Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Options
24567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Old diesel wrote: »
    ....
    Remember ALL new housing supply will effectively use borrowing of some kind to deliver it.

    My post specified private investors :)


  • Options
    #33
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    id take another view

    taking a service/need like housing and insisting that it be delivered as a capital asset is exactly what has fcuked the market/service

    affordable rent should be the key aim. not the cycle of "your house is your future wealth" that has crippled us.

    So basically you want to turn it into a full or semi state run organization. I don’t know where the government are going to get the money for this and more importantly the government aren’t exactly known for being a well run unit and you want to give them more money to burn.


  • Options
    #34
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    mikemac2 wrote: »
    100 euro a month and at the end you get an asset. Why is that unacceptable?

    Risk risk and more risk- the amount of money invested and your stilling having to top it makes it not worth the effort.That coupled with the fact that it isn’t stable means rent could cost you more or less at some point in the future.likewise, non paying tenants and repairs can cost you 10-20k or even more, without some decent profit. You could be waiting a decade or longer to pay back one problematic tenant.

    This is why as others mentioned. Ll want market rate as they had to struggle for a decade before rents started to pick up and now their being told they can’t realize the gains some badly need.

    You would be paying down a few k every year however when it’s a 25-35 year plan with non guaranteed profits as you could be in another recession. That isn’t exactly palatable.


  • Options
    #35
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Fol20 wrote: »
    So basically you want to turn it into a full or semi state run organization. I don’t know where the government are going to get the money for this and more importantly the government aren’t exactly known for being a well run unit and you want to give them more money to burn.
    Given the amount they are currently spending on emergency accommodation, it would be extremely wise for them to invest in some proper social housing.

    They should never have sold the stock them had in the 1980s. A disastrous policy inspired by none other than Maggie Thatcher, who was doing it in the UK at the time.


  • Options
    #36
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Macha wrote: »
    Given the amount they are currently spending on emergency accommodation, it would be extremely wise for them to invest in some proper social housing.

    They should never have sold the stock them had in the 1980s. A disastrous policy inspired by none other than Maggie Thatcher, who was doing it in the UK at the time.

    Did FG sell the stock?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    Did FG sell the stock?

    It must have been Fianna Fail, right? They were in power from 1982 from1987. I guess it could have started before that.

    BTW, latest figures I've seen are €147m in 2017 state spending on emergency accommodation. That's without even going into the inappropriateness of much of that accommodation..


  • Options
    #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If it wasn't sold the same families (their kids etc) in the properties back in the day would still be in them for the most part.


  • Options
    #39
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Augeo wrote: »
    If it wasn't sold the same families (their kids etc) in the properties back in the day would still be in them for the most part.

    That would only have happen if it were allowed to happen by policy. Plenty of other countries maintain a decent social housing stock that sees long term and short term tenants, including domestic abuse victims etc.

    By selling off the social housing stock, the state effectively handed over a key asset to private individuals and thus guaranteed that that's exactly what happened, ie that certain families could stay in them forever, regardless of future need.


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It's currently the policy with the current crisis. It's allowed to happen now.


  • Options
    #41
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Got any stats? If so, it's stupid but a stupid choice. It's not the inevitable consequence of maintaining a social housing stock.

    Some will inevitably be long term but not all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Macha wrote: »
    That would only have happen if it were allowed to happen by policy. Plenty of other countries maintain a decent social housing stock that sees long term and short term tenants, including domestic abuse victims etc.

    By selling off the social housing stock, the state effectively handed over a key asset to private individuals and thus guaranteed that that's exactly what happened, ie that certain families could stay in them forever, regardless of future need.

    the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
    !. To raise money.
    2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
    3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
    The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.


  • Options
    #43
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    Macha wrote: »
    Given the amount they are currently spending on emergency accommodation, it would be extremely wise for them to invest in some proper social housing.

    They should never have sold the stock them had in the 1980s. A disastrous policy inspired by none other than Maggie Thatcher, who was doing it in the UK at the time.

    Your right. They should never have sold the stock. They should never sell their stock even to long term tenants in houses.

