Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Old diesel wrote: »

....
Remember ALL new housing supply will effectively use borrowing of some kind to deliver it.

My post specified private investors

[Deleted User] wrote: »

id take another view

taking a service/need like housing and insisting that it be delivered as a capital asset is exactly what has fcuked the market/service

affordable rent should be the key aim. not the cycle of "your house is your future wealth" that has crippled us.

So basically you want to turn it into a full or semi state run organization. I don’t know where the government are going to get the money for this and more importantly the government aren’t exactly known for being a well run unit and you want to give them more money to burn.

mikemac2 wrote: »

100 euro a month and at the end you get an asset. Why is that unacceptable?

Risk risk and more risk- the amount of money invested and your stilling having to top it makes it not worth the effort.That coupled with the fact that it isn’t stable means rent could cost you more or less at some point in the future.likewise, non paying tenants and repairs can cost you 10-20k or even more, without some decent profit. You could be waiting a decade or longer to pay back one problematic tenant.

This is why as others mentioned. Ll want market rate as they had to struggle for a decade before rents started to pick up and now their being told they can’t realize the gains some badly need.

You would be paying down a few k every year however when it’s a 25-35 year plan with non guaranteed profits as you could be in another recession. That isn’t exactly palatable.

Fol20 wrote: »

So basically you want to turn it into a full or semi state run organization. I don’t know where the government are going to get the money for this and more importantly the government aren’t exactly known for being a well run unit and you want to give them more money to burn.

Given the amount they are currently spending on emergency accommodation, it would be extremely wise for them to invest in some proper social housing.

They should never have sold the stock them had in the 1980s. A disastrous policy inspired by none other than Maggie Thatcher, who was doing it in the UK at the time.

Wheeliebin30

Macha wrote: »

Given the amount they are currently spending on emergency accommodation, it would be extremely wise for them to invest in some proper social housing.

They should never have sold the stock them had in the 1980s. A disastrous policy inspired by none other than Maggie Thatcher, who was doing it in the UK at the time.

Did FG sell the stock?

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Did FG sell the stock?

It must have been Fianna Fail, right? They were in power from 1982 from1987. I guess it could have started before that.

BTW, latest figures I've seen are €147m in 2017 state spending on emergency accommodation. That's without even going into the inappropriateness of much of that accommodation..

If it wasn't sold the same families (their kids etc) in the properties back in the day would still be in them for the most part.

Augeo wrote: »

If it wasn't sold the same families (their kids etc) in the properties back in the day would still be in them for the most part.

That would only have happen if it were allowed to happen by policy. Plenty of other countries maintain a decent social housing stock that sees long term and short term tenants, including domestic abuse victims etc.

By selling off the social housing stock, the state effectively handed over a key asset to private individuals and thus guaranteed that that's exactly what happened, ie that certain families could stay in them forever, regardless of future need.

It's currently the policy with the current crisis. It's allowed to happen now.

Got any stats? If so, it's stupid but a stupid choice. It's not the inevitable consequence of maintaining a social housing stock.

Some will inevitably be long term but not all.

4ensic15

Macha wrote: »

That would only have happen if it were allowed to happen by policy. Plenty of other countries maintain a decent social housing stock that sees long term and short term tenants, including domestic abuse victims etc.

By selling off the social housing stock, the state effectively handed over a key asset to private individuals and thus guaranteed that that's exactly what happened, ie that certain families could stay in them forever, regardless of future need.

the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
!. To raise money.
2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.

Macha wrote: »

Given the amount they are currently spending on emergency accommodation, it would be extremely wise for them to invest in some proper social housing.

They should never have sold the stock them had in the 1980s. A disastrous policy inspired by none other than Maggie Thatcher, who was doing it in the UK at the time.

Your right. They should never have sold the stock. They should never sell their stock even to long term tenants in houses.

Ok if they have 1000 people in emergency accommodation, you might be able to build houses for 50-100 of them if your lucky. Where will the other 900 stay while you devote the your cash to building houses. It’s emergency and temporary for a reason and usually in emergencies, you pay top dollar for a temporary fix.eg let’s say your car is broken down in the middle of nowhere. Your own mechanic could fix it for 50 however you will need to get it fixed by a local guy as your stuck and need it sorted now.

4ensic15 wrote: »

the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
!. To raise money.
2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.

Tbh, if your given a social house. The burden should be on the owner to maintain it. Especially when they have certainty they can live in it for 20years etc

4ensic15

Fol20 wrote: »

Tbh, if your given a social house. The burden should be on the owner to maintain it. Especially when they have certainty they can live in it for 20years etc

When a person is allocated a house, the owner i.e. the council has to maintain it, same as any other L & T arrangement. Most people who get council houses have to pay differential rent depending on income and can't afford the maintenance. If maintenance is neglected, ultimately the property will be damaged and devalued.

