More effective housing policies, better housing outcomes

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,912
Few (except for the notable exceptions who will no doubt join this thread to try to derail it) would argue that there is a real problem in the nation's housing situation.

People are paying 50% of their disposable income on rent and many cannot afford the deposit required to buy a home.

Rents are back to boom-time levels and the state has broadly decided not to build any social homes to meet a growing demand, but instead use the private housing market to solve a public housing problem.

Now there's a divisive thread running through all of this - the niggling feeling that ne'er do well permanent SW dependents are getting fabulous "forever" homes from the state without putting their hands in their pockets and anecdotes like these are used time and again to derail any progressive discussion on housing - the concept of building homes to "give" to people who mightn't need them is a genuine thorn.

What I've never seen discussed or proposed is a far broader overhaul of the full social housing spectrum - rights/responsibilities of the tenants, periodic right-sizing, prioritizing the working over the unemployed, etc. Also the ideological belief that social homes must be co-located with expensive private homes is fraught with issues of equity, particularly when there's a sense of permanence that goes with almost owning a property.

I believe making the allocation and utilisation of social homes more effective, more transparent and cost effective would change peoples' opinions on social housing and even make more people realise it's always going to be necessary, so let's make it an asset rather than an continual cost and people might start to demand we do it right.

My own paranoia is that FG have manipulated and tapped into the zeitgeist of homelessness to justify the multi-€bn spend on private rental for people who should be in purpose built, cost effective, social houses. The fact that they're not addressing the divisive policies associated with social housing makes me believe this all the more.

We saw cross party cooperation campaigning for the abortion referendum and a shared sense of celebration when it was "won", so it baffles me that there can't seem to be the same cross party cooperation to help solve a genuinely corrosive problem that's eating into peoples' lives through extended commutes, concerns over tenancy rights, excessive rents, etc....not to mention reducing the cost to the state in the long run...we're mad if we think somehow with the population intended to increase by 1m by 2040 that we're not going to need MORE, not fewer social homes, so NOW is the time to build them.
 


Hunter-Gatherer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
1,495
It's all about supply and demand. Too many people equals too much demand.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,912
It's all about supply and demand. Too many people equals too much demand.
All the more reason the state should be trying to take those who genuinely require social housing OUT of the private market and into lower cost, purpose built, social houses. Adding the demand for public housing onto the demand for private housing was always going to re-inflate house prices.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
SPN was right.

Councils dont have the staff, the cost base or the experience to build large social housing developments.

Good article about all the sites the State owns and especially the HSE that could be used.

Nimbyism etc and existing social housing developments will make it very difficult to get planning permission.

NOTE : Rents in 2006-2007 were brutal. About 2.5% gross return. Many new landlords hadn`t a clue. They were expecting capital growth of 5%+ to compensate. Now after 11 years the rents are back at the same levels. They are needed by many of these landlords to cover excessive mortgage repayments, extra taxes etc.... GET ON WITH IT
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,782
SPN was right.

Councils dont have the staff, the cost base or the experience to build large social housing developments.

Good article about all the sites the State owns and especially the HSE that could be used.

Nimbyism etc and existing social housing developments will make it very difficult to get planning permission.

NOTE : Rents in 2006-2007 were brutal. About 2.5% gross return. Many new landlords hadn`t a clue. They were expecting capital growth of 5%+ to compensate. Now after 11 years the rents are back at the same levels. They are needed by many of these landlords to cover excessive mortgage repayments, extra taxes etc.... GET ON WITH IT
Councils, for the last two years, been hiring more technical staff, to identity what they need and to draw up the house/housing estate plans, for approval for funding by the department. It is true to say they do not have builders etc to build them, the approved schemes are tendered out to build. For now, Councils should hire more staff so they can adequately fix and maintain existing housing stock, and this is where county managers need to buck up.

Sent from my SM-A320FL using Tapatalk
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
15,912
SPN was right.

Councils dont have the staff, the cost base or the experience to build large social housing developments.

Good article about all the sites the State owns and especially the HSE that could be used.

Nimbyism etc and existing social housing developments will make it very difficult to get planning permission.

NOTE : Rents in 2006-2007 were brutal. About 2.5% gross return. Many new landlords hadn`t a clue. They were expecting capital growth of 5%+ to compensate. Now after 11 years the rents are back at the same levels. They are needed by many of these landlords to cover excessive mortgage repayments, extra taxes etc.... GET ON WITH IT
The LA's don't really need the skills, just the money. International contracts like Hyundai could build 1000 units to a spec in months.

Also - housing should be a national solution, not a LA one. It's farcical that social housing recipients can expect to live in the same LA all their lives while those who buy their own houses are reminded every week by the IT that if they can't afford Bray they need to consider Beirut.
 

Stentor

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,165
Few (except for the notable exceptions who will no doubt join this thread to try to derail it) would argue that there is a real problem in the nation's housing situation.

People are paying 50% of their disposable income on rent and many cannot afford the deposit required to buy a home.

Rents are back to boom-time levels and the state has broadly decided not to build any social homes to meet a growing demand, but instead use the private housing market to solve a public housing problem.

