Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

beauf · 09-11-2019 6:28pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ok but what I'm saying is that literally everything you outlined is a supply-side problem.

There isn't a supply problem if have a million pounds to spend or if I want to live out in the sticks somewhere. If you dropped the mortgage rules, or removed a large wedge of tax from the industry, it would move the market. Likewise if you changed the immigration rules, or work permits, or if the economy collapses.

This is how people ended up in negative equity. Its why builders aren't building and in some are hoarding property and land. Its why LL are leaving the market. Its why people are flocking to Ireland, both for low end and high end jobs. Lots of factors in play.

Its not simply supply. If you look at Govt policies since the last crash, a lot of it has over fueled the shortage and the demand.

pinkyeye · 11-11-2019 8:40pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Untrue, the majority of people in hotels/b&bs have declined a property

Backup for this please?

Eric Cartman · 11-11-2019 8:45pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

Backup for this please?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-campaigner-erica-refused-two-house-offers-34981951.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/homeless-families-refuse-tenancies-in-private-sector-report-finds-1.3536716

“In March of this year, only 12 of the 750 families currently in hotels and B&Bs exited to HAP tenancies. This is extremely low and while it is understandable that many households’ preference is to exit into what is perceived as a ‘local authority home’ this is simply not possible given the current constraints of social housing.”

Throughout last year the executive’s central placement team, to which families present when homeless, met 745 families in emergency accommodation. About 47 per cent had come from the private rented sector, with 48 per cent from either overcrowded or family break-down conditions.
Of the total, less than 10 per cent (73) accepted HAP tenancies, 186 accepted local authorities of housing body homes, while 66 left homelessness for “other reasons”.

theyre camping out for '4eva homes'

also :

About one fifth (21 per cent) of families are from outside the EU, many of who “may not have entitlement to housing support”.

so we pick up their hotel bills too...

James Brown · 11-11-2019 9:03pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-campaigner-erica-refused-two-house-offers-34981951.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/homeless-families-refuse-tenancies-in-private-sector-report-finds-1.3536716

theyre camping out for '4eva homes'

also :
so we pick up their hotel bills too...

What you're missing is the bigger picture.
Up until Fine Gael fed and nurtured this crisis the only time people were put up in B&B's or hotels was in an emergency, hence the term 'emergency accommodation'. The FG way to maintain their crisis was to make it worse and create different forms of private accommodation at the tax payers expence. Anything but build social and affordable housing.
So it's on Fine Gael that we have hotels, B&B's and private rentals as the go to's for people in these situations. You are complaining over which they want to deal with and not taking into account your own quote,

About 47 per cent had come from the private rented sector, with 48 per cent from either overcrowded or family break-down conditions.

So we've people who had been paying their own way until something happened. Not the for eva home sit on their arse all day chancers some make them all out to be.
If you ended up homeless you'd be reluctant to put yourself back into the same situation I'd imagine.

Families are “nervous” about going back into the private market and do not want to lose their place on the social housing waiting list, it says.

“We are...seeing a reluctance and refusal of households, many of which have young children, to move from the hotels and hubs which they are being accommodated in, into HAP tenancies,” says the report.

Seems reasonable to me, also social housing is cheaper for my pocket than HAP.

On your little immigints jab, you don't judge who needs to be let in based on what they can offer. You'd make a great lifeboat attendant, 'Only people with money allowed on!"...

lola85 · 11-11-2019 9:06pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What you're missing is the bigger picture.
Up until Fine Gael fed and nurtured this crisis the only time people were put up in B&B's or hotels was in an emergency, hence the term 'emergency accommodation'. The FG way to maintain their crisis was to make it worse and create different forms of private accommodation at the tax payers expence. Anything but build social and affordable housing.
So it's on Fine Gael that we have hotels, B&B's and private rentals as the go to's for people in these situations. You are complaining over which they want to deal with and not taking into account your own quote,

So we've people who had been paying their own way until something happened. Not the for eva home sit on their arse all day chancers some make them all out to be.
If you ended up homeless you'd be reluctant to put yourself back into the same situation I'd imagine.

Seems reasonable to me, also social housing is cheaper for my pocket than HAP.

Sorry where does it say in any of that people were paying their own way before going into emergency accommodation?

When you say anything but build social housing can you explain why there was 10,000 social houses built last year and another 11,000 this year?

Eric Cartman · 11-11-2019 9:13pm

also regardless of how they arrived in 'emergency accomodation' theyre holding on to it until they get a free 4eva home. Even if they 'were' in private rentals, theyre not anymore and certainly not leaving for one.

