Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Gatling · 06-11-2019 3:33pm

Boggles wrote: »

Of course people would pay,

No they won't if they struggle to pay the bare minimum social housing rents what makes you think they will pay 2 or 3 times higher rents.

Claiming You know answers don't cut it

James Brown · 06-11-2019 3:34pm

The arrears is a red herring. The system not being policed properly is the issue not the system of social housing. My local FG TD was raised in Social housing as were the vast number of Irish people. Also HAP and emergency accommodation consists of working people too. It's not all junkies or single mothers who never worked a day.
Social and affordable housing is designed to assist people, the vast majority working but on low incomes, to have a roof over their head.
The sad and ironic thing is as we do away with social housing the tax payer gets the costly bill of subsidising rents to private landlords and companies. It's the very definition of cutting your nose to spite your face.

Idbatterim · 06-11-2019 3:36pm

The old would have tens of thousands stashed away and tell you they are on the breadline. They aren’t. Then yeah there are some unlucky cases , but at what point should I and many like myself have a reduced quality of life , to pay for other people’s mistakes or pure laziness ?

The redistribution of wealth from the working poor to the idle wasters is obscene and not witnessed anywhere else on this planet. It wouldn’t be tolerated! Take a look at welfare Britain series, for how our nearest national , a rich one , that wasn’t bailed out , see what they reckon it’s ok to live off on welfare over there ... a fraction of here !

Idbatterim · 06-11-2019 3:38pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The arrears is a red herring. The system not being policed properly is the issue not the system of social housing. My local FG TD was raised in Social housing as were the vast number of Irish people. Also HAP and emergency accommodation consists of working people too. It's not all junkies or single mothers who never worked a day.
Social and affordable housing is designed to assist people, the vast majority working but on low incomes, to have a roof over their head.
The sad and ironic thing is as we do away with social housing the tax payer gets the costly bill of subsidising rents to private landlords and companies. It's the very definition of cutting your nose to spite your face.

If their idea of social housing is to build more at massive expense , to then let people live in it free , to then offering them the chance to buy the house for virtually nothing , which is what happened and wouldn’t surprise me one bit of it did again !

Gatling · 06-11-2019 3:42pm

riffmongous wrote: »

I think you missed the point of the article, social housing is available for almost everyone earning up to 3,300 a month.

That's the average rent across everyone in the system, related to an original means testing. So "Six hundred euros is an average rent for a fifty-square-meter, two-bedroom apartment close to the city centre" is the equivalent in Dublin of people who are qualified professionals in a ****ty houseshare at the moment

I totally get the point ,but until they change the whole idea that those who make the least effort get the best choices and the cheapest rents , nothing will change the same for upsizeing and down sizing the Vienna model actually makes it easy where here we have older people living in multi room properties that could house a family but there is no where to go to suit their housing need now

James Brown · 06-11-2019 3:46pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

If their idea of social housing is to build more at massive expense , to then let people live in it free , to then offering them the chance to buy the house for virtually nothing , which is what happened and wouldn’t surprise me one bit of it did again !

These same people would be housed in a private rental paid for by the tax payer.
It's really straightforward, do we want to build and rent out or do we want to buy and rent out or pay rents to vulture funds?
These people will not be going anywhere, social housing or not.

You get the option of buying your social housing rental after a number of years as a renter. You need be in good stead payments wise and you cannot flip the property for something like ten years after you purchase and if you decide to the council take most of any profit. The price is based on current market rates but you'd get a discount based on how long you paid rent there.
If a family are decades renting and are in a position to buy, I think that's okay.

The irony being every single person I know opposed to social housing, grew up in and now owns formally social housing.

Padraig Mor · 06-11-2019 3:47pm

Boggles wrote: »

Did I say there wasn't arrears?

The vast majority of people in social housing pay their rents, the poster I was responding to has quite a history of generalization and hyperbole.

