Ireland has the highest proportion of under occupied dwellings in the EU.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 3:58pm

I think though a part of the homelessness issue here is a lack of accommodation that's affordable for single people.

We do have a gap where most housing is 3 and 4 bedroom suburban houses and they're now often being used by multiple adults sharing.

There's definitely a growing demand for apartments that's not being met. I don't think that survey is pointing at forcing people to change home type but it's rather showing that our mix of housing types isn't really matching the demographics and they really have changed dramatically over the past few decades.

I don't really think having multiple, unrelated adults having to share homes should be normalised. People do have expectations to have their own space and privacy.

I'm also not happy with the build to rent setup, where companies are building to let, unless it also comes with long term leading options and security of tenure, like in countries where that model is common.

FG and FF seem happy to bring in big developers to build to let but they've left the rental arrangements as they evolved for small and accidental landlords. That needs to change or BTR won't work.

LirW · 16-06-2019 4:00pm

Lackadaisical wrote: »

I'd suspect one of the issues is we weirdly sell homes based on the number of bedrooms, rather than usable space.

So you'll see a 5 bedroom house being marketed rather than a particular floor space.

I find a lot of Irish homes have pokey bedrooms that were clearly designed to maximize the number for marketing reasons.

Also family sizes are smaller. If you went back to the 70s contraception was illegal or difficult to get and huge families were normal. So your a demand for large numbers of bedrooms in mid 20th century homes.

I also think we generally take an anglophone view of housing that's more like North America and Australia/NZ than most of continental Europe. Scandinavian countries can be a little more like that too.

If you look at that map the smaller dwellings seem to be largely in countries to the east, but so is the overcrowded dwelling issue.

Contrary to that in continental Europe you often have the floor space and a number of rooms - not bedrooms. And sometimes in one of the rooms is the designated space for the kitchen. So a two room apartment is in reality a one bed with living-dining. Sometimes the kitchen is extra and you can use both as bedrooms, especially popular for shares.
They do have their fair share of oddly laid out apartments there and there's no hard rule around bedrooms which is incredibly annoying.

I like the number of bedrooms as an indication, it gives you an idea how many rooms are really suitable for sleeping. I don't find it unreasonable though if a couple pays for their own 3bed home, for what I'm concerned a single person can live in a 7bed castle if they wish to do so.

When it comes to under occupation in council properties this is an entirely kettle of fish but I'm not gonna open this can of worms now because the mismanagement is too vast.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 4:07pm

The worst case is what the Tories did with the bedroom tax. They put the cart before the horse and applied a disjointed, cold, hard economic and bureaucratic solution to a physical problem. They didn't build appropriate alternative council accommodation in the communities, and especially in smaller towns smaller council homes don't exist as the wasn't historically space pressure. The result was they forced elderly residents out of familiar communities, taxed very low income households who couldn't find alternative accommodation and even pushed disabled people out of adapted larger homes.

They seem to have always specialised in applying crude economic calculation to human situation, regardless of the practical or social implication. It's not new either, when you consider the history.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 4:07pm

Lackadaisical wrote: »

I think though a part of the homelessness issue here is a lack of accommodation that's affordable for single people.

We do have a gap where most housing is 3 and 4 bedroom suburban houses and they're now often being used by multiple adults sharing.

There's definitely a growing demand for apartments that's not being met. I don't think that survey is pointing at forcing people to change home type but it's rather showing that our mix of housing types isn't really matching the demographics and they really have changed dramatically over the past few decades.

I don't really think having multiple, unrelated adults having to share homes should be normalised. People do have expectations to have their own space and privacy.

I'm also not happy with the build to rent setup, where companies are building to let, unless it also comes with long term leading options and security of tenure, like in countries where that model is common.

FG and FF seem happy to bring in big developers to build to let but they've left the rental arrangements as they evolved for small and accidental landlords. That needs to change or BTR won't work.

When I was single 20+ years ago the choice was either a bed-sit or house-sharing. There was no way I could have afforded a one bed apartment and even if I could have it was more prudent to save my money for a house deposit.

Lackadaisical · 16-06-2019 4:13pm

brightspark wrote: »

When I was single 20+ years ago the choice was either a bed-sit or house-sharing. There was no way I could have afforded a one bed apartment and even if I could have it was more prudent to save my money for a house deposit.

The issue though is that the housing market in the cities, relative to income has made that unrealistic for many people.

There's a huge issue with affordability and then you've got to couple that to using a stable currency with very low inflation.

