Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
-
09-08-2018 3:14pm#1Commentary on the policies and actions of the Government of the day who ever they may be.
With it's beginnings under Bertie's Fianna Fail, despite the bubble and crash the state insists on following the same model of depending on private business to cure public ills.The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform recently recommended that the State place a greater focus on building social houses rather than resorting to the private sector rental market to solve social housing needs.
As part of a value for money analysis, the department found that in parts of Dublin the State could build social houses for up to half the money it would have to spend on rent for social housing tenants.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/
Handsome Boards posters have been saying similar for a long time.
Intentionally or not, the state is using tax payer money to fill the pockets of housing speculators profiting off the housing crisis in an effort to, giving the benefit of the doubt, tackle the housing problem. This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.Ireland's largest private landlord, I-RES REIT, has almost trebled the number of State-funded, social tenancies on its books.
The company, which last week announced profits of €19 million for the first half of this year, confirmed to RTÉ's Morning Ireland that it has 303 tenants receiving a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP).
It equates to 11% of I-RES's total portfolio of rental properties of 2,678.
In 2017, just 4% of the company's properties were rented to State-funded tenants.
Would love to know of any public figures involved with I-RES.
Do we just keep on with this model to begrudge the anecdotal numbers of chancers and pretenders sleeping in Garda stations and the like?
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0809/984012-homeless-dublin/0
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,543 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 37344
Mod: Matt, I hope you don't mind but I have changed the thread title as it was a tad vague.The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34
0 -
This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.
Just on this part M - I seen an article a day or 2 ago that covered how the constituency office of the housing minister was forcibly closed without a replacement being found, resulting in his constituency business now having to be conducted from his Leinster house.
The article skirts around the insinuation that Murphy was effectively left homeless as a direct result of his own policies and the competitive Dublin rental prices may have added to his problems.0 -
I think it's very short sighted to shrug off some of the things exacerbating the broader problem. We've PTSB selling off loans to a vulture fund because allegedly they were bad loans and what's a business to do, when not crying to the tax payer? It turned out not to be the entire story. It's just business, sure, but in the long run it'll come back to bite the tax payer.'Vulture funds pay around €1 in taxes for every €1 million they hold in Irish assets
Up to 90% of the property in NAMA went to Vulture Funds who, in turn, used section 110 legislation to pay virtually nothing in taxes.
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/opinion-simon-coveney-is-currently-engaged-in-a-land-grab-of-epic-proportions-3394082-May2017/Vulture funds pay just €8,000 in tax on €10 billion of assets
http://www.thejournal.ie/vulture-funds-2-3176030-Jan2017/
If we can create or uphold policy that benefits such moves as AIB paying no tax on profits for 30 odd years, surely we can truly look after our own, and by that I mean everyone working and paying tax.
Any property speculators, during a crisis, should be heavily taxed IMO. It's profiting from misery and making the crisis worse.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
There are several major problems facing the Gov at the moment - housing and health are the top two.
Homeless is a term that covers a whole range of problems, some of which show in statistics and some that does not. Rough sleepers are homeless - sometime out of choice, some out of addiction or mental health problems, and some out of social problems. Others do sofa surfing with friends, and do not get counted. Some decide to declare themselves homeless in the hope of jumping the housing queue. Others are evicted by greedy landlords looking to profit from the current situation.
Someone was on the radio the other day living on his own in a four bedroom council house with no gas*, and under notice to be moved by the council to more suitable accommodation, but nothing has happened since before Christmas. He would be quite happy to move to a one bed unit, and a family could take over his house. Who is at fault there?
Solution - give sites and money from NAMA to DCC to build, build, build. The can tender for housing units to be built by building contractors in say 100 units per contract that would allow smaller builders to get involved, and get council houses back for housing those on the waiting list. If one third was social houses (for rent), one third same houses but sold as affordable, and one third higher spec but sold at full market rate. 45% of the cost returns to Gov in the form of VAT, income tax, PRSI, and other taxes.
*He was brought up in the house, and his many siblings have moved away, with his widowed mother deceased last year. I think he was unable to cope after she died. At least, that was my understanding of his story.0 -
There are several major problems facing the Gov at the moment - housing and health are the top two.
are they major problems for the government though? FG are doing brilliantly, if you believe the polls. If they are actually gaining seats, from this pathetic failure on health and housing, as usual. Why would they change anything? I really think the problem in this country is, that they will maintain the status quo, unless forced to change. Who is forcing them to change?
There is no feasible political alternative and we, the voters, arent flexing our muscles...0 -
Advertisement
-
Johnny Dogs wrote: »
The article skirts around the insinuation that Murphy was effectively left homeless as a direct result of his own policies and the competitive Dublin rental prices may have added to his problems.
Yes, Dublin rental prices. So who runs the Dublin, Sinn Fein being the largest party, combined with similar left wingers comprise of the largest block, run Dublin City Council.
Do they have no impact into this issue?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-city-council-asked-to-reverse-apartment-height-limits-1.2759551Minister for Housing Simon Coveney wants Dublin City Council to reverse plans to restrict the height of apartment blocks that can be built in the city, because of the risks to future housing supply .
Last May councillors voted to limit the height of apartments in low-rise areas of the inner city to 24 metres and to 13m in low-rise areas of the suburbs. Most of Dublin apart from 13 specific areas falls into the low-rise category.
Dublin City Council chief executive Owen Keegan had wanted to set 28m as the maximum height for low-rise apartments in the city centre (the same height currently permitted for office blocks) and 16m as the height for suburban apartments.
