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

Next governments affect on housing market

Options
1234689

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Fol20 wrote: »
    I didn’t say I agree with it. I’m just saying that’s what I thought it meant

    It was not an attack on you


  • Options
    #153
    odyssey06
    Registered Users Posts: 28,010 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    The Student wrote: »
    It was not an attack on you

    No worries... please direct all attacks to Eoin O Broin!

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Options
    #154
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Sf will likely go into government with fianna fail ,
    this will not be a 100 per cent socialist government.
    Lets say they build 10k housing units a year for social housing .
    Only people under a certain income can get social housing,
    the councils give house,s to people on the housing list who have 2 chilldren.
    There,s enough single people out there to keep the rental market going.
    hap rent allowance is paid to private landlords to take tenants on low income, i can see no reason why sinn fein would want to suddenly get rid of private landlords, in the middle of a housing crisis .
    the government policy since 2008, is to just pay interest ,
    eg no one seems to care about reducing the national debt.
    or maybe be politicians think, I,ll be retiring with a nice pension.
    why should i care.
    young people or the next generation will be stuck with the national debt,
    like young people will be the ones who will feel the real effect of climate change .
    I don,t see the average worker in google or intel in a rush to sign up to get
    a council house in finglas .
    I Think the whole point of reit,s is to increase the supply of rental housing ,increasing the tax on reits make,s no sense .


  • Options
    #155
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,214 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Student accommodation is being built as dual use. When students are not in residence between academic terms the accommodation is rented to conference guests and tourists. The colleges are using student accommodation as an income generator in the absence of the ability to charge fees. In the States the fees are massive so the accommodation can be basic.

    There have been recent challenges to the use for tourists. Suggestions that it is contrary to planning consents and that it should only be used for visiting students, academics and others attending non-term time courses. nevertheless, it should always be subordinate to use for student accommodation and I can see why there might be a clamour for budget student accommodation.


  • Options
    #156
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    I see rent freeze been one of SF goals. Worked out well so far LOL


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    beggars_bush
    Registered Users Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭beggars_bush


    The Student wrote: »
    The higher our debt gets the higher the interest we are charged and this goes on and on.

    If anything it would be in the States interest to see house prices reduce so they could build more as they would require less funds to build.

    They'd probably borrow it from European investment bank and not on the normal bond market.

    We'd need 5000 + new building sector workers to deliver an additional 100k houses. They cannot be trained overnight


  • Options
    #158
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    beggars_bush wrote: »
    They'd probably borrow it from European investment bank and not on the normal bond market.

    We'd need 5000 + new building sector workers to deliver an additional 100k houses. They cannot be trained overnight

    But nobody has answered my question if we are allowed increase the States GDP to Debt ratio as part of the bailout.

    It still makes no sense to me if we could have done this in the past then why didn't we. Especially by Finna Gael if they had of done it they would have easily won a majority for any election.

    SF are talking about house building but the State as per the land agency (on primetime last night) can only produce a fig of 7-8k this year. Also SF have a fig of €4b from NAMA whereas NAMA only currently has €2b. THe €4b fig is the estimate when all NAMA property is disposed of.


  • Options
    #159
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Browney7 wrote: »
    David McWilliams has been hammering the drum for a while that we should be taking advantage of the low rates (sub 1% for 20 year money the last time I checked) and embarking on a capital spending programme.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that Dun Laoighre council agreed to rent that block in Dundrum paying a 5 or 6% rental yield per annum for 25 years (which increases over time) and it's not owned at the end. It seems that Realis maintain the block but how much would that Knock off the yield - 1% p.a. maybe? Those German investors would only get 1% buying Irish debt for that same time period and the risk is not too dissimilar (the block isn't going to be worth zero in 25 years time!) Yet they are getting 5% Irish state guaranteed for renting a property. A nice little asset class they've discovered.

    If there are EU rules preventing borrowing the money to just buy the thing outright it is disadvantaging Irish tax payers in favour of German beneficiaries.

    At the end of 25 years we will still have to house those residents somewhere. HAP is treated as current expenditure but it is a liability for 10 or 20 or even 40 years.