Mrs OBumble

Fol20 wrote: »

Tbh, if your given a social house. The burden should be on the owner to maintain it. Especially when they have certainty they can live in it for 20years etc

Surely you mean occupier? The owner is the council et al and they already do all non cosmetic maintenance.

Many tenants would be too DAFfy-duck to be given responsibly for maintenance, there are already too many issues with structural walls being removed etc.

Macha wrote: »

Got any stats? If so, it's stupid but a stupid choice. It's not the inevitable consequence of maintaining a social housing stock.

Some will inevitably be long term but not all.

Stats for what?
You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.

This is from the article in the OP..... she's not alone in her thinking either......

Geuze

Old diesel wrote: »

Cost per month includes.....

1) cost of finance repayments on the property.

2) cost to maintain property.

3) cost to get tenants in/out.

4) Problem contingency fund - bad tenants/gap between tenants/big repairs.

5) tax.

Just to note that just interest is a cost.

Capital repayments are not a cost.

No business is allowed deduct capital repayments as an expense.

Capital repayments are saving.

utmbuilder

Was speaking to a hap or council Tennant yesterday went for a run down 3 bed, that had a second dwelling out the back the shed converted as per regulations

The house she wanted was 2000 gets fully paid for after some viewings another person was chosen

The shed out the back gets 1200 as a bedsit

Some market where a landlord has multiple offers of the above paid for by some authority

They should of capped things 2 years ago, unfair the state is paying for this.

Wheeliebin30

Macha wrote: »

It must have been Fianna Fail, right? They were in power from 1982 from1987. I guess it could have started before that.

BTW, latest figures I've seen are €147m in 2017 state spending on emergency accommodation. That's without even going into the inappropriateness of much of that accommodation..

What do you want?

To leave those people on the street?

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What do you want?

To leave those people on the street?

Nope, I want the Irish state to invest in public and social housing rather than paying the private sector silly amounts of money every year for unsuitable housing, including emergency accommodation.

4ensic15 wrote: »

the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
!. To raise money.
2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.

Pretty stupid way to raise money. By that logic, sell off everything! You're missing the fact that the ideology behind it was that it wasn't the state's role to provide public housing, including social housing. That was the main driver.

Your third point is an argument commonly used to support this idea but i haven't seen much evidence provided, nor does it in any way justify the state failing to ensure a basic need and leaving the entire sector to private invest. Not everyone can, should or wants to be an owner occupier.

Second point was addressed by others but, again, it hardly makes up for the cost now of trying to frantically build public housing in today's housing market plus the costs of providing (largely) unsuitable accommodation through the private sector.

Augeo wrote: »

Stats for what?
You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.

Stats for how much of Ireland's social housing stock is used for long term tenants. You should be able to find one.

Is there really an epidemic of people choosing to live in hotels over appropriate accommodation? I know we always read stories about it in the newspapers but I prefer not to do policy by anecdote.

Graces7

Augeo wrote: »

Stats for what?
You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.

I noticed that in the interview on the article. The woman who is complaining refused private rented accommodation when it was offered. In the UK that is called making yourself homeless and way down or off the list .

She and her child could be in a better place.

Macha wrote: »

Stats for how much of Ireland's social housing stock is used for long term tenants. You should be able to find one.

Is there really an epidemic of people choosing to live in hotels over appropriate accommodation? I know we always read stories about it in the newspapers but I prefer not to do policy by anecdote.

If much of Ireland's social housing stock isn't long-term then who the fnck is living in it?
You are the one bleating on about policy so wander off and find a stat to back up your claim.

Graces7

Augeo wrote: »

This is from the article in the OP..... she's not alone in her thinking either......

Thanks. I referred to that. her choice to live as she is doing then. Been watching the UK on youtube on "how to get a council house." If she did that there she would be demoted. Told she was making herself homeless .Also in the UK the council link in with private landlords very successfully.

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

I noticed that in the interview on the article. The woman who is complaining refused private rented accommodation when it was offered. In the UK that is called making yourself homeless and way down or off the list .

She and her child could be in a better place.

It's not uncommon here.
Much of the housing list consists of like minded folk looking for the free to them (it essentially is) forever home.

Redneck Culchie

The thing with yesterdays protest is you have the Trotskyists in People Before Profit and the others of the Irish far Left bringing everything from climate change to abortion to LGBT into the equation which has nothing at all to do with housing. I would never attend a protest with these types, and have them use it for their own nefarious purposes.