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

Right to a house?

Options
13468918

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,300 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Two points in the answer:

    1. It is not the responsibility now, nor has it ever been, of private investors to provide accommodation to those in critical need.
    2. Of course they have a right to make a gain on an investment, they also have no right to avoid a loss on it as well. If there was no prospect of gaining from investment, why would anyone invest? A considerable number of people made huge losses on investments in rental properties in the last recession.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭pgj2015


    What do you mean virtually nothing? they are allowing someone or a family to live in the house they own. how is that nothing? especially now when housing is in such a short supply.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    A better title for this thread would be right to housing, many people are happy to stay in a 1 bed bed apartment or a flat, its cheaper than heating or cleaning a large house .our present system is if your income is low you can go on the housing list, after some time you may get offered housing. every working person pays tax, a few per cent of this money goes to building roads, bridges, local authority housing.i think there should be a right to affordable housing, a simple test if a couple of workers, for example a garda and a nurse cant afford to buy a house even in a working class area then theres something seriously wrong . maybe in a few years time the government could

    buy empty office buildings and convert them into apartments , since theres 1000s of people who can work from home .any person who is working on less than 30k can apply to live there and pay rent based on annual income.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    As well as building more social housing for the less well off, government needs to take advantage of cheap money worldwide to bring in investment and increase number of units built each year. Amateur landlords also need to be gradually replaced by large scale regulated corporate landlords.



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,300 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    That is an interesting perspective. The influx of institutional investors into the Irish market and professional way in which the raise rents yearly with precise timing has been blamed by many for being a contributor to the significant rise in rents. But it certainly seems that your wish may be granted as “amateur” landlords continue to leave the market. Though I have owned rental properties for over 20 yrs, I am now selling as tenants leave and hope to have divested in the next 2-3 years. I am happy to leave the sector to the professionals.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,545 ✭✭✭Topgear on Dave


    Timing I guess. In 2005 you could go into a bank and they'd give you any mortgage if you could walk and chew gum at the same time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    I'm not a finance expert I read only the top 20 per cent in most urban areas where young people live can afford to buy a house . Also its more expensive to build a house here than most country's , land is expensive, there's no one building houses within miles of the city centre. Other city's allow 20 story's buildings to be built increasing the supply of units avaidable on the market. So alot of gen z live at home or else pay expensive rents.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,643 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    Not one party or person believes or us serious about right to housing and that's just amongst those who call for it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,338 ✭✭✭Bit cynical


    While the transition to institutional investors needs to be sped up, this in itself is not enough. The sector needs greater regulation and investment needs to be incentivized into new builds thus increasing supply and ultimately bringing down rents.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    You don’t need to own the asset to have housing and the reason to capital assets is value appreciation, in other words it just the same old story and will not solve the housing problem as it trying to solve the desire for house ownership.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 18,374 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    The real question is if in there forties now they were 30-35 from 2012 to 2015. There was a serious amount of cheap property sold in this period.

    Apartments were particularly cheap. You would buy them for the price of a marquee car. Yet there is a lot of this cohort did not buy during this time. They were waiting for there forever home.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Unemployment was also tipping 15% during that period with many leaving for work while those that stayed faced internships for the dole if they could not get work. Those who had work were wondering if theyd have a job nect week. Hardly aids with saving for a deposit or paying for a mortgage. Prior to that we had a stupendous property bubble that trapped people in negative equity.

    In the 2000s we also entered a period where contract work meant workers had to move from place to place. This is more frequent for most during the early phase of a career. This means renting during this phase of your career for mobility.

    It's not rocket science that there has been a seismic shift in affordability of housing either.

    Have we progressed or regressed now that we require twice as many workers to purchase a single house.....? Is it progress that more and more are living at home in their 30s and 40s?

    This is textbook market failure. A market failure is an inefficient allocationof resources. Building has been too little for years. Everybody knew it and nobody did a tap. It's compounded by other factors too.

    It's clear and its occurring across the western world for various reasons and at various rates.

    It's time someone somewhere tackled the problem head on and accepted that it'll ruffle alot of feathers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 506 ✭✭✭asdfg87


    What you are saying should have been done before these investors were allowed buy up vast amount of houses/apartments that were built as homes for families, insteas prople were shut out by developers/banks, lack of regulation. When planning is saught it should be stipulated what the purpose of build, investment or homes and be ring fenced.