No effect?
http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-tall-buildings-problems-2795550-May2016/The development plan acknowledges that Dublin is a “low-rise city and considers that it should remain predominantly so”, but also that the council “recognises the merit of taller buildings”.
No effect?
http://www.thejournal.ie/tall-high-rise-buildings-dublin-2-4084160-Jun2018/While the An Bord Pleanála inspector’s report pre-dates the Ireland 2040 guidelines, the board’s final judgement shows the weight the new national policy will carry with the planning authority.
Lorcan Sirr, a lecturer on housing at DIT, told Fora that these planning decisions showed the beginnings of city councils being “politically castrated”.
“The penny hasn’t dropped with them that the Department of Housing are now in control – and that’s really bad. We elect councillors on the basis they will do A, B and C; one of the jobs they do is focus on the development plan.
Positive effect.
Local elections are on next year, I suggest you have a chat to DCC about the housing issues in Dublin.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »We've PTSB selling off loans to a vulture fund because allegedly they were bad loans and what's a business to do, .
The issues with the loans are clear-cut.
1) This is a directive from the ECB, the government cannot intervene on this issue, no matter what TD or interest group tells you otherwise.
2) These loans have been festering now for the guts of 10 years, yes 10 years. Ireland is unique in the situation where a homeowner cannot or doesn't want to pay a mortgage and keep their home for up to 10 years. On average in other EU countries, the figure is 6 months.
3) It shows us that the courts will rarely if ever order eviction notices to owner-occupiers. It is almost impossible for a bank to regain its collateral if they give out a mortgage. This, in turn, has a knock on effect elsewhere.
4) We pay the highest interest rates in the EU, precisely because of the issues outlined above. This means that you, me and every other responsible person who pays for their own home is paying for others. This adds up over the lifetime of the mortgage to tens of thousands of extra euros you have to pay.
5) Selling off these loans is the fastest way to get the Irish banking back to normal business, where impaired loans are marginal and credit is perhaps slightly freer, where developers can build more much-needed houses and responsible savers and rents can get a mortgage.
6) The tax these funds pay is a separate issue and falls under the corporate tax regime of the state. The term, vulture funds is sexy and is like manna from heaven for the looney left, but they are often more reasonable to deal with than Irish banks.0 -
The issues with the loans are clear-cut.
1) This is a directive from the ECB, the government cannot intervene on this issue, no matter what TD or interest group tells you otherwise.
The government could buy them.
These loans have a variety of cases, some are chancers and should be thrown out, some are misfortune and will have to be housed by the State anyway. The government should take control of the latter.0 -
Charles Babbage wrote: »The government could buy them.
These loans have a variety of cases, some are chancers and should be thrown out, some are misfortune and will have to be housed by the State anyway. The government should take control of the latter.
That would just increase the level of deficit the state has and possibly infringe ECB rules, would it not?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
That would just increase the level of deficit the state has and possibly infringe ECB rules, would it not?
NAMA or the NTMA could be used o create one of those special purpose vehicles to fund the purchase of these loans. They could then get the original bank to manage the exit of the problem by separating the 'can't pay' from he 'wont pay'.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »Commentary on the policies and actions of the Government of the day who ever they may be.
With it's beginnings under Bertie's Fianna Fail, despite the bubble and crash the state insists on following the same model of depending on private business to cure public ills.
Handsome Boards posters have been saying similar for a long time.
Intentionally or not, the state is using tax payer money to fill the pockets of housing speculators profiting off the housing crisis in an effort to, giving the benefit of the doubt, tackle the housing problem. This is driving up rents and sale prices making the public and the state more dependent on private enterprise and around and around we go until the bottom falls out.
Would love to know of any public figures involved with I-RES.
Do we just keep on with this model to begrudge the anecdotal numbers of chancers and pretenders sleeping in Garda stations and the like?
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0809/984012-homeless-dublin/
11% of I-RES properties rented to HAP?
And somehow this is a criticism of government policy?
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought for years that posters have been on here whinging and whinging, not just in the politics thread but also in the accommodation threads, that private landlords would not rent to those in receipt of HAP and that the government should do something about it.
So one of two things seem to be true:
(1) The government has done something about it and they should be congratulated.
(2) It was never true and landlords always did rent to those in receipt of HAP, just not to particular people in receipt of HAP. Should the focus be on why some people are turned down by landlords? Perhaps the absence of a reference because of previous behaviour, for example?
I don't know which of the above two is correct, but one of them has to be if Matt is right in his assertion that 11% of I-REP housing is being rented to those on HAP.
A good note to start the thread on, to show that the problem of landlords not renting to HAP recipients is an urban myth.0 -
Positive effect.
Local elections are on next year, I suggest you have a chat to DCC about the housing issues in Dublin.
what and elect in those supporting higher density? who is that exactly?0 -
Charles Babbage wrote: »The government could buy them.
God no! Just no.
We already have people like Margaret Cash, who is taking in over €50,000 tax free from the state demanding more.
Do you honestly think if the state started down the road of buying bad loans from banks because people decided not to pay their mortgage, knowing that the state will just buy the loan and leave those in the property alone?
Besides, the ECB would never allow it.0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »what and elect in those supporting higher density? who is that exactly?
I have no idea, but you can ask them. I think the Greens might be worth a shot.
Then again, the national government has pulled the plug on the LA's endless vetoing0 -
Charles Babbage wrote: »The government could buy them.
God no! Just no.
We already have people like Margaret Cash, who is taking in over €50,000 tax free from the state demanding more.
Do you honestly think if the state started down the road of buying bad loans from banks because people decided not to pay their mortgage, knowing that the state will just buy the loan and leave those in the property alone?
