Hatred within Irish Society

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
I dont know whats so surprising about this. People believe they achieve at school, go to college and earn a degree, get a job and work hard to earn a promotion, save and deny themselves luxury after luxury to try and get a deposit together and try to persuade the bank to give them a loan that will cripple their spending for many many years to come so they can buy a nice house in a nice area with trouble free neighbours.

Nothing about this prevents people buying a nice house for themselves.

Nothing about this prevents people living in a nice area with trouble free neighbours.

They didnt volunteer to be part of some worthy social engineering experiment.

This is not a social experiment, unless you mean that council housing of any kind is a 'social experiment'. This is about promoting mixed communities and giving people the chance to grow up in similar kinds of neighbourhood regardless of their class background.

The sheer injustice of seeing Anto, Sharon and their 9 kids moving in next door without any of the sacrifices or effort made on their part (Oh alright, Sharon gave birth 9 times, and Anto works the odd nixer in between collecting his dole )

Your bigoted fantasies are completely irrelevant, so you may as well keep them to yourself.

And yes, council housing does reduce the value of any nearby homes - not because council housing is full of knackers but simply why pay top dollar to have an address in some area when there is practically free social housing right beside it?

Market purchasers will pay the market price. If demand is lower the price they pay will be lower. You're suggesting the government should intervene to fix the price or something?

If they want council housing they can apply and go on a waiting list.

If council housing is to occur in such a fashion ( especially the haphazard fashion that seems to be occuring in the referenced case ) then the government needs to compensate the local property owners fully for any loss in the valuation of their home.

So the government shouldn't take any share of any increase in local property values but should compensate owners when local property values fall (or simply not grow as fast, which is probably more likely)? That is, the government should effectively guarantee to cover any potential losses that people might make on their market purchases? Sorry, not going to happen, home owners need to realise they're taking a risk like anyone else. If owning a home becomes less of a gravy train in the future - and it seems to me that it's this state of affairs that you want to protect - they'll just have to cope somehow.

And certainly they need to compensate the property owners the difference between the price they paid for their home and the price the council housing recepients are paying.

No, that's insane. If the presence of council housing changes the market value of their homes, well they're going to have to deal with that since that value is already determined by the presence or absence of council housing and innumerable other variables in and out of government control. Unless you think that the government should be allowed confiscate any increase in house prices potentially arising out of a lack of council housing or some other policy, this is as unworkable as it is hypocritical.

Fair is fair afterall. And it would remove a cause for a lot of tension and objections to council housing.

Your spurious and unworkable objections are the opposite of fair.

mike65

The sheer injustice of seeing Anto, Sharon and their 9 kids moving in next door without any of the sacrifices or effort made on their part (Oh alright, Sharon gave birth 9 times, and Anto works the odd nixer in between collecting his dole )[/]



Your bigoted fantasies are completely irrelevant, so you may as well keep them to yourself.

Shootamoose this is hardly a fantasy there are still plenty of tracksuited wasters out there...(why thats the case is another thread)

Mike.

shotamoose

Originally posted by mike65


Shootamoose this is hardly a fantasy there are still plenty of tracksuited wasters out there...(why thats the case is another thread)

Mike. [/B]

There are plenty of wasters of all kinds out there. I'm pretty sure Sand doesn't actually know of a real life Anto and Sharon with 9 kids, so he's just plucking the most lurid example possible from his imagination and wants us to think that this is somehow a good argument against a particular social policy. It isn't.

I find it hypocritical in the extreme that people are willing to stigmatise all social renting tenants on the basis of a minority of 'wasters' yet see nothing wrong in home-owners accumulating ever greater sums of unearned wealth simply by sitting around and watching the value of their homes rise. In fact, the impression I get from Sand is that homeowners' unearned income must be protected and if necessary guaranteed by the State. So it's nothing but classist hypocrisy really.

Trebor

i agree with shotamoose some what. even though he is coming across as idealistic. just repeating an idea without answering peoples statements no matter how "fantastical" they are and brushing them aside is not the right way to convince someone to you way of thinking.

people who own a house have wealth whereas people who don't own a house and are living off the dole will not be able to match the purchasing power of those people with houses.
as long as the people in social housing are not allowed to buy the house they live in for less than the market value i don't see how the argument of "they are getting the same house as us for cheaper" can work. They don't own the house, they cannot use it as collateral for a loan, they cannot build extensions, they cannot sell it for a profit.

with them living in the same area as middle class people their opportunities might increase as they get to know people who can offer them jobs. lump them altogether and you just continue the cycle of the poverty trap.

Sand

Nothing about this prevents people buying a nice house for themselves.

Nothing about this prevents people living in a nice area with trouble free neighbours.

But why should people bother when half the houses on their estate are practically free anyway? Why waste your time and indebting yourself? Isnt it true that half the people on any given estate are the fools who are paying for their own houses and the houses of the people who have been given them practically free?

The anger is totally valid. Some people are working within the system and attempting to achieve. Others are just having it handed to them.

This is not a social experiment, unless you mean that council housing of any kind is a 'social experiment'. This is about promoting mixed communities and giving people the chance to grow up in similar kinds of neighbourhood regardless of their class background.

Its not, and then it is.

People buy nice houses in nice areas because they dont want to live in the next Ballymun. They work hard to afford those houses.

Areas like Ballymun are viewed as failures because of the ghettoisation, the crime, and the unemployment. If its not a social experiment to try and and mix up council housing into private estates then what is? You admit yourself its an attempt to promote mixed communities.

The last time social engingeering like this was attempted Ballymun was the result of an exodus from the squalid city center to the new towns of tommorrow sprining up in the suburbs. With a track record like that in social engineering whose willing to bet their house on it?

All the ingredients that lead to ghettoisation remain.

Market purchasers will pay the market price. If demand is lower the price they pay will be lower. You're suggesting the government should intervene to fix the price or something?

If you buy a house thats one of a dozen in a nice area for 350000 euro, and then the government put a dozen council houses right next door then supply has risen drastically, and not only has it risen but at a much lower price. The government has already intervened, its intervened to cut the cost of your house to your disadvantage, on a program paid for using your taxes.

If they want council housing they can apply and go on a waiting list.

Theyd be wise to wouldnt they?

So the government shouldn't take any share of any increase in local property values but should compensate owners when local property values fall

When they cause the fall in value, then yes- they should.

If owning a home becomes less of a gravy train in the future - and it seems to me that it's this state of affairs that you want to protect - they'll just have to cope somehow.

lol- spoken like someones whose not even seriously investigated the costs of buying a home, let alone bought one. Gravy train my arse.

No, that's insane. If the presence of council housing changes the market value of their homes, well they're going to have to deal with that since that value is already determined by the presence or absence of council housing

Which is decided by the government. Their actions do not occur in some vaccumn - if they harm people then they must compensate those people.

Your bigoted fantasies are completely irrelevant, so you may as well keep them to yourself.

I'm pretty sure Sand doesn't actually know of a real life Anto and Sharon with 9 kids, so he's just plucking the most lurid example possible from his imagination and wants us to think that this is somehow a good argument against a particular social policy.

Nah I picked two names and a number of kids. I allowed that they were great neighbours. I didnt assign any negative characteristics to them unless you think parenthood, being let off and doing the same the politicans have been doing for years ranks them up there with drug pushers - how else do you get on the council housing watiing list? If I wanted to get more lurid I could but your own prejudices seem to be enough so dont project them onto me.

Sharon and Anto are getting something for nothing - thats unjust and that was what I used them to illustrate.

