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

The privatisation of social housing

[Deleted User]

A thoroughly superb article on housing by Fintan O'Toole, who grew up in social housing in Crumlin (shock, horror), in this morning's Irish Times. The statistics are absolutely stunning evidence of how far to the right the Irish state has moved even since 1995. Free market ideology is, without question, the new fundamentalism of Irish society. This state would rather spend billions paying private landlords to supply substandard temporary "homes" and perpetuate the problem rather than put that money into building social homes. The utter madness of social policy being hijacked by for-profit businesses. That's a colossal ideological shift to the right and nobody is shouting stop. A must read for anybody who cares about our society.

Fintan O’Toole: Snobbery is at the root of the housing crisis

.... This pernicious attitude developed side by side with the Celtic Tiger. In the period 1933-1943, more houses were built in Ireland by local authorities than by private developers.

In 1975, 33 per cent of all new houses were built by local authorities. A decade later, in 1985, the proportion was 27 per cent, and 10 years after that it was still more than 25 per cent. It was in the Celtic Tiger period that the percentage plummeted. In the years of the boom, from 1995 to 2007, just 6 per cent of newly built homes were local authority houses.

This is when the idea took hold that for-profit development would house almost everybody and that those who were left over could be accommodated as a by-product of the commercial market.

Termites on crack
During those boom years we were building houses like termites on crack. We were building houses so fast that we had to build houses to house the builders who were coming from all over Europe to build houses. So, if ever there was a time when private builders were going to deliver on social and affordable housing needs, this was it.

We thus have the benefit that current policies have already been tested in ideal conditions. We can ask a simple question: how many social, voluntary and affordable houses were actually provided by private developers in those conditions?

In the seven most manic years of the boom, 2002 to 2008, a total of 2,786 social, 1,133 voluntary and 8,214 affordable houses were squeezed out of the private building machine. That’s 12,133 in total. It’s pitiful: a mere 2.8 per cent of the overall output by private developers in those years.

Aside from the human cost, this failure has been woefully expensive. The gap between real housing needs and what the market provides is filled with public payments to private landlords.

In 1990 the State spent just €7.8 million on rent subsidies for people who could not afford market rents. By 1999 the cost was €127.7 million, and by 2003 it was €331.5 million. The Government expects to spend more than €3 billion on rent subsidies over the next five years. The combined cost of the three main rent support programmes – rent supplement, the housing assistance payment (HAP) and the rental accommodation scheme (RAS) – is expected to be about €535 million this year.

On the Government’s own projections, this will rise to €714 million in 2021. So between 1989 and 2021, the direct cost to the taxpayer of not building social housing will have increased by 9,054 per cent.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

subpar

Giving someone a house for life is akin to a win on the Lotto paid for by taxes.

Everyone in the State has a fundamental right to shelter , that does necessarily mean a State supplied house or apartment in an area of their choice. Furthermore the social housing units that were built in the period from 1950 to the end of the century should never have been sold off to the occupiers , these housing units were a national asset and were only sold off because the local authorities no longer had an interest in maintaining them and decided that the private sector could supply public housing needs . However many small scale private landlords have since discovered that dealing with problem tenants and maintaining property is not the easiest way to make money.

seamus

Any comparison with previous decades' output is pretty silly.

The government were building cheap houses because nobody else would.

We don't want or need the state to big big sprawling public housing developments anymore.

The thrust of the article is fine, but the harken back to when Ireland was an economic septic tank is fairly disappointing.

whisky_galore

seamus wrote: »

Any comparison with previous decades' output is pretty silly.

The government were building cheap houses because nobody else would.

We don't want or need the state to big big sprawling public housing developments anymore.

The thrust of the article is fine, but the harken back to when Ireland was an economic septic tank is fairly disappointing.

Somehow the 'septic tank' economy could build them and the modern day economy can't. (Or won't! )

Wheeliebin30

Nobody who wants 100s of thousands of social houses has put a costing in this yet.

We’re talking possibly 100 billion euro.

Anyone remember what caused the last recession??????

Wheeliebin30

whisky_galore wrote: »

Somehow the 'septic tank' economy could build them and the modern day economy can't. (Or won't! )

The cost back then was a fraction of what it costs now.

