Homelessness on the rise (over 130 more children) - Mod Warning Post #392

The key to handling the problems of depending for a majority housing on REITs OR small landlords is to have alternatives to BOTH.

Housing associations, plentiful social housing.

Change eligibility criteria for social housing so more people eligible

Old diesel wrote: »

Change eligibility criteria for social housing so more people eligible

or fewer

Deleted User wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

Change eligibility criteria for social housing so more people eligible

or fewer

Nope - needs to be more people eligible for social housing - ie more higher income people.

This would allow more people to access rent that is affordable.

It also means that the gap between whats affordable to a tenant and what an investor needs can be managed via a scheme like HAP*.

It also means more people can be housed by the likes of housing associations at a cost that's managable for tenants

*HAP needs changes anyway.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

Small landlords cannot be depended on for a majority of our rental properties in the longer term imo.

1) Generally disinterested in a wider market beyond their own situation.

2) unable to work closely with other people in the wider market to deliver sustainable market solutions.

3) To have a market made up of mainly small landlords requires a sufficient amount of random people who both have funds AND a willingness to invest in property. Where do you find the numbers.

4) if I am Govt - want to put in sustainable housing solutions - who do I talk to when it comes to dealing with 170 k suppliers of rental housing.

Let's consider how a bigger supplier model might work in future.

1) people for whome housing is their profession and who are interested in the longer.

2) a professional supplier can work with Govt, builders and other suppliers to deliver to the market.

3) in the future 170 k people could invest into a fund. The fund takes on all the property problems and the small investor can invest as much or as little into the fund as desired. This allows more people to invest - even tenants.

4) if there were 20 suppliers into the Dublin market then it's easy for Govt to talk to 20 suppliers both in a meeting with all 20 or meeting individually

Sustainable market solutions as you suggest would occur if the Govt actually stopped interfering with the market. A market is exactly what is says "willing buyers and sellers come together to agree a price".

We have significant funds on deposit in the Irish banks most on minimal if any interest. Some of these funds could be used for investing in property for a return higher than that achieved in the banking sector. Have you ever wondered why this is not happening, it makes business sense to invest in a market that returns higher yields than that achieved in the bank.

A market finds its own equilibrium naturally this is a fundamental basic law of economics.

Can I suggest you google "Porters five forces" and see what this model highlights as the risks of having a small number of suppliers dominating the market.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

Nope - needs to be more people eligible for social housing - ie more higher income people.

This would allow more people to access rent that is affordable.

It also means that the gap between whats affordable to a tenant and what an investor needs can be managed via a scheme like HAP*.

It also means more people can be housed by the likes of housing associations at a cost that's managable for tenants

*HAP needs changes anyway.

You do realize that the Govt is making a killing using the HAP model.

An example may help to explain my point. These are rounded figs just for example purposes.

Say for example rent is €2000 a month. The tenant must earn €4000 to fund this take home pay of €2000. So on this transaction alone the Govt has received €2000 in taxes and USC, PRSI etc.

So the landlord receives €2000 in rent and he has to pay the Govt €1000 in tax.

So if we look at the above trans from earnings of €4000 the Govt has taken €3000 of this €2000 directly from the tenant and €1000 from the landlord.

And for all of this the Govt does not have any responsibility for the tenant at all, the landlord has all the maintenance and all of the risk of damage, non payment of rent etc.

If you change the model and the tenant wants to buy a property the Govt has lost revenue from the landlords rental income. So on the above model (again just example figs) the Govt has lost a third of their tax (eg the €1000 from the landlord.

HAP does not work, the only way the housing situation is going to improve is for the Govt to stop interfering in the market and let the market find its own equilibrium.

The Student wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

Nope - needs to be more people eligible for social housing - ie more higher income people.

This would allow more people to access rent that is affordable.

It also means that the gap between whats affordable to a tenant and what an investor needs can be managed via a scheme like HAP*.

It also means more people can be housed by the likes of housing associations at a cost that's managable for tenants

*HAP needs changes anyway.

You do realize that the Govt is making a killing using the HAP model.

An example may help to explain my point. These are rounded figs just for example purposes.