    Ok if they have 1000 people in emergency accommodation, you might be able to build houses for 50-100 of them if your lucky. Where will the other 900 stay while you devote the your cash to building houses. It’s emergency and temporary for a reason and usually in emergencies, you pay top dollar for a temporary fix.eg let’s say your car is broken down in the middle of nowhere. Your own mechanic could fix it for 50 however you will need to get it fixed by a local guy as your stuck and need it sorted now.


  • Options
    #44
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
    !. To raise money.
    2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
    3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
    The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.

    Tbh, if your given a social house. The burden should be on the owner to maintain it. Especially when they have certainty they can live in it for 20years etc


  • Options
    #45
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Tbh, if your given a social house. The burden should be on the owner to maintain it. Especially when they have certainty they can live in it for 20years etc

    When a person is allocated a house, the owner i.e. the council has to maintain it, same as any other L & T arrangement. Most people who get council houses have to pay differential rent depending on income and can't afford the maintenance. If maintenance is neglected, ultimately the property will be damaged and devalued.


  • Options
    #46
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,724 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Fol20 wrote: »
    Tbh, if your given a social house. The burden should be on the owner to maintain it. Especially when they have certainty they can live in it for 20years etc

    Surely you mean occupier? The owner is the council et al and they already do all non cosmetic maintenance.

    Many tenants would be too DAFfy-duck to be given responsibly for maintenance, there are already too many issues with structural walls being removed etc.


  • Options
    #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Macha wrote: »
    Got any stats? If so, it's stupid but a stupid choice. It's not the inevitable consequence of maintaining a social housing stock.

    Some will inevitably be long term but not all.

    Stats for what?
    You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

    Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    This is from the article in the OP..... she's not alone in her thinking either......

    467346.png


  • Options
    #49
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,110 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Old diesel wrote: »

    Cost per month includes.....

    1) cost of finance repayments on the property.

    2) cost to maintain property.

    3) cost to get tenants in/out.

    4) Problem contingency fund - bad tenants/gap between tenants/big repairs.

    5) tax.

    Just to note that just interest is a cost.

    Capital repayments are not a cost.

    No business is allowed deduct capital repayments as an expense.

    Capital repayments are saving.


  • Options
    #50
    utmbuilder
    Registered Users Posts: 467 ✭✭utmbuilder


    Was speaking to a hap or council Tennant yesterday went for a run down 3 bed, that had a second dwelling out the back the shed converted as per regulations

    The house she wanted was 2000 gets fully paid for after some viewings another person was chosen

    The shed out the back gets 1200 as a bedsit

    Some market where a landlord has multiple offers of the above paid for by some authority

    They should of capped things 2 years ago, unfair the state is paying for this.


  • Options
    #51
    Wheeliebin30
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,593 ✭✭✭Wheeliebin30


    Macha wrote: »
    It must have been Fianna Fail, right? They were in power from 1982 from1987. I guess it could have started before that.

    BTW, latest figures I've seen are €147m in 2017 state spending on emergency accommodation. That's without even going into the inappropriateness of much of that accommodation..

    What do you want?

    To leave those people on the street?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Wheeliebin30 wrote: »
    What do you want?

    To leave those people on the street?

    Nope, I want the Irish state to invest in public and social housing rather than paying the private sector silly amounts of money every year for unsuitable housing, including emergency accommodation.


  • Options
    #53
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    the housing stock was sold for a number of reasons.
    !. To raise money.
    2. To reduce the maintenance effort. Once the houses are sold the councils no longer have to maintain them. As houses age, the maintenance cost is greater than the rent received.
    3. Purchase estates have greater levels of social cohesion.
    The problem is not that the stock was sold off, it is that it was not replaced.

    Pretty stupid way to raise money. By that logic, sell off everything! You're missing the fact that the ideology behind it was that it wasn't the state's role to provide public housing, including social housing. That was the main driver.

    Your third point is an argument commonly used to support this idea but i haven't seen much evidence provided, nor does it in any way justify the state failing to ensure a basic need and leaving the entire sector to private invest. Not everyone can, should or wants to be an owner occupier.

    Second point was addressed by others but, again, it hardly makes up for the cost now of trying to frantically build public housing in today's housing market plus the costs of providing (largely) unsuitable accommodation through the private sector.


  • Options
    #54
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    Augeo wrote: »
    Stats for what?
    You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

    Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.

    Stats for how much of Ireland's social housing stock is used for long term tenants. You should be able to find one.