Besides, the ECB would never allow it.
God bless the EU for protecting us from ourselves tbf.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »There are several major problems facing the Gov at the moment - housing and health are the top two.
Homeless is a term that covers a whole range of problems, some of which show in statistics and some that does not. Rough sleepers are homeless - sometime out of choice, some out of addiction or mental health problems, and some out of social problems. Others do sofa surfing with friends, and do not get counted. Some decide to declare themselves homeless in the hope of jumping the housing queue. Others are evicted by greedy landlords looking to profit from the current situation.
Someone was on the radio the other day living on his own in a four bedroom council house with no gas*, and under notice to be moved by the council to more suitable accommodation, but nothing has happened since before Christmas. He would be quite happy to move to a one bed unit, and a family could take over his house. Who is at fault there?
Solution - give sites and money from NAMA to DCC to build, build, build. The can tender for housing units to be built by building contractors in say 100 units per contract that would allow smaller builders to get involved, and get council houses back for housing those on the waiting list. If one third was social houses (for rent), one third same houses but sold as affordable, and one third higher spec but sold at full market rate. 45% of the cost returns to Gov in the form of VAT, income tax, PRSI, and other taxes.
*He was brought up in the house, and his many siblings have moved away, with his widowed mother deceased last year. I think he was unable to cope after she died. At least, that was my understanding of his story.
Flats for single people are never a priority. I believe there's usually a shortage. A single person gets dropped back on the list everytime a single parent walks in the door.Charles Babbage wrote: »The government could buy them.
These loans have a variety of cases, some are chancers and should be thrown out, some are misfortune and will have to be housed by the State anyway. The government should take control of the latter.
Agreed. These people won't be dying off or leaving the country, they will need assistance. There are options like helping anyone genuinely in a bad way with lower repayments over a longer period or freezing the mortgage for a time. We don't need them all ending up on a housing list for certain.
If the state gave as much care and attention to the public as it did to private developers and financial institutions we might have less of a crisis.11% of I-RES properties rented to HAP?
And somehow this is a criticism of government policy?
Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought for years that posters have been on here whinging and whinging, not just in the politics thread but also in the accommodation threads, that private landlords would not rent to those in receipt of HAP and that the government should do something about it.
So one of two things seem to be true:
(1) The government has done something about it and they should be congratulated.
(2) It was never true and landlords always did rent to those in receipt of HAP, just not to particular people in receipt of HAP. Should the focus be on why some people are turned down by landlords? Perhaps the absence of a reference because of previous behaviour, for example?
I don't know which of the above two is correct, but one of them has to be if Matt is right in his assertion that 11% of I-REP housing is being rented to those on HAP.
A good note to start the thread on, to show that the problem of landlords not renting to HAP recipients is an urban myth.
I'll give you a recap as you seemed to have missed the essence.
Private companies are buying housing stock, in some cases from NAMA, to rent to government under the HAP scheme. This is driving up housing/rent prices creating more need for HAP. The loser here is the tax payer and those on low incomes looking to rent or buy. This feeds the crisis.The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform recently recommended that the State place a greater focus on building social houses rather than resorting to the private sector rental market to solve social housing needs.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0809/983942-housing-social-tenancies/11% of I-RES properties rented to HAP?
And somehow this is a criticism of government policy?
It's about the housing crisis and how to tackle it.
My assertion is a quote from a newspaper article. Expecting private business to fix public problems does not work.
Once again you are bringing the narrative off course to suit your agenda. Have at it.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »NAMA or the NTMA could be used o create one of those special purpose vehicles to fund the purchase of these loans. They could then get the original bank to manage the exit of the problem by separating the 'can't pay' from he 'wont pay'.
It doesn’t matter what you call it, it is still government debt.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
It doesn’t matter what you call it, it is still government debt.
It is not a Gov advantage to move someone from a home they have a mortgage on (and are not paying) from that house to a homeless list, requiring the state to pay hotel bills for them. If they genuinely cannot pay the mortgage, then adjust their situation so that they can pay. This can be done by various arrangements, like renting the house to them, warehouse part of the mortgage, or move them to a smaller/cheaper house. Rural resettlement might be an approach.
One thing that is certain is that selling Nama property to private landlords to rent back to the state makes no sense at all. Particularly if said landlords pay no tax.0 -
Add to that NAMA loaning state money to private developers for private builds.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 13692
Sam Russell wrote: »Solution - give sites and money from NAMA to DCC to build, build, build. The can tender for housing units to be built by building contractors in say 100 units per contract that would allow smaller builders to get involved, and get council houses back for housing those on the waiting list. If one third was social houses (for rent), one third same houses but sold as affordable, and one third higher spec but sold at full market rate. 45% of the cost returns to Gov in the form of VAT, income tax, PRSI, and other taxes.
NAMA wouln't do that because it's not part of their remit. But there is a lot of talk about the budget, with figures up to €3bn being talked about as the scope for changes. If people are vocal enough about housing, then the could find €1bn or more to do as you are proposing.
Personally, I would be happy to see no increase in other services nor a decrease in taxes if it meant that they dealt with the housing crisis. I would even go so far as to say that I would tolerate cuts to other services and an increase in taxes would be easier swallowed if they were to do this.
On your point about selling some of the houses for a profit to recoup the build costs, this is a great idea. Sadly, however, it would be politically untenable. You'd have the Paul Murphys of this world complaining that it should be 100% social housing or nothing, and if they don't make a profit (prices crash, no one wants to live in a 30% council housing new estate etc) then the other parties would blame the government for their wasteful plan. Which is a shame because it seems to be the obvious solution.Idbatterim wrote: »I really think the problem in this country is, that they will maintain the status quo, unless forced to change. Who is forcing them to change?