I find it hypocritical in the extreme that people are willing to stigmatise all social renting tenants on the basis of a minority of 'wasters' yet see nothing wrong in home-owners accumulating ever greater sums of unearned wealth simply by sitting around and watching the value of their homes rise.

I own an apartment that I rent out. I cant afford to live in it you see. So I rent it out and in a few years when its appreciated in value Ill sell it and use the profit from that to buy a decent home. Evil, evil me.

About social renting tenants - I was tempted to rent to them, but I was persuaded out of it because theyre not paying so they dont give a damn about the appartment. Ive had three tenants so far and theyve all been excellent - Im not going to rock the boat by taking in social renters when everthings going just fine as it is.

Is the wealth from appreciation of property unearned? Hmmm, Ive indebted myself for the next 30 years with a mortgage that makes up over half my salary - Ive got to find and address the needs of tenants ( Ive been over fighting with an alarm system in the middle of the ****ing night after coming home from my actual day job ), I cant afford to have that appartment empty and its a major financial worry that impacts all my other plans. I cant afford to live in it. The *only* benefit Im going to get out of it is an appreciation in value. I think it will be earned.

And as a property owner I will oppose anything which will cause a fall in its value, which includes council housing. What am I supposed to do? Not look out for my own interests? Nothing hypocritical about that. Even if opposition is successful it wont stop council housing being built - it will just be built elsewhere.

Sparks, can I ask if you own property?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
But why should people bother when half the houses on their estate are practically free anyway?

If people want to buy or rent these houses, they will. If the very concept of social housing bothers them so much that they don't want to, they won't. Why you think they should bother or not bother is completely irrelevant.

You're suggesting a whole different process alongside the usual one of weighing up a property on the basis of characteristics, area, price and so on. You seem to be saying that the provision of social housing is so unfair on those who can afford something more that they will actually withdraw from the market as some kind of protest. Maybe there's some people out there who would act in that way, but tbh I don't think the government should try to second-guess such far-out thought-processes. And if the price demanded is lower as a result, those people of less sensitive disposition who subsequently get onto the property ladder at a cheaper rate will no doubt be thanking them.

The anger is totally valid. Some people are working within the system and attempting to achieve. Others are just having it handed to them.

See, here it sounds like you simply have a problem with social housing. Fine, if you think that people who can't afford housing at the market rate should be left homeless, that's your opinion. Thankfully most people disagree. And stop implying that everyone who lives in social or affordable housing is unemployed. They're not. So correct either your ignorance or your prejudice.

People buy nice houses in nice areas because they dont want to live in the next Ballymun.They work hard to afford those houses.

Areas like Ballymun are viewed as failures because of the ghettoisation, the crime, and the unemployment. If its not a social experiment to try and and mix up council housing into private estates then what is? You admit yourself its an attempt to promote mixed communities.

The point is that nobody should have to live in a failed community like the old Ballymun, and yes that even means council tenants. Weirdly enough, the government wants every area to be nice, and the best way to avoid that is an end to the mono-tenure, pile 'em high council estates that end up with all that ghettoisation, crime and unemployment.

Honestly, it really is hilarious how you can on the one hand condemn 'ghettoisation' and on the other refuse to countenance social housing being built anywhere near nice respectable market housing.

when social renting communities were transported en masse out of the cities and housed in tower blocks away from everyone else, that was a social experiment on a grand scale. The policy of mixing tenures in many ways is a reversion to the way things used to be, is far less radical and to me seems perfectly sensible. Labelling it a 'social experiment' is just an attempt to stigmatise it.

All the ingredients that lead to ghettoisation remain.

Only if you think that council tenants inherently cause ghettoisation. If you take the view that ghettoisation depends on the context (mono-tenure tower blocks versus mixed-tenure communities, for example) then the ingredients are obviously totally different.

I notice you're not actually offering any alternative policy that would better house those who can't afford market housing while avoiding that ghettoisation, crime and unemployment you condemn. That's because there isn't one. The government has obviously weighed up the risks of a collapse in the housing market caused by horrified purchasers against the potential benefits, and has obviously decided that its worth a go. So far the policy seems to be working fine, bigots apart.

If you buy a house thats one of a dozen in a nice area for 350000 euro, and then the government put a dozen council houses right next door then supply has risen drastically, and not only has it risen but at a much lower price. The government has already intervened, its intervened to cut the cost of your house to your disadvantage, on a program paid for using your taxes.

The government hasn't cut the value of your house, the market has (in fact it's much more likely that if there's any change at all, which is itself arguable, it would be that the growth of the value of your house would just be slower). Like I said, the government affects the market in an effectively infinite number of ways, through its policies on planning, transport, education, health and any number of other areas of spending or regulation. So in your example, the government also affected the original price of E350,000 but in ways nobody would even attempt to untangle. But according to your logic, the government should attempt to add up the costs and benefits of every one of its policies and charge or reward homeowners accordingly. This is obviously unworkable.

If they want council housing they can apply and go on a waiting list.

Theyd be wise to wouldnt they?

Well, this could be the test, I suppose. If the incentive to get a house through the market has been so damaged by this policy, and the incentive to apply for a council house has been so improved, then we'll presumably see a sea-change in behaviour and a massive decrease in market transactions alongside a massive increase in council house applications. But of course, since that could also be caused by the massive house price rises of recent years there'd be no way of telling what was the real reason. Ironic, really.

Oh and it's worth pointing out that in Ireland only up to a maximum of 20% of a development can be ordered to be set aside for social and affordable housing. In London they regularly get 30% or as much as 50%. Has the bottom fallen out of the housing market there? I think you'll find it hasn't.

So the government shouldn't take any share of any increase in local property values but should compensate owners when local property values fall

When they cause the fall in value, then yes- they should.

And when they cause an increase in values by, say, not building council housing nearbye, they should then take away the resulting increase? Interesting theory, but as I said earlier, totally unworkable.

spoken like someones whose not even seriously investigated the costs of buying a home, let alone bought one. Gravy train my arse.

You don't understand. Sure it's expensive to buy a home, but that's only one side of the story. Fact is that house prices have doubled in about five years in Ireland, so it has been an incredibly good investment for those who have been able to actually get onto the ladder (which is more of an escalator when you think about it). The housing market is a two sided coin: on one side, an ever growing number of households priced onto the market and increasingly reliant on social and affordable housing, and on the other a lot of people seeing enormous increases in their wealth as a result of house prices.

In an ideal world, I'd prefer to see Governments take a lot more of these capital gains in tax to fund social housing, but historically that has been practically difficult and politically very unpopular. The present policy - providing social housing through general taxation and mixed tenure developments - is imperfect but acceptable overall.

I own an apartment that I rent out. I cant afford to live in it you see. So I rent it out and in a few years when its appreciated in value Ill sell it and use the profit from that to buy a decent home. Evil, evil me.

My we're sensitive. I don't know what you're acting so hurt about since I don't have a problem with what you're doing (though I wouldn't pick you for a landlord ). Besides I was clearly talking about homeowners watching the value of their own place increase without doing anything. Renting a place out is slightly different since there's a bit more effort involved but not much. I'm sure you think anything and everything you make out of being a landlord is earned, but you would wouldn't you? It's an investment and when our investments pay off we congratulate ourselves on our cleverness and hard work. When they don't we either take the hit or look for someone to blame.

And as a property owner I will oppose anything which will cause a fall in its value, which includes council housing. What am I supposed to do? Not look out for my own interests? Nothing hypocritical about that. Even if opposition is successful it wont stop council housing being built - it will just be built elsewhere.