James Brown · 11-11-2019 9:16pm

lola85 wrote: »

Sorry where does it say in any of that people were paying their own way before going into emergency accommodation?

About 47 per cent had come from the private rented sector, with 48 per cent from either overcrowded or family break-down conditions.

lola85 wrote: »

When you say anything but build social housing can you explain why there was 10,000 social houses built last year and another 11,000 this year?

2,000, LA builds (nothing to do with FG) and 2,000 private not for profit builds, (hardly due credit to FG) so a little over 4,000 were built last year, (you're missing 6 thousand). You reading what they say as opposed to what they do?

We are in the current situation because LA's, FF and FG sold off public land and put a stop on building social and affordable. Now we've people bickering over which 'emergency accommodation' is better than the other.

Eric Cartman · 11-11-2019 9:18pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

2,000, LA builds and 2,000 private not for profit builds, (hardly due credit to FG) so a little over 4,000 were built last year, (you're missing 6 thousand). You reading what they say as opposed to what they do?

We are in the current situation because LA's, FF and FG sold off public land and put a stop on building social and affordable. Now we've people bickering over which 'emergency accommodation' is better than the other.

The old rent allowance scheme counts as 'private rental' for those figures.

James Brown · 11-11-2019 9:23pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The old rent allowance scheme counts as 'private rental' for those figures.

Does it?
Even if it does would you begrudge hard working tax payers who can't afford rent a dig out?
TBF, we shouldn't be subsidising rents. It just creates business/customers for Noonan and his vulture pals and no reason to lower rents.
You folk are looking to blame the victims for the politicians squandering all your taxes. Makes sense, vote vote vote for DeValera wha?

As you were.

lola85 · 11-11-2019 9:30pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

2,000, LA builds (nothing to do with FG) and 2,000 private not for profit builds, (hardly due credit to FG) so a little over 4,000 were built last year, (you're missing 6 thousand). You reading what they say as opposed to what they do?

We are in the current situation because LA's, FF and FG sold off public land and put a stop on building social and affordable. Now we've people bickering over which 'emergency accommodation' is better than the other.

Emmm.

Once again where does it say those people were paying their way before going into emergency accommodation?

James Brown · 11-11-2019 9:41pm

lola85 wrote: »

Emmm.

Once again where does it say those people were paying their way before going into emergency accommodation?

Have you a clever 'gotcha' coming anytime soon?

lola85 · 11-11-2019 9:47pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Have you a clever 'gotcha' coming anytime soon?

No just looking for evidence of something you claimed as I can’t see it in the link.

pinkyeye · 11-11-2019 11:46pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/homeless-campaigner-erica-refused-two-house-offers-34981951.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/homeless-families-refuse-tenancies-in-private-sector-report-finds-1.3536716

theyre camping out for '4eva homes'

also :
so we pick up their hotel bills too...

So no back up to your statement then that the "majority had turned down offers of housing??"

What a joke you are.

Eric Cartman · 11-11-2019 11:48pm

pinkyeye wrote: »

So no back up to your statement then that the "majority had turned down offers of housing??"

What a joke you are.

that entire second article is about the issue, the entire first one is about a 'homeless activist' turning it down . I gave you exactly what you ask for. I think your post is being intentionally obtuse trying to pretend that this isnt a massive scam by these people for the most part.

recedite · 12-11-2019 12:15am

FTA69 wrote: »

I don’t get this “foreva home” b*llocks that comes up everytime someone suggests building social housing.

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

The amount of money it takes to buy a home in terms of percentage income has skyrocketed, rents are through the roof and the idea that a cabal if developers are going to provide enough housing to meet the common good has been shown across the world to be utter rubbish.

The system is bigger than w*nkers like Gary Gannon or Hazel Chu so bashing them as people is probably the wrong approach, but the current housing situation is a farce and needs a radical overhaul.

+1 The whole system broke down when they decided to let the tenants buy out the houses. I have seen it many times; an ex -council house being sold by somebody who grew up there, soon after the parents have died.

The seller has done well in life, thanks to growing up in a good home, with a stable family and free education. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then it proves that the original "working man's rent" system was a success.
The sellers don't even need the money because they already have their own (bigger) house, privately bought. Now they have inherited this asset, and so they turn it into cash. The ex-council house goes on the open market, fetches a huge price, and some hardworking young couple end up with a millstone round their neck. Any notion of the buyer couple having kids is put on the long finger for a few more years.

Boggles · 12-11-2019 10:45am

recedite wrote: »

+1 The whole system broke down when they decided to let the tenants buy out the houses. I have seen it many times; an ex -council house being sold by somebody who grew up there, soon after the parents have died.