There is no feasible political alternative and we, the voters, arent flexing our muscles...
They will maintain the status quo unless it is more popular for them not to. Sometimes the voters effect change by voting the opposition into power, but other times they do so by telling their own government what they want.
IMO the momentum about the housing market is reaching bubbling over point. The problem is though that while social housing is the obvious flashpoint, there are other aspects as well. Low interest rates and increasing property prices benefit the funds buying up large amounts of property, but they also benefit the ordinary voter who likes his mortgage low and his property high.
So while I agree with you that they will maintain the status quo, I'm not sure that it is just inertia in the absence of being forced to change. It's possible that the status quo is very popular with the voters.0 -
Advertisement
-
Social housing aside, the state encourages activity that feeds the crisis. NAMA selling properties only to have some of them rented back to the state through HAP. Not to mention Murphy buying new housing at market rate to be used as social housing. On a broader scale, making Ireland a great little country to do business if you're a vulture fund.
If we can step into private business to bail out banks and give cheap loans to developers, surely we can do something similar for the public, even just while we are in crisis? I don't accept interference in the market place only being an issue if it benefits the public.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
johnnyskeleton wrote: »NAMA wouln't do that because it's not part of their remit. But there is a lot of talk about the budget, with figures up to €3bn being talked about as the scope for changes. If people are vocal enough about housing, then the could find €1bn or more to do as you are proposing.
Personally, I would be happy to see no increase in other services nor a decrease in taxes if it meant that they dealt with the housing crisis. I would even go so far as to say that I would tolerate cuts to other services and an increase in taxes would be easier swallowed if they were to do this.
On your point about selling some of the houses for a profit to recoup the build costs, this is a great idea. Sadly, however, it would be politically untenable. You'd have the Paul Murphys of this world complaining that it should be 100% social housing or nothing, and if they don't make a profit (prices crash, no one wants to live in a 30% council housing new estate etc) then the other parties would blame the government for their wasteful plan. Which is a shame because it seems to be the obvious solution.
The remit of Nama can be changed.
The problem with 100% social housing is social unrest, giving rise to the 'good' tenants moving out if 'bad' tenants cause social problems, and then we get the Ballymun effect.
When Ballymun was built, it was great (according to the first tenants). But then the Corpo got rid of the caretakers (to save money) who used to police the place and keep everything tidy, including the tenants. Then the slow decent to demolition.
Having a 30%/30%/40% split between social/affordable/normal housing should be a good mix.
the social and affordable should be built to the same spec - basic but good quality. The normal houses would be built to a higher spec with larger rooms and better quality finish, but not widely so.
If say cost of build is €200k for the first two plus site, with the second costing €250k plus site. Say site cost from Nama is €50k, then the cost to the state would be reasonable, given that they get back the VAT plus payroll tax. Overall, if DCC is the developer, there is no profit to add, and the prices could come out as €250k for the first two, with the second and third group selling for
€295 and €395k (to €495 - depending on demand) respectively,
Now these figures are representative and figurative, but could be wildly out, but the extra €100k per house for the last group would significantly subsidise the first two groups. [Remember, if DCC do the development, there is no profit for private pockets].
Funding and political will would be required. The funding could come from special savings bonds issued by the NTMA with an attractive interest rate and tax treatment to mop up all those billions of private savings that are sitting in the banks earning 0.01% interest.
It might work, but it would certainly provide houses.0 -
Yes, Dublin rental prices. So who runs the Dublin, Sinn Fein being the largest party, combined with similar left wingers comprise of the largest block, run Dublin City Council.
We've already danced this dance, and after you moving around the house from telling us Eoin had no responsibility and didn't oversee councils/they weren't answerable to him, yet a few minutes (literally) tell us that Murphys position was created so as he could get to grips with the housing crisis so he could overrule councils I explained to you that it wasn't necessary to choose one side or the other.
With that I shall repeat.
The council seems to be as useless as the Minister who oversees them.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »It is not a Gov advantage to move someone from a home they have a mortgage on (and are not paying) from that house to a homeless list, requiring the state to pay hotel bills for them. If they genuinely cannot pay the mortgage, then adjust their situation so that they can pay. This can be done by various arrangements, like renting the house to them, warehouse part of the mortgage, or move them to a smaller/cheaper house. Rural resettlement might be an approach.
One thing that is certain is that selling Nama property to private landlords to rent back to the state makes no sense at all. Particularly if said landlords pay no tax.
My understanding is that the debt being sold falls in to either the buy to rent category, or the **** you we're not paying category. The people that are making an honest effort will still have their loans managed by state owned banks.
Where the government gets in to trouble, is when their borrowing gets too high as they start to infringe the ECB rules on being in the euro, so it is in the government's interests to keep debt at arms length.
Similar philosophy to water charges and borrowing money to fund improvements to the infrastructure.0 -
Johnny Dogs wrote: »We've already danced this dance, and after you moving around the house from telling us Eoin had no responsibility and didn't oversee councils/they weren't answerable to him, yet a few minutes (literally) tell us that Murphys position was created so as he could get to grips with the housing crisis so he could overrule councils I explained to you that it wasn't necessary to choose one side or the other.
You are under the false impression that LA's were answerable to the Dept of planning and environment and by extension, the minister. They were not and are not.0 -
My understanding is that the debt being sold falls in to either the buy to rent category, or the **** you we're not paying category. The people that are making an honest effort will still have their loans managed by state owned banks.