No.....no they don't - in fact in some areas only a minority are paying. The majority of social tenancies in Dublin are in arrears for example. And arrears are skyrocketing all across the country as scroungers realise they won't be turfed out for not paying - hard to blame them TBH.

maxsmum · 06-11-2019 3:50pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

There are a lot of people out there that genuinely need welfare.
Old
Sick
Disabled
People who've been left as a full time single parent
People who're going through a tough/difficult time in their career

Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location. Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing. There is no inviolable right to be 'housed' where you grew up. I for one will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, let alone be given one.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 3:53pm

Padraig Mor wrote: »

No.....no they don't - in fact in some areas only a minority are paying. The majority of social tenancies in Dublin are in arrears for example. And arrears are skyrocketing all across the country as scroungers realise they won't be turfed out for not paying - hard to blame them TBH.

Well if it a "fact" you will have no problem offering evidence of your claims.

In your own time.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 3:56pm

Gatling wrote: »

No they won't if they struggle to pay the bare minimum social housing rents what makes you think they will pay 2 or 3 times higher rents.

Who is struggling?

I think you need to back and read the article again, or maybe for the first time.

Beta Ray Bill · 06-11-2019 3:56pm

maxsmum wrote: »

Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location. Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing. There is no inviolable right to be 'housed' where you grew up. I for one will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, let alone be given one.

I actually agree that people that work in front line services should get priority on social housing

maxsmum · 06-11-2019 4:00pm

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I actually agree that people that work in front line services should get priority on social housing

I don't know how this isn't prioritised. If you work in town in public service, and you're below the income limit, these houses should be earmarked for you.
If you don't work, you don't get to live in town. Sorry Johnny, I don't care if you were born in the flats.
I know nurses who commute from Roscommon to Dublin because of living costs here. That's just mad.

Varik · 06-11-2019 4:07pm

For Dublin three in five council tenants are in arrears, that came out last July when the council start some mass evictions.

https://www.98fm.com/news/50-council-tenants-face-eviction-serious-rent-arrears-889146

Boggles · 06-11-2019 4:29pm

Varik wrote: »

For Dublin three in five council tenants are in arrears, that came out last July when the council start some mass evictions.

https://www.98fm.com/news/50-council-tenants-face-eviction-serious-rent-arrears-889146

Being in arrears does not mean you are not paying your rent.

Figures released to 98FM show 40 per cent of those in arrears owe less than 500 euro -- and fall into this category as soon as they're a week behind

You still owe the arrears, unlike the private rental market where landlords have very little comeback unless they go down the legal route.

That said people who are point blank refusing to pay there rent without a valid reason, this should be garnered at source.

Scoundrel · 06-11-2019 4:34pm

171170 wrote: »

I was quite happy to enrich the small builder who built my house and I'm far happier that he and his men were able to earn a few bob to raise their kids instead of allowing the politicians and officials responsible for building the National Childrens' Hospital to take over the building of "housing for all".

Every cent that governments spend comes, ultimately, from taxes, and I'm paying far too much tax as it is without pandering to the "free forever home" desires of the loonie left.

You're the only one suggesting that Government build housing would be free it has never been free and it never will be it's a nonsense argument given the amount of tax we pay the very least we should be demanding is housing and healthcare.

Gatling · 06-11-2019 4:37pm

Boggles wrote: »

Who is struggling?

Seriously .

Varik · 06-11-2019 4:38pm

Boggles wrote: »

Being in arrears does not mean you are not paying your rent.

You still owe the arrears, unlike the private rental market where landlords have very little comeback unless they go down the legal route.

That said people who are point blank refusing to pay there rent without a valid reason, this should be garnered at source.

Someone being constantly late would put them in that 40% but it's up to 500, for some of them that's having 2 months of arrears at least. Since the amounts will differ and the cap is at 237.

25% owe more than 500 and less than 2000 (2-8 months) , and another 20% owe between 2000 and 7000 (8 months to 2.5 years). Again at the higher cap, so some in that could be double or triple those times.

Gatling · 06-11-2019 4:39pm

Boggles wrote: »

Being in arrears does not mean you are not paying your rent.

You still owe the arrears, unlike the private rental market where landlords have very little comeback unless they go down the legal route.

