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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Next governments affect on housing market
Comments
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »You don't put retired people among a pack of wolves unless you want them attacked.
Yes the key is to integrate communities. Something SF failed to do when on local councils take buy offs from developers and squandering the money. They seemed to have spent the money to keep LPT low.
The reason the poorer people vote for SF is they promise them they will get others to pay to improve their lives. The sad reality is poorer people tend to be less educated so don't understand they are being lied to or the promises are impossible.
You also have communities claiming they have no facilities when they actually have better facilities than private estates. I used to play basket ball and all the clubs used facilities in social housing areas. While I was inside playing the locals were setting fire to the building. You had to walk in a group leaving or you would be attacked. Why we would build more of these areas knowing the outcome requires absence of thought.
Are you sure you actually lived in Dublin ? I dont recall anybody from Blackrock running across the Liffey to use services in Finglas ..they might of got lost LOL.
Sporting facilities apart from grass fields were largely concentrated in Primary & secondary schools . I don't recall seeing many basketball. courts if at all outside of school grounds.
If someone was setting fire to the building I was playing sports in I'd be very reluctant to go back there, largely you didn't have a problem or were set upon by unless you spoke with a silly OuRighish accent.
Would you like to point out in our history that the electorate weren't lied to by ff/fg.0 -
Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »What map are you on on about?
Dublin's population in 1970 -1980 was 770k / 800+k the largest social housing boom began on a large scale in the 1960's with Ballymun, Finglas, Clondalkin & Tallaght right through the late 1980's to early 1990's......where we started to see hugh population growth in Dublin........before this explosion was the 1930's the Slum Clearance were by Inner people city people were pushed out to.the new estates Drimnagh,Crumlin , Walkinstown.
Limited resources in Gardai & infrastructure lead to criminality as. Ireland was **** poor back then, car ownership largely didnt take in Dublin until the 90's , I would be pushed to think 1 out of every households had a car let alone owned a TV, ..Dublin people hardly shrieked with terror of a Joyrider and heroin was mostly kept to the inner city, communities rallied together in vigilantes groups to keep the dealers out as the Gardai didn't have the resources back then.
Any map of Dublin and look at the estates that are council estates. If you don't know or can't tell then I can't help you. It doesn't matter when they started building social housing more private housing was built at the same time. The vast majority of people from Dublin grew up in private housing.
I am full aware of the history of housing in Dublin. My grandparents were part of the slum clearout to Donnycarney. In 1978 they bought the house as did most people at the point of time.
Grew up close to Coolock there was a heroin problem and joy rider problem and it was not confined to the inner city. The same Gardai were responsible for our area as Coolock. No joy riding on our roads but burnt out cars all over Coolock after being used for joy riding.
You don't need to own a car to steal one. I grew up in the 80s and for somebody not to own a TV was exceptionally rare. It was rare people only had Irish channels as most used cable (rte relays) or large aerials.
It was never a lack of policing it was the people living there. Coolock is still a huge issue and one of the largest feeder areas into prison. Notice they are still killing each other there and heavily involved in criminality. You can say it is a few bad apples but the rest of that saying is it spoils the rest. Not that it taints them unfairly but they become equally rotten. That is why large social housing is a disaster and SF want to do it again0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30613
The Student wrote: »I fear that we have not learned the lessons of the past and if we build vast amounts of social housing we will end up the same issues we had in Tallaght, Ballymun, Limerick from the 1980's onwards those that became no go area's where people did not want to live.
We have this with the SDZs anyway- look at Clonburris for example...…..0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Any map of Dublin and look at the estates that are council estates. If you don't know or can't tell then I can't help you. It doesn't matter when they started building social housing more private housing was built at the same time. The vast majority of people from Dublin grew up in private housing.
I am full aware of the history of housing in Dublin. My grandparents were part of the slum clearout to Donnycarney. In 1978 they bought the house as did most people at the point of time.
Grew up close to Coolock there was a heroin problem and joy rider problem and it was not confined to the inner city. The same Gardai were responsible for our area as Coolock. No joy riding on our roads but burnt out cars all over Coolock after being used for joy riding.
You don't need to own a car to steal one. I grew up in the 80s and for somebody not to own a TV was exceptionally rare. It was rare people only had Irish channels as most used cable (rte relays) or large aerials.
It was never a lack of policing it was the people living there. Coolock is still a huge issue and one of the largest feeder areas into prison. Notice they are still killing each other there and heavily involved in criminality. You can say it is a few bad apples but the rest of that saying is it spoils the rest. Not that it taints them unfairly but they become equally rotten. That is why large social housing is a disaster and SF want to do it again
Completely agree with all of the above. My parents were moved out of the tenaments in the 1930s to Drimnagh, I remember visiting my grandmother in the 1980's and looking out every Saturday night for a robbed car driving up and down the roads.
