The real problem with Housing in Ireland

mikep · 04-12-2019 1:43pm

I agree with the OP.
I'm sure if we looked into the objections lodged to various housing schemes in EVERY constituency you would find EVERY TD on the list of objectors...
Generally if Joe Public is against something then the local TD will join them.

James Brown · 04-12-2019 4:02pm

blanch152 wrote: »

We are just waiting to see who will arrive with the link to the objection that Varadkar made about five or six years ago to a four-storey development.

What nobody will tell you about that development is that there is a new application gone in for build-to-rent shared accommodation on that site. Varadkar hasn't objected this time, but plenty of our protest party politicians have.

Edit: Ooops, you beat Johnny, Matt and the others to it

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?

You really work hard for that man.

James Brown · 04-12-2019 4:04pm

markodaly wrote: »

Exhibit A:

...

It is also not only related to housing. It stems across much of our society from public transport, health and education.

Yeah related but not 'the real problem' now is it MarkO?

Aul' Mickey McDowell had a good article in the Irish Times. Interesting stuff. All about how apart from frittering away money and making a hames of housing policy, the DCC also have their hands tied by government bureaucracy.

Unscrupulous landlords
All around our capital city, an unscrupulous minority of landlords are raking in money with gross overcrowding of rooms with multiple bunks sleeping four to six people in small rooms and back-garden sheds.
Between the departmental geniuses in the Custom House and the city managers, bedsits were outlawed in 2013. That was on foot of a delayed-action ministerial housing regulation made in 2009 on foot of campaigning by a homeless charity. I will charitably omit to identify the minister or the charity.

But the result was that between 8,000 and 12,000 low-cost dwellings were emptied at a time when the housing shortages were accelerating. The problem with bedsits, we were told, was the sharing of kitchen or bathroom facilities.

White-water rafting plan: who voted for it?
Canoeing Ireland ‘delighted’ Dublin getting €23m rafting course
Green light for €23 million white water rafting course for Dublin
In 2019, shared-living “boutique” accommodation involving shared kitchen facilities became ministerial departmental policy again in the Custom House. Pity the thousands who had been evicted from bed-sits in 2013.
The city council seems to have no real function in transport policy, where all real decisions are made by an unelected National Transport Authority (NTA).https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/michael-mcdowell-daft-white-water-rafting-plan-is-anything-but-a-capital-idea-1.4103602

Great point about closing bedsits and suggesting boutique tenements.

Idbatterim · 04-12-2019 4:06pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

dont worry Matt, many of us ex FG voters figured that windbag , fraud for what he was, a long time ago!

blanch152 · 04-12-2019 4:14pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

Here you go again, making things up that people said. Completely sad and completely predictable.

James Brown · 04-12-2019 4:15pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

dont worry Matt, many of us ex FG voters figured that windbag , fraud for what he was, a long time ago!

I dropped my passing support after Reilly's clinics.

James Brown · 04-12-2019 4:16pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Here you go again, making things up that people said. Completely sad and completely predictable.

Did I quote you? It's a question. The '?' is the hint.
Stop telling lies about lies try discussing topics maybe. More ball less man.

04-12-2019 5:52pm

whisky_galore wrote: »

Blocking new developments. Happened in Cork, complaining of increase in traffic etc.

I'm one of the "haves". I have a house in Cork. Did seek to block one development in my area. Your comment is far too generalised. Any specifics as to why people sought to block the development? There's loads of house owners who would have no issue with Cork becoming more built up, as long as services/infrastructure was upgraded to match the increased demands... I would love to see the roads aronund Cork upgraded rather than become another Dublin. But long term planning is not a quality of Irish governments or councils. The road from Cork to Carrigaline is nuts in the morning or late evening considering the population of the general area.

I think many of the objections that house owners have is that such developments are simply plonked down without consideration for what happens next, or how it will affect their neighbors. My own estate blocked the building of "affordable" social housing beside us, because it would have dropped our property values by at estimated 40% (by local analysts). [Also the houses would be given to Travellers, not working people] We're barely recovering property values from before the boom as it is, in many areas. I'd love to sell my place and lose my mortgage.. It's just not feasible, and government initiatives often don't take people like myself into account with their developments. But the property value aside, the area where my estate is simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support many more people. That's a serious consideration for those of us with houses.

OP. Honestly, I think you're deflecting. There are heaps of opportunities for the government to reduce building limits on sky-rise apartments and those would significantly decrease the housing shortage. Placing such tower apartments outside the main housing areas would avoid a lot of the objections from people with historical related objections, or such. Using buildings which have historical significance is idiotic though. Just as placing any such kind of tower in any established housing area. People will object. Expecting otherwise is delusional.