Oh good, we're back to square one. Look, for the last time, I don't have a problem with NIMBYs voicing their self-interested opinions about where council housing should be built - I just don't think the government should listen to them. They're obviously acting only out of self-interest, and the government has to look at the wider picture. In a similar way, we don't let the families of murder victims decide the killer's sentence. It's only common sense.

Sparks, can I ask if you own property?

You'll have to ask him. In case you were addressing that to me, no I don't. Gosh, how appalling that I should even offer an opinion on the subject ...

Sand

You're suggesting a whole different process alongside the usual one of weighing up a property on the basis of characteristics, area, price and so on.

No Im suggesting when you increase supply price falls. When you increase supply on a government program and then give away houses for practically free you cut the market value of any house there

You seem to be saying that the provision of social housing is so unfair on those who can afford something more that they will actually withdraw from the market as some kind of protest.

Common sense - why invest in a house when you can get one for free thats idenitcal in the same location? Why risk investing in a house when at any point the government can, using your money, slash the market value of your house?

See, here it sounds like you simply have a problem with social housing. Fine, if you think that people who can't afford housing at the market rate should be left homeless, that's your opinion.

Nothing in my position stops people having a home. Nothing stops the government building council houses for people who havent achieved.

And stop implying that everyone who lives in social or affordable housing is unemployed. They're not. So correct either your ignorance or your prejudice.

Im not implying everyone is. I used an example, a common example of a characteristic that youll find far more in evidence in council housing tenants than you will in the owners of private houses. Your argument is with reality, not me.

The point is that nobody should have to live in a failed community like the old Ballymun, and yes that even means council tenants.

One of the other posters touched on it when he said that council tenants didnt own their house and couldnt use it as collateral or sell it on. He meant this to say that it wasnt the same as privately buying a house.

And hes right. Its not. Council tenants dont own the house they live in, theyve no investment tying them to the area, they cant sell the house so theyre not going to see any return from improvements made to it or even simple maintence of it. People always treat their own property better than they treat others. You can see that in the attitude of the homeowners in this particular case - they care very deeply about the effect on their community and their property. They own that property. You dont, so you dont care what happens to them or their property.

So all the ingredients that made Ballymun a failure remain.

The policy of mixing tenures in many ways is a reversion to the way things used to be, is far less radical and to me seems perfectly sensible.

The way things used to be? You mean when inner city dublin was squalid tenements? Or was their some magical time back in the past when the chimmney sweep and the barrister lived in a semi detached georgian house down baggot street way? Funny, I always thought those times were even more divided on class terms than today.

Labelling it a 'social experiment' is just an attempt to stigmatise it.

Call a spade a spade. If that stigmatises it its only because social engineering on the part of governments tends to be either malicious or disastrous. Yellow stars and Ballymun.

I notice you're not actually offering any alternative policy that would better house those who can't afford market housing while avoiding that ghettoisation, crime and unemployment you condemn.

House ownership would address perhaps the major cause. When the property is owned, even in debt, then the people have an investment in an area that can accrue in value if they maintain and improve it. Theyve got an investment in keeping a community crime free because this again means a higher market value. The actual mechanics of passing over ownership would of course be trickier - the government could simply provide funds at 0% interest over 30 or 40 or 50 years - maybe linking the interest rate to "good behaviour" on the part of the recepients.

And of course the people are independant of the government which is always for the best.

AFAIK they did something like that to fund tentant farmers buying the landlord estates.

So far the policy seems to be working fine, bigots apart.

Theyre people with an investment in their area - theyre understandably hostile to anything they feel will affect them and their area for the worse. Its probably becuase they own the homes they live in, rather than simply live in a council house.

The government hasn't cut the value of your house, the market has

Thats like saying a drunk driver didnt run down that kid, the kid got hit by the car. If the government decides to take action that clearly cuts the market value of your home then they should compesate you. Seeing a prime grievance is the fact that peoples investment are being harmed by the government then such compensation would go a long way to removing a cause for anger.

In an ideal world, I'd prefer to see Governments take a lot more of these capital gains in tax to fund social housing, but historically that has been practically difficult and politically very unpopular.

Its also wholly unjustifiable.

You don't understand. Sure it's expensive to buy a home, but that's only one side of the story. Fact is that house prices have doubled in about five years in Ireland, so it has been an incredibly good investment for those who have been able to actually get onto the ladder

Yes, it is exspensive to buy a home. Its very exspensive to buy a home. Why is it very exspensive to buy a home? Because its generally a decent investment ( the boom years were years ago ). Thats why its exspensive. People who have made the sacrifices to invest do so because they expect a decent return - they wouldnt do it otherwise.

Why do people study at school? Why do they go to college and get a degree? Why do they work hard at their jobs and take **** and go above and beyond whats expected of them? To get a good wage.

Isnt it so damn unfair that some people get good wages whilst others get feck all? So damn unfair. The government should do something to stop people making a return on their education and work ethic.

My we're sensitive. I don't know what you're acting so hurt about since I don't have a problem with what you're doing (though I wouldn't pick you for a landlord ).

I cant say if Id take you as a tenant because I dont know you. Mind you, Im not enamoured with Irish tenants ( all my tenants so far have been foreign and excellent ) as Ive heard some awful stories and you do get a real attitude problem emanating from them... but nm - another thread.

Besides I was clearly talking about homeowners watching the value of their own place increase without doing anything.

Very few homeowners can afford to pay their mortgages without doing anything. Most are working, and their mortgage makes up an immense part of their salary. If you buy a house for say 270k ( best of luck ) youll pay back 400k to the bank. To actually break even ( or get your moneys worth) the houses value will have to rise to 400k. And like I said the boom years were years ago.

Renting a place out is slightly different since there's a bit more effort involved but not much.

Yeah, I work my own job and then Im 999 for another person Im obligated to ensure is without complaint. Money for nothing.

I'm sure you think anything and everything you make out of being a landlord is earned,

I dont make anything - Im breaking even and Im probably down money from doing the place up.

I just don't think the government should listen to them.

Why not - the homeowners are the ones living there or with a hefty investment there - either way theyll be the ones suffering if things go bad, it certainly wont be you? Their view should be quite important Id have thought. Especially if its going to poison relations between the council tenants and the private homeowners - which would defeat the whole purpose of mixed communites Id have thought?

You'll have to ask him. In case you were addressing that to me, no I don't. Gosh, how appalling that I should even offer an opinion on the subject ...

Apologies for the name confusion. And you misunderstand - I dont ask to say youve no right to give your opinion ( It doesnt require personal investment to have an opinion though it can shape one ). I was addressing the point where you said it was hypocritical and bigoted of private homeowners to oppose something that wasnt in their interests.

My opinion would be that your views are that of someone whose interests are either not going to be hindered by council housing hitting the market value of peoples homes, or you might actively be assisted by it.

You might want to calm down on the shouts of hypocrisy and bigotry - theyre just protecting their investment. Who else is going to look out for them? You? You think their bigots, hypocrits and you think their views should be ignored. You can see why they feel theyve to stand up for themselves rather than trust others to protect their interests.

Trebor

Originally posted by Sand
One of the other posters touched on it when he said that council tenants didnt own their house and couldnt use it as collateral or sell it on. He meant this to say that it wasnt the same as privately buying a house.

And hes right. Its not. Council tenants dont own the house they live in, theyve no investment tying them to the area, they cant sell the house so theyre not going to see any return from improvements made to it or even simple maintence of it. People always treat their own property better than they treat others. You can see that in the attitude of the homeowners in this particular case - they care very deeply about the effect on their community and their property. They own that property. You dont, so you dont care what happens to them or their property.