Say for example rent is €2000 a month. The tenant must earn €4000 to fund this take home pay of €2000. So on this transaction alone the Govt has received €2000 in taxes and USC, PRSI etc.

So the landlord receives €2000 in rent and he has to pay the Govt €1000 in tax.

So if we look at the above trans from earnings of €4000 the Govt has taken €3000 of this €2000 directly from the tenant and €1000 from the landlord.

And for all of this the Govt does not have any responsibility for the tenant at all, the landlord has all the maintenance and all of the risk of damage, non payment of rent etc.

If you change the model and the tenant wants to buy a property the Govt has lost revenue from the landlords rental income. So on the above model (again just example figs) the Govt has lost a third of their tax (eg the €1000 from the landlord.

HAP does not work, the only way the housing situation is going to improve is for the Govt to stop interfering in the market and let the market find its own equilibrium.

My thinking on HAP is that going forward the amount of money an investor will need will be beyond what many tenants can pay themselves even with incentives for the investor - ie lower tax.

So the idea of a HAP type scheme if you widen the eligibility criteria in future for social housing is that we could set it up so the investor gets his return* - yet the tenant gets affordable rent*.

The problem is that the investor needs to pay off his loan each month, cover repair/maintenance and tax. And he needs a worthwhile return.

This gets pricey if loans are based on high purchase prices and the investor needs full payback and a surplus

*HAP making up the difference

pwurple

There's room for everyone.

This is like the corner shop analogy, where housing is bread.

Yes, there's room for the corner shop style landlord, selling one off, hand made artisan bread (or country cottage, an apartment they bought before they had kids, or whatever) No need to kill those guys.

Yes, there's also a need for the massive monolith supermarket chain type REITs providing house farms and apt blocks.

And yes, there's room for the midrange smaller developments.

And for people who don't fit those, there does need to be govt supported housing. Whether they do that through setting up their own govt service, or giving people money in the form of HAP to rely on the existing services provided by the landlords is policy of the day.

But there is no earthly reason to demonise and penalise one-off landlords, or REITS. None of these are the bad guys, because the govt is farting about unable to decide whether it's gong to be in the business of baking bread, or paying for bread.

The Student

Old diesel wrote: »

My thinking on HAP is that going forward the amount of money an investor will need will be beyond what many tenants can pay themselves even with incentives for the investor - ie lower tax.

So the idea of a HAP type scheme if you widen the eligibility criteria in future for social housing is that we could set it up so the investor gets his return* - yet the tenant gets affordable rent*.

The problem is that the investor needs to pay off his loan each month, cover repair/maintenance and tax. And he needs a worthwhile return.

This gets pricey if loans are based on high purchase prices and the investor needs full payback and a surplus

*HAP making up the difference

The problem is not having to pay off the loan, the problem is the tax take. If the landlord was able to take home the same after tax fig as he is now then the funds available to pay the mortgage and the yield from his investment would stay the same.

Remember the yield is based on the after tax income not the pre tax income.

This makes my blood boil. 21 years old. On housing list for 3 years. 2 kids. 20 months and 3 months and pregnant with third.
No personal responsibility here. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/weve-nowhere-else-to-go-desperate-family-squatting-in-empty-council-house-faces-court-38246224.html

InTheShadows

Deleted User wrote: »

This makes my blood boil. 21 years old. On housing list for 3 years. 2 kids. 20 months and 3 months and pregnant with third.
No personal responsibility here. https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/weve-nowhere-else-to-go-desperate-family-squatting-in-empty-council-house-faces-court-38246224.html

Someone having kids makes your blood boil? :pac:

InTheShadows wrote: »

Someone having kids makes your blood boil? :pac:

Yes, when they have no place for them nor any way to support them. Children are a blessing. A gift. Not a means of bumping oneself up the housing list. Where were they living before now? Have they not heard of contraception?

InTheShadows

We should just stop poor people from having kids, that'll teach them.

grassroot1

Deleted User wrote:

Yes, when they have no place for them nor any way to support them. Children are a blessing. A gift. Not a means of bumping oneself up the housing list. Where were they living before now? Have they not heard of contraception?

Spot on

Why aren't Meath Co council addressing the couples emergency accommodation need.