The environmentalists will always object. That's a given.

Stark · 04-12-2019 5:56pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Seriously? As a gay man, the Taoiseach was against SSM?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_oppression

I don't think he is anymore since coming out and coming to terms with his sexuality. But he was against it years ago when still in the closet.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So we aren't allowed show Leo's hypocrisy because it's not cool or hip?
You really work hard for that man.

You're not Matt Barrett, his partner by any chance? :pac:

blanch152 · 04-12-2019 7:31pm

Stark wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalized_oppression

I don't think he is anymore since coming out and coming to terms with his sexuality. But he was against it years ago when still in the closet.

You're not Matt Barrett, his partner by any chance? :pac:

Read Matt's posts and draw your own conclusion as to why his username is the same as the Taoiseach's partner.

blanch152 · 04-12-2019 7:33pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm one of the "haves". I have a house in Cork. Did seek to block one development in my area. Your comment is far too generalised. Any specifics as to why people sought to block the development? There's loads of house owners who would have no issue with Cork becoming more built up, as long as services/infrastructure was upgraded to match the increased demands... I would love to see the roads aronund Cork upgraded rather than become another Dublin. But long term planning is not a quality of Irish governments or councils. The road from Cork to Carrigaline is nuts in the morning or late evening considering the population of the general area.

I think many of the objections that house owners have is that such developments are simply plonked down without consideration for what happens next, or how it will affect their neighbors. My own estate blocked the building of "affordable" social housing beside us, because it would have dropped our property values by at estimated 40% (by local analysts). [Also the houses would be given to Travellers, not working people] We're barely recovering property values from before the boom as it is, in many areas. I'd love to sell my place and lose my mortgage.. It's just not feasible, and government initiatives often don't take people like myself into account with their developments. But the property value aside, the area where my estate is simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support many more people. That's a serious consideration for those of us with houses.

OP. Honestly, I think you're deflecting. There are heaps of opportunities for the government to reduce building limits on sky-rise apartments and those would significantly decrease the housing shortage. Placing such tower apartments outside the main housing areas would avoid a lot of the objections from people with historical related objections, or such. Using buildings which have historical significance is idiotic though. Just as placing any such kind of tower in any established housing area. People will object. Expecting otherwise is delusional.

The environmentalists will always object. That's a given.

The mask slips sometimes. Home-owners don't want social housing because it reduces the value of their own house, and they definitely don't want travellers.

Politicians from all sides get behind this.

Kidchameleon · 04-12-2019 7:59pm

blanch152 wrote: »

The mask slips sometimes. Home-owners don't want social housing because it reduces the value of their own house, and they definitely don't want travellers.

Politicians from all sides get behind this.

Not exactly. Why would someone care how much their house is worth if they do not plan on moving? It is a simple fact of life that (in general) people who do not work for their home do not appreciate it as much as those who do work for it. This lack of appreciation leads to (in general) lack of respect for ones neighbors, ones area etc. Take a walk around a private estate and then take a walk around a social estate. In the latter you will see burned out cars, rubbish, drinking, drugs etc that you would not see near as much of in a private estate.

If you have a situation where there is a mixture of social/private housing, then you get a kind of mixture of the two scenarios. Why should someone working hard to pay a mortgage have to put up with drinking/rubbish/drugs etc?

In conclusion, it is not just property values that concerns people, it is quality of life. Social housing inherently brings down the quality of life in every area it infests.

ThunbergsAreGo · 04-12-2019 8:36pm

The real problem is a "home for life"

On average a house rented from the LA contains 2.5 people. This is far far too low.

A better distribution of housing, or rehousing based on need would almost instantly solve the social housing shortage

markodaly · 05-12-2019 12:02am

Deleted User wrote: »

I think many of the objections that house owners have is that such developments are simply plonked down without consideration for what happens next, or how it will affect their neighbors. My own estate blocked the building of "affordable" social housing beside us, because it would have dropped our property values by at estimated 40% (by local analysts). [Also the houses would be given to Travellers, not working people] We're barely recovering property values from before the boom as it is, in many areas. I'd love to sell my place and lose my mortgage.. It's just not feasible, and government initiatives often don't take people like myself into account with their developments. But the property value aside, the area where my estate is simply doesn't have the infrastructure to support many more people. That's a serious consideration for those of us with houses.