Most of our parents generation bought houses they could barely afford and high inflation melted their mortgages away to very affordable levels over a decade or so. That's never going to happen again due to the price stability of the Eurozone.

The price stability is a huge advantage too but in terms of housing and mortgages it's a different paradigm entirely to the 1950s-1990s.

We have gone form a situation where a single income family could afford very decent housing to one where a double income family (with a lot more spending power in terms of other goods and services) are struggling to ever attain the same standards their parents did.

That's a global issue though, not just an Irish one and it's why you're seeing the rise of the likes of Trump. There was an expectation that things keep getting better. This is one of the first modern generations in the West that will be worse off than their parents, certainly in terms of housing. We are doing better in Ireland in employment and spending power in every other area, just not accomodation.

So we either need to increase supply and deflate the house prices, which will infuriate those who enjoy their notional paper wealth and those who bought at high prices and would be in negative equity. Or, we supplement it with build to rent as a parallel market.

I would prefer to deflate the asset prices to a sane level but I think that'd never going to happen due to the reality of politics.

It looks to me we'll go for two tier housing. Those of us who'll live in long term rental and won't be able to aspire to own a home Vs those who can.

I just can't see FF and FG doing anything to undermine house prices, so we end up with an asset rich Vs asset poor divide, largely in a generational basis.

I also think in the medium term that's also going to be the end of FF and FG. If the housing situation isn't resolved with affordability and sustainable supply, you'll ultimately see more votes going elsewhere.

16-06-2019 4:53pm

Augeo wrote: »

You never got the landlord gig going Nox?

By choice, I could rent our current house (owned by my wife) but between zero rights for LLs and the insane taxes it’s not worth the hassle.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 5:14pm

I notice the last few years there's a political trend of continually attacking and going after old people ?

Do some people think growing old and finding themselves in the same position in few years time doesn't apply to them ?

LirW · 16-06-2019 5:34pm

Nobelium wrote: »

I notice the last few years there's a political trend of continually attacking and going after old people ?

Do some people think growing old and finding themselves in the same position in few years time doesn't apply to them ?

For a lot of things social housing is the scapegoat, with under-occupancy it's the elderly. Like I get where people are coming from when they see aunt Mary living in a 5bed red brick and effectively uses two rooms because she's old, not entirely fit anymore and in reality it's a burden.
But old people owning their houses shouldn't have to leave, simply because the urban areas in this country failed completely to sufficiently cater to all age groups other than families in need of 3bed semis.
There is simply nothing out there the elderly could downsize to even if they wanted to. It's beyond difficult displacing an old person in need of a certain support network that they know. So it makes sense for them to stay put even if the property isn't right anymore.

But believe me, if there would be an incentive to get elderly to downsize, young people would be in arms again because they snap up properties that would suit professional couples and singles with no family plans.

Eric Cartman · 16-06-2019 5:58pm

LirW wrote: »

For a lot of things social housing is the scapegoat, with under-occupancy it's the elderly. Like I get where people are coming from when they see aunt Mary living in a 5bed red brick and effectively uses two rooms because she's old, not entirely fit anymore and in reality it's a burden.
But old people owning their houses shouldn't have to leave, simply because the urban areas in this country failed completely to sufficiently cater to all age groups other than families in need of 3bed semis.
There is simply nothing out there the elderly could downsize to even if they wanted to. It's beyond difficult displacing an old person in need of a certain support network that they know. So it makes sense for them to stay put even if the property isn't right anymore.

But believe me, if there would be an incentive to get elderly to downsize, young people would be in arms again because they snap up properties that would suit professional couples and singles with no family plans.

Well you can build retirement villages like in other countries. Incentivise older people to downsize by allowing them to move to a retirement village and in exchange pay no tax on the sale of the house or transfer of that wealth to children in future.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 6:02pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well you can build retirement villages like in other countries. Incentivise older people to downsize by allowing them to move to a retirement village and in exchange pay no tax on the sale of the house or transfer of that wealth to children in future.

Excellent idea, but wouldn't suit the vested interests of the "fair deal" scam

TSQ · 16-06-2019 6:05pm

brightspark wrote: »

When I was single 20+ years ago the choice was either a bed-sit or house-sharing. There was no way I could have afforded a one bed apartment and even if I could have it was more prudent to save my money for a house deposit.

Yes, and a pretty small and un-cool bedsit at that. It was horrible by todays standards but you just accepted that "i want everything and i want it now" didnt cut it in the real world, and it was up to yourself to get it together.