Now there's a divisive thread running through all of this - the niggling feeling that ne'er do well permanent SW dependents are getting fabulous "forever" homes from the state without putting their hands in their pockets and anecdotes like these are used time and again to derail any progressive discussion on housing - the concept of building homes to "give" to people who mightn't need them is a genuine thorn.

What I've never seen discussed or proposed is a far broader overhaul of the full social housing spectrum - rights/responsibilities of the tenants, periodic right-sizing, prioritizing the working over the unemployed, etc. Also the ideological belief that social homes must be co-located with expensive private homes is fraught with issues of equity, particularly when there's a sense of permanence that goes with almost owning a property.

I believe making the allocation and utilisation of social homes more effective, more transparent and cost effective would change peoples' opinions on social housing and even make more people realise it's always going to be necessary, so let's make it an asset rather than an continual cost and people might start to demand we do it right.

My own paranoia is that FG have manipulated and tapped into the zeitgeist of homelessness to justify the multi-€bn spend on private rental for people who should be in purpose built, cost effective, social houses. The fact that they're not addressing the divisive policies associated with social housing makes me believe this all the more.

We saw cross party cooperation campaigning for the abortion referendum and a shared sense of celebration when it was "won", so it baffles me that there can't seem to be the same cross party cooperation to help solve a genuinely corrosive problem that's eating into peoples' lives through extended commutes, concerns over tenancy rights, excessive rents, etc....not to mention reducing the cost to the state in the long run...we're mad if we think somehow with the population intended to increase by 1m by 2040 that we're not going to need MORE, not fewer social homes, so NOW is the time to build them.
Who is Ireland for? What is the purpose of being a citizen?

There might be many answers to those questions. All are irrelevant to Irish 'Party' politics and politicians. Irrelevant.

Abortion was a 'Right On' issue. Cool to be on the right side of history there and politically healthy. Pleb landslide etc.

Housing is different. Massive lobby groups prevent reform and many TD's are landlords in the capital. Never expect a paddy to take a haircut for the common good. Catholics get justice in heaven. Gawd sorts 'em all out. Like Santa.

The Proles will sort it out in the end. Don't scratch head looking at gombeens. Waste of time.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
The LA's don't really need the skills, just the money. International contracts like Hyundai could build 1000 units to a spec in months.

Also - housing should be a national solution, not a LA one. It's farcical that social housing recipients can expect to live in the same LA all their lives while those who buy their own houses are reminded every week by the IT that if they can't afford Bray they need to consider Beirut.
Exactly.

I have made the decision in this newly politically correct Ireland to get the kids on the social housing list.

They will qualify no doubt for a €400,000 home in Carpenterstown.

No need to worry about mortgage repayments for 25 years + and the additional pressure of two people working, job security and creche fees.

They are ENTITLED to it supposedly.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
DD clearly forgets that any spare money the State has must go in increases to the pay, perks and pensions of the insiders in the PS/CS.

Even when the State was borrowing up to a third of the cost of running the state, the PS/CS still got their pay increases.

Every € that DD proposes to spend on building a new house is a € that could be better and more productively spent on increasing the pay of a PS/CS insider.

Every € that DD proposes spending to pay new staff in a new bureaucracy to build new houses is a € that would be better spent increasing the pay, perks, and/or pensions of someone who is already lined up in front of the trough.

Leo Varadkar has stated, only last week, that the priority for the current government is to gift another €400 million a year, recurring, to the insiders.

The PS/CS vote.

Their votes are easily bought.

The price is reduced public services for the rest of us.
 

hammer

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2009
Messages
58,180
"Many TDs are landlords" bull sh it.

How many are landlords in Dublin ?
How many are paying taxes of 48.75% on rental profit ?
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845

Stentor

Well-known member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
2,165
It's all about supply and demand. Too many people equals too much demand.
Negative. It's about the control of supply and demand. I believe someone is tasked with that.

It's just that they're incompetent and also to a certain extent hamstrung by an ignorant electorate and lobby groups.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,401
Negative. It's about the control of supply and demand. I believe someone is tasked with that.

It's just that they're incompetent and also to a certain extent hamstrung by an ignorant electorate and lobby groups.
Particularly supply.
 

carlovian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
5,368
NOTE : Rents in 2006-2007 were brutal. About 2.5% gross return. Many new landlords hadn`t a clue. They were expecting capital growth of 5%+ to compensate. Now after 11 years the rents are back at the same levels. They are needed by many of these landlords to cover excessive mortgage repayments, extra taxes etc.... GET ON WITH IT
Rents are over 20% higher than the bubble years which is unsustainable.

A part of that increase is the government subsidizing landlords through hap payments.

This policy has led to a shortage of rental properties and will only be solved by a large government building project.

Problem is that fg don’t build social houses. They pretend to and make up figures but they don’t build.
 

artfoley56

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
9,824
Few (except for the notable exceptions who will no doubt join this thread to try to derail it) would argue that there is a real problem in the nation's housing situation.

People are paying 50% of their disposable income on rent and many cannot afford the deposit required to buy a home.

Rents are back to boom-time levels and the state has broadly decided not to build any social homes to meet a growing demand, but instead use the private housing market to solve a public housing problem.

Now there's a divisive thread running through all of this - the niggling feeling that ne'er do well permanent SW dependents are getting fabulous "forever" homes from the state without putting their hands in their pockets and anecdotes like these are used time and again to derail any progressive discussion on housing - the concept of building homes to "give" to people who mightn't need them is a genuine thorn.

What I've never seen discussed or proposed is a far broader overhaul of the full social housing spectrum - rights/responsibilities of the tenants, periodic right-sizing, prioritizing the working over the unemployed, etc. Also the ideological belief that social homes must be co-located with expensive private homes is fraught with issues of equity, particularly when there's a sense of permanence that goes with almost owning a property.

I believe making the allocation and utilisation of social homes more effective, more transparent and cost effective would change peoples' opinions on social housing and even make more people realise it's always going to be necessary, so let's make it an asset rather than an continual cost and people might start to demand we do it right.

My own paranoia is that FG have manipulated and tapped into the zeitgeist of homelessness to justify the multi-€bn spend on private rental for people who should be in purpose built, cost effective, social houses. The fact that they're not addressing the divisive policies associated with social housing makes me believe this all the more.

We saw cross party cooperation campaigning for the abortion referendum and a shared sense of celebration when it was "won", so it baffles me that there can't seem to be the same cross party cooperation to help solve a genuinely corrosive problem that's eating into peoples' lives through extended commutes, concerns over tenancy rights, excessive rents, etc....not to mention reducing the cost to the state in the long run...we're mad if we think somehow with the population intended to increase by 1m by 2040 that we're not going to need MORE, not fewer social homes, so NOW is the time to build them.
the most effective decision to have an immediate effect on the issues with housing would be to fire Eoghan Murphy
 

Man or Mouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
7,005
The LA's don't really need the skills, just the money. International contracts like Hyundai could build 1000 units to a spec in months.

Also - housing should be a national solution, not a LA one. It's farcical that social housing recipients can expect to live in the same LA all their lives while those who buy their own houses are reminded every week by the IT that if they can't afford Bray they need to consider Beirut.


That's a huge problem, perspective. Housing generally, should be seen as a public good rather than a nest egg, trophy or whatever. In countries and cities where that is the case, there are no such problems and there are still enclaves of expensive privately owned housing for the great and the good. Whatever about integrating social with private, ghettoising social housing is a bad idea.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
Particularly supply.
Once upon a time a developer/builder would buy a field for €10,000 an acre.

The council would rezone the field.

The value of the field would increase to €200,000 an acre.

The developer/builder would take this collateral to the bank and get a loan to start the first stage of building houses.

Whenever the developer/builder needed more money they would sell a number of houses off the plans to friends and family.

The developer/builder would take these contracts for sale to the bank as collateral for a loan to actually build the houses.

The developer would sell the first phase, the friends and family would flip their contracts, making a tidy profit, and the gamme would start all over again.

By the time we got to 2008 we had enough land rezoned for use as collateral to meet all our housing needs until 2070.



Now here's the important bit.

This model is no longer used. Local Authorities can no longer rezone land willy nilly to create collateral for friends of councillors and council management. Banks can no longer give out loans based on pretend collateral.

If we wanta more effective housing policy, we need to figure out how we are going to fund house building in the future using sustainable business models.

Irish developers/builders cannot spell "sustainable".
 

fifilawe

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Messages
1,500
The objections arise in areas where there are vacant lands in between estates and one off houses.In my local area a new 30 house development was objected to.The estate was planned to be built beside an existing estate on a greenfield site on the outskirts of the town.Now God only knows if it will ever be built.
 

carlovian

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
5,368
the most effective decision to have an immediate effect on the issues with housing would be to fire Eoghan Murphy
But look at the rolled up sleeves in his photo ops.

He must be doing so much.
 

Man or Mouse

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
7,005
Once upon a time a developer/builder would buy a field for €10,000 an acre.

The council would rezone the field.

The value of the field would increase to €200,000 an acre.

The developer/builder would take this collateral to the bank and get a loan to start the first stage of building houses.

Whenever the developer/builder needed more money they would sell a number of houses off the plans to friends and family.

The developer/builder would take these contracts for sale to the bank as collateral for a loan to actually build the houses.

The developer would sell the first phase, the friends and family would flip their contracts, making a tidy profit, and the gamme would start all over again.

By the time we got to 2008 we had enough land rezoned for use as collateral to meet all our housing needs until 2070.



Now here's the important bit.

This model is no longer used. Local Authorities can no longer rezone land willy nilly to create collateral for friends of councillors and council management. Banks can no longer give out loans based on pretend collateral.

If we wanta more effective housing policy, we need to figure out how we are going to fund house building in the future using sustainable business models.

Irish developers/builders cannot spell "sustainable".
Make that Irish people and you're on the money. We also cannot plan anything for farther down the road than next week. Well, next election say.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top