That's not what i ment actually. i meant that people who buy a house are doing so knowing that by buying the house they will become wealthier and be able to use it to get loans to buy nice things. the people in social housing do not get this option. buying a house is an investment, like all investments they cannot be bought by everyone, returns may fall aswell as rise if the houses look the same then prices in the area should not be affected

wheather or not they take care of the property has nothing to do with owning it. if people have no pride in where they live and how they are precieved that's just personality not money.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
When you increase supply on a government program and then give away houses for practically free you cut the market value of any house there

But ultimately your objection seems to be that this (house-ownership) is an area where people are used to making money, and that the logistics now may mean that there is less money to be made, with less surity of profit, etc. etc. etc.

I don't see why that's the government's concern? Why should its social agenda take second-place to other people's capitalist wants?

I mean - way back when, child labour used to be legal. Then governments did the unthinkable and made a social change to prevent people making money from this area because there was - for the governments - a more important social issue to be dealt with.

Your argument seems to be pretty much the same - that people are used to house-ownership being a capitalist venture, and that because of this view, the government is wrong to change the nature of the game.

So all the ingredients that made Ballymun a failure remain.

I thought one of the key ingredients that made Ballymun a fulure was that the population density was too high (resultant from the use of high-rise), and that this had a number of knock-on detrimental effects (lack of sufficient amenities etc. etc. etc.).

Funny, I always thought those times were even more divided on class terms than today.

And yet you're objecting to this notion of "class-mixing" caused by the government's plan??? So, if you think the old tenements are a bad idea - which were related to social class division, and you think the new system is a bad idea - getting rid fo the class barrier in terms of where social housing will be available....then exactly what is a good idea?

Its probably becuase they own the homes they live in, rather than simply live in a council house.

No, its because they see the monetary value of what they own as being so important. Its not about their home...its about protecting their investment.

Yes, it is exspensive to buy a home. Its very exspensive to buy a home. Why is it very exspensive to buy a home?

Because demand exceeds supply, its a capitalist market, and the purchasers were willing to spend more and more exorbitant amounts of money paying for the same thing, resulting in a ridiculous price-spike.

People who have made the sacrifices to invest do so because they expect a decent return - they wouldnt do it otherwise.

Actually, until the ridiculous price-hike in the 90's, most people I knew who bought a house did so on the mentality that it is always cheaper than renting.

Monthly mortgage costs typically started lower than rent prices, and as the years go by, do not generally hike in line with inflation (or worse - in line with new market prices) as rent does.

Thus, from day 1, it is cheaper to be paying off a mortgage even if the house is worthless when you finish paying the mortgage. Assuming that its not, you then have somewhere to live, that costs no rent.

Since the 90's, however, there has been a growing national fixation on the worth of a house. PRices were rising at such a ridiculous rate that house-owners became little different to Microsoft employees watching their stock options. "How much is my house worth today, I wonder. Ohhhh...look....I now own a house worth more than 3 times what I paid for it. How cool am I."

This value-fixation is - from what I can see - at an all time high, now that houses have become ridiculously expensive. And you know what a lot fo that boils back to from what I can see? Deep down, most of the people who spin the "property investment" line are terrified that something will burst the bubble, leaving them with potentially hundreds of thousands in negative equity.

You admit as much Sand, but you seem to be taking the line that the house-owners are correct to be self-centred in this way....which would be at odds with your castigation of unions in another thread, where you appear to take the stance that no-one should actually give a crap about these selfish, self-centred little money-grabbing union-members because they are only looking out for no.1.

Isn't it funny how unions are wrong to be money-grabbing, but house-owners are justified in doing so. I'm willing to guess that you ain't in a union, and you've already admitted to owning property. Strange co-incidence that.

Isnt it so damn unfair that some people get good wages whilst others get feck all?

Don't you mean "isn't it so damn unfair that the govenrment will fund different people's educations to differing amounts. Some of us had to pay for our education, while others get it for free" ?????

bank. To actually break even ( or get your moneys worth) the houses value will have to rise to 400k.

No, to break even, you need the house's value to match the difference between what you pay in mortgage costs vs. what you would pay in rental costs over an equivalent period if you chose not to buy a house.

Normally, that will mean that to notbreak even, the house would have to have a significant negative value.

jc

dglancy

The thing is that most Irish people fall into the category of the middle earner, which I think is defined as between 23K-45K/year. And most people probably are in the middle of that range, say 27K-35K/year.

On that sort of income, you find yourself stuck "between a rock and a hard place". You are earning way too much to receive any benefits, and are earning way too little to be able to purchase a house.

For many people, myself included, purchasing a property is not a pension plan, or a means to make a killing - it's just a place to live.

On middle income you are often trapped into a perpetual rental cycle, which is fine in Switzerland where there are proper controls, but which is not sustainable in Ireland (or UK for that matter).

In Ireland, if you wish to have a place to live you have three realistic options,

1. Refuse to work (make it look like your trying), get a few kids under your belt, wear some ****ty looking sports clothing and don't speak in full sentences ... it's called fast tracking!
2. Make sure you earn under the threshold which will put you on a hugh housing list - your time will eventually come.
3. Make sure you earn a hugh salary to be able to in-debt yourself to a bank or building society for the next three decades.

It's totally unfair - it's a legacy our parents generation have left us (and have profited from enormously).

bonkey

Originally posted by dglancy
Its totally unfair - it's a legacy our parents generation have left us (and have profited from enormously).

You should check your timeframe....see when houses became unaffordable for people on those sort of salaries.

My guess is that its a lot more recent than your parent's generation that the problem arose.

jc

dglancy

You're probably right - it's just that it seems that almost everybody (except for the ftb) has a vested interest in the current cycle.

Who can we look to to break it?

What political party has a realistic, fair and equitable proposal? It's their job isn't it?

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sand
I own an apartment that I rent out. I cant afford to live in it you see. So I rent it out and in a few years when its appreciated in value Ill sell it and use the profit from that to buy a decent home. Evil, evil me.

No - Nothing at all evil there, Sand - But I'm just wondering if you really manage to make anything at all out of your rental property in the current market, given the heavy rates of stamp duty, the tax due on your rental income and the capital gains tax that will apply when you come to sell the property?

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
I thought one of the key ingredients that made Ballymun a fulure was that the population density was too high (resultant from the use of high-rise), and that this had a number of knock-on detrimental effects (lack of sufficient amenities etc. etc. etc.).

Actually Ballymun is a low density development, with large amounts of parkland (undeveloped grass land with no playgrounds, etc.) interspersed between mostly medium- and high-rise buildings, dissapating the advantages of highrise (the ability to avail of amenities in hte immediate vicinity). Other factors in it's failure were lack of amenities (other than a rundown shopping centre with half the shops closed), poor architectural variety and ghettoisation when upper working class people were encouraged with grants to buy houses elsewhere andfree up council housing, leaving a low income group, with few skills and little ownership of where they lived. Couple that with eventual neglect, deriliction and anti-social behavior and you get Ballymun as it was in the mid- to late-1990s.

Sand

wheather or not they take care of the property has nothing to do with owning it. if people have no pride in where they live and how they are precieved that's just personality not money.

I agree and disagree. There are a certain type of people who will take care of property that isnt theirs - Ive been lucky with my tenants after all. As you say its personality. But these people are relatively rare - From my time in college and talking with other landlords renters tend to display very little care for the property theyre living in. Its not theirs so they have no interest in it. The same seems to be carried through to council housing - I think actually giving ownership of the property to the tenant will mean they will have an investment they will want to protect.

I don't see why that's the government's concern? Why should its social agenda take second-place to other people's capitalist wants?