16-06-2019 6:23pm

I haven't lived in many other countries long term, i haven't a great idea of the way housing works in other countries, etc.

but I do know several people, pensioners, in Council houses. Typical 3-bed houses, and they're living on their own. Council offered one of these people €5,000 as a cash incentive to downsize and move to a 1 bed in a different place. I thought the concept of the council offering cash was madness, but even more-so, i found it bizarre that this fella, that would take the arm off you for a euro, actually turned it down.

His reasoning was the same that I've heard from pretty much everyone else that has been asked to move on: They know the area they're in now, and they know the Council will house anyone randomly.

In other words, they know who their neighbours are, and that they don't get hassle. But the council could easily move them in beside a load of scumbags, travellers, druggies, etc. that the person doesn't want to be beside.

I reckon if the anti-social issues that plague many estates (and seems almost unique to council tenants) was actually stamped out, then you'd have more people that would be interested in moving to different areas.

The chap I'm talking about is always giving out that it costs too much to heat his house, garden takes too much maintenance, but at least he knows that where he is at the moment, he won't have a petrol bomb through the window, or teenagers sitting on his front wall, or have to listen to joyriding every night of the week or worry about anything along those lines. And I can completely understand what he means and where he's coming from when the says that.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 6:45pm

TSQ wrote: »

Yes, and a pretty small and un-cool bedsit at that. It was horrible by todays standards but you just accepted that "i want everything and i want it now" didnt cut it in the real world, and it was up to yourself to get it together.

Yes, but almost everyone I knew lived in similar places. Typically with just a two bar heater for warmth, and the toilet could be across a hallway.

Even when I bought my house it didn't have central heating, relying on a back-boiler from the fireplace that just about took the chill out of the air when burning coal.
As I was saving up to buy new windows and get oil central heating installed I was reading in the paper about how the council tenants were complaining about waiting a few months to get it free.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 7:00pm

TSQ wrote: »

Yes, and a pretty small and un-cool bedsit at that. It was horrible by todays standards but you just accepted that "i want everything and i want it now" didnt cut it in the real world, and it was up to yourself to get it together.

How many multiples of an average salary did the average house cost back then ?
Buying as house then was no where near as unobtainable as it is now.
It's a whole different ballgame nowadays.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 7:38pm

Nobelium wrote: »

How many multiples of an average salary did the average house cost back then ?
Buying as house then was no where near as unobtainable as it is now.
It's a whole different ballgame nowadays.

Back when I bought my house (1996) it my mortgage was for £43,000, which from memory was about the limit I could borrow on my earnings at the time (I needed a letter from my employer stating that my normal working week included a certain amount of guaranteed overtime), interest rate was fixed at about 7% I think, high now but small compared to historic levels at the time.

Without overtime, and in a job that pays less than the one I was in when I bought my house (the pay when I left that job was higher than what I am on now) there are several houses that I could just about afford if I was starting again. Most no doubt would need work, but so did mine!

Admittedly I don't live in Dublin, but I probably couldn't have afforded a house in Dublin at the time either.

Nobelium · 16-06-2019 8:48pm

brightspark wrote: »

Back when I bought my house (1996) it my mortgage was for £43,000, which from memory was about the limit I could borrow on my earnings at the time (I needed a letter from my employer stating that my normal working week included a certain amount of guaranteed overtime), interest rate was fixed at about 7% I think, high now but small compared to historic levels at the time.

what was your annual salary then, and what would a similar house cost today, and what would a similar job pay today ?

LirW · 16-06-2019 8:54pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well you can build retirement villages like in other countries. Incentivise older people to downsize by allowing them to move to a retirement village and in exchange pay no tax on the sale of the house or transfer of that wealth to children in future.

Given they want to move into it. They're an excellent idea for some elderly, not for everyone though. Some wouldn't cope in such an environment.
I have a grandmother that lives in a huge country house that's a total burden, she's too well to go into a care home but she refuses to sell and downsize or leave her area because the thought fills her with utter dread. There's not a lot you can do to make them move.

Again, the main issue isn't under-occupancy, it is that urban areas failed to cater to a wide variety of the population. The whole population has a lot on individual housing needs but only built the same layout all over the place. It's only natural that this leads to under-occupied houses because there's not much else to choose from. Existing units wouldn't even be split in two - the council did this here on my road, split 2 semi-ds in 2 units each.

brightspark · 16-06-2019 9:30pm

Nobelium wrote: »

what was your annual salary then, and what would a similar house cost today, and what would a similar job pay today ?