I think you answered my OP to be honest. Sure, from an induviduals point of view that may suck, but then we do not shift the needle at all in terms of provisioning housing. Everyone takes the same view, then its very very difficuly to do anything or build anything anywhere.

OP. Honestly, I think you're deflecting. There are heaps of opportunities for the government to reduce building limits on sky-rise apartments and those would significantly decrease the housing shortage. Placing such tower apartments outside the main housing areas would avoid a lot of the objections from people with historical related objections, or such. Using buildings that have historical significance is idiotic though. Just as placing any such kind of tower in any established housing area. People will object. Expecting otherwise is delusional.
.

In fairness you just proved my point that, with your other paragraph. Everyone has a right to object so invariably they will. That is one of the core reasons as to why we are where we are.

This is also not only to do with housing. The issues surrounding BusConnects in Dublin is well documented. Everyone takes the 'I am OK Jack' attitutude once you have that 3bed semi d in some suburb, then everyone else can go **** right off.

A 1 Billion Euro data centre was scrapped because there people held it up in the courts. One was a couple from the area, the other was a guy from Wicklow.
We give far too much creadence to these people.

In terms of building heights, in fairnes to Eoghan Murphy that is one thing he as mandated.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/city-council-seeks-to-increase-building-heights-in-docklands-1.3929941
https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/guidelines/urban-development-and-building-height/minister-murphy-issues-guidelines-urban

But of course people are outraged. Have you heard of Frank McDonald?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/planning-free-for-all-has-developers-reaching-for-the-sky-1.3907348?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fplanning-free-for-all-has-developers-reaching-for-the-sky-1.3907348

markodaly · 05-12-2019 12:08am

Idbatterim wrote: »

Op you are one hundred percent right. But in other countries they don’t facilitate this bull****. How will you ever please everyone? I believe in Spain for big infrastructure, they have a very , very brief public consultation period here. I’m sure others countries don’t bother with them at all, their likely the ones that get stuff built. What happens here ? Endless public consultation, they probably have a public consultation for the local animals in the area ...

You cannot please everyone but as a society we try to. Its a hang up from our post colonialism.
Its like we are still stuck in the post war period of concensus. Thatcher came in in 1979 and swept that away because the UK was dead on its feet.
Not that I am advocating wide scale 'Thathcerism', we do not have large scale heavy industry to close anyway, as we never had an industrial revolution but the core point applies.

You cannot please everyone, but you must try and do your best for the country and that means taking strong action on housing and health, yet no one really wants to change this.

Everyone has a 'right' to object to a planning application, yet by the same virtue, they are making the issue of homeless, rent affordability and public transport worse indirectly.
We need to swing the pendulum back to the center a bit.

realitykeeper · 05-12-2019 12:37am

My view is we are compounding blunder upon blunder when it comes to housing and each blunder is monumental in size. There was the deliberate runaway overheating of the economy under Bertie`s tenure followed by the bank guarantee under the fat fellow`s tenure followed by Enda`s following through with the bank bailouts and subsequent market manipulation designed to reblow the bubble so NAMA could claim to have made a profit. The decision to allow defaulters a decade`s grace is part of this manipulation by the way, because kicking out defaulters means more property availability which puts downward pressure on house prices which jeopardizes NAMA`s chances of pretending to have made a profit.

Any profit NAMA does make will only be made possible because the government manipulated the market. That manipulation equates to theft. The young have been fleeced and while they seem to know they should be angry, they don`t seem to know with who or why.

FF have rightly been punished and should continue to be. However, I am equally outraged with FG under Enda in particular but also Leo for continuing the policies of Enda.

To solve the housing crises, the legacy around reblowing the bubble, bailing out the banks, economic overheating etc must be treated with the bitter medicine, not the sweet stuff.

05-12-2019 3:46am

blanch152 wrote: »

The mask slips sometimes.

What mask? Be specific.

Home-owners don't want social housing because it reduces the value of their own house, and they definitely don't want travellers.

Of course. Buying a house is a long term investment with a crap-ton of costs and responsibilities thrown in over time.. Nobody who has never held a mortgage truly understands the enormity of the venture. Hence the spending on analysts to safeguard your future.

Social housing isn't a problem when it's populated with people who are working, or don't encourage a criminal element. It's when social housing is aimed at travellers who consistently damage the areas around them, and bring in crime, that the value drops considerably.

I bought my house when I was 27, and i'm 42 now. I've not made a bit of profit from it considering the cost, maintenance and taxes. I've just reached the point where negative equity is no longer a factor. I'd like to sell it, and move on with my life. So, yes, I protect the value of the estate jealously because it has the serious potential to ruin my life.

