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

Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Technocentral

Word.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/nov/29/empty-dublin-housing-crisis-airbnb-homelessness-landlords

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fly_agaric

Augeo wrote: »

forever home.

See this term repeated here again as some sort of sneery little buzz-word but never heard it in the real world (think I've seen it on other threads...). What exactly is this "forever home" anyway? Is it one with some security of tenure? (what a shocking + irrational expectation)!

edit: googled it and see urban dictionary says it refers to housing of "unwanted" animals

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forever%20home

the_syco

fly_agaric wrote: »

See this term repeated here again as some sort of sneery little buzz-word but never heard it in the real world (think I've seen it on other threads...). What exactly is this "forever home" anyway? Is it one with some security of tenure? (what a shocking + irrational expectation)!

Council home owned by the council, giving the tenant a home for life, as the council won't be kicking them out for any reason. Heck, some people even think that they get to inherit the council house, even though they don't own said council house.

STB.

Graham wrote: »

:rolleyes:

You can disrespectfully roll your eyes all you like oh Mod One, but that doesn't change the ridiculous expectations and entitlement being expressed in these threads, ranging from one suggesting landlord's renting would operate on the basis of basic costs to him/her, reducing rent prices, to the cpo'ing of unused (not derelict) houses, to the handing back of paid for family homes as "its an asset" and they don't need it.

Graham wrote: »

Prepare yourself STB because this is going to come as a shock.

Planning permission has been around for much longer than the housing crisis.

Are you suggesting there are a large cohort of property investors that are only now discovering this?

Thanks for sarcasm, but none of those planning permissions for houses already built ever discussed rules as for letting them the same way it didn't discuss that it may in the future be subject to rent pressure zone, rent caps, enforced HAP tenants, standards dictated by bodies that cant build their own, or even private toothless tenancy agencies. Planning already decided for buildings already built has fck all to do with solving the housing crisis, although the government seem hell bent on this decoy as the houses cannot be built quick enough.

In the context of the thread - Dublin’s Housing Crisis. This all came from my statement that "It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing." People that questioned me believe it is. They also naively believe that these privately owned properties used for air BNB's will solve the housing problem, both socially and affordably which is rubbish.

Do you get it now Graham ?

Graham

STB. wrote: »

none of those planning permissions for houses already built ever discussed rules as for letting

Material change of use has been around a lot longer than AirBnB.

I don't think many people were naive enough to think short-term lettings would be permitted to suck up ever larger volumes of residential accommodation.

STB. wrote: »

They also naively believe that these privately owned properties used for air BNB's will solve the housing problem, both socially and affordably which is rubbish.

I agree, it's rubbish.

It's not a silver bullet to solve the housing crisis (as I've said previously).

It is one of a multitude of actions that need to be taken.

Eric Cartman

Graham wrote: »

Material change of use has been around a lot longer than AirBnB.

I don't think many people were naive enough to think short-term lettings would be permitted to suck up ever larger volumes of residential accommodation.

I agree, it's rubbish.

It's not a silver bullet to solve the housing crisis (as I've said previously).

It is one of a multitude of actions that need to be taken.

The only reason that short letting your property is even worth it in Ireland is because to the draconian approach we have to evictions and the absolute lack of responsibility or renumeration that can be forced upon a tenant to maintain a property.

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The only reason that short letting your property is even worth it in Ireland is because to the draconian approach we have to evictions.

No argument from me, the length of time it takes to get possession of a property from a tenant in breach is absurd.

STB.

Graham wrote: »

Material change of use has been around a lot longer than AirBnB..

And was never enforced. It was never a planning issue where rooms were rented intermittently for short stays.

It only became one when the government saw it as a chance to differentiate between the former and "constant short-term rental" as an opportunity to grab look over there headlines ala "look at what we are doing for the housing crisis". They sure as hell were not interested in what was going on for years with neighbours píssed off with this craic.

Graham

STB. wrote: »

And was never enforced. It was never a planning issue where rooms were rented intermittently for short stays.

Then people started to take the mickey.

STB. wrote: »

It only became one when the government saw it as a chance to differentiate between the former and "constant short-term rental" as an opportunity to grab look over there headlines ala "look at what we are doing for the housing crisis". They sure as hell were not interested in what was going on for years with neighbours píssed off with this craic.

Alternatively, it only became an issue when long-term residents started to get narked and short-term letting hoovered up ever increasing amounts of residential accommodation.

It's no a uniquely Irish problem, it's not a uniquely Irish solution.

beauf

"..“In the 1970s,” he tells me, “a third of all new housing was built by the state. But by 2006, it was down to 5%.”..."

Maybe that's the same everywhere else too.

Claw Hammer

STB. wrote: »

And was never enforced. It was never a planning issue where rooms were rented intermittently for short stays.

It only became one when the government saw it as a chance to differentiate between the former and "constant short-term rental" as an opportunity to grab look over there headlines ala "look at what we are doing for the housing crisis". They sure as hell were not interested in what was going on for years with neighbours píssed off with this craic.