Assume the government is building council housing. It goes with the "social housing" theorey thats being applied here. The idea is to cross class divides. The people living there are ignored - called bigots and racists for voicing opposition. Their anger/frustration based on their new neighbours being given what they ( the locals ) worked hard to achieve, whilst also hurting their investment. Bitterness nicely reverses any class divides crossing. Whole point of social housing lost.

And yet you're objecting to this notion of "class-mixing" caused by the government's plan??? So, if you think the old tenements are a bad idea - which were related to social class division, and you think the new system is a bad idea - getting rid fo the class barrier in terms of where social housing will be available....then exactly what is a good idea?

Where have I said I oppose class mixing? I oppose the something for nothing principle chained to some weird perception that it wont cause anger, I oppose the idea that to stand up for your interests and that of your community makes you a bigot, I oppose the notion that the government should engage in social engineering in the face of common sense when its been shown to be crap at it when its worthy, and too damn successful when its not.

As for a good idea I thought I provided one....

No, its because they see the monetary value of what they own as being so important. Its not about their home...its about protecting their investment.

All homes are an investment when theyve got so many bills and costs attached to them.

Thus, from day 1, it is cheaper to be paying off a mortgage even if the house is worthless when you finish paying the mortgage. Assuming that its not, you then have somewhere to live, that costs no rent.

From day one it is not cheaper to pay a mortgage - most rent deposits are not in access of 20 K plus legal fees, plus outfitting the place, plus taxes.

When you buy a place you commit yourself to a location - if conditions or opportunities arise elsewhere when youre renting you can simply give a months notice and chase them. With a mortgage youre still stuck with that monthly bill till you get someone to take it off your hands.

You admit as much Sand, but you seem to be taking the line that the house-owners are correct to be self-centred in this way....which would be at odds with your castigation of unions in another thread, where you appear to take the stance that no-one should actually give a crap about these selfish, self-centred little money-grabbing union-members because they are only looking out for no.1.

Actually, I think thats a misrepesentation of my position - I perfectly understood that the unions had a right to act in their own interests, I just felt that this was A) incompatible with public services and not the concern of the general public - that in a privatised market the unions could represent themselves to management without impacting the public at large.

Ive no problem with the house owners representing themselves, no one else is going to look out for their interests afterall. Id have a problem if their representations were impacting the general public but I dont see how they are.

No, to break even, you need the house's value to match the difference between what you pay in mortgage costs vs. what you would pay in rental costs over an equivalent period if you chose not to buy a house.

That would be economic profit rather than accounting profit. Economic profit is theory, accounting profit is reality.

No - Nothing at all evil there, Sand - But I'm just wondering if you really manage to make anything at all out of your rental property in the current market, given the heavy rates of stamp duty, the tax due on your rental income and the capital gains tax that will apply when you come to sell the property?

As long as my mortgage is covered in the short term Im happy - in the longterm Im going to keep voting PDs. But its not a gravy train, it might have been if I had been 10 years older and bought in 1994, but thats life.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sand
As long as my mortgage is covered in the short term Im happy

But you are managing to cover the mortgage AFTER paying the tax due on the rental income - right?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Common sense - why invest in a house when you can get one for free thats idenitcal in the same location? Why risk investing in a house when at any point the government can, using your money, slash the market value of your house?

Common sense for someone who's mortally offended by the concept of social housing nearby, maybe, but not common sense for the vast majority of people, who don't see class warfare as all that important. If they thought like you think they should, people would stop buying houses in mixed communities. They don't, so they don't.

Council tenants dont own the house they live in, theyve no investment tying them to the area, they cant sell the house so theyre not going to see any return from improvements made to it or even simple maintence of it. People always treat their own property better than they treat others. You can see that in the attitude of the homeowners in this particular case - they care very deeply about the effect on their community and their property. They own that property. You dont, so you dont care what happens to them or their property.

So all the ingredients that made Ballymun a failure remain.

Now we're getting to the point. The only ingredient in the failure of Ballymun you've identified is that council tenants don't own their own homes, so they don't particularly care about their upkeep or that of the wider community. As long as that doesn't change any social housing will presumably always deteriorate into a ghetto. Thus making the ghetto the fault of the ghettoised.

Fortunately, this is rubbish. Council tenants care plenty about their homes and communities, because it's where they live, and where they raise families.

Just because you can't conceive of things having non-monetary value to people, it doesn't mean everyone else is the same. This blind spot is well illustrated by your comment that people only have an interest in keeping an area crime free if it means a 'higher market value' for their property! In reality, which I should point out is different from an economics text book, everybody wants to live in a crime free area.

Where disrepair and inadequacy of social housing does exist it is due to under-investment by local and central government. The solution is obviously to put more investment into the stock - and tenants buying equity stakes or the whole property is certainly one way of doing this.

Ghettoisation is not a function of tenure. It is a function of bad design and the kind of aggravated deprivation you get when whole communities are similarly affected by unemployment, poverty and so on.

Call a spade a spade. If that stigmatises it its only because social engineering on the part of governments tends to be either malicious or disastrous. Yellow stars and Ballymun.

And here's where we get to the second part of your 'argument'. You must really, really hate the very idea of government if the first thing bad example you can think of is Nazi Germany. It's like using Harold Shipman as an argument against doctors.

Second example of this ideological aversion to governments: your insistence that governments should compensate homeowners when they 'cause' a drop in their house value but receive no share of any increase they 'cause'. Now, a quick think about this idea reveals the following problems:
-It would be impossible to measure any such drop or increase in property values, since it would be impossible to say what would have happened to prices in the absence of the policy change;
-It would be impossible to separate the effect of one government policy from another
-Introducing such a compensation would itself distort the market, since the potential transfer would be factored into prices in unpredictable ways - should government try to measure the costs and benefits here and compensate the losers appropriately? It's an infinite regression of governments paying out hand over fist to the poor unfortunates who might or might not have lost some arbitrary sum of money;
-There is no reasonable basis on which to include or exclude anybody from compensation - how far away is the boundary? Why not compensate private and social tenants for the apparently inevitable 'ghettoisation'? Why not compensate local businesses too?
-It sets an unacceptable precedent - why not compensate shareholders or other assetholders for falls that might or might not have been caused by the government?

And so on. It's an obviously ludicrous idea. Yet you keep banging away at it because isn't it great gas to have a go at the government no matter how daft you sound? I mean, 'Yellow stars and Ballymun', ffs.

Theyre people with an investment in their area - theyre understandably hostile to anything they feel will affect them and their area for the worse.

They're hostile to the idea of social housing anywhere near them, for purely selfish reasons. This is obviously an unreasonable position, and just because it appeals to you and it's a good excuse to have a go at the government doesnt' make it any less so.

Isnt it so damn unfair that some people get good wages whilst others get feck all? So damn unfair. The government should do something to stop people making a return on their education and work ethic.

Sorry, but like it or not the government is not obliged to guarantee a certain section of the population a high return on their investment. And it never will be.

Their view should be quite important Id have thought. Especially if its going to poison relations between the council tenants and the private homeowners - which would defeat the whole purpose of mixed communites Id have thought?

Interesting. So in order to avoid 'tensions' the government should bow to the views of self-confessed bigots like Klaz, or those who don't want 'undesirables' (= council tenants) in their area? And if I decide that too many immigrants are causing 'tensions' in my area the government should ship them out too? Oh wait, only if I own my own property and have an 'investment' in the area. So whoever comes out with the loudest and stupidest compaint wins, as long as they're homeowners and thus 'responsible members of the community'. Sounds like a great place to me.