Politicians from all sides get behind this.

Politicians play a game of their own making.

05-12-2019 3:59am

markodaly wrote: »

I think you answered my OP to be honest. Sure, from an induviduals point of view that may suck, but then we do not shift the needle at all in terms of provisioning housing. Everyone takes the same view, then its very very difficuly to do anything or build anything anywhere.

Hardly, I pointed to where home owners blocked proposals for estates where there wasn't the infrastructure to support them. That's a valid consideration.

You seem to think that a housing estate should be plonked down simply to satisfy the short-term needs of the "housing crisis", which simply reflects the attitude of the politicians with no consideration for how it will affect the local area long term. Build up infrastructure to support such developments and many objections will dry up.

And objecting to travellers being placed in housing is quite reasonable because it's a stop-gap political gesture. It has no intention of resolving any of the core issues that make travellers undesirable as neighbors. There's no attempt to deal with the crime that comes with them, or the damage that they do to both their own properties and those around them. Instead, it's a move to pop them in houses nearby just to get them out of their caravans.

I do agree that there will be objections to any property development, but proper planning and research will overcome most objections. I've worked in risk analysis for financial investment. I'm sure there's a parallel profession in property for this, and that is where the focus should be. To perform serious research and determine the best placement.

A 1 Billion Euro data centre was scrapped because there people held it up in the courts. One was a couple from the area, the other was a guy from Wicklow.
We give far too much creadence to these people.

I agree.

In terms of building heights, in fairnes to Eoghan Murphy that is one thing he as mandated.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/city-council-seeks-to-increase-building-heights-in-docklands-1.3929941
https://www.housing.gov.ie/planning/guidelines/urban-development-and-building-height/minister-murphy-issues-guidelines-urban

But of course people are outraged. Have you heard of Frank McDonald?

And as I said, plonking such down within Dublin, or any established area will face serious objections. There are other areas to build up. I'd suggest that they look to build outside of Dublin, encouraging a shift in the population anyway. Dublin itself cannot support so many people as it is.

CageWager · 05-12-2019 5:10am

Declare a state of emergency, bypass public consultation for planning, 100% site tax on anything inside the M50 not under development within 12 months, allow FTB borrow 4.5 times salary, get councils building again. Obviously too many vested interests and roadblocks to make this happen. We’d probably need a Dictatorship.

In terms of landlords poormouthing in the press, my apartment has increased in value by €150k and my rent has almost doubled in 6 years. Cry me a river.

Yurt2 · 05-12-2019 6:21am

CageWager wrote: »

Declare a state of emergency, bypass public consultation for planning, 100% site tax on anything inside the M50 not under development within 12 months, allow FTB borrow 4.5 times salary, get councils building again. Obviously too many vested interests and roadblocks to make this happen. We’d probably need a Dictatorship.

In terms of landlords poormouthing in the press, my apartment has increased in value by €150k and my rent has almost doubled in 6 years. Cry me a river.

Calibrated land value tax on every square inch of the country - including agricultural land. Apart from dealing with the fundamental issue or outrageous cost of land in a low-density country, it will encourage better land use and better development.

As land value tax is implemented, income tax (on productive activity) can be staged-down giving workers a break.

suicide_circus · 05-12-2019 9:32am

i've asked it before and i'll ask again. why is there no such thing as a house share in social housing?

i lived in several private house shares in my time renting a room and sharing common areas with housemates, not a bother.

mikep · 05-12-2019 9:37am

suicide_circus wrote: »

i've asked it before and i'll ask again. why is there no such thing as a house share in social housing?

i lived in several private house shares in my time renting a room and sharing common areas with housemates, not a bother.

Because you can't be expected to share your "forever home" with others...

On "forever homes" when did this concept become the norm..

When I was young we moved 4 times before I was 7 as my old man needed to move for work..Perhaps I should sue the state for mental anguish as a child aswe were not provided with a "forever home"

The fact that people are looking for "forever homes" seems to me that once they get it they will just roost no matter what..if that means staying out of the job market no one can say anything as they are in their "forever home"

Eric Cartman · 05-12-2019 9:43am

mikep wrote: »

Because you can't be expected to share your "forever home" with others...

On "forever homes" when did this concept become the norm..