I myself grow up in Tallaght and remember in the 1980's there were some estates you did not go into at night.
SF want to do the same again, it does not work, there is multiple studies both nationally and internationally to show it does not work but obviously SF know something the rest of us don't.0 -
The idea that rents are fallings has come from a headline from Daft that in my opinion was put out in a very disappointing manner by Ronan Lyons on behalf of daft in an effort to influence the election.
Rents fell over 3 months by a fraction of a percentage, in certain areas. None of those areas were population centres with any form of demand. If you read the same report, contrary to the headline of the report, rents have increased over 4% year on year in most cities and areas of high demand, including in rent pressure zones.
Rents are certainly not falling.
I have a lot of time for Ronan Lyons, but the report he produced during the election was severely disappointing behaviour as far as I'm concerned.
Thought the same. Extremely dodgy framing it that way when you're frequently seen as the authority on the market and it was at a critical juncture of the election on probably the most contentious issue.
It didn't amount to being half true looking at the detail, and it was immediately picked-up and parroted by FG spokespersons.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »Any map of Dublin and look at the estates that are council estates. If you don't know or can't tell then I can't help you. It doesn't matter when they started building social housing more private housing was built at the same time. The vast majority of people from Dublin grew up in private housing.
I am full aware of the history of housing in Dublin. My grandparents were part of the slum clearout to Donnycarney. In 1978 they bought the house as did most people at the point of time.
Grew up close to Coolock there was a heroin problem and joy rider problem and it was not confined to the inner city. The same Gardai were responsible for our area as Coolock. No joy riding on our roads but burnt out cars all over Coolock after being used for joy riding.
You don't need to own a car to steal one. I grew up in the 80s and for somebody not to own a TV was exceptionally rare. It was rare people only had Irish channels as most used cable (rte relays) or large aerials.
It was never a lack of policing it was the people living there. Coolock is still a huge issue and one of the largest feeder areas into prison. Notice they are still killing each other there and heavily involved in criminality. You can say it is a few bad apples but the rest of that saying is it spoils the rest. Not that it taints them unfairly but they become equally rotten. That is why large social housing is a disaster and SF want to do it again
Again I ask you to point me in the direction of one map of Dublin in the 1970's and 1980's that showed a higher concentration of private ownership to public housing that several of you posts keep pointing to.
We have appeared to lived in 2 completely parallel lives of growing up.The 70' and 80's was a very bleak period to be growing up yet adults & children appeared to be happier than now and I don't recall having to have security clearance to leave my house or estate back then, all children played outdoors from my recollection.
TV rental shops sprung up all over Dublin Towns is was common to see 2 or 3 shops in the town as Television sets were extremely expensive House ownership was a rarity as houses were expensive but not astronomical as they are now but interest rates went well above 10% making payments extremely hard even for the wealthy back then.Donnycarney was one of the older estates and was built before the mentioned newer estates in my previous post,councils offered public tenants the opportunity to buy there rented dwelling as back then a public house was seen for life and many families settled fine before the boom which started in the mid to late 1990's which pushed people into private ownership debt under largely the FF party.
Hence the problem we have today , FG took over from FF in the debt mountain stakes,the bad planning was solved by years of talks only for it to be largely ignored again for years of bad planning.People were happier then because they had less debt not because they were poorer something we must not forget.0 -
It's worth noting the between the late sixties and early eighties there was rent control on certain properties. Ultimately the legislation it was based on was shot down as unconstitutional but by the time it was, a lot of the properties it applied to had turned into slums. When the rent couldn't rise with inflation, landlords wouldn't do maintenance* and couldn't sell so properties went into death spirals.
*if fixing a tap might cost the equivalent of six months of the rent received, the result is that tap doesn't get fixed.0 -
Politelymad wrote: »It's worth noting the between the late sixties and early eighties there was rent control on certain properties. Ultimately the legislation it was based on was shot down as unconstitutional
And it was Josepha Madigan's father, a solicitor, who off his own back took the case on behalf of the poor set-upon landlords of early 1980's Dublin.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
beggars_bush wrote: »then you haven't a clue about the rental situation outside the Pale
there are just no houses available to rent
I'm in the NW , couldn't give the things away0 -
And it was Josepha Madigan's father, a solicitor, who off his own back took the case on behalf of the poor set-upon landlords of early 1980's Dublin.
More like poor tenants, usually old and vulnerable who ended up living in slums because society didn't want to pay what it would really cost. I expect those who brought in the legislation did so for the best of reasons but the law of unintended consequences resulted in slums.0 -
The latest debate that the 3 main leaders had highlighted issues with SF manifesto.