Del2005

whisky_galore wrote: »

Somehow the 'septic tank' economy could build them and the modern day economy can't. (Or won't! )

We could spend money as we pleased then and there was no accounting, so while we look back with rose tinted glasses we have no idea if they were built efficiently. But we definitely know that council rent collection then and now is at a shocking low level and even less risk of eviction, so that is why council stopped building homes. They cannot collect even the token rent they charge so they stop providing housing and instead passed the buck to the private rental who were never supposed to provide social housing.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

... This state would rather spend billions paying private landlords to supply substandard temporary "homes" and perpetuate the problem rather than put that money into building social homes. The utter madness of social policy being hijacked by for-profit businesses. ....

Utter drivel.

They outsourced it to the private market too save money and cost cutting. As that's the point of out sourcing. A market that doesn't want that business and had to be forced into taking it.

beauf

subpar wrote: »

...However many small scale private landlords have discovered that dealing with problem tenants and maintaining property is not the easiest way to make money.

I don't think anyone anticipated the govt would spend 20yrs increasing tenants protection while leaving the landlord with almost none.

Leaving the landlord with almost no way to deal with problem tenants while being fined for having them and massive losses.

Zorya

Free market capitalist fundamentalism, OP, where the rich get subsided and the poor get blamed. We are the good boys and girls in the global corporatist new order. Doing what we are told, chasing money at the cost of all other human qualities. You are not going to get much traction here with your kind of opinions

People are forgetting how to know the weight of things.

beauf

They have manage to make the problem so bad now not only is there a need to build social housing but now we also need affordable housing.

Amirani

A large proportion of the council housing built by the State was terrible. Really crap, sub-standard accommodation that was cheaply built and horrible to live in. They were often built en masse together, leading to big social issues and no-go areas in cities.

The recent phenomenon of looking back to the good old days of large scale social housing projects is utter rubbish. The State probably does need to build more to fix the issue, but not like it has done in the past, which is a completely failed model. In fairness, most recent social housing projects the State has delivered are of a much higher standard, but they are very expensive.

seamus

Del2005 wrote: »

We could spend money as we pleased then and there was no accounting, so while we look back with rose tinted glasses we have no idea if they were built efficiently.

It wasn't. It was absolute trash. If we built like that again there'd be no end of the same people complaining that the government are letting people down with awful housing.

The publically built housing of the past has cost us multiples of the original built costs in refit and renovation costs.

beauf

Its expensive regardless who buys or builds it.

hatrickpatrick

seamus wrote: »

We don't want or need the state to big big sprawling public housing developments anymore.

Who the f*ck is "we"? Not students, single people, or young people working entry level jobs, anyway. Those are the people who are being f*cked over by the current situation.

beauf

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't. It was absolute trash. If we built like that again there'd be no end of the same people complaining that the government are letting people down with awful housing.

The publically built housing of the past has cost us multiples of the original built costs in refit and renovation costs.

It was built the same as other housing of the era.

Similar Private housing of the same period has had loads spent on it over the years also.

But it less likely to be abused and neglected.

VonZan

Fintan O'Toole has to be the biggest idealist in the state.

'Do this, do that' without a thought on the cost or consequences.

A dangerous individual who thinks he's a morale authority on just about everything.

beauf

Zorya wrote: »

Free market capitalist fundamentalism, OP, where the rich get subsided and the poor get blamed. ....

Actually the govt got blamed on this thread not the poor.

But don't let reality get in the way...

[Deleted User]

The biggest barrier to social house building in Ireland are the people who refuse to pay. How much is owed in rent? What’s being done to collect what is owed? Not much, because they’ll still have to be housed at a cost to the state. No one has the stomach for evicting families with small children or those in relationship difficulties. When you see able bodied people marching to publicise the “homeless” situation complaining about having to pay €45 a week rent, you know that you’re on a hiding to nothing.

Zorya

beauf wrote: »

Actually the govt got blamed on this thread not the poor.

But don't let reality get in the way...

Damn those poor people for being in need and putting the govt in an awkward position. Can they not just get with the program like all the rest of the successful ones living in identikit private dollhouse estates sprawling in the commuter belt, putting their kids in creche at dawn so they can fight through traffic to be paid mediocrely for working at bull**** meaningless jobs so they can get home exhausted and have frozen meals and IKEA weekends. Damn them poor that are not making this Utopia work for them.