And what comeback do councils have the same as private landlords who have the RTB at least the council's don't

Boggles · 06-11-2019 4:42pm

Gatling wrote: »

Seriously .

You didn't read the article did you?

It's social and affordable homes, single people earning up to 53k qualify.

If you are earning 53k and paying 600 a month for a city centre home unless there is other circumstances, chances are you are not struggling.

The 600 is an average so you less if earn less or more the other way.

If the idea was adopted in accommodation pressure areas it would snapped up in a heart beat.

Gatling · 06-11-2019 4:45pm

Boggles wrote: »

It's social and affordable homes, single people earning up to 53k qualify.

Lol .....

But the thread isn't about the Vienna article and yes I read it ,

end of the road · 06-11-2019 4:47pm

maxsmum wrote: »

Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location.

they have every need as it saves the costs of implementation of services and supports they will need.
people and their supports come before prime locations.

maxsmum wrote: »

Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing.

they already do.

maxsmum wrote: »

There is no inviolable right to be 'housed' where you grew up. I for one will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, let alone be given one.

with respect that is your problem, not someone else's.
at least you are able to afford to buy, plenty won't have that ability.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 4:50pm

Varik wrote: »

Someone being constantly late would put them in that 40% but it's up to 500, for some of them that's having 2 months of arrears at least. Since the amounts will differ and the cap is at 237.

25% owe more than 500 and less than 2000 (2-8 months) , and another 20% owe between 2000 and 7000 (8 months to 2.5 years). Again at the higher cap, so some in that could be double or triple those times.

So 65% of people in arrears owe between 1 and 2000.

It's hardly insurmountable given we are dealing with a lot of low income families where one tiny unforeseen could cripple them.

Like I said the council need to be dealing with the píss takers who won't pay, deduction at source if the arrears go over a certain threshold or if no agreed payment plan has been put in place.

People will abuse a system if it is open to abuse.

Like a previous poster said, fix the system.

Idbatterim · 06-11-2019 4:50pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

You're the only one suggesting that Government build housing would be free it has never been free and it never will be it's a nonsense argument given the amount of tax we pay the very least we should be demanding is housing and healthcare.

Here the crux. This free housing you want , you mention taxes paid. By who ? Those in social housing who are massive drains on the taxpayer ?

There are a huge amount here with nothing but massive black holes on the state. The people paying for the kip are the one’s screwed and need more support. Not the only ones given a voice by the media , the wasters. Always the victims , never to blame

Boggles · 06-11-2019 4:51pm

Gatling wrote: »

Lol .....

But the thread isn't about the Vienna article and yes I read it ,

You kept referencing the article.

Also that made you laugh out loud?

06-11-2019 4:51pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The irony being every single person I know opposed to social housing, grew up in and now owns formally social housing.

I grew up in social housing & while I'm not opposed to it at all, I believe social housing should stay property of the state.
Social housing is needed to house people who cannot house themselves for whatever reasons.
It should not be used to allow people to buy those houses at much reduced prices.
I say this as someone who grew up in it & my mother bought her council house.

Idbatterim · 06-11-2019 4:54pm

Varik wrote: »

Someone being constantly late would put them in that 40% but it's up to 500, for some of them that's having 2 months of arrears at least. Since the amounts will differ and the cap is at 237.

25% owe more than 500 and less than 2000 (2-8 months) , and another 20% owe between 2000 and 7000 (8 months to 2.5 years). Again at the higher cap, so some in that could be double or triple those times.

Guaranteed that sky , Vodafone , dominoes, jd sport are all up the money that the taxpayer or council is down !

The fact that thes parasites can’t manage their money shouldn’t be my problem , but it is , because I’m paying for it and it’s money I need. That I earned! If some of you lads have a chip on your shoulder about the legions of wasters here , start donating more money to the state ! The irony that its always those contributing nothing shouting for more for the wasters or wasters themselves is comedy !

The free housing is enough. Let them work for the rest! Oh let me guess, there aren’t enough “ jabs “ going in Dublin , ha ha, ha ha !

