The real problem with Housing in Ireland

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.

The real problem with Housing in Ireland

Comments