When I was young we moved 4 times before I was 7 as my old man needed to move for work..Perhaps I should sue the state for mental anguish as a child aswe were not provided with a "forever home"

The fact that people are looking for "forever homes" seems to me that once they get it they will just roost no matter what..if that means staying out of the job market no one can say anything as they are in their "forever home"

Theres a lot more factors than a desire to stay in one location that keep a lot of them out of the job market.

tom1ie · 05-12-2019 9:46am

whisky_galore wrote: »

The "haves", i.e. generally older home owners, blocking the "have nots", generally younger people prevented from home ownership.
That and developers won't put up anything other than unaffordable luxury high end stuff, student accommodation or offices.

There's a hell of alot wrong with this comment to be fair.

Kidchameleon · 05-12-2019 10:05am

CageWager wrote: »

In terms of landlords poormouthing in the press, my apartment has increased in value by €150k and my rent has almost doubled in 6 years. Cry me a river.

I don't get the landlord hate. Yeah, some are complete scrooges but most are perfectly good business people who too a risk by investing and are entitled to make a profit. Profit is what makes the economy go around. Without landlords, there would be far less places to live and even more genuine homelessness...

Geuze · 05-12-2019 10:27am

Yurt! wrote: »

Calibrated land value tax on every square inch of the country - including agricultural land. Apart from dealing with the fundamental issue or outrageous cost of land in a low-density country, it will encourage better land use and better development.

As land value tax is implemented, income tax (on productive activity) can be staged-down giving workers a break.

Yes.

It has long been known in economics, that of all the taxes, the best tax is a land tax.

Sweet.Science · 05-12-2019 11:07am

An economist said as things stand in Ireland at the moment you would have to build 400 properties a week for the next 20 years to solve the housing crisis

Thats without the population increasing. We have the highest birthrate in Europe

More radical measures are needed to keep people off the streets. The state should build more hotels themselves and run them themselves for people to live in . Create employment .
All the homeless will have a warm bed, a roof over their head and a hot shower
Build facilities close by etc

Wanderer78 · 05-12-2019 11:11am

Geuze wrote:

It has long been known in economics, that of all the taxes, the best tax is a land tax.

Completely agree, but I'm not sure it ll ever be implemented here

Kidchameleon · 05-12-2019 11:28am

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Thats without the population increasing. We have the highest birthrate in Europe

Lets throw a few thousand economic migrants with no skills on top of that aswell, that should help matters.

blanch152 · 05-12-2019 11:35am

Deleted User wrote: »

What mask? Be specific.

Of course. Buying a house is a long term investment with a crap-ton of costs and responsibilities thrown in over time.. Nobody who has never held a mortgage truly understands the enormity of the venture. Hence the spending on analysts to safeguard your future.

Social housing isn't a problem when it's populated with people who are working, or don't encourage a criminal element. It's when social housing is aimed at travellers who consistently damage the areas around them, and bring in crime, that the value drops considerably.

I bought my house when I was 27, and i'm 42 now. I've not made a bit of profit from it considering the cost, maintenance and taxes. I've just reached the point where negative equity is no longer a factor. I'd like to sell it, and move on with my life. So, yes, I protect the value of the estate jealously because it has the serious potential to ruin my life.

Politicians play a game of their own making.

Build social housing anywhere except beside me. That is the mantra from so many.

So when I come on here and read posts complaining about the lack of social housing being built, I just think of that line.

blanch152 · 05-12-2019 11:37am

suicide_circus wrote: »

i've asked it before and i'll ask again. why is there no such thing as a house share in social housing?

i lived in several private house shares in my time renting a room and sharing common areas with housemates, not a bother.

Do you not see the outrage against shared accommodation. The same people who go on about more social housing splutter with outrage at the idea that we should build shared accommodation.

05-12-2019 11:41am

the real problem with housing in ireland is everyone feeling like they should own a house

and worse, the significant numbers who feel entitled to own a free/subsidised house provided by the state

add that to the societal trait of treating property like the only possible store of wealth

shift that mentality or accept we'll stay where we are

suicide_circus · 05-12-2019 11:59am

blanch152 wrote: »

Do you not see the outrage against shared accommodation. The same people who go on about more social housing splutter with outrage at the idea that we should build shared accommodation.

when i lived in house shares I do so because i couldn't afford my own place. i cut my cloth accordingly. It did me no harm whatsoever.

We now have, what? 11,000 homeless people and a lack of social housing? why is house sharing never mentioned?

blanch152 · 05-12-2019 12:04pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

when i lived in house shares I do so because i couldn't afford my own place. i cut my cloth accordingly. It did me no harm whatsoever.

We now have, what? 11,000 homeless people and a lack of social housing? why is house sharing never mentioned?