    What have you in mind?



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,374 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Comparing houses build up until the early '90's and there cost to now is ludicrous. Ya these houses look fine houses now. But they have gone through upgrades and retro fit since.

    Pre 1990 houses were basically block walls, with softwood windows and doors, one bathroom, basic heating system. When these houses were build people.moved into them without kitchens, floor covering, painting and no external landscaping.

    A house now build to the present regulations is a totally different product.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...so there hasnt been a wide scale movement towards 'the market', i.e. the private sector, in order to provide us with our property needs?

    ...and should this requirement to profit, be of a higher importance over providing this critical need? noting, theres a difference between profits, and 'PROFITS'!

    ..again, public policy has been behind primary asset owners, in particular property owners, nearly every step of the way, by encouraging and facilitating a credit fueled boom, whos main goal was to inflate the value of such assets, and now other major polices such as qe, whos ultimate goal was to also (re)inflate the value of the same assets, this is gaining by virtually doing fcuk all. this is whats called the creation of a rent seeking economy, whos ultimate goal is to extract as much wealth from an economy, and who the true gainers are the owners of these assets, while fcuking over non asset owners, baring in mind, assets are primarily owned by older generations, meaning younger generations are left with the bills..... also noting these younger generations are more than likely these gainers own kids, grandkids, nieces , nephews etc etc, so by advocating for such, theyre screwing over their own!

    ...so we should continue with the modus operandi, i.e. lets maintain this pathway of the concentration of ownership of assets, whereby the only true gainers are these owners, and basically fcuk everybody else over, turning our economies into even more wealth extractive ones! do you not think these non asset owners, i.e. the young, will eventually have enough of this, and start voting accordingly!



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,300 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    The requirement to profit is consistent with all types of investment, few people would invest if they were required only to break even or make a loss.

    Should it be more important than the provision of accommodation where there is a critical need? Yes, because without it there would be no investment to meet that critical need.

    What you should really be asking yourself is why when there is a critical undersupply, and historical levels of profit to be made, are landlords leaving the sector at a higher rate than those investing in it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 762 ✭✭✭starkid


    boy what a **** take. many many people have different circumstances and issues. illness, deaths, relationship issues, caring for family, unforeseen debt, losing a job. not everyone allows themselves to get into a position. so wind your **** neck in.

    for example how many people in the construction industry take cash in hand jobs and don''t pony up the correct tax? its not an option for somebody in an office job. different circumstances.

    the ignorance off your posts is astounding.

    and im not one to moan about housing. i know plenty of near 40 year olds with houses. many had help from the bank of mum and dad as well despite having good careers. i know 40 year old people with decent careers (drs, lawyers) who didn't want to buy until the last while (you know because of different circumstances) and are now unable to do so. i suppose tough ****, they didn't have your forsight.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    .....but under such conditions, this ultimately leads to monopolisation of markets, whereby smaller entities, i.e. smaller landlords get squeezed out of such markets, this is currently whats happening here, yes profits are necessary, but again, theres a difference between profits, and PROFITS!

    ....its time we grew up and started acting like adults, we must admit to ourselves this whole approach to property, i.e. the so called financialisation of our markets, has in fact catastrophically failed, and is now in a state of collapse.... it is failing for most citizens at this stage, including small landlords, who do play a critical role in helping provide this critical need.

    ...again asset owners have been heavily protected by public policy, in regards valuation, but small players have been ultimately thrown under the bus, along side the rest of the citizens, i.e. it has failed!

    ....yes, we must also admit to ourselves, financialisation ultimately leads to significant supply issues, heavily monopolised outcomes and hyper inflated prices, this approach only truly works for major plutocratic interests, while fcuking over everyone else!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    It is very easy to look up research on the subject and putting a bunch of people who are poor together creates ghettos. Segregating housing does this. It is no coincidence that the majority of Dublin inmates come primarily from the 4 major council areas created by the government. It isn't everybody in these areas are bad but the odd of a successful life are against them and the opportunities for criminality are drastically increased.