Where the government gets in to trouble, is when their borrowing gets too high as they start to infringe the ECB rules on being in the euro, so it is in the government's interests to keep debt at arms length.
Similar philosophy to water charges and borrowing money to fund improvements to the infrastructure.
That wasn't the case with PTSB.PERMANENT TSB EXECUTIVES confirmed today that the mortgages of thousands of customers are included in a massive loan sale, despite the fact that they have been meeting the terms of their agreement.
http://www.thejournal.ie/ptsb-vulture-funds-3-3917568-Mar2018/
It's saddening to see the rise in the divisive attitude permeating about the place where anyone not doing well might be a whinger or chancer of some kind. It's important to note that those people are still the minority in these circumstances.
From funding private builds with cheap loans, selling cheap homes only to have them rented back to the state under HAP or buying new homes off the private market for use as social housing, the state/LA's couldn't be trying any harder to work against the renting/buying tax payer.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13692
Sam Russell wrote: »The problem with 100% social housing is social unrest, giving rise to the 'good' tenants moving out if 'bad' tenants cause social problems, and then we get the Ballymun effect.
Having a 30%/30%/40% split between social/affordable/normal housing should be a good mix.
the social and affordable should be built to the same spec - basic but good quality. The normal houses would be built to a higher spec with larger rooms and better quality finish, but not widely so.
I agree, but equally people don't want to live in an estate that has a large social housing aspect. And there is resentment too between those who get the subsidised affordable housing and those who pay full whack, especially if the people on affordable housing get a promotion, those who paid full whack lose their jobs and get no government support, or if the prices go down and the people who pay full whack are in negative equity and those who got affordable have their clawback forgiven. Which are all things that happened with the last affordable housing scheme.
All politics is local, and weirdly people are happier to subsidise social tenants in far away estates than they are to do so for their neighbours. This is especially true if kids grow up learning that their house is worse than the posh people across the street, because they had a social house.
So in a sense there is no ideal mix, and the question is just who to advantage more.Funding and political will would be required. The funding could come from special savings bonds issued by the NTMA with an attractive interest rate and tax treatment to mop up all those billions of private savings that are sitting in the banks earning 0.01% interest.
It might work, but it would certainly provide houses.
Weirdly, it's best chance of success is for them to provide 100% private market properties. This brings more properties to the market, allows those that can afford them to buy them, and then the pressure on the less desireable areas is decreased. Then, if any don't sell, they can then be used for social housing etc once the private sales have taken place.
But again, this would be completely unacceptable politically; it would be considered a middle class bailout ignoring the real problems, treating social tenants as second class citizens etc.
Dare I say it, a significant part of the problem that the government (i.e. any government) has is that they will be criticised by the opposition whenever they try to do something. Maybe that is the real reason why politicians are reluctant to do anything unless it is popular.0 -
I know an estate, formally all social housing, now all private. The sad thing is they use to have a social housing estate up the road. It was demolished under the guise of regeneration. Now that estate is back on the cards for a rebuild these private homeowners in the same parish are kicking up. I can see why. There were drug issues and other criminality but I would put a lot of that down to social issues and bad design coupled with little in the way of local amenities.
There is also the resentment and the 'free house' myth. Ironically it's people, those who can afford it, wanting out of those areas or a better house with a garden and so on that drives the difference. Point being, there's no rhyme or reason to being resentful of somebody getting cheap state rented accommodation in an area you wouldn't live in yourself.
I think the original model of basic modest social housing would still work. I would keep such estates 100% social housing, but keep them smaller. The biggest problem with the estates was big sprawling areas or high rise high density with nothing in the way of amenities. The move to the burbs with Ballymun and Tallaght simply opened up prime land for selling off, especially during the recent days of regeneration.
It's wasteful to spend tax monies in the private market to merely service the growing crisis.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
First, social housing is always social housing under my proposal. Previously, council houses were sold cheap to the sitting tenant on the basis that they remain in situ, and so pay for another social house (or so the argument went). Under my proposal, social houses are for people on the housing list, and if their lot improves, the begin to pay market rents.johnnyskeleton wrote: »I agree, but equally people don't want to live in an estate that has a large social housing aspect. And there is resentment too between those who get the subsidised affordable housing and those who pay full whack, especially if the people on affordable housing get a promotion, those who paid full whack lose their jobs and get no government support, or if the prices go down and the people who pay full whack are in negative equity and those who got affordable have their clawback forgiven. Which are all things that happened with the last affordable housing scheme.
All politics is local, and weirdly people are happier to subsidise social tenants in far away estates than they are to do so for their neighbours. This is especially true if kids grow up learning that their house is worse than the posh people across the street, because they had a social house.
So in a sense there is no ideal mix, and the question is just who to advantage more.
Second, the affordable houses would be to a lower spec than the full price versions. If you look at most private developments, the first houses built, overlook the green space and are larger and more expensive. As the development sells, the aspect deteriorates, but the price remains strong.
All proposals are less than perfect, but cognisance must be taken of social and financial aspects, including funding, demand, social consequences of the design.Weirdly, it's best chance of success is for them to provide 100% private market properties. This brings more properties to the market, allows those that can afford them to buy them, and then the pressure on the less desireable areas is decreased. Then, if any don't sell, they can then be used for social housing etc once the private sales have taken place.
But again, this would be completely unacceptable politically; it would be considered a middle class bailout ignoring the real problems, treating social tenants as second class citizens etc.
Dare I say it, a significant part of the problem that the government (i.e. any government) has is that they will be criticised by the opposition whenever they try to do something. Maybe that is the real reason why politicians are reluctant to do anything unless it is popular.