I don't recall the exact figures.

At the time I had the choice, based on savings and the fairly tight lending rules of the time which I think was 2 1/2 times annual salary for a single earner, between a 20 year old bungalow or a mid terrace in a new estate being built at the time. (I chose the older house because of it's location)

When the recession hit and that job finished over 10 years ago I was on about 25% more than my current position but that included overtime which I don't have now.

Entering my details as if I was in my mid 20s first time buyer etc (with my salary which would be available to anyone that age with my qualifications etc) into the mortgages.ie website results in a max mortgage of €148,000.

The property price register indicates that several houses in a similar housing estate sold recently for just €145,000.

Several second houses are also advertised under €150,000 on daft.ie in the area, some even under €100,000 but they look like they need a lot of renovating or are located in villages further from the town.

As I previously stated it's not Dublin, but a medium sized town just beyond the main commuter belt (though many commute by train). However I have looked at jobs in Dublin that pay substantially more than my current salary so the higher prices asked for in the commuter towns would probably be within my range. (not planning on moving though for a myriad of reasons)

pwurple · 17-06-2019 7:42am

I really think this thread really missed the context when it was split....

The previous thread had a statement around rentals. The premise was, that when landlords leave the market rentals become owner occupied, which has no impact on the net occupancy.

However, It clearly does, as renters can, and do behave more efficiently, because they are (in a working sector anyway), more free to move to accommodation which fits their needs.

We need all three sectors to be functional.
Social Housing
Rental Sector
Private Ownership.

The only conclusion I was making, is that penalizing the rental sector service providers does not solve any problems.

Graces7 · 17-06-2019 11:29am

LirW wrote: »

Given they want to move into it. They're an excellent idea for some elderly, not for everyone though. Some wouldn't cope in such an environment.
I have a grandmother that lives in a huge country house that's a total burden, she's too well to go into a care home but she refuses to sell and downsize or leave her area because the thought fills her with utter dread. There's not a lot you can do to make them move.

Thank you. Uprooting in old age is very hard for many . And that needs to be honoured

Lackadaisical · 17-06-2019 11:34am

I'd be curious about the age of the figures used in that survey. Ireland's economy and have housing demand plummeted for several years and then absolutely surged again. If you picked a year like 2011/12 you'd get a totally inaccurate image of the Irish accomodation situation, certainly in the more expensive cities anyway.

pwurple · 17-06-2019 4:19pm

Lackadaisical wrote: »

I'd be curious about the age of the figures used in that survey. Ireland's economy and have housing demand plummeted for several years and then absolutely surged again. If you picked a year like 2011/12 you'd get a totally inaccurate image of the Irish accomodation situation, certainly in the more expensive cities anyway.

The Eurostat uses data from 2016, not too long ago population-wise.

Eurostat

Ireland, 70% of people are living in homes that are underoccupied, 3% are living in homes that are overcrowded.

And that doesn't even include vacant property, holiday homes, undeveloped sites, anything like that. It's properties where people live.

That statistic makes perfect sense, given our owner occupancy, and living in the same house for a heck of a long time.

Think of where you live... is it under occupied? Apparantly most of us would say yes.

seasidedub · 17-06-2019 4:53pm

My house of 132 square metres is not under occupied. If I want to have a naked room in it or turn a room into a walk in handbag closet or knock 3 rooms together and make a ginornmous bathroom - my business. I own it and all this crap about occupancy is insane.

If you own it - up to u to stay/go etc.
If you're in welfare you should get basic.

LuckyLloyd · 17-06-2019 5:07pm

If you own it, as in truly own it and don’t have years of mortgage repayments to go *AND* you have an income stream that is entirely decoupled from the performance of the economy as a whole then by all means support the status quo.

However, if you depend on the economy functioning in order to support yourself long term then it is not in your interest for Dublin to grind to a halt. And it will.

seasidedub · 17-06-2019 5:26pm

Ok, I'll bite. What's the solution?

Force people who are deemed to under occupy their home to sell, or to base property tax on occupancy making it prohibitively expensive to be a single person in a 4 bed house?

Prohibit banks from giving mortgages to single people for anything above a 2 bed flat (which could be 300 square metres by the way, depends on room size.....)

I assume couples would be exempt initially as it's assumed they're having kids. If they don't produce the goods within say 10 years are they to be forced out either by law or financial penalties?

Old folk to be forced out of communities? To retirement homes?