    It is one of those things that people who don't look at the details think is just simple and increasing punishment will solve the problem as it is a deterrent but people don't react that way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    I don't have to have a suggestion to see that repeating the same mistakes of the past that are self evident. Why do people think there would be a different outcome from things we did in the past?

    Housing needs to be integrated that is all



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,465 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Not disagreeing but which 4 areas and would you have a reference for that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,300 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    This simply is not true.

    Unless there is the prospect of profit for private investors, what is the incentive to invest? Remove that prospect and the situation becomes exponentially worse as the rental and building sectors would collapse as investors would look for other sectors to invest in.

    I do agree that small landlords have left the market due to poorly thought out legislation/policy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,763 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp




  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...horsesh1t, just look at our current situation, and if you think ireland is the only country experiencing such outcomes, you better think again! financialisation has collapsed, this is clearly obvious in nearly every metric now! once again, theres very little risk involved for major investors, as public policy has their backs, credit, qe, the works.... baring in mind, its also common for major investors to receive debt forgiveness, if its needed, this is less likely for smaller investors, i.e. small time landlords....i.e. they have far more favorable conditions than smaller investors, i.e. its a completely rigged game!

    yes, we do need the involvement of these entities, but it needs to be a more balanced and fairer game, but thats clearly not our reality! its clearly obvious that so called laissez faire has completely failed, leading to rapid rise in wealth inequality, and other far more complex social dysfunctions, i.e. its over!



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    There are plenty of houses in Ireland but many are grossly under occupied. Dublin in particular is ringed by OAPs living in large family homes. If they could downsize in their areas there would be better use of existing housing stock.

    While your suggestion is repeat the mistakes of the past and expect a different outcome



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,628 ✭✭✭Feisar


    I don't disagree with you per se. Putting poor people together creates ghettos. But is that because they are poor or is that just a symptom of something else? Causation and effect and all that. Completely random example: People who drink water first thing in the day are generally thinner. So if I drink water I'll loose weight? No people who drink water first thing in the morning are more likely to look after themselves generally. So poor may not be the issue in and off itself.

    So to avoid ghettos the solution is to sprinkle them among the rest of the population who pay their own way. One has to ask at this point does society not pay enough already, why should we have to live with the anti social behaviour that comes with social housing?

    First they came for the socialists...



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    The idea of a social mix in housing is just more left wing ideological social engineering, they just automatically assume it's a good thing



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,368 ✭✭✭Ray Palmer


    Being poor has several route causes but all of those factors tend to lead to other social factors along with being poor. It is all about the odds being changed by the circumstances the state puts people in. If 50% of a school class have separated parents there will be more issues with those children than if it was 10% of the class.

    The issue is anti-social behaviour increases where it is more socially acceptable. By spreading out people among the population they will be less likely to be anti-social. People generally don't like to stick out and go along with the community they live in. That is why it is a bad idea to put people together like they have in the past.

    These people are part of society and they in many cases are a result of poor support services which the government failed to do in the past. You seem to suggest we just write them off and importantly their children who are innocent victims of poor planing. We can warehouse these people and continually pay to support them or help them to improve their lives. There is a poverty trap involved and it is generational for some. Leaving children with alcoholic/drug addict/mental ill parents leaves the children with very bad prospects. I went to school with people from social housing. Many were fine but some were crazy and a huge disruption. As an adult I now know these people had horrible home environments and just couldn't function. Those who were trouble now have kids just like them and my fellow students are like their parents and have created horrible home environments. Their kids have little hope of becoming productive members of society. We as a nation are responsible for them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,274 ✭✭✭✭Geuze



    So because the people of Ballymun didn't respect their own area, the solution is integrated housing and to mix them with more expensive houses?

    Here's another solution: the people of Ballymun should develop some civic pride, should have more respect for their own area, and should not throw rubbish on the streets.


    The "integrated housing" model sounds lovely, whereas the reality of it is there's a small chance that after saving for a decade, overpaying for a house, making mortgage repayments each month for 25 years, while working and rearing a family, you end up a neighbour who, as you say, lacks civic pride and throws rubbish in the streets.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,071 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...and what left leaning political parties have been playing a major role in implementing such polices?



Advertisement