Private developments are not immune from social problems. The buy to let aspect allows unsavory elements into such estates and can cause huge problems. No proposal wins on every score.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »
I'll give you a recap as you seemed to have missed the essence.
Private companies are buying housing stock, in some cases from NAMA, to rent to government under the HAP scheme.
We live in a free world, thankfully, where people are free to make purchase.
So you are against mixed developments where private landlords rent to HAP......Sam Russell wrote: »The problem with 100% social housing is social unrest...........
Having a 30%/30%/40% split between social/affordable/normal housing should be a good mix.
........but you are in favour of mixed development????? Some consistency would be welcome.
On your 30/30/40 mix, nobody has ever been able to answer the question as to why should some people have to pay full whack for a house and others get it for less, just because they went out and got an education and a job?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
........but you are in favour of mixed development????? Some consistency would be welcome.
On your 30/30/40 mix, nobody has ever been able to answer the question as to why should some people have to pay full whack for a house and others get it for less, just because they went out and got an education and a job?
The 'affordable' houses are sold to people who are of limited means that may entitle them to public housing or close to it. The 'full whack' houses would be larger and to a higher spec internally. This is normal in privately developed estates.
I am proposing that DCC is the developer, and that would mean that the developer margin does not add to the bottom line. Also, 'affordable' housing would be subject to not being allowed to rent out and being subject to a claw-back if sold within a period of time, which I would think would be 10 years at least. Clearly, terms and conditions apply so that they are used as homes, and not investments.
So 100 houses built, cost at 200k for the first 60 and 250k for the last 40 gives total of 22 million. Add 50k per site, and that gives total cost of 27 milion.
Now affordables sell for 300k, and normal for 495k, so total sales give 28,800 million. So 30 social houses cost [minus 1,8 million]. A win win win solution, mainly because DCC takes no profit. That money could be used to provide facilities on the estate, and provide for 'caretaker' type of supervision.
Now my numbers are fiction, but should convey the idea. If the pricing is correct, the queues and competition for the houses would be huge, whether it be for social, affordable, or 'full whack' houses.0 -
We live in a free world, thankfully, where people are free to make purchase.
So you are against mixed developments where private landlords rent to HAP......
Nope. Not at all. I'm not in favour of private companies buying property sometimes at a cheap rate from the state only to rent it back under the HAP scheme. I'm also not in favour of private companies or individuals profiting off a crises by buying with the intent to rent to the state under HAP. It creates the need for more HAP and makes the crisis worse by driving up prices/rents. I've been quiet clear on this, twice.
I'm not going to repeat myself every time you put your spin on my posts.
You've added nothing to the discussion.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The 'affordable' houses are sold to people who are of limited means that may entitle them to public housing or close to it. The 'full whack' houses would be larger and to a higher spec internally. This is normal in privately developed estates.
I am proposing that DCC is the developer, and that would mean that the developer margin does not add to the bottom line. Also, 'affordable' housing would be subject to not being allowed to rent out and being subject to a claw-back if sold within a period of time, which I would think would be 10 years at least. Clearly, terms and conditions apply so that they are used as homes, and not investments.
So 100 houses built, cost at 200k for the first 60 and 250k for the last 40 gives total of 22 million. Add 50k per site, and that gives total cost of 27 milion.
Now affordables sell for 300k, and normal for 495k, so total sales give 28,800 million. So 30 social houses cost [minus 1,800 million]. A win win win solution, mainly because DCC takes no profit. That money could be used to provide facilities on the estate, and provide for 'caretaker' type of supervision.
Now my numbers are fiction, but should convey the idea. If the pricing is correct, the queues and competition for the houses would be huge, whether it be for social, affordable, or 'full whack' houses.
Any move in that direction would also help to cool the market.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »The 'affordable' houses are sold to people who are of limited means that may entitle them to public housing or close to it. The 'full whack' houses would be larger and to a higher spec internally. This is normal in privately developed estates.
I am proposing that DCC is the developer, and that would mean that the developer margin does not add to the bottom line. Also, 'affordable' housing would be subject to not being allowed to rent out and being subject to a claw-back if sold within a period of time, which I would think would be 10 years at least. Clearly, terms and conditions apply so that they are used as homes, and not investments.
So 100 houses built, cost at 200k for the first 60 and 250k for the last 40 gives total of 22 million. Add 50k per site, and that gives total cost of 27 milion.
Now affordables sell for 300k, and normal for 495k, so total sales give 28,800 million. So 30 social houses cost [minus 1,8 million]. A win win win solution, mainly because DCC takes no profit. That money could be used to provide facilities on the estate, and provide for 'caretaker' type of supervision.
Now my numbers are fiction, but should convey the idea. If the pricing is correct, the queues and competition for the houses would be huge, whether it be for social, affordable, or 'full whack' houses.
So 195k the difference, allow 50k for the difference in size means some people get a free handout from the State of 145k, while others who may only earn 5k a year more, don't?
There are huge fairness issues around affordable housing. Social housing, where the local authority rents out the house, and ownership remains with the local authority is the best means of ensuring that these fairness issues don't arise.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
So 195k the difference, allow 50k for the difference in size means some people get a free handout from the State of 145k, while others who may only earn 5k a year more, don't?
There are huge fairness issues around affordable housing. Social housing, where the local authority rents out the house, and ownership remains with the local authority is the best means of ensuring that these fairness issues don't arise.
Well, moral hazard is always a problem.
The 'affordable' could be deal with by shared ownership, or other means, but basically there is always a problem with edge cases - those who just qualify against those that are just over the limit. There is no easy way of dealing with this. There is always a claw back and restrictions on use for the affordables.