It was enforced, albeit not vigorously. There was a case i the High Court back in 1996 on the point.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/holiday-lettings-not-within-scope-of-planning-permission-for-residential-use-1.95551

[Deleted User]

fly_agaric wrote: »

See this term repeated here again as some sort of sneery little buzz-word but never heard it in the real world (think I've seen it on other threads...). What exactly is this "forever home" anyway? Is it one with some security of tenure? (what a shocking + irrational expectation)!

edit: googled it and see urban dictionary says it refers to housing of "unwanted" animals

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forever%20home

It's not a private tenancy anyway............ which is the best folk working and paying their way can hope for unless they are owner occupiers. And it's apparently worth waiting years for while staying in an environment that isn't good for the kids ........ it sounds marvellous really, I wish I could get one

fly_agaric

Augeo wrote: »

It's not a private tenancy anyway............ which is the best folk working and paying their way can hope for unless they are owner occupiers. And it's apparently worth waiting years for while staying in an environment that isn't good for the kids ........ it sounds marvellous really, I wish I could get one

Being moved about from school to school and area to area every 6-12 months while your mother chases the next affordable rent/rent scheme accepting landlord (or facing massive commute times through Dublin's world beating public transport system) is not great either.

Ah well you're probably about 30-40 years too late for your own "forever home" from the government (when was last large scale public housing estate built directly by the councils in Dublin I wonder)?

STB wrote:

It is not the job of private landlords to provide social or affordable housing.

Very true. The government believe it is though.

fly_agaric

beauf wrote: »

"..“In the 1970s,” he tells me, “a third of all new housing was built by the state. But by 2006, it was down to 5%.”..."

Maybe that's the same everywhere else too.

(At a guess) probably UK anyway (?) (maybe that covers "everywhere else" when it comes to economics/politics/government in Ireland).

jay0109

1/3 of the homeless in Dublin Corpo area currently put in hotels/B&B's are non-nationals.
42% of Dublin's rough sleepers are non-nationals.

Looks to me that we're importing a lot of the housing crisis in Dublin

Touchee

jay0109 wrote: »

1/3 of the homeless in Dublin Corpo area currently put in hotels/B&B's are non-nationals.
42% of Dublin's rough sleepers are non-nationals.

Looks to me that we're importing a lot of the housing crisis in Dublin

I am not disputing those numbers, or making a case for immigrants, but the housing crisis in my opinion encompasses the homeless + working population not being able to save or buy + working population paying extortionate rent + students not being able to find affordable and appropriate accommodation.

There's very little point focusing on one small point, when the problem is made up of so many components.

jay0109

Touchee wrote: »

I am not disputing those numbers, or making a case for immigrants, but the housing crisis in my opinion encompasses the homeless + working population not being able to save or buy + working population paying extortionate rent + students not being able to find affordable and appropriate accommodation.

There's very little point focusing on one small point, when the problem is made up of so many components.

For every 100 jobs announced in Facebook, google etc, whats the breakdown of nationals:non-nationals...30:70, 20:80?

Got to question if this 5% per annum economic growth is really wort it. We're choking ourselves with too much growth, too many people

soirish

It's not only about the nationals:non-nationals breakdown. We should look into the missing infrastructure in the Dublin economic belt. If people had the option to commute comfortably to the city things could have been different.

An_Toirpin

soirish wrote: »

It's not only about the nationals:non-nationals breakdown. We should look into the missing infrastructure in the Dublin economic belt. If people had the option to commute comfortably to the city things could have been different.

Of course, it is xenophobic to blame foreigners for the housing crisis but population growth is part of the cause and part of that growth is inward migration. That is a nuanced point that is rarely made. We can't control that because of open borders and soft touch Non-EU residency rules. A left-wing response would be to restrict immigration because they believe in gov can solve problems by intervening while a more libertarian response would be not to give a damn because they believe govs can't. So I am surprised the Irish left is not more anti immigration frankly.

jay0109

An_Toirpin wrote: »

So I am surprised the Irish left is not more anti immigration frankly.

They have never received enough votes from the indigenous Irish so they cheerlead immigration in the hope that it will break the hegemony in Irish politics that FF/FG have held.
Labour in the UK tried exactly that in the noughties and it got them nothing except a large contribution towards the current Brexit mess.

[Deleted User]

jay0109 wrote: »

............

Got to question if this 5% per annum economic growth is really wort it. ..................

If it's not worth it, what do you do propose? Leave the EU?

jay0109

Augeo wrote: »

If it's not worth it, what do you do propose? Leave the EU?

Straight for the nuclear button, fair play to you.
Mention of leaving the EU is fast becoming the new Godwin's law

[Deleted User]

jay0109 wrote: »

Straight for the nuclear button, fair play to you.
Mention of leaving the EU is fast becoming the new Godwin's law

Well it was in response to this tripe "Got to question if this 5% per annum economic growth is really wort it. ....."

Geuze

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Of course, it is xenophobic to blame foreigners for the housing crisis but population growth is part of the cause and part of that growth is inward migration.

I don't blame foreigners.