06-11-2019 4:54pm

end of the road wrote: »

they already do.

Where do you get the idea that guards , nurses & teachers get priority in city social housing?

end of the road · 06-11-2019 4:54pm

maxsmum wrote: »

I don't know how this isn't prioritised. If you work in town in public service, and you're below the income limit, these houses should be earmarked for you.
If you don't work, you don't get to live in town. Sorry Johnny, I don't care if you were born in the flats.
I know nurses who commute from Roscommon to Dublin because of living costs here. That's just mad.

such people will always exist for many different reasons.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 5:00pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I grew up in social housing & while I'm not opposed to it at all, I believe social housing should stay property of the state.
Social housing is needed to house people who cannot house themselves for whatever reasons.
It should not be used to allow people to buy those houses at much reduced prices.
I say this as someone who grew up in it & my mother bought her council house.

The benefits of allowing people to purchase their social homes at an affordable price far out weigh the negatives.

Keeping 50-60 year old houses in council stock is a very expensive exercise, best practice is to replenish this stock with newer homes.

end of the road · 06-11-2019 5:00pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that guards , nurses & teachers get priority in city social housing?

they would for affordable housing schemes would they not? that is what i am assuming the poster referred to rather then social housing.
social housing and affordable housing are often lumped together.

Idbatterim · 06-11-2019 5:01pm

Boggles wrote: »

The benefits of allowing people to purchase their social homes at an affordable price far out weigh the negatives.

Keeping 50-60 year old houses in council stock is a very expensive exercise, best practice is to replenish this stock with newer homes.

Sorry. Selling something way below market value to someone who has already paid next to nothing for decades , is good practice ?

06-11-2019 5:03pm

end of the road wrote: »

they would for affordable housing schemes would they not? that is what i am assuming the poster referred to rather then social housing.
social housing and affordable housing are often lumped together.

There is no priority afforded to front line service employees

Scoundrel · 06-11-2019 5:05pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Here the crux. This free housing you want , you mention taxes paid. By who ? Those in social housing who are massive drains on the taxpayer ?

There are a huge amount here with nothing but massive black holes on the state. The people paying for the kip are the one’s screwed and need more support. Not the only ones given a voice by the media , the wasters. Always the victims , never to blame

:rolleyes:this is absolute nonsense no one wants free housing just affordable state built housing in return for paying our tax yes there are perma dole wasters but they are a statistically insignificant amount of people. The private sector only build houses in order to make obscene profit often cutting corners to do so and successive governments have lazily dumped housing into their laps I'm arguing simply that in return for all the tax we pay the very least a government should do is provide housing for its people.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 5:06pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Sorry. Selling something way below market value to someone who has already paid next to nothing for decades , is good practice ?

That isn't how it works.

Anyway do you think or boom bust housing market is good practice?

06-11-2019 5:07pm

Boggles wrote: »

The benefits of allowing people to purchase their social homes at an affordable price far out weigh the negatives.

Keeping 50-60 year old houses in council stock is a very expensive exercise, best practice is to replenish this stock with newer homes.

Not when there are not enough social houses it doesn't.
There are huge amounts of single people who bought their council houses cheap & now live alone in 3 bed houses.
Would make more sense for those people to rent a social house for an long as they need to, until such a time as they can afford their own home.
If they stay in social housing for their whole life, they get downsized to an appropriate residence at their needs change.

Ronaldinho · 06-11-2019 5:08pm

Boggles wrote: »

That isn't how it works.

How does it work Boggles?

James Brown · 06-11-2019 5:11pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Sorry. Selling something way below market value to someone who has already paid next to nothing for decades , is good practice ?

Rent is based on income. The whole point is they pay next to nothing if they earn next to nothing.

You can't buy if you are in arrears or have a history of non-payment.