The seller has done well in life, thanks to growing up in a good home, with a stable family and free education. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then it proves that the original "working man's rent" system was a success.
The sellers don't even need the money because they already have their own (bigger) house, privately bought. Now they have inherited this asset, and so they turn it into cash. The ex-council house goes on the open market, fetches a huge price, and some hardworking young couple end up with a millstone round their neck. Any notion of the buyer couple having kids is put on the long finger for a few more years.

Sorry, what? Everyone who bought a private house are rich as pirates apart from the couple who bought the ex council house privately.

It seems you have a problem with the concept of inheritance.

recedite · 12-11-2019 11:31am

Boggles wrote: »

Sorry, what? Everyone who bought a private house are rich as pirates apart from the couple who bought the ex council house privately.

It seems you have a problem with the concept of inheritance.

Different stage in life. By the time their parents died, the sellers were middle aged, mortgage free, and well "set up" in life.
Vacant council houses in the centre of Dublin should be for a young couple or (working single parent) Rent should be affordable for people on average or lower than average wages, as typically earned in Dublin.
The house should never become a capital asset to be passed on to the next generation, regardless of how well off the next generation becomes.
If the program succeeds, the next generation won't need a leg up anyway.
If they do need a leg up, let them rent a different council house.

Boggles · 12-11-2019 11:44am

recedite wrote: »

Different stage in life. By the time their parents died, the sellers were middle aged, mortgage free, and well "set up" in life.

Yes, it's called inheritance, it's not illegal, it's not based on how one does in life.

recedite wrote: »

Vacant council houses in the centre of Dublin should be for a young couple or (working single parent) Rent should be affordable for people on average or lower than average wages, as typically earned in Dublin.

Yeah, you just described social housing, it's not just for the center of Dublin.

recedite wrote: »

The house should never become a capital asset to be passed on to the next generation,

Of course it should. The people who lived, invested in and paid for their house is entitled to do what they wish (once they completely own it - as the rules are different). That is nature of buying a house.

The primary reason your made up couple are buying a house in an ex council estate is because it is at a certain standard this is largely down to the previous tenants and their neighbors.

But there is nothing stopping anyone or any couple going into a council estate which doesn't have a high rate of tenant purchase, pick out one of the boarded out houses, go to the council and make them a cash offer.

Their arm will be bitten off.

beauf · 12-11-2019 11:45am

The problem with your thinking is that the paradigm has changed. People won't be mortgage free in middle age. The following generations will be worse off than their parents.

Also if there is no means to pass on property there is no incentive to invest in it. if no one invests in it, where will it come from.

There has to be balance between making it sustainable as a business or investment, while at the same time this is controlled so that it funds/provides social and affordable housing.

markodaly · 12-11-2019 12:15pm

lola85 wrote: »

Sorry where does it say in any of that people were paying their own way before going into emergency accommodation?

When you say anything but build social housing can you explain why there was 10,000 social houses built last year and another 11,000 this year?

Dont mind Matt, he likes to debate in absolutes to try and make his point stronger. Unfortunately not for the first time he is wrong and will no way acknowledge his mistake.

markodaly · 12-11-2019 12:16pm

lola85 wrote: »

No just looking for evidence of something you claimed as I can’t see it in the link.

See, I told yat!

:D:D

recedite · 12-11-2019 12:35pm

Boggles wrote: »

Yes, it's called inheritance, it's not illegal, it's not based on how one does in life.

There is a problem (in my mind) with private inheritance of what was originally a public asset. Mainly, that the chain ends there. No more low income workers can benefit from renting that house.
Now, you can say that the tenants rented the house all their life, and are entitled to buy it out at half nothing. But real life is not like that. If you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. You can still live a good life and rear good kids.

recedite · 12-11-2019 12:46pm

beauf wrote: »

The problem with your thinking is that the paradigm has changed. People won't be mortgage free in middle age. The following generations will be worse off than their parents.

You don't know that following generations will be better or worse off.
Its true mortgages have gone from 20 years to 30 years, and age of having kids has gone from 20 something, to 30 or even 40 something. So the paradigm is changing.
However the examples I gave are real people, living now. They are private property owners, mortgage free in middle age, having grown up in council houses. And now with large cash lump sums to spend or invest.

beauf wrote: »

Also if there is no means to pass on property there is no incentive to invest in it. if no one invests in it, where will it come from.