However, the basics of the scheme would go along way to easing the current crisis.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, moral hazard is always a problem.
The 'affordable' could be deal with by shared ownership, or other means, but basically there is always a problem with edge cases - those who just qualify against those that are just over the limit. There is no easy way of dealing with this. There is always a claw back and restrictions on use for the affordables.
However, the basics of the scheme would go along way to easing the current crisis.
The sums involved are huge, probably be the biggest generalised one-off handouts by the State. 150k per affordable house. I am still not happy that the figures add up for widespread affordable housing.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, moral hazard is always a problem.
The 'affordable' could be deal with by shared ownership, or other means, but basically there is always a problem with edge cases - those who just qualify against those that are just over the limit. There is no easy way of dealing with this. There is always a claw back and restrictions on use for the affordables.
However, the basics of the scheme would go along way to easing the current crisis.
The state is feeding the crisis, never mind effectively tackling it. Supplying cheap properties for private concerns to rent back to the state. Cheap NAMA loans and buying properties off the market at the going rate for use as social housing.
Affordable housing is a great solution for those earning too much to avail of social housing and too poor to buy off market.
I would suggest a similar model to any social housing estate. Modest housing in smaller numbers than the sprawling estates of old throughout the cities and out skirts, ensuring access to amenities, schools, shopping.
I don't think one off affordable housing would work nor a small number mixed into a private estate of similar properties.
It makes more financial sense for the state/LA's to provide affordable housing or social housing with affordable rents, than it does to go through HAP or buyers grants IMO. If it's about value for the tax payer, the current model does not give it. We need to get over the 'forever home' mantra as cutting our nose to spite our face is costing us.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
The sums involved are huge, probably be the biggest generalised one-off handouts by the State. 150k per affordable house. I am still not happy that the figures add up for widespread affordable housing.
No, affordable houses are sold above cost, so no handout. Also, the houses would be basic type houses, while the full market houses are higher spec and sell at an appropriate premium to willing buyers.
Affordable houses are not a handout by any means but are required to control the market, which currently is out of control and is dysfunctional.
At the present time, many of those that would qualify for affordable housing would qualify for either social housing but are prepared to commit to buy, or are just outside that limit and could end up homeless without such a scheme.
Properly controlled, the moral hazard can be avoided. Do not forget, re-zoning or planning permission can be a one-off handout, which greatly appreciates that asset value of the land.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »No, affordable houses are sold above cost, so no handout. Also, the houses would be basic type houses, while the full market houses are higher spec and sell at an appropriate premium to willing buyers.
Affordable houses are not a handout by any means but are required to control the market, which currently is out of control and is dysfunctional.
At the present time, many of those that would qualify for affordable housing would qualify for either social housing but are prepared to commit to buy, or are just outside that limit and could end up homeless without such a scheme.
Properly controlled, the moral hazard can be avoided. Do not forget, re-zoning or planning permission can be a one-off handout, which greatly appreciates that asset value of the land.
I would agree on the re-zoning issue. CGT on gains arising from re-zoning and planning permission would be a solution, in fact I think CGT is one of the most under-used taxes. More broadly based, but at a lower rate, it could be a big earner.
Thinking about it, removing the CGT exemption from affordable housing, as well as a clawback lasting 20 years, would help people like me accept a scheme.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
:rolleyes:I would agree on the re-zoning issue. CGT on gains arising from re-zoning and planning permission would be a solution, in fact I think CGT is one of the most under-used taxes. More broadly based, but at a lower rate, it could be a big earner.
Thinking about it, removing the CGT exemption from affordable housing, as well as a clawback lasting 20 years, would help people like me accept a scheme.
20 years is too long to expect someone to remain in the one house for many reasons. Families grow up and need more spce or less space. People get old or get ill or die. As an indication, the exemption for inheritance tax for primary residence requires 3 years prior to inheritance nd 6 years afterwards - a total f 9 years as a minimum.
CGT would need to be taxed on all residence sales, otherwise it is unjust. Remember, affordable homes are for people who could not normally able to afford the open market price, so penalising them would be bizarre.
I think a little genorosity of spirit is called for.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sam Russell wrote: »:rolleyes:
20 years is too long to expect someone to remain in the one house for many reasons. Families grow up and need more spce or less space. People get old or get ill or die. As an indication, the exemption for inheritance tax for primary residence requires 3 years prior to inheritance nd 6 years afterwards - a total f 9 years as a minimum.
CGT would need to be taxed on all residence sales, otherwise it is unjust. Remember, affordable homes are for people who could not normally able to afford the open market price, so penalising them would be bizarre.
I think a little genorosity of spirit is called for.
150k is not a little generosity of spirit, it is a large dollop of free cash.
CGT is a fair way of recouping some of the free money.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
150k is not a little generosity of spirit, it is a large dollop of free cash.
CGT is a fair way of recouping some of the free money.
No it is not cash, as it is merely an option to purchase a house for a lot of money requiring funding by a mortgage. Mortgages can lead to negative equity.
Also, it is not free as it comes with terms and conditions. Now currently first time buyers get a grant to help them purchase a new house from a private sector developer, and that comes without t&c. Now that is free money.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »No it is not cash, as it is merely an option to purchase a house for a lot of money requiring funding by a mortgage. Mortgages can lead to negative equity.
Also, it is not free as it comes with terms and conditions. Now currently first time buyers get a grant to help them purchase a new house from a private sector developer, and that comes without t&c. Now that is free money.
It is free money but the scale is vastly different. Not a relevant comparator.
I am pretty confused about all these affordable/social/LA houses, subsidies, the HAP scheme, Nama angle etc.