The discount below market is calculated based on how many years you payed rent there. People who lived in properties built in the 30's and 40's for decades, got offered a discount on current market value. I would guess in many cases the council made any money spent in construction back a number of times over.

lola85 · 06-11-2019 5:11pm

Scoundrel wrote: »

:rolleyes:this is absolute nonsense no one wants free housing just affordable state built housing in return for paying our tax yes there are perma dole wasters but they are a statistically insignificant amount of people. The private sector only build houses in order to make obscene profit often cutting corners to do so and successive governments have lazily dumped housing into their laps I'm arguing simply that in return for all the tax we pay the very least a government should do is provide housing for its people.

Do you mean housing for everyone?

Why should some people have to buy off a private developer and be fleeced as you say while others don’t?

Housing for everyone provided by the government I’m all for.

I’d personally have a lot more money in my pocket each week.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 5:13pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Not when there are not enough social houses it doesn't.
There are huge amounts of single people who bought their council houses cheap & now live alone in 3 bed houses.
Would make more sense for those people to rent a social house for an long as they need to, until such a time as they can afford their own home.
If they stay in social housing for their whole life, they get downsized to an appropriate residence at their needs change.

Like I all ready explained it's best practice for the council to replenish housing stock, newer for older.

Retro fitting 50-60 year old houses is very expensive as in on going maintenance, if the tenant is merely renting the council is responsible for this maintenance.

Also areas of social housing where they can be anti social behavior will organically rise out of that if more people start to own their own homes.

It's not just the cost, it's the value.

The benefits completely out weigh the negatives.

Anyway AFAIK they have stopped the scheme which is a pity.

lola85 · 06-11-2019 5:14pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yeah, but that never happened ever in the history of the Irish state.

You can't buy if you are in arrears or have a history of non-payment.

The discount below market is calculated based on how many years you payed rent there. People who lived in properties built in the 30's and 40's for decades, got offered a discount on current market value. I would guess in many cases the council made any money spent in construction back a number of times over.

The 2016 Incremental Tenant Purchase Scheme was introduced under the Housing (Sale of Local Authority Houses) Regulations 2015, and came into effect on 1 January 2016.

To qualify for the scheme, you must have:

***Been getting social housing support for at least a year***

An annual income of at least €15,000 per year. (Your annual income can be a combination of your gross income from wages and your income from some social welfare payments. You will not qualify if your income is only from social welfare payments.)
You may be able to get a local authority mortgage.

You will get a discount of 60%, 50% or 40% off the purchase price of the house. The level of the discount depends on your income. An incremental charge, equivalent to the discount, will be placed on the house. Over a specified period of years, this charge will reduce to nil in annual increments of 2% of the total value of the house, unless you resell the house or breach the conditions of sale during this specified period.

Senature · 06-11-2019 5:14pm

Social housing arrears should be almost non-existent. Rents should be deducted at source from social welfare payments or via reduced tax credits like they currently do with property tax. Rents should also be based on the type of property rather than the household finances e.g. a 3 bed semi with a garden should cost more than a 1 bed apartment in the same area. This would also do away with a lot of the cute hoor type scamming such as under declaring income or stating only one adult lives in the house to get a lower rent. None of this would be difficult to implement, especially for new tenancies.

06-11-2019 5:20pm

Boggles wrote: »

Like I all ready explained it's best practice for the council to replenish housing stock, newer for older.

Retro fitting 50-60 year old houses is very expensive as in on going maintenance, if the tenant is merely renting the council is responsible for this maintenance.

Also areas of social housing where they can be anti social behavior will organically rise out of that if more people start to own their own homes.

It's not just the cost, it's the value.

The benefits completely out weigh the negatives.

Anyway AFAIK they have stopped the scheme which is a pity.

But if they don't actually need to build new stock, then keeping old stock in good condition becomes much easier.
No need for more land, no need to pay for new houses.

James Brown · 06-11-2019 5:25pm

lola85 wrote: »

The 2016 Incremental Tenant Purchase Scheme was introduced under the Housing (Sale of Local Authority Houses) Regulations 2015, and came into effect on 1 January 2016.