As above, if you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. They have been living like this for generations on the continent. Ownership is not what they aspire to. The flip side of it is that private tenants need much greater security than they have right now in Ireland.
They need to feel secure enough that they will go down to Woodies, buy some paint, and redecorate the rented property at their own expense. Just so they can have it looking nice for the next few years.

beauf · 12-11-2019 12:46pm

Those part ownership schemes seem to have over time improved the social issues of those areas.

Rather than creating ghetto's is the plan now to dilute the concentration of social housing so its more integrated through society. Not that there aren't other problems with that.

beauf · 12-11-2019 12:50pm

recedite wrote: »

You don't know that following generations will be better or worse off.
Its true mortgages have gone from 20 years to 30 years, and age of having kids has gone from 20 something, to 30 or even 40 something. So the paradigm is changing.
However the examples I gave are real people, living now. They are private property owners, mortgage free in middle age, having grown up in council houses. And now with large cash lump sums to spend or invest.

As above, if you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. They have been living like this for generations on the continent. Ownership is not what they aspire to. The flip side of it is that private tenants need much greater security than they have right now in Ireland.
They need to feel secure enough that they will go down to Woodies, buy some paint, and redecorate the rented property at their own expense. Just so they can have it looking nice for the next few years.

You are only seeing one side of this. If there is no demand for property ownership who will provide it? Why build it, if theres no one to buy it.

We know current generations are worse from the data. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

Boggles · 12-11-2019 12:52pm

recedite wrote: »

There is a problem (in my mind) with private inheritance of what was originally a public asset. Mainly, that the chain ends there. No more low income workers can benefit from renting that house.
Now, you can say that the tenants rented the house all their life, and are entitled to buy it out at half nothing. But real life is not like that. If you rent all your life, then you die without leaving property as an inheritance. Its no big deal. You can still live a good life and rear good kids.

Of course you can, but it is a widely accepted fact that estates with higher levels of tenant purchases have better outcomes than ones that don't.

The council is no longer financially on the hook for that house, in maintenance and upkeep so long term it saves the council money which should be invested in new stock and maintaining existing stock, they also earn money from the sale. Also the usual cost of been effectively a land lord disappears.

Refreshing the stock of social housing is best practice.

No one will want to buy an ex LA house if it is in an area of high anti social behavior or if the house was not maintained properly, it is the 2 reasons we have 1000s of vacant boarded up houses. So market value does not apply.

The benefits of the tenant purchase scheme far out weight the perception of the negatives.

It's only an issue because our governance at national and local level have failed miserably at providing affordable homes.

recedite · 12-11-2019 1:05pm

beauf wrote: »

You are only seeing one side of this. If there is no demand for property ownership who will provide it? Why build it, if theres no one to buy it.
We know current generations are worse from the data. This thread wouldn't exist otherwise.

Of course there is demand for private housing. But council houses should still be available as well.
Where is the data that says the current generation is worse off than previous? You're making an assumption. 100 years ago there were barefoot kids walking around in Dublin.

Boggles wrote: »

No one will want to buy an ex LA house if it is in an area of high anti social behavior or if the house was not maintained properly, it is the 2 reasons we have 1000s of vacant boarded up houses. So market value does not apply.
The benefits of the tenant purchase scheme far out weight the perception of the negatives.
It's only an issue because our governance at national and local level have failed miserably at providing affordable homes.

Firstly, I'm not advocating selling them anyway.
Secondly, why would the market value be so low? Because they have been given to scumbags. I refer you back to this excellent point...

FTA69 wrote: »

What social housing was originally for and when it was at its most successful, it provided affordable rental accommodation for people in work. It was only in relatively recent times these estates become dumping grounds for the socially marginalised.

Boggles · 12-11-2019 1:15pm

recedite wrote: »

Secondly, why would the market value be so low?

Like I have all ready said because the area may be less than ideal and the house itself not properly maintained by the council for the past 40-50 years. Your own anecdote of the family you knew who bought their house is exactly what I am talking about.

County Councils sell off stock all the time to the private market.

A mate of mine bought one a few years, it cost an absolute fortune just to make it safe because it had been completely neglected by the local council.

markodaly · 12-11-2019 1:17pm

Boggles wrote: »

The benefits of the tenant purchase scheme far out weight the perception of the negatives.

It's only an issue because our governance at national and local level have failed miserably at providing affordable homes.

You know you are ignoring an entire continent that doesn't do it the way we do it Ireland.

Perpahs we need to re-examine our love of private property ownership.

Boggles · 12-11-2019 1:25pm

markodaly wrote: »

You know you are ignoring an entire continent that doesn't do it the way we do it Ireland.

Perpahs we need to re-examine our love of private property ownership.

Really?

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rate?continent=europe

Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Comments