You might want to calm down on the shouts of hypocrisy and bigotry - theyre just protecting their investment.

And I've pointed out where they are doing so through bigotry and in a hypocritical manner, while you and Klaz have helpfully pointed out that they're only doing it out of their own self-interest. Well, their self-interest is of interest only to themselves. Meanwhile, there is a big waiting list of people who need social housing, and they and their children have as much a right to grow up in a decent neighbourhood as you or me. The wider interest should prevail.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
All homes are an investment when theyve got so many bills and costs attached to them.

I meant in the capitalist sense : money being invested in order to realise profit.

Look at your own situation. You are a property investor - you own a property to rent it out...not to live there. You see your investment being threatened by a social change. Its not your home. Its not your life. Its not your community. Its just an investment. Thats what I'm driving at in terms of the word.

Now yoru investment is being threatened. Its being threatened because the govt want to try and solve a problem that hithertofore they haven't managed to. They're trying something new, and that something may devalue your investment, so you feel that you should protect it. Thats your right.

But just look at how many other groups who've had their avenues for easy profit "damaged" by the government, and how much sympathy you had for each of them. I've mentioned the unions already. Consider the taxi-drivers as well...you didn't weep much for the anger and resentment they showed at having tens of thousands of an investment stripped in value overnight.

d have a problem if their representations were impacting the general public but I dont see how they are.

You don't see that social housing impacts the general public?

I suppose unemployment benefits don't affect the general public either, or any other social service we supply to the minority who need them.

Its a public issue, and at the end of the day, your objection boils down to a variation of "Not in My Back Yard".

That would be economic profit rather than accounting profit. Economic profit is theory, accounting profit is reality.

So your maths which ignores 20 (say) years of real, existing costs is "reality", where as mine, which takes them it into account is "theoretical" ????

Logically, this also means that the rent you gain from your current property which you are renting does not figure into your calculations of "real" profit???

This makes no sense.

You could buy a place, rent it out for the duration of the mortgage, at a cost which exactly covers the mortgage . Thus, you never actually pay a penny, and end up with a house worth €X.

You are telling me that the "real" profit from this is the value of the house less what was paid for the mortgage...despite the fact that you never paid a penny of that money from your own pocket.

Saying that it cost you nothing so its entire current value is profit is "theoretical" ???


jc

Sand

Fortunately, this is rubbish. Council tenants care plenty about their homes and communities, because it's where they live, and where they raise families.

Well I guess if you say so it must be true.

Just because you can't conceive of things having non-monetary value to people, it doesn't mean everyone else is the same.

Everything has a monetary value - even religious worship, even posting on this message board. To do either of these things means you choose not to work to earn money - you value the worship or posting more than you do the money youd make for doing an extra hour of work.

I can see how people would have an idealogical problem with accepting that but the more youre offered to work an extra hour the more likely you are to do so, depending on how much you value "not working".

But this is another thread anyway.

Where disrepair and inadequacy of social housing does exist it is due to under-investment by local and central government.

Which is my point, council house dwellers dont invest, they get no return from it so it makes no sense. The government is expected by some idealogies to invest but often fails. Private ownership invests not only for the personal comfort factor which may motivate some basic maintence but because they can expect to make a return on their investment in the future.

The solution is obviously to put more investment into the stock - and tenants buying equity stakes or the whole property is certainly one way of doing this.

We agree on the solution then, even if we cannot agree to the problem.

And here's where we get to the second part of your 'argument'. You must really, really hate the very idea of government if the first thing bad example you can think of is Nazi Germany. It's like using Harold Shipman as an argument against doctors.

I wouldnt say hate, I just recognise how ...... flawed they are. The first example I used for governments social engineering was Ballymun i think, to show the failure of a well meant policy. The second example of social engineering was Nazi Germany, which was tragically successful in its goal to burn Jewish people and culture from the society of Germany, and then Europe. The lesson learned is that the individual must come before the state whenever possible. The state is the servant, not the master. Ever.

By the way, I like the way you use 'argument' to imply my point of view is weak when you agree with me that property ownership is a cure for the ills of council housing but you refuse to believe that the lack of property ownership is a problem. Im awestruck at the logical brilliance of that position tbh. Why encourage private ownership if its not a problem?

They're hostile to the idea of social housing anywhere near them, for purely selfish reasons. This is obviously an unreasonable position, and just because it appeals to you and it's a good excuse to have a go at the government doesnt' make it any less so.

They oppose it for their reasons, to protect themselves. What is so crazy about this? They are citizens and are not the slaves of the state, they are damn well entitled to object to what is bad for them and their interests and to exert all legal avenues to opposing it. The best argument Ive heard to counter their position is that theyre bigots. Great, we can all go home now.

Sorry, but like it or not the government is not obliged to guarantee a certain section of the population a high return on their investment. And it never will be.

A certain section? Youre talking about private house owners, not CEOs. When their government harms their interests with a foolish, costly and self defeating policy that is about as well throught out as the scattering of civil service offices across the country then a real problem is occuring - the state exists only to further the interests of its citizens, not to arbitrarily harm them. Do you think that this "cross-community" thing that is the whole *point* of the policy is going to get of to a good start when people contemplate their mortgage bills, then see their neighbours across the road in an identical house given to them for practically nothing?

Oh wait, only if I own my own property and have an 'investment' in the area. So whoever comes out with the loudest and stupidest compaint wins, as long as they're homeowners and thus 'responsible members of the community'. Sounds like a great place to me.

Theyll be living with the consequences, You wont. I think their view is fairly important.

Meanwhile, there is a big waiting list of people who need social housing, and they and their children have as much a right to grow up in a decent neighbourhood as you or me. The wider interest should prevail.

There is nothing stopping the government building council housing. Nothing at all. In no way, shape or form will not building council houses in this area mean they cant be built else where.

And it may be in the wider interest, if youre appealing to that nebulous refuge, to not build council houses in the congested Greater Dublin Area where house prices are so much more excessive than in the rest of the country, but instead to build them outside the GDA at a cheaper cost to the taxpayer, bringing about savings that could be spent on health, education and the children, what about the children?

I mean - youve advocated yourself that the government shouldnt give a damn about people or their interests, so who cares if the council tenants dont want to live in Ballygobackwards - thats only their narrow selfishness afterall.

But you are managing to cover the mortgage AFTER paying the tax due on the rental income - right?

Should be able to ( its a lump sum rather than a paye type thing ), youre taxed on what you earn from rental income, less your mortgage repayments. So long as you charge more than your mortgage repayments, youll meet them if you ignore the other costs associated with a property.

Look at your own situation. You are a property investor - you own a property to rent it out...not to live there. You see your investment being threatened by a social change. Its not your home. Its not your life. Its not your community. Its just an investment. Thats what I'm driving at in terms of the word.

But it is my life, and my home - Im investing now so that I will have the money to buy a proper home in the future. Im not making any cash of the place in the here and now, if anything Im losing money in the short term. If its just an investment, then its the investment that will provide a home for me and my family. And whilst Im lucky that the appartment is located in an excellent neighbourhood I will without any guilt whatsoever protect my investment because of what it represents. These people in this case most likely feel the same, if not even more strongly.

But just look at how many other groups who've had their avenues for easy profit "damaged" by the government, and how much sympathy you had for each of them. I've mentioned the unions already. Consider the taxi-drivers as well...you didn't weep much for the anger and resentment they showed at having tens of thousands of an investment stripped in value overnight.