What I am pretty clear about is that there is no way a LA should get directly involved in building houses, either as a builder or developer.
By all means let them put out tenders for houses/schemes or purchase ones already constructed.
It is well to remember too that years ago, when the State provided large amounts of social housing, the social welfare budget as a % of Govt spend was only a fraction of what it is now. If the people with houses (owned or rented) paid their fair share of taxation i.e. property tax and water charges, there would be so much more for those needing houses.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
Good loser wrote: »By all means let them put out tenders for houses/schemes or purchase ones already constructed.
It is well to remember too that years ago, when the State provided large amounts of social housing, the social welfare budget as a % of Govt spend was only a fraction of what it is now. If the people with houses (owned or rented) paid their fair share of taxation i.e. property tax and water charges, there would be so much more for those needing houses.
LA, and by that I mean DCC, should act as developer because of the vast cost difference that a developer imposes on the final price. They have or get the site. They design or get designed the scheme. They put out tenders for builders to build a sub-set of the houses (or apartments). They then control how those properties are marketed or assigned.
My proposal above could easily be adjusted to change the weighting between each category, but essentially the affordable houses are sold above cost, (because there is no developer margin) and the market price are sold at market price. The last category subsidize the social housing. The thing to remember is that all houses are cheaper than current price levels.
This was done in the sixties when tenement house began to collapse in central Dublin. It was successful and housed many families in much better standard houses than existed prior to those schemes. Later political behaviour reduced that advantage.0 -
Affordable housing is no more free money than social housing is a free house.
Loss of profit is not the same as loss. If you build a house for 200,000 and sell it at market you might get 350,000 for it. If you're the state/LA and you sell it as affordable housing for 250,000 you are not losing money you are accepting less profit to aid a family who couldn't afford 350,000.
If that sticks in your craw, we could continue with things as is were the tax payer subsidises cheap loans to developers, rental aid to tenants and buying housing stock at market rate coupled with the year on year increases in emergency accommodation spend.
The alternatives do not work.
Despite how it seems, the point of government/LA is not to profit off of the public's misery.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »LA, and by that I mean DCC, should act as developer because of the vast cost difference that a developer imposes on the final price. .
What vast cost difference. As far as I know, the margin a developer has to build houses is about 8%. Not all that much to be honest.
DCC will have to hire developers to do that actual build mind and they won't do it for free either.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19526
What vast cost difference. As far as I know, the margin a developer has to build houses is about 8%. Not all that much to be honest.
DCC will have to hire developers to do that actual build mind and they won't do it for free either.
I think you are cnfusing terms. Developers might make 8% profit but their margin is significantly higher. The profit excludes the high financng cost, the high earnings of the principals in the developer companies, plus other costs that woud not accrue to DCC.
DCC will have to get BUILDERS to build the houses on contract following a tender process. If the tenders are open market, then the houses will be built at lowest cost. This is how we build roads in this country - why should public housing be any different?0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »I think you are cnfusing terms. Developers might make 8% profit but their margin is significantly higher. The profit excludes the high financng cost, the high earnings of the principals in the developer companies, plus other costs that woud not accrue to DCC.
DCC will have to get BUILDERS to build the houses on contract following a tender process. If the tenders are open market, then the houses will be built at lowest cost. This is how we build roads in this country - why should public housing be any different?
Do you have any actual proof that their margin is higher than 8% because that is what a number of developers have stated publicly?
Also, DCC would be nowhere as efficient as a developer in tendering out contracts to developers/builders. They would also need to raise finance unless it was just given to them by the government. Then, there would be the issue of state aid and competition law.
Sure, they do not have the profit motive but they don't have the efficiency motive either which can cost more holistically.
I see some stuff bandied about that LA's would be able to build houses for peanuts but little in the way of actual proof that this can be achieved.
The only way I see that its possible is that they use public land.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Affordable housing is no more free money than social housing is a free house.
Of course it is free money. Let us look again at Sam Russell's example.
House costs 350k for a normal couple buying the house.
House costs 200k for a couple eligible for affordable housing.
Ten years later, houses are worth 400k. One couple pockets a profit of 50k, the other couple pockets a profit of 50k, plus a free handout from the taxpayer of 150k. That is an average of 15k a year after tax of a handout, basically a handout of 30k a year that Couple 1 would have to earn to keep up with Couple 2.
To me, that is too much of a subsidy to hand out. Stretch the length of time to 15 or 20 years and/or tax/recoup the subsidy element when the house is sold.0 -
Of course it is free money. Let us look again at Sam Russell's example.
House costs 350k for a normal couple buying the house.
House costs 200k for a couple eligible for affordable housing.
Ten years later, houses are worth 400k. One couple pockets a profit of 50k, the other couple pockets a profit of 50k, plus a free handout from the taxpayer of 150k. That is an average of 15k a year after tax of a handout, basically a handout of 30k a year that Couple 1 would have to earn to keep up with Couple 2.
To me, that is too much of a subsidy to hand out. Stretch the length of time to 15 or 20 years and/or tax/recoup the subsidy element when the house is sold.
That's not free money it's simple begrudgery and it's costing the tax payer a fortune.
If we can show a family are turning down a salary raise or refusing a promotion to keep their income low to avail of affordable (or social for that matter) that would be an argument, but I can't see it being likely or common place. It's akin to complaining the poor get allowances for fuel and you have to pay the full price for the same fuel.
There is usually a claw back if sold within a specific period. All of this can be amended but the idea is sound and better value for the tax payer.
Another way to look at it is the state is selling houses at a cheaper rate than others are but only if you are in a specific income bracket.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement