Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089




click onto his twitter, the thread is worth reading

Kip of a place ,

Let me guess they wanted 100% social housing where people just stop paying rent

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they'll get it too, no one is going to be stupid enough to pay full market prices in an estate like that, why would you?

The estate should be flattened and replaced with affordable housing not social housing the place for most part was a no go zone

Idiots seem to just be going after him for the 310k, they seem to think that's going to be the going rate for any of them.

Value he put up was literally the max they could be, they can't be higher than that as it's the max for the Affordable Housing scheme. Which is a stupidly good deal in itself, better than anyone is going to get normally.

Most don't seem to realise that it's part of a scheme, that it's an "Affordable House" and not a house that is affordable. Tweeting that they won't get a mortgage off AIB for 310k, and completely obvious that that's the point.

FTA69 wrote: »

The usual nonsense of decanting public wealth into the hands of developers again. This is the same process that has ruined working class areas of London and Paris. Near me, hundreds of local authority flats were rezoned to a developer who promptly demolished them and then built a load of luxury flats which were sold off-plan to
Investors who now charge people a fortune in rent to live in.

What Ireland needs is a system of mass state-built housing that is affordable to rent by working people, not flogging off the family silver to landlords and developers. There is no “market solution” to the housing situation, that nonsense has failed in every major city.

There are a few issues now in the housing market. The private end of it seems to be reaching a balance between supply and demand. Where there is still a massive issue is in social housing, itself a victim of low building outputs and large sell-offs. This seems to be underway, albeit very slowly. We also need apartments, lots of them, in urban centres. That's a planning authority remit with all the regulations they apply to them.

can someone explain to a simpleton what this is about?

Bartra has agreed to sell around 30% of the 824 planned homes at market value to an approved housing body to be used as affordable rental units

Hang on, it's public land and the developer will sell the houses back at market value?

I thought the idea of giving developers land was that the houses would be "affordable" i.e below the crazy market value.

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on, it's public land and the developer will sell the houses back at market value?

I thought the idea of giving developers land was that the houses would be "affordable" i.e below the crazy market value.

surely the council is contracting the builder, getting the social housing atbuild cost and allowing the builder to make some money on selling the 164 units.

oh wait ..... that would be sensible

suicide_circus wrote: »

god forbid some people not reliant on the state might be able to live near the city centre

I get what you're saying.
I think this mainly a younger generation though, late 20's that want to live in or very close to the city centre.
Usually they are employed by large multi nationals and have a good wage.

It's not unreasonable for them to want to live close to where they work.

What they would argue though is that: it is unreasonable that people who have never worked get to live there for free or very little because they're from there

Tricky issue to solve.
Gentrification is generally a bad thing, however, the middle class are paying for the running of the country at them moment and can't really big ignored.

I'd have to disagree with you a bit on the Gentrification

I'm working up the top of Camden St and there is big developments going on up here.
Anyone who owns property up here is seeing it's value rise because of all modern buildings going up.

Lots of derelict buildings and substandard rental accommodation because the owner is waiting for the buy out.

Same is happening in East Wall.
If you look at East Wall on the maps it's completely surrounded with modern offices and apartment blocks, property is very expensive there now. If you're from there and want to buy a a house there, the likely hood is you wont be able to.

But again, it's the people that are driving the economy that want to live there.

I think ultimately there needs to be a Social Housing/Urban development policy in place that everyone (councils/government/developers) across the country implement and adhere to.
Basically a 20 year plan on "what" is acceptable to go where.

seamus wrote: »

I don't see the issue tbh. I appreciate that it's frustrating, but there's no good reason why anyone should be entitled to buy where they grew up.

I agree with you. However, there are a huge number of people that do not agree with us.
And ultimately it comes down to numbers and votes (every 5 years).

I think on this too, it's not even that they cant live where they grew up, it's that they can live within 10km of where they grew up.
Hence as a result they have no social supports etc, which is why people resist it some much.

It's an exceptionally complicated issue to solve.

seamus wrote: »

Previous policies have been painfully weak, allowing developers to buy their way out of providing it.

Or joining together and dumping all their social housing obligations into one area.

There's a lot of unreasonable talk on every side here.

Not everyone can afford to buy or build a house. They need to live somewhere, whether that's provided by public or private means.

Construction cannot take place on a one-off basis. You can't build every house using a small builder. It's doesn't scale, in any sense of the word.

Governments cannot be large developers. That doesn't scale either. They contract construction work out to private developers.

Thus, if housing need is to be addressed, it requires private building firms capable of producing large projects.

"Private developers" and "vulture funds" (i.e. Professional landlords) have become the new buzzwords of hate in this debate. But realistically without either of them, our housing crisis would be twice as bad; nothing getting built and rental properties owned by cowboy small landlords.

riffmongous wrote: »

http://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

riffmongous wrote: »

I'd disagree with this, I think there are many good social reasons for it, community, social networks etc that are very beneficial for the people themselves. The problem is you can't really put a number on it, although considering the spiraling cost of childcare maybe soon you can if you consider how much could be saved by having your school and grandparents nearby

I know a person that brought his Mother over from Hungary to look after his kid in his 3 bed apartment.

Ended up saving a fortune.

I get what you're saying about the sense of community, however some aspects of social housing particularly HAP for single mothers have a severely damaging effect on community/family ties.

I know a few single mothers on HAP after their Ex's ****ed off and left them raising their kid(s) 5/6 days of the week.
It's a miserable and lonely existence, they have one night a week they can get out if they're lucky and have money. Some of them work part time when their kids are in school (hard to get this kind of work). They're not skangers etc, just normal people that haven't had a great run. They'd be lucky if they got to talk face to face to another adult in any given week.

I get they feel they need their own space, especially with kids. But for young mothers in particular, I genuinely feel they'd be better off living at home with their parents. Having on site/at home/on premises (or whatever you want to call it) support from family is very beneficial. It gives the woman a chance to get back on her feet, get a good job, go back to college, bit more free time, more money, etc.
I know a few single mothers that are living at home too, and there's absolutely no question that women living with their parents are far happier.

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

That's another huge issue, non-payment.
Private land lord is more likely to pursue money owned than the government is.

Boggles wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

Lol some people.


Not all of them no .

Still no a hope they would pay €600+ pm for an apartment then whatever for a 3 bed with front and back gardens

Gatling wrote: »

Still no a hope they would pay €600+ pm

Of course people would pay, they are affordable homes where you are allowed own one if you earn less than €53,000.