Wasnt the situation of the taxi plates created *because* of the governments actions - its regulation and refusal to print any more liscences meaning that the liscences that were out there were valuable so long as the government maintainted its monopoly on them? The government does not have a monopoly on housing - its not the cause of the excessive price rises, no more than it was in the previous 70 years of the state. I can see how youd trace a connection, but Id view the government in the deregulation of the taxis as removing a bad policy of inteference with market forces, and in this case enacting a bad policy to intefere with market forces.

If anything, the harm that the governments inteference with the taxi plates caused to people for so long is an excellent warning of why "The government thinks its a good idea, so citizens better sit down and shut up" is not any real reassurance.

You don't see that social housing impacts the general public?

The residents arent campaigning for an end to council housing, theyre campaigning to protect their area and their homes. I mean, some people get upset when anti war marchers are accused of being pro saddam.

Logically, this also means that the rent you gain from your current property which you are renting does not figure into your calculations of "real" profit???

Pretty much all of that rent goes into maintaining an appartment I cant live in. Yes I own an appartment ( or rather the bank does ) but I cannot make use of it. My only payback is an appreciation in value. So no, the only profit Ill be making out of this place will be an appreciation in value.

You are telling me that the "real" profit from this is the value of the house less what was paid for the mortgage...despite the fact that you never paid a penny of that money from your own pocket.

Yeah, I cant make use of the place - someone else gets the pleasure of living in my appartment ( which is lovely - Id love to be able to live in it but I cant ) which is what they pay me for. I pay the back the cost of the appartment plus roughly an extra 50% to account for interest.

.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
Well I guess if you say so it must be true.

Who'd have thought that the idea that people care about where they live would be so controversial? Whatever, if the idea that council tenants would prefer to live in a crime-free area doesn't fit with your view of the world that doesn't bother me.

By the way, I like the way you use 'argument' to imply my point of view is weak when you agree with me that property ownership is a cure for the ills of council housing but you refuse to believe that the lack of property ownership is a problem. Im awestruck at the logical brilliance of that position tbh. Why encourage private ownership if its not a problem?

Property ownership is not a cure for the ills of council housing, and I never said it was. It's one way of getting extra money in for repairs and maintenance, but the main cause of ghettoisation - which is what we were talking about, after all - is that large homogenous communities with high levels of unemployment and poverty generate their own extra set of social problems. One solution, as governments around the world are beginning to realise, is to mix tenures. Besides, most council tenants can't afford to buy their homes in full or in part, so relying on this to 'cure the ills of council housing' is obviously not a goer.

They oppose it for their reasons, to protect themselves. What is so crazy about this? They are citizens and are not the slaves of the state, they are damn well entitled to object to what is bad for them and their interests and to exert all legal avenues to opposing it. The best argument Ive heard to counter their position is that theyre bigots.

It's not crazy, it's just pure self-interest. Like I keep saying, I've no problem with them putting this view forward, I just don't think we should base government policy on it.

Theyll be living with the consequences, You wont. I think their view is fairly important.

Yes, and they will live with the consequences, because the absolute worst thing that might happen is that the value of their houses might drop a bit. The world won't end. The bottom will not drop out of the property market. People will not abandon homeownership in protest at the concept of social housing. They'll get over it eventually.

Their view is no more important than mine (or the views of the people who are actually going to live in these houses) if they can't come up with a good reason why it should be. "My house might drop in value, or it might not, I'm not really sure but I sure don't want undesireables around" is not a good reason.

I mean - youve advocated yourself that the government shouldnt give a damn about people or their interests, so who cares if the council tenants dont want to live in Ballygobackwards - thats only their narrow selfishness afterall.

You're saying that the claims of a select bunch of homeowners that the value of some houses might drop by some amount (maybe) should be given equal weighting to the right of council tenants and their children to grow up in a mixed community and NOT in the multiple deprivation of a homogenous council estate in the middle of nowhere? why, whent the worst that can happen in the first case is so much better than the worst that can happen in the second? Could it be because the potential victims in the first case are homeowners and in the second are council tenants?

And it's interesting that you seem to prefer this kind of social engineering to the horrible concept of council housing being built near respectable homeowners. By your definition, all council housing development is a kind of social engineering - you've just not come up with a way that can be done that would be better than mixed communities in avoiding the kind of ghettoisation you claim to dislike so.

The government does not have a monopoly on housing - its not the cause of the excessive price rises, no more than it was in the previous 70 years of the state. I can see how youd trace a connection, but Id view the government in the deregulation of the taxis as removing a bad policy of inteference with market forces, and in this case enacting a bad policy to intefere with market forces.

The government has got a monopoly on planning power. If the planning decisions of central and local governments can push the value of property down, they can push it up too. By restraining housing development in a rising market and setting limits to the type of building in an area, planning authorities absolutely help maintain and push up house prices. I'm still waiting for a reason why governments shouldn't get a slice of the upside if they have to pay for the downside.

Sand

Property ownership is not a cure for the ills of council housing, and I never said it was. It's one way of getting extra money in for repairs and maintenance, but the main cause of ghettoisation - which is what we were talking about, after all - is that large homogenous communities with high levels of unemployment and poverty generate their own extra set of social problems.

High unemplyoment in council areas? Im shocked - you were upset when I dared to use an unemployed couple as a throwaway example of council tenants.

It's not crazy, it's just pure self-interest. Like I keep saying, I've no problem with them putting this view forward, I just don't think we should base government policy on it.

Good point - lets apply this later on ....

Id ask though - If you buy a home, and then 2 years later the government decided to open a council tip right next door would you feel embarrassed to voice dissent - after all Dublin is undergoing a waste crises and needs somewhere to dump the stuff. Its in the wider interest, even if your scenic view becomes a nightmare? You dont feel government policy should be based on the wishes of the citizens theyre supposed to represent so youd be happy with that?

Yes, and they will live with the consequences, because the absolute worst thing that might happen is that the value of their houses might drop a bit.

No, thats not the absolute worst thing that could happen. The absolute worst thing that could happen realistically is that the governments social engineering goes true to form and the private home owners find themselves bang in the middle of new Ballymun with their property suitably valued in that light.

Honestly, I find your faith in a Fianna Fail government to manage this sort of project to be astounding.

You're saying that the claims of a select bunch of homeowners that the value of some houses might drop by some amount (maybe) should be given equal weighting to the right of council tenants and their children to grow up in a mixed community and NOT in the multiple deprivation of a homogenous council estate in the middle of nowhere?

Oh no - ive allowed that from your point of view that the citizen is always the minority when dealing with the government and thus should never be listened to. What Im saying is that if it is the wider interest to build council housing and give it away for free, then it is clear is also in the wider interest to do so at low costs where ever possible - this frees up taxpayers money for other services that are in the wider interests of everyone?

So, it is not justifiable - in the wider interest - to build council housing in the part of the country where it incredibly exspensive to do so. Instead it should be built in Ballygobackwards where house prices are a fraction of costs in the GDA.

Now lets apply the good point you made earlier.

If the tenants dont like it, tough as you say. Theyre entitled to their views but if they want a council house theyre moving the hell to connaught. How is this not in the wider interests, which is the holy grail and mantra of government policy?

I'm still waiting for a reason why governments shouldn't get a slice of the upside if they have to pay for the downside.

Is that what capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes are meant to do? Seeing as they tax rises in properties value when there is no easily discernable reason to believe they brought about the market value gains, then when there is easily discernable reason that they brought about a market value loss it follows they should compensate the house owner?

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sand
High unemplyoment in council areas? Im shocked - you were upset when I dared to use an unemployed couple as a throwaway example of council tenants.

There's a higher rate of unemployment among social housing tenants. This is not the same as implying all or even most of them are unemployed.

Id ask though - If you buy a home, and then 2 years later the government decided to open a council tip right next door would you feel embarrassed to voice dissent - after all Dublin is undergoing a waste crises and needs somewhere to dump the stuff. Its in the wider interest, even if your scenic view becomes a nightmare? You dont feel government policy should be based on the wishes of the citizens theyre supposed to represent so youd be happy with that?

First of all, the government now has a policy aim of actually reducing the number of landfill sites, but anyway ... if it was built, it wouldn't be 'right next door'. If it was built according to existing environmental and health guidelines it would be much further away.

If I wanted to complain I'd have to actually have a good reason - if other alternative options for waste disposal had not been ruled out, for example, or if the proposal was in conflict with any of the voluminous national and European regulations on landfill. I might even rely on the recent government research into the health effects of landfill, particularly the bit about "an association between birth defects and residence near some landfill sites".

But I wouldn't expect compensation or a reversal of policy just because I'm throwing a hissy fit over my view. That would be just silly.

You dont feel government policy should be based on the wishes of the citizens theyre supposed to represent

Now, did I say that? No. I said government policy shouldn't be based on the views of a tiny minority who can't manage to come up with a reasonable complaint. Or do you think the government should change its policies every time anyone pipes up with some scare story or other?

No, thats not the absolute worst thing that could happen. The absolute worst thing that could happen realistically is that the governments social engineering goes true to form and the private home owners find themselves bang in the middle of new Ballymun with their property suitably valued in that light.

I suggest you actually read the news story that started this thread off. You'll find that the development in question involves twenty-four low-rise homes (half of which will be aimed at the intermediate market, ie not social housing) being built at the end of a cul-de-sac. So your worries about the one hundred and fifty people who wrote letters to the council finding themselves "bang in the middle of new Ballymun" is just amusingly misguided scaremongering.

Honestly, I find your faith in a Fianna Fail government to manage this sort of project to be astounding.

Well it's more sensible than opposing a policy simply because it's being proposed by a party you don't like.

Why is it so hard to understand that I think objections to policies should be based on evidence and not prejudice and scare-mongering? Why is it so hard for you to come up with such an objection?

What Im saying is that if it is the wider interest to build council housing and give it away for free, then it is clear is also in the wider interest to do so at low costs where ever possible - this frees up taxpayers money for other services that are in the wider interests of everyone?

So, it is not justifiable - in the wider interest - to build council housing in the part of the country where it incredibly exspensive to do so. Instead it should be built in Ballygobackwards where house prices are a fraction of costs in the GDA.

But it wouldn't be more cost effective. Communities don't just consist of housing, they require huge amounts of infrastructure, facilities and services. Building many smaller developments like the one in question in urban areas is much cheaper than building whole new settlements in the middle of nowhere.

Is that what capital gains taxes and inheritance taxes are meant to do?

Yes. So what's your problem?

Seeing as they tax rises in properties value when there is no easily discernable reason to believe they brought about the market value gains, then when there is easily discernable reason that they brought about a market value loss it follows they should compensate the house owner?

I've already pointed out your logic can be turned around to show how governments 'cause' house price rises. In practise, it's impossible to tell since you don't know what prices would have been otherwise. Therefore, there wouldn't be an "easily discernible reason that they brought about a market value loss".

Redleslie

A while ago, when I mentioned that a neighbour of my parents tried to get everyone on the road to sign a petition to stop a black family moving in, Sand (correctly) said he sounded like an "arsehole". Why? The "arsehole" believes that property prices will fall if undesirables (like blacks) move into the area, so he tried to protect what's his. Sand and the "arsehole" have a lot to talk about.

Also it's pretty amusing that Sand fears that immigrants (but only african and asian ones) will influence our laws and principles negatively, yet from reading through his posts on this thread he appears to be downright hostile to many of those very principles, describing government policies which are consistent with the constitution's social policy directives as Naziesque "social engineering".

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Now, did I say that? No. I said government policy shouldn't be based on the views of a tiny minority who can't manage to come up with a reasonable complaint. Or do you think the government should change its policies every time anyone pipes up with some scare story or other?

Think through the implications of that. The government is *always* the majority. The citizen is always the *tiny* minority who can be ignored. Always.

Well it's more sensible than opposing a policy simply because it's being proposed by a party you don't like.

Ive nothing against FF particularly. Their governments with the PDs are the best of an excerable lot. Every time I get sick of them I think who will I vote for instead. Labour? The Greens? FG? SF? Right, so itll be the PDs again then so.

My point is you trust the proficiency of the government to carry out this policy. Im honestly impressed at your confidence in them.

But it wouldn't be more cost effective. Communities don't just consist of housing, they require huge amounts of infrastructure, facilities and services. Building many smaller developments like the one in question in urban areas is much cheaper than building whole new settlements in the middle of nowhere.

Would it.... decent houses retailing at 270K and up in the GDA, going for less than 100k outside of it. Thats a saving of what? 1.7 million on 10 houses? I think somehow theyll find the spare change to invest in infrastructure somehow, which again will be cheaper outside the GDA anyway. I mean, those houses are going to need developed infrastructure anyway if were going to avoid Ballymun: The Return. And it would do a lot to economically rejuvenate the west, I can see it now.....the new economic dynamos of the west justifying the existence of Shannon.... Theres so many pluses here for the nation.

But I wouldn't expect compensation or a reversal of policy just because I'm throwing a hissy fit over my view. That would be just silly.

So youd object, but you wouldnt expect to be listened to? Why bother objecting then?

I've already pointed out your logic can be turned around to show how governments 'cause' house price rises. In practise, it's impossible to tell since you don't know what prices would have been otherwise. Therefore, there wouldn't be an "easily discernible reason that they brought about a market value loss".

Axtually you can estimate the market value of the property, Then the government declares its plans and the market falls to a new value. The difference is the hypothetical compensation to ensure theres no anger from the locals taking a hit to their finances and their new neighbours who are not.

And I dont think youve shown how government policy 'cause' price rises, beyond *not* taking action that leads to a fall in market value.

The question is whether you believe the black family should get the house cheaper solely for the reason of having a black family in the area.

More precisely, given the social housing plan is supposed to lead to integration of different classes, can you give one set of people in a neighbourhood their houses for free, when the other set of people in the neighbourhood have to pay through the nose for their houses, and witness a drop in the market value of their home because you gave the other set of people homes for free and expect there not to be anger/bitterness over that and a clear division between private home owners and council tenants? If you cant, how well thought out is this integration by housing plan?

AngelofFire

The many problems in certain areas of local authority housing stem from lack of proper planning and corruption in the authorities. I have no problem with people buying houses down the road from me for cheaper it integrates social classes. any objection to it is just pure snobbery. there is a housing crisis in dublin at the moment. the average cost of building a house in dublin is only 100,000 yet the average price is 300,000 the government ought to put price caps on housing.

Irish people ought to stop confusing the value of the houses in their area with their "status". a 20 bedroom chateau in france costs less than a 3 bedroom house in blackrock. does that mean the people purchasing the house in blackrock have more status.NO

Mixing people of different socio economic backgrounds is a fantastic idea it adds a bit of charachter and diversity to the area.

Redleslie

Originally posted by daveirl
The question is whether you believe the black family should get the house cheaper solely for the reason of having a black family in the area.

No that is not the question.

The question is one of bigotry, class hatred and anti-social attitudes as exhibited by several people on this thread, people who do not seem to be particularly familiar with the constitution's directives on social policy and private property, or if they are, they just don't respect them.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

AngelofFire

My vision of an equal ireland is that everyone can AFFORD necessities be it housing, healthcare, food or education.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.