I can't think of any way to do this other than implementing some vaguely Stallinist square metre per person quotas.

Meanwhile as per the radio this morning, a social welfare recipient family of 2 adults and 3 children receive benefits worth net 44k per year and are only 134e per year worse off than an average working couple. Bonkers. We're the only country where the rate of social welfare remains the same forever.

Eric Cartman · 17-06-2019 6:09pm

if we had some sort of scheme that enticed older people to ‘retire to the countryside’ in their years of full faculties it might work. Im not talking about shoving an 80 year old into a village where nobody lives, but encourage people in their mid 60s to move to country towns and enjoy their retirement. It would need a lot of services etc.. but could be done. There needs to be a lot done to encourage people in their 60s and early 70s to transfer (tax free) the house to children or sell up. When we have so much demand for housing around cities, encouraging older people in a huge economic way to downsize before things like dementia kick in would help massively.

4ensic15 · 17-06-2019 6:12pm

seasidedub wrote: »

Ok, I'll bite. What's the solution?

Up to the introduction of the Widows Pension in 1967 and the abolition of domestic rates in 1977, there was a clear incentive for people to downsize. people were preety quick to move to a house with a lower rv or else rent out rooms for digs when the house was bigger than they required.

seasidedub · 17-06-2019 6:19pm

Ah yes- penalise the widows

Grand so.

Eric Cartman · 17-06-2019 6:25pm

seasidedub wrote: »

Ah yes- penalise the widows

Grand so.

see this is the attitude we have to get over. Its not penalising widows, its encouraging people to not have 1 occupant of a 4 bedroom gaf for 40 years while those who need that space commute for 2 hours each way a day.

seasidedub · 17-06-2019 6:38pm

But - seriously, part of the problem is that downsizing is just not as easy as it seems. I looked at a 2 bed flat. Management fees of 3k a year. Once a house is fixed properly, barring some serious issue you don't have that much in expenses per year with a house on top of the bills. And, if some serious issue occurs in a block, I guarantee the "sinking fund" won't cover it. Also, come next recession people just dont pay those fees abd rubbish stops being collected etc.

Lackadaisical · 17-06-2019 6:45pm

We don't have much that's attractive to downsize to.
When I compare two of my elderly relatives. One lives in a townhouse in Stoneybatter in Dublin. The other lives way out and can no longer drive.

The relative in Stoneybatter has access to absolutely every facility: shops (butcher, baker, greengrocer, supermarkets, pharmacies), cafes, restaurants, multiple GPs, health centre, the Mater Hospital is a stone's throw away

She's almost 90 and living totally independently because all of that's on her doorstep. She also has a great social life.

The comparison is with someone in their 70s trapped at home depending on bring driven everywhere.

It should be attractive to move into cities, towns and villages for exactly that reason but we don't do it very often.

I saw similar in Spain with older folks living in cities absolutely thriving in their 80s and 90s. I think by not having that kind of accommodation we probably cost ourselves a fortune and also cause older people to become dependents when they don't need to be.

You shouldn't have to be incentivesed or forced. It should just be made into a much more attractive option.

It's really part of just making urban communities and high quality townhouses and apartments a viable option and we really don't do that very well.

seasidedub · 17-06-2019 6:47pm

"while those who need that space commute for 2 hours each way a day."

We live in a democracy. If I want to live in a 4 bed house which I bought and paid for, that is my right. I enjoy where I live, my community, neighbours, the proximity I have to what I enjoy.

The idea that I should be encouraged to move to facilitate those who "need" it is beyond ridiculous- how can you guarantee a family of 5 buys it? The only way to do that is to enact a law, otherwise another "single" buys it. Am I to be penalised for being single, hardworking and willingto sacrifice to get the location and space I want?

Eric Cartman · 17-06-2019 6:50pm

seasidedub wrote: »

"while those who need that space commute for 2 hours each way a day."

We live in a democracy. If I want to live in a 4 bed house which I bought and paid for, that is my right. I enjoy where I live, my community, neighbours, the proximity I have to what I enjoy.

The idea that I should be encouraged to move to facilitate those who "need" it is beyond ridiculous- how can you guarantee a family of 5 buys it? The only way to do that is to enact a law, otherwise another "single" buys it. Am I to be penalised for being single, hardworking and willingto sacrifice to get the location and space I want?