Shared living schemes in Dun Laoghaire, Rathmines, Raheny and Castleknock have been the subject of fierce objections from local residents and politicians.

https://www.thejournal.ie/shared-living-rathmines-4813400-Sep2019/

Sweet.Science · 05-12-2019 12:08pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Shared living schemes in Dun Laoghaire, Rathmines, Raheny and Castleknock have been the subject of fierce objections from local residents and politicians.

https://www.thejournal.ie/shared-living-rathmines-4813400-Sep2019/

As would non shared

suicide_circus · 05-12-2019 12:18pm

I'm not talking about shared living schemes as such, just gaffs owned by the council - why cant they be shared?

05-12-2019 12:19pm

blanch152 wrote: »

Build social housing anywhere except beside me. That is the mantra from so many.

Obviously... when you disregard the reasons for the objections. Which you have just done.

So when I come on here and read posts complaining about the lack of social housing being built, I just think of that line.

Whereas, I think of the poor long-term planning in this country, and the avoidance of common sense regarding housing. Tower apartments are necessary in any city of a decent population. I have to laugh though. I currently live in a city of 9 million, last year I lived in a city of 16 million. They've been using tower apartments for decades, but Irish people resist the very notion of using them. My current apartment block has 26 floors, and is one of the safest (and cleanest) areas I've ever lived.

A bit of proper research, planning, and investment into learning from countries who have used tower apartments properly, and 'most' of Ireland's housing problems would evaporate. Most objections occur because of poor research being done and no consideration for other peoples interests.

X111111111111 · 05-12-2019 12:35pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Lets throw a few thousand economic migrants with no skills on top of that aswell, that should help matters.

A few thousand? FG want to increase our population by at least a million. Irish people aren't having kids the way they used to due to a number of factors. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how dull our future looks if a political movement doesn't come forward and addresses this issue.

markodaly · 05-12-2019 12:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

. That's a valid consideration.

See, every property owner thinks they have a valid consideration. Sometimes they do, but oftentimes they dont. But the proof is in the pudding in how little we build and how long it takes to get planning in this country.

It is understandable from a human level, but then as a nation we have major issues we need to contend with.

Charles Babbage · 05-12-2019 12:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

the real problem with housing in ireland is everyone feeling like they should own a house

No, the real problem is that everyone who owns a field believes that it should become a house with the field owner getting all the value from that change.

Kidchameleon · 05-12-2019 12:57pm

X111111111111 wrote: »

A few thousand? FG want to increase our population by at least a million. Irish people aren't having kids the way they used to due to a number of factors. It doesn't take a genius to figure out how dull our future looks if a political movement doesn't come forward and addresses this issue.

Importing non nationals is not the answer though, that only leads to an erosion of culture. One solution would be to stop encouraging women into the workplace, instead, encourage them to stay in the home raising children (where they are happiest anyway*). Ironically, households having two incomes increases the cost of purchasing a home as there is more money coming into each family. If we lived in a paradigm where there was only one income on average to each household, the cost of borrowing would be less - supply and demand.

Its all a big conspiracy by the elites, get women working thereby lowering the cost of labor. This is why feminism is funded by the large multinationals - it is in their interest to reduce costs.

All that being said, I think women should work if they want to, nothing should be stopping them of course, I think however that women prefer to raise children and men prefer to go out and get resources, it is natural and has been that way since the dawn of time. These preferences explain the "wage gap" which is not a wage gap, it is in face and earnings gap explained by looking at preferences between the sexes.

* very hard to find links to that. All of the searches I have done yield feminist inspired "statistics". I am basing my claim that women are happier in the home raising children on my own observations and common, rational sense.

_Brian · 05-12-2019 1:01pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

I find the thrust of this point of view pretty hard to take. Although it is a familiar one. "I'm not going to do this if you're going to tax me. I should be able to keep all the profits of my hard work (or my hard working piece of inanimate real estate) for myself."

We all think that. Everyone from Leona Hemsley, the notorious Queen of Mean who is famous for saying that "Taxes are for little people". As a "big person" she clearly felt she should not be so encumbered. But really what she was saying is that "taxes are for OTHER people" And everyone, from Hemsley to Niall Quinn to the People before Profit crowd firmly believes that.

Niall Quinn wants tax breaks for League of Ireland clubs to grow soccer. (We shouldn't have to pay tax. Some other sucker can do that.)

Paul Murphy et al don't want to pay for water charges (We shouldn't have to pay for treatment and delivery of an essential resource. Other, supposedly rich, suckers should have to pay for that.)