    We can't increase our capital expenditure as this then increases our Debt to GDP which will put us outside our bailout terms.

    The yearly rent is current expenditure and is alot less than the funds we would need to buy outright.


  • Options
    #160
    J_1980
    Registered Users Posts: 614 ✭✭✭J_1980


    Browney7 wrote: »
    David McWilliams has been hammering the drum for a while that we should be taking advantage of the low rates (sub 1% for 20 year money the last time I checked) and embarking on a capital spending programme.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that Dun Laoighre council agreed to rent that block in Dundrum paying a 5 or 6% rental yield per annum for 25 years (which increases over time) and it's not owned at the end. It seems that Realis maintain the block but how much would that Knock off the yield - 1% p.a. maybe? Those German investors would only get 1% buying Irish debt for that same time period and the risk is not too dissimilar (the block isn't going to be worth zero in 25 years time!) Yet they are getting 5% Irish state guaranteed for renting a property. A nice little asset class they've discovered.

    If there are EU rules preventing borrowing the money to just buy the thing outright it is disadvantaging Irish tax payers in favour of German beneficiaries.

    At the end of 25 years we will still have to house those residents somewhere. HAP is treated as current expenditure but it is a liability for 10 or 20 or even 40 years.

    Its the Germans who bailed you out.
    Hearing all the “free gaffs for everyone” and “mortgage/rent repayments are optional” talk, without the EU fiscal restrictions Paddy would straight walk into another bailout in the next recession.
    40bn debt was the bank bailout but where was the other 120bn of new debt coming from??? No one ever asks that question. The Germans just want to make sure this NEVER EVER happens again.


  • Options
    #161
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,051 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Last night on Prime Time it was put to Pearse Doherty that SF plans would cost the State 20billion, but there is currently only 11billion in the coffers, when he was asked where the other 9 billion for housing, healthcare, etc would come from, he completely ignored the question and fudged the answer. Increased taxes or increased borrowing, that’s what everyone needs and voted for.

    Though not a SF supporter, I hope they do form a Government, they will then see how difficult it is to deliver what you promise. I also want to see ML’s face when she has to welcome the future King of England to Dublin in March, I’m guessing Mr Cullinane will not get the nod for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Its going to have to come from taxation- which is going to hurt those who can least afford it, most.
    Also- the current discussions with the Greens- include a 5 fold increase in the carbon tax- once again, it'll hurt those who can least afford it, most.


  • Options
    #163
    TSQ
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭TSQ


    Browney7 wrote: »
    David McWilliams has been hammering the drum for a while that we should be taking advantage of the low rates (sub 1% for 20 year money the last time I checked) and embarking on a capital spending programme.

    It just doesn't make sense to me that Dun Laoighre council agreed to rent that block in Dundrum paying a 5 or 6% rental yield per annum for 25 years (which increases over time) and it's not owned at the end. It seems that Realis maintain the block but how much would that Knock off the yield - 1% p.a. maybe? Those German investors would only get 1% buying Irish debt for that same time period and the risk is not too dissimilar (the block isn't going to be worth zero in 25 years time!) Yet they are getting 5% Irish state guaranteed for renting a property. A nice little asset class they've discovered.

    If there are EU rules preventing borrowing the money to just buy the thing outright it is disadvantaging Irish tax payers in favour of German beneficiaries.

    At the end of 25 years we will still have to house those residents somewhere. HAP is treated as current expenditure but it is a liability for 10 or 20 or even 40 years.

    Yes, but you have to factor in the fact that councils are useless at setting rents at a fair level and are also hopeless at collecting rent. I havent heard about this development. Who will operate it? If private management, then it will still work out cheaper than if managed by incompetent local authority pen pushers..


  • Options
    #164
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,359 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    TSQ wrote: »
    Yes, but you have to factor in the fact that councils are useless at setting rents at a fair level and are also hopeless at collecting rent. I havent heard about this development. Who will operate it? If private management, then it will still work out cheaper than if managed by incompetent local authority pen pushers..
    It is a bit unfair to call them incompetent as they are civil servants that get told by the council what to do. If the council decide not to pursue rent arrears the civil servants cannot do anything. Can you just ignore your boss? Councils make decisions for votes hence why they keep ignoring their obligations to provide traveller accommodation even though they have the funds.


  • Options
    #165
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You said colleges are using it as income generators. Not true all suppliers of student accommodation do the same and they have always done this..

    Of course it is true, all providers are doing so for the income. I was dealing specifically wit the issue of a complaint by students of UCD and with the proposition that students be given less elaborate accommodation.


  • Options
    #166
    crossman47
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭crossman47


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It is a bit unfair to call them incompetent as they are civil servants that get told by the council what to do. If the council decide not to pursue rent arrears the civil servants cannot do anything. Can you just ignore your boss? Councils make decisions for votes hence why they keep ignoring their obligations to provide traveller accommodation even though they have the funds.

    The main problem is that evicting non payers makes the homeless. The Council then has an obligation to house them. Catch 22.


  • Options
    #167
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,359 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    crossman47 wrote: »
    The main problem is that evicting non payers makes the homeless. The Council then has an obligation to house them. Catch 22.

    Maybe but it isn't incompetence by the civil servants it is a decision they have no control over. A bit like giving out about Gardai because there is no law in place.

    Don't pay your rent you are moved to a hub and somebody in a hub looking for a home is moved in to the property instead.


  • Options
    #168
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    It is a bit unfair to call them incompetent as they are civil servants that get told by the council what to do. If the council decide not to pursue rent arrears the civil servants cannot do anything. Can you just ignore your boss? Councils make decisions for votes hence why they keep ignoring their obligations to provide traveller accommodation even though they have the funds.

    Collecting rent and pursuing arrears is an executive function and not for elected Councillors. What I don't understand is why an arrangement isn't made with Social Welfare for the deduction of rent at source.


  • Options
    #169
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Collecting rent and pursuing arrears is an executive function and not for elected Councillors. What I don't understand is why an arrangement isn't made with Social Welfare for the deduction of rent at source.

    The functionality is there its the will that is lacking. We already have legislation that allows for an attachment order to earnings/social welfare but we don't use it.

    People are happier to spend a couple of hours in "prison" and the fine is wiped.

    Nobody sees the costs associated with all of this process, legal costs, prison officers costs, transport costs, admin costs.


  • Options
    #170
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The Student wrote: »
    The functionality is there its the will that is lacking. We already have legislation that allows for an attachment order to earnings/social welfare but we don't use it.

    People are happier to spend a couple of hours in "prison" and the fine is wiped.

    Nobody sees the costs associated with all of this process, legal costs, prison officers costs, transport costs, admin costs.

    It is nothing to do with fines. I am talking about rent. Taking rent at source. There is no fine for not paying rent.


  • Options
    #171
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It is nothing to do with fines. I am talking about rent. Taking rent at source. There is no fine for not paying rent.

    Its the same principle, the functionality exists but is not used. Unless there is a consequence for non payment of rent then people will continue to underpay/not pay their rent.

    Which politician/ councillor will ever push this. I understand the SF had the most councillors on Dublin City Council who ironically has 60% of tenants in rent arrears.

    Great credentials for running the country's finances so!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The Student wrote: »
    Its the same principle, the functionality exists but is not used.!

    What functionality is there to take rent from social welfare payments?


  • Options
    #173
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    What functionality is there to take rent from social welfare payments?

    An Post's household budget service or alternatively the Dept of social welfare just send a direct credit file from its bank account to the councils bank account with the account no's of all of those its paying the rent for, the file is uploaded and the councils records are amended to reflect the payments.

    A mate of mine worked in An Post and this is how they process all bills paid in the Post Offices.


  • Options
    #174
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    The Student wrote: »
    An Post's household budget service or alternatively the Dept of social welfare just send a direct credit file from its bank account to the councils bank account with the account no's of all of those its paying the rent for, the file is uploaded and the councils records are amended to reflect the payments.

    A mate of mine worked in An Post and this is how they process all bills paid in the Post Offices.

    That requires the cooperation of the tenant who must be in funds for An Post to make the payment. What provisions enable the council to insist that the tenants agree to this system or to force the dept to implement it? How does the council know which tenants are on social welfare?


  • Options
    #175
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    That requires the cooperation of the tenant who must be in funds for An Post to make the payment. What provisions enable the council to insist that the tenants agree to this system or to force the dept to implement it? How does the council know which tenants are on social welfare?

    If the Dept of social welfare are making a welfare payment they just underpay the receiptant by the amount of the rent and pay that amount directly to the council on the tenants behalf.

    The system that enable the council force this method is if the tenant is a regular offender for going into arrears then this is the only method of payment the council will accept or otherwise evict the tenant for non payment of rent.

    Currently because the state is legally obliged to house the tenant it is simpler and cheaper to leave them there even if they don't pay the rent because of legal costs to get them evicted etc.

    The council does not need to know who is or is not on social welfare, once the payment comes from DSP the council just allocate it to the tenants account its directed to.

    This is how the HAP payments are made via the Post Office, the tenant gives the money to An Post who send a file to the appropriate council with the details of the individual payments and just upload it to their system. They get the money and match the totals to the funds received and once reconciled its complete.


  • Options
    #176
    Ray Palmer
    Registered Users Posts: 8,359 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Collecting rent and pursuing arrears is an executive function and not for elected Councillors. What I don't understand is why an arrangement isn't made with Social Welfare for the deduction of rent at source.

    You can't but a lean on social welfare payments. You are also assuming they are all on social welfare when they are aren't. The civil servants do as they are told and they are told not to remove tenants. Whom ever makes that decision decided already and it isn't incompetence but a choice


  • Options
    #177
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    The council has an obligation to house them, does not mean much,
    you can be on the housing list as a single person for 10 years without recieving any offer of housing from the council.
    being on the housing list means you can recieve hap to rent a room.We need maybe 5000 building worker,s ,
    it,s hard to attract skilled workers from the eu when rents are so high here.
    The builders we have are building office,s and hotel,s and some house,s ,
    About 5000 housing units were built in 2019.
    We need about 20k housing units built every year.
    In the 90,s and aughtie,s dublin city council sold every house they could to ex tenants at a discount.
    if you paid your rent every week, you were likely to be able to buy the council house you lived in, if you wanted to.
    i doubt if the government will be able to build 10k housing units every year ,due to various constraint,s ,like shortage of builder,s .
    to build one council house it cost,s 300k approx.


  • Options
    #178
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    You can't but a lean on social welfare payments. You are also assuming they are all on social welfare when they are aren't. The civil servants do as they are told and they are told not to remove tenants. Whom ever makes that decision decided already and it isn't incompetence but a choice

    You actually can if the debt is owed to the State eg TV licence, fines etc.


  • Options
    #179
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,163 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    I am not talking about a lien. The tenant is housed by the state. Why should the state pay money to a tenant and then hope the tenant will pay some of the money back to it? If the tenant is not on social welfare then their tax credits can be reduced. It is ridiculous that there are arrears of rent in state owned properties..


  • Options
    #180
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Currently the system is people under a certain income can get social housing .In practice only a parent with 2 children gets offered a house,
    or maybe someone on disability allowance .
    Once you get social housing , you can get a job if you were not working previously , and your weekly rent is based on the income of the household .
    I think after a certain amount of time you,ll get an eviction notice from the council if you do not pay the rent.
    It might take a year or 2 before they take action to evict you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭The Student


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    I am not talking about a lien. The tenant is housed by the state. Why should the state pay money to a tenant and then hope the tenant will pay some of the money back to it? If the tenant is not on social welfare then their tax credits can be reduced. It is ridiculous that there are arrears of rent in state owned properties..

    We already have the ability to do all of this. It is done everyday of the week in the courts with maintance payments where a father is seperated from his partner and an attachment order is placed on his wages which instructs his employer to direct a given amount of his wages to his partner on behalf of the children.


    The employer is legally obliged to do this and can't amend this unless they receive instructions from the courts.

    All of the mechanisms are there to enforce alot of the issues, the political will is not.

    The State via any of its functions does not want to be seen making someone homeless for whatever reason and will frustrate the process as much as possible.


Advertisement