Its why I said encouraged and have only talked about tax breaks on sale etc.. rather than tax penalisation for staying. The idea is not to force all the retired out , but tell them 'hey, you can sell that 5 bed now while youre 65 and pay no tax and move to the country, or keep it till youre elderly and boom , its going to have its value eroded by the fair deal or your kids will pay inheritance tax, thats a serious motivator for them.

Lackadaisical · 17-06-2019 6:55pm

Pushing elderly people "to the country" is an absolutely terrible idea! All it would do is cause serious isolation issues and inability to cope as people start to lose the ability to drive.

It's grand when you're 65, 70 but when you hit being properly old being in a remote area has serious downsides.

There's a lot of scope though for regeneration of villages and towns by encouraging people to move into those kinds of urban spaces. It means proper planning though and making them really attractive.

We aren't really planning at all for when this generation gets old as we're not going to have as many people to look after us. We should be creating the kinds of communities we can retain independence in well into our 90s and beyond if we're lucky enough to get there.

Eric Cartman · 17-06-2019 6:58pm

Lackadaisical wrote: »

Pushing elderly people "to the country" is an absolutely terrible idea! All it would do is cause serious isolation issues and inability to cope as people start to lose the ability to drive.

It's grand when you're 65, 70 but when you hit being properly old being in a remote area has serious downsides.

There's a lot of scope though for regeneration of villages and towns by encouraging people to move into those kinds of urban spaces. It means proper planning though and making them really attractive.

country towns and enjoy their retirement. It would need a lot of services etc

I did clearly specify that, not just throw them into a farmhouse in roscommon and hope for the best.

Lackadaisical · 17-06-2019 7:03pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

country towns and enjoy their retirement. It would need a lot of services etc

I did clearly specify that, not just throw them into a farmhouse in roscommon and hope for the best.

It even works in cities though. I mean the kind of accommodation that's works for me now, without kids would be ideal again in my 70s. All you need is a lift!

I lived in Spanish cities of Cork's size and my neighbours were all either singles / young couples without kids or old couples and old singles and it worked phenomenally well.

The older folks were down in the bars and cafes as much as the younger ones and we all knew each other. They were basically enjoying very active retirements. A lot of them even traded down for two apartments. One in the North (for the summer) and one in Lanzarote or anywhere on the south coast (for when it was chilly in a northern Spanish winter).

The nextdoor neighbours were in their 80s and constantly throwing wild parties though. Slight downside!

It's about selling a quality of life, not a house.

Wexforllion · 17-06-2019 7:22pm

I'm in the process of buying a house, just for myself for now.

Initially I considered buying something small but having seen what's on offer am looking at getting a 3 or 4 bed detached house.

Why?, I can afford it and they offer the best value, even if I'll leave rooms never used.
Suitably sized properties are grim and overpriced.

seasidedub · 17-06-2019 7:25pm

Look, I agree there's been loads of poor planning- and there are surely folks who'd downsize if they could stay local. But lots of older folk don't want to leave their street never mind go "to the country". These suggestions are impractical. Friend's mam is widowed in a 5 bed. Originally from "the country". All kids did well - no boomerang kids. Should she go back to "the country" after 40 years on her road knowing all the neighbours? Not going to happen!

pwurple · 18-06-2019 2:02am

seasidedub wrote: »

My house of 132 square metres is not under occupied. If I want to have a naked room in it or turn a room into a walk in handbag closet or knock 3 rooms together and make a ginornmous bathroom - my business. I own it and all this crap about occupancy is insane.

If you own it - up to u to stay/go etc.
If you're in welfare you should get basic.

Jeez, we get it, you’re loaded. :rolleyes:

I love how even a conversation about house ownership here is such an emotional topic, people can’t even begin to be logical, discuss a few facts, without immediately resorting to terms like “all this crap” and “insane”.

People bleat on about a homeless problem, but give no thought whatsoever to how our society has almost forced it to exist, through our model of hallowed ownership and the ensuing disrespect for both tenants (seen as “less than”, and certainly not to be aspired to), and landlords (evil, greedy and any other pejorative to hand).

There is a ridiculous lack of support for the existence of a decent functional, multifaceted rental sector here.

It’s surely next on the list for the maturity of this country. When we managed to accept women having extra marital sex, divorce , lgbt rights... the living structure where we can rent where we want, when we want, and change that as our lifetime needs change if we want, or stay put if we want... well, it might be along sometime in the next few decades. You know. Freedom to choose. The understanding that not everyone lives the same life.

And as for booting elderly people out to the country. That seems completely backwards. Uproot people when they need a sense of community and knowledge of their surroundings most? It’s young people who want to move around.

