature compels them to.

Whatever ideological reason they have against solving the issues show a disgusting lack of empathy. I don't see what their issue is, their mates in the banks, the estate agents will be creaming it in with more building. More jobs, more lpt...

It's taken them 3 years minimum into the crisis to acknowledge the fact that apartment building is prohibitively expensive and wait more years for action. 3 years! 3 years of misery for tens of thousand of people of not more. What's the problem? They are overpaid, do nothing but talk it seems to me.

So there you go coppinger etc. Someone ill probably never agree with on economic policy etc, but organise a protest for this issue and I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with you!

After the previous water crisis and protest and where that lead to. The government will do a pretty quick about turn this time! Particularly as an election could be held any time!

What crisis?

511

I'd rather have a protest about too many immigrants clogging up the housing list and inflating property prices/rents. Property prices are driven by demand and immigration creates plenty of it. When demand exceeds supply, property developers can auction off the house with plenty of people bidding for it, selling well above its asking price.

Down in New Zealand, the 3 biggest parties all campaigned on reducing immigration to ease the strain on the housing market and infrastructure.

cantdecide

al87987 wrote: »

I find that people of a certain vintage, say over 35, don't care about this issue as the continuing crisis means they're becoming artificially wealthier ie.

I'm 36 and set myself a 5 year plan about 5 years ago which was supposed to conclude with me putting a roof over my head. 5 years have passed and not only am I no closer in terms of earnings, I'm even further away now because of the housing crisis. I say that people my age and older who have been suffering because of the strange new world (that's here to stay) that we find ourselves in will be the first to protest. I know I'd be there if I could.

I've always said I'm economically stuck at age 25 but the major difference is that 25 year olds today have a decade on me. The future that I see for younger generations is that there is a good future for young people who have the foresight to make better decisions (and find themselves in relationships with someone of the same ilk as double incomes are necessary to get anywhere for most ordinary people) but our society will punish those that aren't as shrewd. Gone forever are the days where a blue collar worker can raise a family and have a reasonable life on the back of a reasonable wage. You will have to be an above average person in order to have what older generations would regard as an average life.

whisky_galore

FTA69 wrote: »

Young people working in our cities are being royally shafted and these are the people we need working in our urban areas to fuel our economy.

This is storing up trouble down the line, what's the point in studying or working here if places are hard to come by and those that do are unaffordable?

Also, the so-called 'family hubs' can't be great from a social point of view, long-term.
Wouldn't be surprised if kids growing up in conditions like that could turn to things other than earning an honest living.

Idbatterim

Dravokivich wrote: »

The people done in by it, are working.

She mobilised kids as billboards to carry poster boards for a bye-election a few years back. I don't think she's all that much to be honest.

I totally agree its the people working that are done in by it! I would reserve the largest amount of sympathy for them. Many not earning much, yet still over the threshold to qualify for social housing etc!

FG will be looking for these people votes, giving them a pittance, while doing nothing to solve the crisis and costing these same people a fortune!

Leslie91

Homelessness and the fact that those in power can without question (1) increase their salaries, (2) hire as many so called advisers as they like on outrageous money and (3) enjoy lavish early pensions and golden handshakes should be marched on.

I'll even take time off work to march on these scandals.

hawkelady

cbreeze wrote: »

It would be interesting to find out how many TDs, Senators, MEPs and Councillors are landlords, which might explain the lack of motivation to enable proper rent controls. They have to fill in a declaration to the Standards in Public Office every year, so there may be information there.

You know there are RPZ's in place that allows a max of 4% increase .. there is legislation in place so why would you think the government ministers/tds who are landlords are lacking motivation in such things