And another thing......

If families that are next on the list have housing at the moment - why can't you have temporary accommodation in the council housing?????.

So someone who is otherwise going to be homeless - then they get the house temporarily while waiting/looking for accomodation.

This temporary housing in a normal house thing already happens to a degree.

It's how Eoghan Murphy is able to reclassify some people counted as homeless as no longer homeless

Old diesel wrote: »

Why aren't Meath Co council addressing the couples emergency accommodation need.

And another thing......

If families that are next on the list have housing at the moment - why can't you have temporary accommodation in the council housing?????.

So someone who is otherwise going to be homeless - then they get the house temporarily while waiting/looking for accomodation.

This temporary housing in a normal house thing already happens to a degree.

It's how Eoghan Murphy is able to reclassify some people counted as homeless as no longer homeless

Where were they living before becoming homeless? A very one sided story, but shur, anything to have a pop at the government.

2 year's on the housing list and already on child three at this rate they will be over crowded in the illegally occupied house before they need a bigger house,

They should be <snip> and permanently removed from housing lists.

ml100

InTheShadows wrote: »

We should just stop poor people from having kids, that'll teach them.

I know several working couples that have to limit the amount of kids they are going to have for financial reasons why not the same for these people?

Slydice

Summary
This is the first time I noticed that the number of Adults with Children in Homelessness seems to be rising faster than just Adults.

While working to resize the charts, I saw this summary:

It looks like the same numbers but the number of years are different:

in 3 and a bit years: Adults with Children went from around 3000 to over 6000
in 4 and a bit years: just Adults went from around 3000 to over 6000

This reminded me of the start of the October 2018 post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108755665&postcount=11

"In Europe, the rate is much lower where women typically account for between 20% and 33% of the homeless population"
"research found that 66% of homeless families in Ireland are headed by lone parents, most of whom are women"

The Report
The Homelessness Report May 2019 has been released:
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/homeless_report_-_may_2019.pdf

This is the first time I can remember all the headline numbers dropping month-on-month. I've updated the two charts based on the totals they give.

Homelessness (Adults)

Family Homelessness

<SNIP>

Amirani

Time to change the thread title? Homelessness not on the rise.

Graces7

ml100 wrote: »

I know several working couples that have to limit the amount of kids they are going to have for financial reasons why not the same for these people?

Given that folk can be on a housing list for many years even with children. you are expecting young couples couples to defer having children because the govt is making a mess of social housing?

Amirani wrote: »

Time to change the thread title? Homelessness not on the rise.

Maybe -
One persons social media dumps about homelessness not on the rise .

grassroot1

Graces7 wrote:

Given that folk can be on a housing list for many years even with children. you are expecting young couples couples to defer having children because the govt is making a mess of social housing?

No try in this order job partner house kids
To expect a house in your preferred location to be handed to you because you have a sence of entitlement is crazy

Graces7 wrote: »

Given that folk can be on a housing list for many years even with children. you are expecting young couples couples to defer having children because the govt is making a mess of social housing?

No young couples or single women deferring having multiple children when they cannot physically afford to or have a home to raise these multiple children ,

We all know people are having 4+ children to get a larger forever home funded by everyone else who work and have careers that can't afford to sit on there asses having child after child who's only goal in life will be to get a council house like mammy and her mammy and her mammy before that again,

Social housing shouldn't be a lifestyle choice

Great news. The system is working.

Deleted User wrote:

Great news. The system is working.

I think you posted the wrong thread by mistake

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I think you posted the wrong thread by mistake

No. Slydice has just announced a reduction in homeless numbers. Great news altogether.

Deleted User wrote:

No. Slydice has just announced a reduction in homeless numbers. Great news altogether.

A reduction in the doctored numbers still means close to 12k homeless. Our government in all its wisdom has allowed tourists to stay in homes while our homeless stay in hotels. This trend has been a growing problem since 2012. I wouldn't be throwing a party just yet.

Fingers crossed for an election in the next 4 months

Sleeper12 wrote: »

A reduction in the doctored numbers still means close to 12k homeless.

Sure wait till we get a reunification referendum

We will have roughly 40,000 + plus homeless if we believe they hype