Dont get me wrong, FG and FF manifesto are not air tight either but SF have the most abitious manifesto yet. I dont see any of their manifestos as achievable but the fact that SF was the most ambitious doesnt bode well for its success.
Rent freeze - How will this help the situation? Right now we have a major supply issue. Yes rent freeze will help current incumbents from rent increases but how can people actually find a house to rent if there is none to rent. We already have queues of upwards of 50people for one house. A rent freeze wont increase supply but more likely the opposite negative affect of decreasing supply. Again for ll that stay in the market, its great for them, but not so great for any people moving home or being evicted due to ll selling up.
Wealth tax - It has been proven not to work in several nations and doesnt bring in too much revenue compared to admin work and under declaration of assets. It also makes a lot of capital leave the country thus its missed revenue for ireland.
Remove tax loopholes for REITs. I dont like the REIT tax structure but i also understand, they are creating more rental properties and although they are only on the higher end, it still creates more supply and is very much needed in our rental crisis. If they start tinkering with the structure, investment will dry and up and guess what, less rental stock leads to a worse situation for renters.
Lets build loads of social housing - How? we are not a flush with cash and need to abide by EU laws on our bailout plan. There is also competitive laws we need to follow so dont see how practical this is. Others have also outlined the social consequences. The vienna model is nice but not every nation has the same cultural differences as ireland and that programme has been around for much longer than 5 years. I dont know how feasible it is in ireland.
The rental credit is the only option that was here in the past so not exactly a new train of thought but could go down well with voters yet not make supply of housing stock worse. This needs to be costed though and similar to FG manifesto to remove USC, it will be interesting to see how plausible it will be.
The thing that ircs me most is the fact that FG are getting blamed for 9 years in power while i would say at least half of this was during the worst recession we have seen where they were trying to clean up the mess that was created by others. It has only been the last 2-3 years where they did let the ball down slightly. I see it might be a trump scenario where he will get the credit for recovering the economy even though democrats were the real heroes.
Rent freeze - I don't really like that idea myself as rents are already at their peak in terms of affordability so if they go higher, the rentals will end up staying on the market longer. Plus, with greater supply, they will come down naturally. However, that being said, combined with the rental tax credit as SF are proposing, that is great for those already renting and ensures the greed in the market doesn't just take up the rental credit by increasing the rent. As an aside, if landlords sell up, who buys? If it is not attractive for investment then individuals will buy and that removes them from the rental market.
Wealth tax - property ownership in Ireland equals wealth. The median property owner is 46 times wealthier than the median renter in Ireland. That is shocking inequality. A tax of 1% on the value of wealth over €1m (excluding farms) is not a lot. Your argument that capital would leave the country is flawed as property cannot leave the country.
REITs - REITs are vehicles which suck money from the economy given that the vast majority of their shareholders are domiciled abroad. They acquire properties without paying their fair share of tax and take rental income that is not subject to tax. Therefore, renters and the government (via rental assistance) are handing money to these foreign-based shareholders in respect of Irish property that will not be taxed on its way out of the country. Meanwhile, individual landlords pay huge taxes. Finally, Ireland has a booming economy, we do not need a tax neutral regime for REITs to encourage investment, like we did 10 years ago. The demand for accommodation is there and we should introduce a charge for wanting a slice of the action which currently does not exist.
Social Housing - the money right now given in rental assistance comes from where? Instead of using this money to hand to private landlords, the State can borrow for no cost on international markets. Your choices are only (1) rental assistance or (2) build social housing - both involve spending money by the government.0 -
beggars_bush wrote: »where are rents falling?
in a midland town recently a 4 bed house was listed for €1200 per month and somebody came in and offered €1300 per month to secure the house
What does that prove. Maybe if €1400 had been asked in the first place and €1300 offered and accepted would you say rents were falling?
I have met a number of landlords in Dublin who have accepted lower rents than previously for their properties since early last summer and all find the number of enquiries is well down and the prospective tenants who do appear at viewings are in no hurry as they seem to be confident of doing a deal elsewhere. One estate agent says the hardest part of the job is to persuade landlords to drop their asking prices. The won't drop the asking prices because of the rent cap with the result property is being left idle.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »Rent freeze - I don't really like that idea myself as rents are already at their peak in terms of affordability so if they go higher, the rentals will end up staying on the market longer. Plus, with greater supply, they will come down naturally. However, that being said, combined with the rental tax credit as SF are proposing, that is great for those already renting and ensures the greed in the market doesn't just take up the rental credit by increasing the rent. As an aside, if landlords sell up, who buys? If it is not attractive for investment then individuals will buy and that removes them from the rental market.
Wealth tax - property ownership in Ireland equals wealth. The median property owner is 46 times wealthier than the median renter in Ireland. That is shocking inequality. A tax of 1% on the value of wealth over €1m (excluding farms) is not a lot. Your argument that capital would leave the country is flawed as property cannot leave the country.
REITs - REITs are vehicles which suck money from the economy given that the vast majority of their shareholders are domiciled abroad. They acquire properties without paying their fair share of tax and take rental income that is not subject to tax. Therefore, renters and the government (via rental assistance) are handing money to these foreign-based shareholders in respect of Irish property that will not be taxed on its way out of the country. Meanwhile, individual landlords pay huge taxes. Finally, Ireland has a booming economy, we do not need a tax neutral regime for REITs to encourage investment, like we did 10 years ago. The demand for accommodation is there and we should introduce a charge for wanting a slice of the action which currently does not exist.
Social Housing - the money right now given in rental assistance comes from where? Instead of using this money to hand to private landlords, the State can borrow for no cost on international markets. Your choices are only (1) rental assistance or (2) build social housing - both involve spending money by the government.
If a rental property goes into private ownership the bed spaces decrease on the rental market by a min of 2 bed spaces (4 adults renting a two bed house which is purchased by a couple) then 2 bed spaces leave the rental market.
REITS invest in property because our banks dont have the funds to loan out, REIT investments are risk free as if the value of the investment goes down its the REIT who suffers not any bank.
The State gets back over 50% of rental income from over 80% of the landlords in Ireland (these are the individual landlords). The State does not have the hassle of dealing with the tenants nor does it have the risk associated with non payment of rent so its a win win for the State.
I asked this question earlier on in the thread can we borrow money and still stay within our agreement for the bailout. Nobody seems to be able to answer this question.
I worry about SF housing proposals, a recent Dublin City council report stated that 60 % of its tenants were in rent arrears. What happens if we introduce the large increases in Social housing being proposed? will we have 60% of a bigger amount in arrears?0 -
The Student wrote: »If a rental property goes into private ownership the bed spaces decrease on the rental market by a min of 2 bed spaces (4 adults renting a two bed house which is purchased by a couple) then 2 bed spaces leave the rental market.
REITs invest in property because our banks dont have the funds to loan out, REIT investments are risk free as if the value of the investment goes down its the REIT who suffers not any bank.
The State gets back over 50% of rental income from over 80% of the landlords in Ireland (these are the individual landlords). The State does not have the hassle of dealing with the tenants nor does it have the risk associated with non payment of rent so its a win win for the State.
I asked this question earlier on in the thread can we borrow money and still stay within our agreement for the bailout. Nobody seems to be able to answer this question.
I worry about SF housing proposals, a recent Dublin City council report stated that 60 % of its tenants were in rent arrears. What happens if we introduce the large increases in Social housing being proposed? will we have 60% of a bigger amount in arrears?
Where are 4 adults renting a 2 bed house? Let's say 2 parents and 2 kids take it over, as they should be sharing a 2 bed house, not 4 adults. Then it works better as it is the same rental demand but it is better for society that the family have security over the adults who are better equipped to withstand a tougher rental market.
REITs invest in Irish property because the gains are so lucrative but we are an EU country, where capitalism has rules. It is not a case of REITS or no REITs, but about changing the landscape by introducing a charge to take into account the situation is different than it was a few years ago. Where do you think the staff of the multinationals will live? There is clearly a strong demand for rental accommodation in Dublin. It is a good time to build and invest given the demand is expected to continue for the next few years at least.
In terms of borrowing money, perhaps the land on which the social housing is to be built can be used as collateral for the bond? But my main point was that the government pays millions in rental support so there is money coming from somewhere and this figure is continuing to rise. For example, look at Realis, the German investment fund, which has agreed a 30 year lease with DLR council at a rent of €3,000 per month per dwelling, which will end up costing significantly more than if the State build its own housing for those tenants. Fair enough, the risk has been offloaded to Realis and if there is a downturn, the State will likely step in and acquire the block at a discount, but a downturn is hypothetical at this stage. Therefore, it makes more sense to build the housing to meet these social needs.
In terms of arrears, that is just enforcement. Like with the local property tax, I'm sure most people agree that the rules need to be enforced but that the rules are not the problem.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »In terms of arrears, that is just enforcement. Like with the local property tax, I'm sure most people agree that the rules need to be enforced but that the rules are not the problem.
Well, open to correction, but SF want to remove arrears as a reason for eviction for private landlords.
How they expect to enforce recovery of arrears from social housing, for all this new expensive social housing they are planning, is therefore a valid query. It's not "just" enforcement.
Did the arrears collection improve in Dublin City council when SF were in control of the council?"To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)
0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »Where are 4 adults renting a 2 bed house? Let's say 2 parents and 2 kids take it over, as they should be sharing a 2 bed house, not 4 adults. Then it works better as it is the same rental demand but it is better for society that the family have security over the adults who are better equipped to withstand a tougher rental market.
REITs invest in Irish property because the gains are so lucrative but we are an EU country, where capitalism has rules. It is not a case of REITS or no REITs, but about changing the landscape by introducing a charge to take into account the situation is different than it was a few years ago. Where do you think the staff of the multinationals will live? There is clearly a strong demand for rental accommodation in Dublin. It is a good time to build and invest given the demand is expected to continue for the next few years at least.
In terms of borrowing money, perhaps the land on which the social housing is to be built can be used as collateral for the bond? But my main point was that the government pays millions in rental support so there is money coming from somewhere and this figure is continuing to rise. For example, look at Realis, the German investment fund, which has agreed a 30 year lease with DLR council at a rent of €3,000 per month per dwelling, which will end up costing significantly more than if the State build its own housing for those tenants. Fair enough, the risk has been offloaded to Realis and if there is a downturn, the State will likely step in and acquire the block at a discount, but a downturn is hypothetical at this stage. Therefore, it makes more sense to build the housing to meet these social needs.
In terms of arrears, that is just enforcement. Like with the local property tax, I'm sure most people agree that the rules need to be enforced but that the rules are not the problem.
Look up daft and you will see rooms for rent not owner occupied and you will see plenty of adults sharing apartments and houses.
Yes REITS invest where the returns are the best, thats business.
It is not the collateral of a loan that is the issue, its our GDP and GNP we would have more debt than was agreed in the bailout. The money the state is paying in rent is current expenditure not capital expenditure.
It is the capital expenditure that is the issue.
Do you honestly see people being put out of property by the state for non payment of rent. Look at how long it takes to repossess a house. No politician will ever publicy say a person should be evicted.0 -
The Student wrote: »Look up daft and you will see rooms for rent not owner occupied and you will see plenty of adults sharing apartments and houses.
Yes REITS invest where the returns are the best, thats business.
It is not the collateral of a loan that is the issue, its our GDP and GNP we would have more debt than was agreed in the bailout. The money the state is paying in rent is current expenditure not capital expenditure.
It is the capital expenditure that is the issue.
Do you honestly see people being put out of property by the state for non payment of rent. Look at how long it takes to repossess a house. No politician will ever publicy say a person should be evicted.
You were talking about a house and not an apartment before. Workers are renting houses all the way out in the suburbs despite working in the city which is not how Dublin is designed, with the apartments being mainly concentrated in the centre (many would argue this is how our planning should work). If a landlord is selling and a family who are renting buys it, this replaces the renting family with the 4 adults in the rental market but at least the family have security, which is more important.
REITs invest where returns are best, but they should not have a free-for-all in the market as they currently have. Some premiums for doing business should be introduced.
In terms of funding the social housing, SF have said their plan is costed and it has been reported that it is conservative by EU fiscal rules standards. If they cannot borrow on international markets then they must have another way to raise the cash. It may be that they scale back their social housing plans as the situation could be different if they got into government, but that is normal - look how FG abandoned their main promise and the basis for which they got elected in 2013, abolishing the USC; so there is potential to revise the plans upon taking charge of the economic ship.0 -
The Student wrote: »Look up daft and you will see rooms for rent not owner occupied and you will see plenty of adults sharing apartments and houses.
Yes REITS invest where the returns are the best, thats business.
It is not the collateral of a loan that is the issue, its our GDP and GNP we would have more debt than was agreed in the bailout. The money the state is paying in rent is current expenditure not capital expenditure.
It is the capital expenditure that is the issue.
Do you honestly see people being put out of property by the state for non payment of rent. Look at how long it takes to repossess a house. No politician will ever publicy say a person should be evicted.
The people never had a democratic decision in the bailout, the government FF quickly rushed through a bank bailout of 64 billion, it pushed our recession to near breaking point , the banks could and should of be left to dissolve which would of resulted in a new Banking system emerging without the debt given to every man ,woman & child in the country.
When the country started recovering in 2012 it was the European Banks with FG & Labour coalition government that aced the card that Working Class people were the reason for the economic crash and that wealthy citizens should only be allowed to purchase .....hence the 3.5 mortgage rule ,the rest left to sink or swim at the mercy of the Rental Market.
Evictions due occur in Social Housing but very little is reported , antisocial being the main driver not non payment of rent......No politician has yet to come out against evictees that doesn't mean a strong government won't come out about it in the future it just means we have had weak governments in the past.
Remember a small number & of Public Housing tenants actually cause the anitsocial problems we see in council estates.....here lies the root of the problem.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »Again I ask you to point me in the direction of one map of Dublin in the 1970's and 1980's that showed a higher concentration of private ownership to public housing that several of you posts keep pointing to.
We have appeared to lived in 2 completely parallel lives of growing up.The 70' and 80's was a very bleak period to be growing up yet adults & children appeared to be happier than now and I don't recall having to have security clearance to leave my house or estate back then, all children played outdoors from my recollection.
TV rental shops sprung up all over Dublin Towns is was common to see 2 or 3 shops in the town as Television sets were extremely expensive House ownership was a rarity as houses were expensive but not astronomical as they are now but interest rates went well above 10% making payments extremely hard even for the wealthy back then.Donnycarney was one of the older estates and was built before the mentioned newer estates in my previous post,councils offered public tenants the opportunity to buy there rented dwelling as back then a public house was seen for life and many families settled fine before the boom which started in the mid to late 1990's which pushed people into private ownership debt under largely the FF party.
Hence the problem we have today , FG took over from FF in the debt mountain stakes,the bad planning was solved by years of talks only for it to be largely ignored again for years of bad planning.People were happier then because they had less debt not because they were poorer something we must not forget.
I don't have to prove there were more private houses as I didn't make the claim the majority of people living in Dublin were living in social housing. It is quite apparent this is not true based on any understanding of Dublin. You can name the council estates and anything you don't name is private housing. Even the areas you name are not only social housing. Lots of private housing in Coolock.
Sorry I didn't realise you were so focused on ownership of TV. People hired TVs then because of price but predominantly because they broke down all the time and hiring them meant they were fixed for free
Homeownership has been extremely high in Ireland increasing rapidly in the 60s slowing but still increasing into the 70s and 80s. By the end of the 80s we were very close to peak ownership of 80%. You are suggesting Dublin some how managed to contain the majority of the people in social housing. While Dublin held way way more than 20% of the population. Even if they contained all of those who didn't own it still wouldn't be the majority living in social housing.
Society changed and talk of people being happy and not afraid of dangers means nothing. It has nothing to do with property prices nor policing. People became afraid and it applies to all western countries. The fear increased while the dangers didn't. The dangers were there and it was probably less safe as people weren't concerned so let their children be exposed to dangers. Hence we have historical sex scandals everywhere from those times.
We now know the dangers if large social housing estates with you and SF eager to cause the issues again ignoring the past.
Blaming any party for people to buy their own housing us something you may not want but every study shows this is good for society. You want to create a welfare system where people have no responsibility. I fundamentally think that is a terrible idea. I remember all the people working in the black economy while taking money from the state. Seeing the tradesmen in their work clothes going in to pick up their dole.
You have some idealised view of the past that does not marry up with reality. Ireland had the highest home ownership in the world that was always going to change as our economy matured and matched up with the rest of the world in particular Europe.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »You were talking about a house and not an apartment before. Workers are renting houses all the way out in the suburbs despite working in the city which is not how Dublin is designed, with the apartments being mainly concentrated in the centre (many would argue this is how our planning should work). If a landlord is selling and a family who are renting buys it, this replaces the renting family with the 4 adults in the rental market but at least the family have security, which is more important.
REITs invest where returns are best, but they should not have a free-for-all in the market as they currently have. Some premiums for doing business should be introduced.
In terms of funding the social housing, SF have said their plan is costed and it has been reported that it is conservative by EU fiscal rules standards. If they cannot borrow on international markets then they must have another way to raise the cash. It may be that they scale back their social housing plans as the situation could be different if they got into government, but that is normal - look how FG abandoned their main promise and the basis for which they got elected in 2013, abolishing the USC; so there is potential to revise the plans upon taking charge of the economic ship.
Whether it is an apartment or a house the same principle applies.
If a family want security then they should provide it for themselves or the State should. Its the private sectors role to provide a service nothing more nothing less.
The REITS got preferential treatment to encourage them in to increase supply, yes they should pay tax like everybody else.
It is all well and good saying that the figs are conservative by EU fiscal rules standards it still does not answer the question of where the funds are going to come from. I suspect they can't borrow on the international markets nor can any other party if any party could have then they would have done so in the past.
Why would Fianna Gael have not borrowed and solved or gone a good way towards solving the housing situation before now. if they had they would have romped home in the election.
And before you say they are for the landlords if they had built enough houses to house the homeless and stopped at that point then the landlords could still charge high enough rents.
It does not make sense why the housing situation was not solved before now if it is as easy to do as SF are making it out.0 -
Kamari Inexpensive Theory wrote: »The people never had a democratic decision in the bailout, the government FF quickly rushed through a bank bailout of 64 billion, it pushed our recession to near breaking point , the banks could and should of be left to dissolve which would of resulted in a new Banking system emerging without the debt given to every man ,woman & child in the country.
When the country started recovering in 2012 it was the European Banks with FG & Labour coalition government that aced the card that Working Class people were the reason for the economic crash and that wealthy citizens should only be allowed to purchase .....hence the 3.5 mortgage rule ,the rest left to sink or swim at the mercy of the Rental Market.