I blame the Irish Govt for allowing in so many non-EU people, e.g. tens of thousands of Brazilian students, bogus Asian asylum-seekers, etc.

Inevitably this has contributed to the housing crisis.

jay0109

Augeo wrote: »

Well it was in response to this tripe "Got to question if this 5% per annum economic growth is really wort it. ....."

Well thank you for that outstanding critique of my thoughts on the matter :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

Augeo wrote: »

If it's not worth it, what do you do propose? Leave the EU?

jay0109 wrote: »

Well thank you for that outstanding critique of my thoughts on the matter :rolleyes:

Well you didn't offer any detail, did you?
You just went on about the alleged new Godwin's law

hmmm

Augeo wrote: »

Well it was in response to this tripe "Got to question if this 5% per annum economic growth is really wort it. ....."

We should reduce growth to exactly 3.26578%.

Some people are never happy.

Announcements today of thousands of apartments to be built in Cherrywood and we hear complaints about "private landlords". As if the taxpayers of this country want to fork out even more in taxes building tens of thousands of houses.

realitykeeper

Today I read an article in the Irish Examiner (which I couldn`t find online) that stated the building sector is supplying plenty of business/commercial property and that the shortfall in supply was basically confined to residential buildings. This disparity must surely be the consequence of something and I suggest that something is the reluctance to reposess a home which is occupied as opposed to a business premises. Granted the premises of a failing business is more likely to be vacated even before reposession is sought but reasons and excuses aside, the construction sectors that are thriving enjoy prompt repossession when mortgage/loan repayments are in default and the construction sector where repossessions are much more difficult (residential) is largely unviable and therefore construction of new houses & appartments is inadaquate.

Surely therefore, to solve the housing crisis, more defaulters need to be evicted.

The_Conductor

At the moment private landlords are terrified to enter the sector- a formal lease- means essentially nothing- its only applied on the landlord, not the tenant- and even in the case of a delinquent tenant- if they decide to play the system, it can still take 2-3 years to retrieve a property from them. If there were a more level playing field- where a delinquent tenant could at least face eviction in a an open and formal process- within a defined time frame- it would be a start.

For now- a leveling of the regulatory regime- alongside an acceptance that social housing responsibilities reside with the local authorities and the public sector- and should not be pawned off on the private sector- has to be the first step. After that- the entire structure of our social housing obligations has to be looked at- the whole idea of a 'house of life' a 'forever home' etc- doesn't exist for people who have to pay their own way- I don't see how or why it should count for the social sector either?

At the crux of a lot of this- is we need large volumes of high density residential housing units- in central Dublin. We *need* an abolition of the height restrictions- and we need a system in place whereby any bad behaviour on the part of tenants results in an immediate termination of the tenancy and eviction from the unit. We do not want or need ghettos in Dublin- we want good quality, high density units- with well behaved residents- and there has to be immediate consequences for the landlords or tenants who do not hold up their sides of the deal.

The homeless issue- is a separate issue- people shouldn't be making themselves deliberately homeless in order to be handed a home on a silver platter. Thats a mad Fr. Ted'esque system. We also do not want or need everyone to aspire to live in central Dublin- and should be doing our nut to try and make alternate locations beacons of desire for both social and private sector tenants and owner occupiers. However- the whole SDZ idea- of turning swathes of Wicklow, South Dublin, North Kildare and Meath- into a dormitory zone for Dublin- is bonkers.

We are great with sticking plasters- however, the idea of a sticking plaster- is that they are healing an ill which in time repairs itself. We're not looking to the longer term- nor are we learning from the past. The social ills that blighted Tallaght in the early 80s- have been duplicated on a grandscale in Lucan South/Clondalkin/Newcastle- where the SDZ has been grasped with both hands and unfettered development without accompanying facilities and amenities- taken to be the new-norm.

This is not satisfactory- yet people seem loathe to complain.

We deserve better.

Old diesel

How does deliberately making yourself homeless work exactly.....

To me it means that someone chose to leave a house they could have stayed in.

Or deliberately avoided looking at AVAILABLE housing.

Part of the problem is that when someone becomes homeless - they may become reluctant to rejoin the private sector system whose flaws they feel caused their original homelessness.

How do we measure deliberate homelessness and under that heading - if someone works a low paid job in Dublin how far from their job should they be expected to live.

What I mean is - if you feel you need to be in Dublin but the available houses are in Roscommon is that "deliterate homelessness"

[Deleted User]

The_Conductor wrote: »

........... The social ills that blighted Tallaght in the early 80s- have been duplicated on a grandscale in Lucan South/Clondalkin/Newcastle-......................

Do you really think so?
The social ills that blighted Tallaght in the early 80s were largely as a result of unemployment and there was little to no shopping areas. The Square was a huge positive for the area.
Whatever social ills you are seeing/imagining currently in the areas you mention aren't at all similar.
Joyriding was a huge issue for example.........I've yet too see mention of Newcastle being a joy riding hotspot these days.

Are loads of unemployed Lucan folk struggling to do their shopping locally and their kids are off joyriding?