And now poor struggling put-upon property owners shouldn't have to pay tax on the income they receive for sitting on their arses and maybe unblocking the odd drain or putting up the odd shelf (or paying somebody else to do it--typically cash in hand of course, can't let the taxman know about that, hur, hur).

Get real!

A reasonable tax levy on the cash return of a property investment (ie the rent accruing from it) is perfectly justifiable. I would instead put a whopping punitive tax on perfectly viable housing stock that is just sitting there gathering rot. There is a house on my street, less than 30 years old that is in just that position because the poor put-upon landlord can't be bothered for reasons best known to himself to rent it out as he used to do.

He should be given a choice: pay x percent annual tax on the market value of the vacant house or y percent on the income accruing from the tenants rent where y is very much less than x.

But to say that he should have it both ways: no chance!

I’m not argui n against tax.

But one simple point.
The fact that the full mortgage repayments aren’t deductible before tax is just wrong.

I’m any other industry if I buy a €500k piece of equipment the full repayments on that piece of equipment is deducted before profits are taxed.

If you want more rental property in the market then landlords need to be fairly treated and they need to make a fair profit.

Balf · 05-12-2019 1:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

the real problem with housing in ireland is everyone feeling like they should own a house

I'm not sure that's necessarily a problem, in and of itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

add that to the societal trait of treating property like the only possible store of wealth

This, I think, is the problem. Every property owner has a vested interest in constraining supply, so the value of their property is protected.

Constraining supply is a perfectly rational market outcome for a competitive market. And the only solution I can think of is a property tax that is so high it makes people not want their house to be valuable.

I think it does also make you wonder why regional locations are quite so hopeless at generating jobs. If the average price of a house in Dublin is €375,000 and the average price of a house in Leitrim or Longford is €140,000, then we're effectively saying you can save over €200,000 if you move to Longford.

And that huge saving, apparently, isn't enough to spark anything. For no obvious reason - Longford might be bland, but it's not the Gobi Desert. They have schools, shops and electricity (last time I checked), and I suspect you can get some kind of broadband in Longford town.

https://www.thejournal.ie/house-prices-increase-dublin-nationwide-4696800-Jun2019/

Chinasea · 05-12-2019 2:52pm

I feel under siege from some sort of force-fed relelentless homeless news feed/media bombardment. Yes I know there are genuine homeless, but I feel like the whole situation is to a certain extent manipulated.

Every second ad is some dodgy pseudo sad tale of homeless childers, starving and void of presents. How much are all these adverts costing. Every single raffle, collection box is for 'de homeless'. All other charities it seems have been shelved.

We are hardly Bangladesh. Our social welfare is extremely generous. Pay your way. Contribute and have some personal bloody responsibility. Help genuine cases, but stop the bull****. How is all this sustainable.

blanch152 · 05-12-2019 3:02pm

Chinasea wrote: »

I feel under siege from some sort of force-fed relelentless homeless news feed/media bombardment. Yes I know there are genuine homeless, but I feel like the whole situation is to a certain extent manipulated.

Every second ad is some dodgy pseudo sad tale of homeless childers, starving and void of presents. How much are all these adverts costing. Every single raffle, collection box is for 'de homeless'. All other charities it seems have been shelved.

We are hardly Bangladesh. Our social welfare is extremely generous. Pay your way. Contribute and have some personal bloody responsibility. Help genuine cases, but stop the bull****. How is all this sustainable.

The CEO of Peter McVerry Trust is paid over €100k, more than a TD.

Others like Threshold don't seem to publish their accounts on their websites. Neither do Simon Community Dublin.

Maybe I am missing them, but if I am, they are well hidden on their websites.

James Brown · 05-12-2019 3:04pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Not exactly. Why would someone care how much their house is worth if they do not plan on moving? It is a simple fact of life that (in general) people who do not work for their home do not appreciate it as much as those who do work for it. This lack of appreciation leads to (in general) lack of respect for ones neighbors, ones area etc. Take a walk around a private estate and then take a walk around a social estate. In the latter you will see burned out cars, rubbish, drinking, drugs etc that you would not see near as much of in a private estate.

If you have a situation where there is a mixture of social/private housing, then you get a kind of mixture of the two scenarios. Why should someone working hard to pay a mortgage have to put up with drinking/rubbish/drugs etc?

In conclusion, it is not just property values that concerns people, it is quality of life. Social housing inherently brings down the quality of life in every area it infests.