Evictions due occur in Social Housing but very little is reported , antisocial being the main driver not non payment of rent......No politician has yet to come out against evictees that doesn't mean a strong government won't come out about it in the future it just means we have had weak governments in the past.
Remember a small number & of Public Housing tenants actually cause the anitsocial problems we see in council estates.....here lies the root of the problem.
What exactly do you think would have happened if the banks crashed. Whether you like it or not you need a functioning banking system, to process direct debits, to process wages etc.
The 3.5 rule was not the Govts rule it was the Central Banks rule and in my view it was and is the correct rule. People need to be protected from themselves they either can't or don't know how to budget and are happy to spend on credit if its given to them.
If evictions do occur in Social housing where do these tenants go, I suspect they go right back to the councils and look for housing, afterall the state is legally obliged to house its citizens or provide them with the means to house themselves.
Yes the antisocial issues in council estates are bad and here we have SF suggesting we build large council housing estates resulting in exactly what happened in the past.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30613
The Student wrote: »Yes the antisocial issues in council estates are bad and here we have SF suggesting we build large council housing estates resulting in exactly what happened in the past.
Perhaps SF have plans for dealing with antisocial behaviour...…...:eek:0 -
The_Conductor wrote: »Perhaps SF have plans for dealing with antisocial behaviour...…...:eek:
They don't have the "back up" they had before. The fact a SF rep was attacked in Ballymun last year kind of tells you that.
Never forget they relied on organised crime to fund their "back up" and to a large extent relied on fear so they could operate.0 -
Assetbacked wrote: »Rent freeze - I don't really like that idea myself as rents are already at their peak in terms of affordability so if they go higher, the rentals will end up staying on the market longer. Plus, with greater supply, they will come down naturally. However, that being said, combined with the rental tax credit as SF are proposing, that is great for those already renting and ensures the greed in the market doesn't just take up the rental credit by increasing the rent. As an aside, if landlords sell up, who buys? If it is not attractive for investment then individuals will buy and that removes them from the rental market.
Wealth tax - property ownership in Ireland equals wealth. The median property owner is 46 times wealthier than the median renter in Ireland. That is shocking inequality. A tax of 1% on the value of wealth over €1m (excluding farms) is not a lot. Your argument that capital would leave the country is flawed as property cannot leave the country.
REITs - REITs are vehicles which suck money from the economy given that the vast majority of their shareholders are domiciled abroad. They acquire properties without paying their fair share of tax and take rental income that is not subject to tax. Therefore, renters and the government (via rental assistance) are handing money to these foreign-based shareholders in respect of Irish property that will not be taxed on its way out of the country. Meanwhile, individual landlords pay huge taxes. Finally, Ireland has a booming economy, we do not need a tax neutral regime for REITs to encourage investment, like we did 10 years ago. The demand for accommodation is there and we should introduce a charge for wanting a slice of the action which currently does not exist.
Social Housing - the money right now given in rental assistance comes from where? Instead of using this money to hand to private landlords, the State can borrow for no cost on international markets. Your choices are only (1) rental assistance or (2) build social housing - both involve spending money by the government.
Rent freeze - I see where your coming from where you believe it will cause rental inflation to increase and there is a valid point to this. The issue is that if you a rental freeze, it will stifle rental supply which will not help the situation.
REIT - Yes i do agree with you that i would like to tax REITs but i dont think it would be prudent to do right now. Maybe after we resolve the housing crisis you start taxing them but right now, they are the only people filling the rental void and they could leverage this against our government. There is plenty of demand for accommodation as can be seen in yearly record rental levels and normally there would be balance where more competitors enter the market to get access to the super profits being seen. We dont see this in ireland and stock levels are declining due to all of the government interference. The moment you start taxing REIT, i suspect the amount of properties they buy/build will slow down as these companies look for stability and consistency.
In an ideal world, yes i agree with you, the more social housing we build the more permanent the fix is. The issue is what happens in between this permanent fix and the temporary accommodation we need to provide. While we build 100k houses which takes years, people need a roof over their shoulder and thats where HAP etc comes in unfortunately.I do want public and private to be separated however this is a multi facetted issue and HAP is a necessary evil until the government can provide enough housing(I see know light at the end of tunnel for this unfortunately)0 -
The Student wrote: »I worry about SF housing proposals, a recent Dublin City council report stated that 60 % of its tenants were in rent arrears. What happens if we introduce the large increases in Social housing being proposed? will we have 60% of a bigger amount in arrears?
Good point on rent arrears.