Lumen · 18-06-2019 6:44am

It's a well established principle of good planning to develop a housing mix that allows people to upside and downsize as their needs change without moving area.

So since we now have a lot of old people in suburbs filled with low density family houses, a possible solution is to build apartments in those suburbs.

But then you get the likes of Varadkar interfering in the planning process to stop this happening.

STB. · 18-06-2019 8:27am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Its why I said encouraged and have only talked about tax breaks on sale etc.. rather than tax penalisation for staying. The idea is not to force all the retired out , but tell them 'hey, you can sell that 5 bed now while youre 65 and pay no tax and move to the country, or keep it till youre elderly and boom , its going to have its value eroded by the fair deal or your kids will pay inheritance tax, thats a serious motivator for them.

Or like rational people we could immediately conclude that "under occupation" is a complete misnomer and that the real problem lies with this governments' inaction in having an affordable housing solution.

Tax penalisation for staying in a house you have paid for all your life and own would never be implementable for the most obvious reasons. That it is even being discussed shows how disjointed and removed certain elements of an already spoilt child society are.

seasidedub · 18-06-2019 9:07am

pwurple wrote: »

seasidedub wrote: »

My house of 132 square metres is not under occupied. If I want to have a naked room in it or turn a room into a walk in handbag closet or knock 3 rooms together and make a ginornmous bathroom - my business. I own it and all this crap about occupancy is insane.

If you own it - up to u to stay/go etc.
If you're in welfare you should get basic.

Jeez, we get it, you’re loaded. :rolleyes:

I love how even a conversation about house ownership here is such an emotional topic, people can’t even begin to be logical, discuss a few facts, without immediately resorting to terms like “all this crap” and “insane”.

People bleat on about a homeless problem, but give no thought whatsoever to how our society has almost forced it to exist, through our model of hallowed ownership and the ensuing disrespect for both tenants (seen as “less than”, and certainly not to be aspired to), and landlords (evil, greedy and any other pejorative to hand).

There is a ridiculous lack of support for the existence of a decent functional, multifaceted rental sector here.

It’s surely next on the list for the maturity of this country. When we managed to accept women having extra marital sex, divorce , lgbt rights... the living structure where we can rent where we want, when we want, and change that as our lifetime needs change if we want, or stay put if we want... well, it might be along sometime in the next few decades. You know. Freedom to choose. The understanding that not everyone lives the same life.

And as for booting elderly people out to the country. That seems completely backwards. Uproot people when they need a sense of community and knowledge of their surroundings most? It’s young people who want to move around.

I am not loaded. I worked in 5, yes 5 different countries to afford my house. I've never driven anything more expensive than a polo/micra.

What I did not do was bring kids I could not afford into the world and expect the taxpayer to fund my lifestyle, preferably in the area I grew up in close to mammy.

I actually want a social welfare system, a good health and education system and am satisfied to pay taxes for that. But we're not getting that because we have to fund people's irresponsibility. I have the way Ireland treated women historically- but now there is full contraception available and abortion. Yet over and over we see that a huge cohort of the people demanding social housing have never worked and had kids (And I mean the fathers too) that they just assumed the state would raise.

Meanwhile we can't have scandi style day care or cheap student accommodation because we fund people who sleep in garda stations.

mariaalice · 18-06-2019 9:18am

Culture has a lot to do with these things, in rural areas lots of formally small villages and towns now have housing estates yet the are not popular a site to build your own house is far more popular its a mindset there seems to be a slight suspicion of living too close to neighbors.

In urban areas peopel want gardens and spacious houses despite this being poor use of land.

LirW · 18-06-2019 10:02am

mariaalice wrote: »

In urban areas peopel want gardens and spacious houses despite this being poor use of land.

And they can't be entirely blamed for thinking that way. My husband and I would "millennials", so are his peers.
He grew up in a really nice part on the North side, in a Semi-D with big garden. All of his peers did too. They all went to good schools in good postcodes and went on to do college degrees and the vast majority is better educated than their parents and work very hard. Yet all par one couple (he went to a private school) cannot even remotely afford the standard of living their parents had. And still, this mindset of Semi-D, SUV, sprogs and golden lab is so engrained in them that it indeed is a rude awakening to see that realistically they will never live like their own parents.