Like the vast majority you or your parents were likely housed in social housing. I've an estate near me. Use to be all social housing, now bar one or two it's private. One of these social housing inheritors is a FG TD no less and one who is fighting FG itself to stop formally 100% social housing land, up the road, becoming the FG version of housing, (percentage of social, some leased or bought by the LA, mostly private builds). Not because she thinks it should be more social housing, but because she wants more amenities for her neighborhood instead of houses. This all 20 minutes walk from Christchurch. Hardly the sticks.
In short, good working tax payers are in need of social housing, your critique is ignorant. The sad part is working tax payers sh*tting on lower income tax payers because they now own their formally social housing. Our society was built with social housing and it is being destroyed by the lack of social housing.

AlekSmart · 05-12-2019 9:02pm

Chinasea wrote: »

I feel under siege from some sort of force-fed relelentless homeless news feed/media bombardment. Yes I know there are genuine homeless, but I feel like the whole situation is to a certain extent manipulated.

Every second ad is some dodgy pseudo sad tale of homeless childers, starving and void of presents. How much are all these adverts costing. Every single raffle, collection box is for 'de homeless'. All other charities it seems have been shelved.

We are hardly Bangladesh. Our social welfare is extremely generous. Pay your way. Contribute and have some personal bloody responsibility. Help genuine cases, but stop the bull****. How is all this sustainable.

Pull up your drawbridge !

I found this article on todays Great Day of Protest to be .....well.......illuminating I suppose?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/power-to-the-people-thousands-protest-against-homelessness-in-dublin-and-cork-38757237.html

One protester, who only wants to be identified as Martina (50s), rents a house she lives in with her daughter and her four-year-old granddaughter under the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) scheme.

She said that she fears that her landlord will decide to sell her house, leaving her and her family homeless.

“I’m in a landlord’s accommodation and I do be terrified that he’s going to come along and say ‘I’m selling the house’.

“The place is freezing, he’s allowed away with murder and he’s getting so much rent.

“I’m with HAP now. I pay just a little under a hundred into his bank account every week, so he’s getting €1,300 off HAP and then I pay €100 a week,” she said.

Martina’s granddaughter, Melissa said: “Everything about the landlords is just for them. All the rights is in there court. There’s nothing for me ma to stay safe in her own home. She can’t even do up the house because she’s afraid that he’ll kick her out. He can just up and sell the house whenever he wants to.

“Her windows are thin, she’s mould all over the place and he’s like, ‘If I have to fix it I’ll just sell it.’ So she’s just sitting pup because she has nothing else to do, she can’t do nothing else,” she added.

Can anybody flesh out those figures....€100 per week and HAP paying €1,300 ?

Bangladesh may actually have a better way of doing things ?

James Brown · 05-12-2019 9:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

the real problem with housing in ireland is everyone feeling like they should own a house

and worse, the significant numbers who feel entitled to own a free/subsidised house provided by the state

add that to the societal trait of treating property like the only possible store of wealth

shift that mentality or accept we'll stay where we are

I think it's more people working and couples working feel they should be able to afford rent and possibly save so they can buy at some point.
For the common or garden working tax payer owning your own home was the previously more commonly reachable goal of your entire working life.

Lowering the bar and then accusing people of entitlement shouldn't be accepted by the tax payer IMO.

Nobody has owned a free/subsidised house ever in the history of the state.

Huntergonzo · 05-12-2019 9:22pm

There are many reasons for people's problems around housing (never use the bullshít media term 'housing crisis', they love a good 'crisis', it gets attention). In my opinion here are some of the main reasons in no particular order:

1. Greed of developers (charging insane money for homes).
2. Greed of money lenders (lend more, earn more, crash and you'll be bailed out, how can they lose?)
3. Greed of people who think they are 'entitled' to a house payed for by the tax payers and bring as many children into the world as possible to act as bargaining chips (look no further than Margaret Cash).
4. The crash, no building = no homes, people were still having sex though, creating more people. More people + less homes = d'oh!
5. The Irish psyche that we need to buy our own houses.
6. Government for coming up with wishy washy solutions that favour the developers and lenders.
7. Probably most of all, the media and dreaded opposition politicians for absolutely flogging and riding this 'crisis' (there's that word again) to death under the guise of concern but purely and utterly for their own personal gains, ie greed.

James Brown · 05-12-2019 9:34pm

Believe me, if Michael Martin or Leo Varadkar couldn't afford to meet rent or save for a house there would be consensus that it was a crisis and within a fortnight major moves in policy would happen.

As it stands even government, rightly acknowledge it's a crisis.

Cash games the system. Means absolute zero in any housing crisis conversation.

The real problem with Housing in Ireland

Comments