On most other EU and developed nations people are evicted for this type of behaviour yet in Ireland, it is culturally engrained in us. Ironically, could you imagine if SF fixed this issue, they would win my vote for the next election
People keep complaining that mortgage rates are high - you need to ask yourself why and the main culprit here is risk vs reward, how difficult is it to evict here for non payment of bills vs other developed nations.0 -
-
Ray Palmer wrote: »I don't have to prove there were more private houses as I didn't make the claim the majority of people living in Dublin were living in social housing. It is quite apparent this is not true based on any understanding of Dublin. You can name the council estates and anything you don't name is private housing. Even the areas you name are not only social housing. Lots of private housing in Coolock.
Sorry I didn't realise you were so focused on ownership of TV. People hired TVs then because of price but predominantly because they broke down all the time and hiring them meant they were fixed for free
Homeownership has been extremely high in Ireland increasing rapidly in the 60s slowing but still increasing into the 70s and 80s. By the end of the 80s we were very close to peak ownership of 80%. You are suggesting Dublin some how managed to contain the majority of the people in social housing. While Dublin held way way more than 20% of the population. Even if they contained all of those who didn't own it still wouldn't be the majority living in social housing.
Society changed and talk of people being happy and not afraid of dangers means nothing. It has nothing to do with property prices nor policing. People became afraid and it applies to all western countries. The fear increased while the dangers didn't. The dangers were there and it was probably less safe as people weren't concerned so let their children be exposed to dangers. Hence we have historical sex scandals everywhere from those times.
We now know the dangers if large social housing estates with you and SF eager to cause the issues again ignoring the past.
Blaming any party for people to buy their own housing us something you may not want but every study shows this is good for society. You want to create a welfare system where people have no responsibility. I fundamentally think that is a terrible idea. I remember all the people working in the black economy while taking money from the state. Seeing the tradesmen in their work clothes going in to pick up their dole.
You have some idealised view of the past that does not marry up with reality. Ireland had the highest home ownership in the world that was always going to change as our economy matured and matched up with the rest of the world in particular Europe.
You made in your post that any map shown a higher concentration of private housing or don't you recall.
As I have said in my posts public housing slum clearance from 1930'40 pushed people out from the inner city to the early suburbs, people were then given the opportunity to buy back social housing from the councils which then became private housing, this accelerated greatly in the 1960's governments built the large towns which were mostly small villages back then by the building social housing and then after 10 years or so sold back to may social tenants who then became private home owners, Home ownership didn't peak until the mid 1990's
to 80% but this did not take into account how much of these houses were originally built as Social Housing.......and as I have said my recollection of the 70s & 80's was of large scale social housing not private housing and I will stand by that comment.
Again you made the bold comment of most people owned TV's in the 70.80's
they didn't and now you seem to back track on that in your last post?
I referenced low rents and fewer homeownership and general happy people back then with comparisons of today with more debt due to the increase of privately built estates which brings about social breakdown and generally unhappiness that we see today.FF strongly encourgaged people into private housing estates and when they were criticised the Then leader of the country
urged people that were Naysayers to commit suicide, the same leader Leader that encourgaged people to have bank accounts and didn't have one himself???
Largely Institutions were to blame for child abuse scandals ignored again for decades by weak governments, communities were stronger back then and most kids were street savvy in dealing with Bogeymen.
Again you reference studies without posting them in showing homeownership is good for society, who make these studies and how diverse are these.?0 -
Advertisement
-
You made in your post that any map shown a higher concentration of private housing or don't you recall.
As I have said in my posts public housing slum clearance from 1930'40 pushed people out from the inner city to the early suburbs, people were then given the opportunity to buy back social housing from the councils which then became private housing, this accelerated greatly in the 1960's governments built the large towns which were mostly small villages back then by the building social housing and then after 10 years or so sold back to may social tenants who then became private home owners, Home ownership didn't peak until the mid 1990's
to 80% but this did not take into account how much of these houses were originally built as Social Housing.......and as I have said my recollection of the 70s & 80's was of large scale social housing not private housing and I will stand by that comment.
Again you made the bold comment of most people owned TV's in the 70.80's
they didn't and now you seem to back track on that in your last post?
I referenced low rents and fewer homeownership and general happy people back then with comparisons of today with more debt due to the increase of privately built estates which brings about social breakdown and generally unhappiness that we see today.FF strongly encourgaged people into private housing estates and when they were criticised the Then leader of the country
Bertie Ahearn urged people that were Naysayers to commit suicide, the same leader Leader that encouraged people to have bank accounts and didn't have one himsel f??? and you say past governments are blameless.
Largely Institutions were to blame for child abuse scandals ignored again for decades by weak governments, communities were stronger back then and most kids were street savvy in dealing with Bogeymen.
Again you reference studies without posting them in showing homeownership is good for society, who make these studies and how diverse are these.?0
Advertisement