Now I come from Europe, I grew up in rented apartments in some areas, single parent family and we were poor. When I moved to Ireland most people struggled to wrap their head around how this is sustainable/doable. I regularly have an argument with my in-laws because they genuinely think you cannot raise children in an apartment setting.
Apartment living has always been branded as living for the poor, inferior, students and just something you do for a bit until you can buy your own gaff. And this mindset persists.
We now live in a remote location and plan to move in the next 2-3 years because we don't particularly like it but that's what we could afford. And I'd totally live in a decent apartment somewhere more built up with the children. But that simply doesn't exist, which is a shame because it is hugely efficient housing and can be done so well.

Cuddlesworth · 18-06-2019 10:13am

seasidedub wrote: »

Friend's mam is widowed in a 5 bed. Originally from "the country". All kids did well - no boomerang kids. Should she go back to "the country" after 40 years on her road knowing all the neighbours? Not going to happen!

When you see pensioners that have 30-50k in repair bills because they haven't been upstairs in 10 years you begin to rethink the whole "forever home" mentality we have. Houses need to be lived in, heated, cleaned and maintained. As people get older it becomes unmanageable for a lot of them.

seasidedub · 18-06-2019 10:21am

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

seasidedub wrote: »

Friend's mam is widowed in a 5 bed. Originally from "the country". All kids did well - no boomerang kids. Should she go back to "the country" after 40 years on her road knowing all the neighbours? Not going to happen!

When you see pensioners that have 30-50k in repair bills because they haven't been upstairs in 10 years you begin to rethink the whole "forever home" mentality we have. Houses need to be lived in, heated, cleaned and maintained. As people get older it becomes unmanageable for a lot of them.

I agree - but for lots of these people the community and neighbours are far more important. We can't just assume they'll move to suit a current need.

Graham · 18-06-2019 10:26am

We can't assume they won't move either. What we should be doing is making sure there are suitable property options within those communities.

18-06-2019 10:32am

seasidedub wrote: »

I agree - but for lots of these people the community and neighbours are far more important. We can't just assume they'll move to suit a current need.

I agree in a way. There is a very delicate balance to be struck.

My own mother lives in our family home a large 4 bed in a fairly small cavan town.

There is a real community feeling and many of the people on the street have lived there for 40 to 50 years, everybody knows everybody and the neighbours are a short walk away.

But at the same time the houses are a mix of sizes, mostly 19th century and some are badly built and badly designed inside (steep stairs, steps in the kitchens, no downstairs toilets).

If an older person was to fall and break their hip (as a neighbour recently did) then life in the house could get very hard very quickly.

There are no easy solutions.

meeeeh · 18-06-2019 10:46am

I think there will be always more wasteful use of resources in Ireland because there is space. Ireland has low population density and most people expect to live in larger housing than people in other parts of Europe. Denser housing is needed especially in cities but apartments in Ireland are not good enough. To make them family friendly you need play areas outside, decent central heating, good sound and fire proofing. Whining about pensioners in big houses is completely ignoring the fact different more functional type of apartment living should be offered if you want people to move away from houses with back gardens.

TSQ · 18-06-2019 10:52am

LirW wrote: »

And they can't be entirely blamed for thinking that way. My husband and I would "millennials", so are his peers.
He grew up in a really nice part on the North side, in a Semi-D with big garden. All of his peers did too. They all went to good schools in good postcodes and went on to do college degrees and the vast majority is better educated than their parents and work very hard. Yet all par one couple (he went to a private school) cannot even remotely afford the standard of living their parents had. And still, this mindset of Semi-D, SUV, sprogs and golden lab is so engrained in them that it indeed is a rude awakening to see that realistically they will never live like their own parents.

Now I come from Europe, I grew up in rented apartments in some areas, single parent family and we were poor. When I moved to Ireland most people struggled to wrap their head around how this is sustainable/doable. I regularly have an argument with my in-laws because they genuinely think you cannot raise children in an apartment setting.
Apartment living has always been branded as living for the poor, inferior, students and just something you do for a bit until you can buy your own gaff. And this mindset persists.
We now live in a remote location and plan to move in the next 2-3 years because we don't particularly like it but that's what we could afford. And I'd totally live in a decent apartment somewhere more built up with the children. But that simply doesn't exist, which is a shame because it is hugely efficient housing and can be done so well.

One of the problems with apt living in Ireland is you can’t depend on the weather in the summer holidays, plus IRISH parents will no longer let kids play on the street. So kids are stuck indoors unless you have a garden. Have seen young kids playing football in public squares right in the centre of Seville with no obvious supervision. Wouldn’t happen here.

Ireland has the highest proportion of under occupied dwellings in the EU.

Comments