    Is there really an epidemic of people choosing to live in hotels over appropriate accommodation? I know we always read stories about it in the newspapers but I prefer not to do policy by anecdote.


  • Options
    #55
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Augeo wrote: »
    Stats for what?
    You won't find any policy to say social housing is not long-term. I don't have a stat to disprove the policy I'm pointing out.

    Why are so many refusing temp accom off private landlords and staying in hotels etc? To get the house/flat for life when their turn comes.


    I noticed that in the interview on the article. The woman who is complaining refused private rented accommodation when it was offered. In the UK that is called making yourself homeless and way down or off the list .

    She and her child could be in a better place.


  • Options
    #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Macha wrote: »
    Stats for how much of Ireland's social housing stock is used for long term tenants. You should be able to find one.

    Is there really an epidemic of people choosing to live in hotels over appropriate accommodation? I know we always read stories about it in the newspapers but I prefer not to do policy by anecdote.

    If much of Ireland's social housing stock isn't long-term then who the fnck is living in it?
    You are the one bleating on about policy so wander off and find a stat to back up your claim.


  • Options
    #57
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Augeo wrote: »
    This is from the article in the OP..... she's not alone in her thinking either......

    Thanks. I referred to that. her choice to live as she is doing then. Been watching the UK on youtube on "how to get a council house." If she did that there she would be demoted. Told she was making herself homeless .Also in the UK the council link in with private landlords very successfully.


  • Options
    #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Graces7 wrote: »
    [/B]

    I noticed that in the interview on the article. The woman who is complaining refused private rented accommodation when it was offered. In the UK that is called making yourself homeless and way down or off the list .

    She and her child could be in a better place.

    It's not uncommon here.
    Much of the housing list consists of like minded folk looking for the free to them (it essentially is) forever home.


  • Options
    #59
    Redneck Culchie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 378 ✭✭Redneck Culchie


    The thing with yesterdays protest is you have the Trotskyists in People Before Profit and the others of the Irish far Left bringing everything from climate change to abortion to LGBT into the equation which has nothing at all to do with housing. I would never attend a protest with these types, and have them use it for their own nefarious purposes.


  • Options
    #60
    Fol20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,624 ✭✭✭Fol20


    utmbuilder wrote: »
    Was speaking to a hap or council Tennant yesterday went for a run down 3 bed, that had a second dwelling out the back the shed converted as per regulations

    The house she wanted was 2000 gets fully paid for after some viewings another person was chosen

    The shed out the back gets 1200 as a bedsit

    Some market where a landlord has multiple offers of the above paid for by some authority

    They should of capped things 2 years ago, unfair the state is paying for this.

    And rent caps works so well in other countries... in a business, business owners need to see some form of value add to repair and fix things, if it doesn’t. Whats the point of repairing it. In places like NY some flats are so run down due to rent caps.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    The one point in the article that no-one has seen fit to dispute is the contention that there are 30,000 vacant properties into which the homeless could move. This was a figure peddled by the Minister some time ago- which he said was based on an analysis of CSO census statistics- which the CSO in turn disputed. The Minister then told the CSO to provide the list of vacant properties to the local authorities for evaluation- which they did. Once the local authorities actually visited the properties that the CSO had marked as vacant- an entirely different story became apparent- the vast majority of these were in fact inhabited- but most often by people who for one reason or another were flying under the radar- and did not wish to complete a census form or bring themselves to the attention of officialdom.

    Of the 30,000 houses that were purportedly vacant- the actual tally is said to be somewhere in teh 700-800 range- with the vast preponderance of these in rural areas- many of which were in fact offered to homeless families- but turned down on the basis of their locations.............

    We do need high density accommodation units- in good locations where people want or need to live. We are not building those units. This is the crime that is happening.

    Also- Dublin's housing crisis- is in fact Ireland's housing crisis- if you talk to the housing officers in any of the larger local authorities-they will tell you that the within fairly short periods of time the newly homeless in their functional areas migrate from (for example) Galway to Dublin- only a small residual number remain in the functional areas of the other local authorities over time.

    The government is treating this as an inconvenient truth- that is best ignored- and at worst- can be blamed on greedy landlords- sure they're the perfect scapegoat............. It saves having to make those hard decisions that might generate a few columns of negative publicity- esp. with an election beckoning.


Advertisement