To qualify for the scheme, you must have:

***Been getting social housing support for at least a year***

An annual income of at least €15,000 per year. (Your annual income can be a combination of your gross income from wages and your income from some social welfare payments. You will not qualify if your income is only from social welfare payments.)
You may be able to get a local authority mortgage.

You will get a discount of 60%, 50% or 40% off the purchase price of the house. The level of the discount depends on your income. An incremental charge, equivalent to the discount, will be placed on the house. Over a specified period of years, this charge will reduce to nil in annual increments of 2% of the total value of the house, unless you resell the house or breach the conditions of sale during this specified period.

Found the details.
I was familiar with the tenant purchase scheme.

An incremental charge, equivalent to the discount, will be placed on the house.
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/local_authority_and_social_housing/buying_your_local_authority_house.html

You get a discount based on income.
You have to pay back any discount you get over a number of years and it reduces over time. I don't see the problem?
It's basically affordable housing for people on low incomes.

James Brown · 06-11-2019 5:28pm

bubblypop wrote: »

But if they don't actually need to build new stock, then keeping old stock in good condition becomes much easier.
No need for more land, no need to pay for new houses.

I get your point.
An issue would be folk will remain renting rather than buying if their only option is to leave their community, so they'd be keeping the stock anyway.

Currently we are selling or part selling land for private builds and buying private builds to use as social housing, which is completely nuts.

Scoundrel · 06-11-2019 5:31pm

lola85 wrote: »

Do you mean housing for everyone?

Why should some people have to buy off a private developer and be fleeced as you say while others don’t?

Housing for everyone provided by the government I’m all for.

I’d personally have a lot more money in my pocket each week.

Yes absolutely the government should be providing housing for everyone payed for through tax and of course an affordable mortgage would be payed each month by householders. IMO private development is the cause of the crisis

06-11-2019 5:39pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Found the details.
I was familiar with the tenant purchase scheme.

You get a discount based on income.
You have to pay back any discount you get over a number of years and it reduces over time. I don't see the problem?
It's basically affordable housing for people on low incomes.

You don't pay back the discount. That only happens if you sell the house. If you stay in the house for a prescribed time (15, 20 or 25 years, depending on discount you received) you never pay back the difference.

Boggles · 06-11-2019 5:40pm

bubblypop wrote: »

But if they don't actually need to build new stock, then keeping old stock in good condition becomes much easier.

Keeping 50-60 or older houses in good condition will never become easier.

I mean for example a roof only has a certain life span.

Bringing houses built in the 50s-60s-70s-80s up a couple of BER ratings can be astronomical if even possible sometimes.

Best practice is to use the money not maintaining these houses to replenish stock, get the old ones off the books.

Of course in this example we are giving the developer land and buying the houses back off them at market value.

It would be like you own a site of land, you hire a builder to build a house for you and including in the bill is the price of the land you own.

Loony Tunes.

Gatling · 06-11-2019 5:42pm

Boggles wrote: »

that made you laugh out loud?

Yes .

And I didn't keep referencing the article lol

James Brown · 06-11-2019 5:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't pay back the discount. That only happens if you sell the house. If you stay in the house for a prescribed time (15, 20 or 25 years, depending on discount you received) you never pay back the difference.

Sounds fair enough.

A lot of this goes back to the idea that people with less money can buy or rent a house when others of us with more money cannot.

Working people not being able to pay rent or buy is a state government/LA created problem.
People worse off, availing of state aid is the state/LA's filling a need created by reliance on the private market.

In the not too distant future most of us will be renting off a handful of vulture fund/property investor groups. The state/LA's will be supporting many of us with our tax monies. This of course is a ponzi scheme destined to fail.

Gatling · 06-11-2019 5:48pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sounds fair enough.

A lot of this goes back to the idea that people with less money can buy or rent a house when others of us with more money cannot.

Tell working families sorry you might never be able to buy your own home ,then tell them a family in social housing can buy their LA house after 24 months in it at a big discount ,
Meanwhile the working families face multiple hour commutes from outside Dublin or elsewhere while Johnny sit on his hole gets to choose what part of Dublin he chooses to live for next to nothing

Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Comments