November Golf

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Nobody who wants 100s of thousands of social houses has put a costing in this yet.

We’re talking possibly 100 billion euro.

Anyone remember what caused the last recession??????

Nobody put a cost on it? How do you figure that

Where did you pull the 100 billion from?

We do remember what caused the last recession, developers building 100s of thousands of houses on borrowed money to make huge profits.

Its certainly wasn't caused by government building social housing.

Wheeliebin30

Mike Foxtrot wrote: »

Nobody put a cost on it? How do you figure that

Where did you pull the 100 billion from?

We do remember what caused the last recession, developers building 100s of thousands of houses on borrowed money to make huge profits.

Its certainly wasn't caused by government building social housing.

How many houses do we need?

I heard Sinn Fein saying 150,000 at least.

At 300,000 a pop that’s nearly 50 billion.

Shower Doctor

Amirani wrote: »

A large proportion of the council housing built by the State was terrible. Really crap, sub-standard accommodation that was cheaply built and horrible to live in. They were often built en masse together, leading to big social issues and no-go areas in cities.

The recent phenomenon of looking back to the good old days of large scale social housing projects is utter rubbish. The State probably does need to build more to fix the issue, but not like it has done in the past, which is a completely failed model. In fairness, most recent social housing projects the State has delivered are of a much higher standard, but they are very expensive.

It was the people living in them that made them no go areas. People with no drive in life, leeches of the state, women firing out babies as fast as they could to get more dole for cans and drugs.
What do you expect for nothing, the council put a roof over peoples heads with what money they had. If people wanted a nicer home go out and work and pay for one.

beauf

Zorya wrote: »

Damn those poor people for being in need and putting the govt in an awkward position. Can they not just get with the program like all the rest of the successful ones living in identikit private dollhouse estates sprawling in the commuter belt, putting their kids in creche at dawn so they can fight through traffic to be paid mediocrely for working at bull**** meaningless jobs so they can get home exhausted and have frozen meals and IKEA weekends. Damn them poor that are not making this Utopia work for them.

I stand corrected. You are now blaming the poor.

If there is a model working perfectly in another country a utopia as you call it please let us know.

Guy:Incognito

beauf wrote: »

I don't think anyone anticipated the govt would spend 20yrs increasing tenants protection while leaving the landlord with almost none.

Leaving the landlord with almost no way to deal with problem tenants while being fined for having them and massive losses.

But yet every time a thread comes up about landlords and such people fall over each other to tell us all the politicians are landlords and that's why everything is skewed in their favour and they won't sort out any issues............

[Deleted User]

The problem in the Celtic tiger years was that developers were allowed to give money to the councils instead of providing the social housing units in their estates.
It should never have been allowed, massive social housing only estates have not worked. We need mixed estates.
& social housing should not be sold to the tenant. Ever.
The goal for any tenant should be to buy their own house, not the one they live in.

griffin100

Fintan O”Toole is still locked into a left wing student union ideology that provides no real solutions for anything. He is the best / worst example of a champagne socialist. Eoin O’Broin is his spiritual successor.

If Ireland was as a right wing country we wouldn’t be spending billions on social welfare and the very monies the OP is complaining about. We’d let the market rule and all the people housed in hotels and b&bs by the state and in receipt of HAP would be living on the streets.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

Any comparison with previous decades' output is pretty silly.

The government were building cheap houses because nobody else would.

We don't want or need the state to big big sprawling public housing developments anymore.

The thrust of the article is fine, but the harken back to when Ireland was an economic septic tank is fairly disappointing.

Eh?

O’Toole showed that nobody is producing cheap housing in the private sector here either.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

It wasn't. It was absolute trash. If we built like that again there'd be no end of the same people complaining that the government are letting people down with awful housing.

The publically built housing of the past has cost us multiples of the original built costs in refit and renovation costs.

You got a source for that? Once public housing sells for good money where I live.

[Deleted User]

For every genuine person in need of social housing there's several wasters already with it.

Guy:Incognito

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Once public housing sells for good money where I live.

The quality of the housing is much less important than the location.

Little 2 beds in Drimnagh sell for stupid money because they are beside the Luas and handy for town.