An Bord Snip recommends discontinuation of ALL Affordable Housing Schemes

gurramok

See Vol II page 97 http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0716/Volume%202%20FINAL.pdf

Opinions?

I agree with the end to this subsidy. It will allow the market correction to continue to its natural norm so most working people could afford a home if they want to.

False support levels should be removed for a properly functioning market.

quozl

The markets already dropped to the prices they were offering affordable housing at. The last thing I'd want the government to be doing is buying MORE properties in a falling market when it can't even shift the ones it currently has, at below the cost it bought them for!

It's basically a subsidy to the developers by buying over-priced apartments from them. Yes, brilliant, get rid of it.

oceanclub

First good thing I've heard Bord Snip doing. The Affordable Housing Scheme was ludicrous, merely propping up an already inflated market.

P.

Freddie59

oceanclub wrote: »

First good thing I've heard Bord Snip doing. The Affordable Housing Scheme was ludicrous, merely propping up an already inflated market.

P.

Pity it didn't recommend the same for NAMA.

JupiterKid

Yes I completely ageree with this recommendation. The affordable housing scheme was a symptom of the property bubble and, like the bubble, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

The_Conductor

Playing devils advocate here.
What should the oppossing side of the scale be?
I.e. should the state fund the addition of more housing units to council rental schemes- in recognition that many people who may well have aspired to buy their own property during boom times, simply will never be lent money now?

If we accept that we can no longer support the housing market (which should be the case), we have to acknowledge that there are increasing numbers of people incapable of housing themselves. In the past we addressed this with council housing schemes- which attracted their own social problems, but do we need a replacement in the current climate?

Macha

smccarrick wrote: »

Playing devils advocate here.
What should the oppossing side of the scale be?
I.e. should the state fund the addition of more housing units to council rental schemes- in recognition that many people who may well have aspired to buy their own property during boom times, simply will never be lent money now?

Definitely. The government should be a provider of housing to those that cannot compete in the market BUT they should not be involved in selling units, but renting.

In the 1960s, 30% of housing in the country was provided by local authorities; now it's closer to 7%. Basically, they have sold off almost the entire public housing stock at knock down prices and for what?

The_Conductor

taconnol wrote: »

Definitely. The government should be a provider of housing to those that cannot compete in the market BUT they should not be involved in selling units, but renting.

In the 1960s, 30% of housing in the country was provided by local authorities; now it's closer to 7%. Basically, they have sold off almost the entire public housing stock at knock down prices and for what?

So all the schemes whereby a council tenant could potentially at some future point be able to purchase their home would be abondoned.

How do you do that? Get rid of all the schemes in place- and set a maximum tenancy length per unit (for arguments sake 10 years). At the end of this period- you qualify for rehousing, if you haven't managed to house yourself- however you loose your tenancy of the current building and have to move.

All councils to have a target of say 15% of all housing units in their area to be council units in perpetuity- and additional units added to the housing stock- by means of a levy on future planning permissions granted (so 15% of any future developments- simply handed over- or equivalent units, but not cash)......?

Macha

smccarrick wrote: »

So all the schemes whereby a council tenant could potentially at some future point be able to purchase their home would be abondoned.

Yes. In my little fiefdom :pac: If someone really wants to buy, why not let them do it on the open market? As long as the rental market is made accessible to all (through council & social housing for those who need it), I don't see why governments should be subsidising the purchasing of a house or selling off a national asset.

This idea that people need help to buy a house stems from the concept that buying is the ultimate aim and renting is a curse. This is not the case.

smccarrick wrote: »

How do you do that? Get rid of all the schemes in place- and set a maximum tenancy length per unit (for arguments sake 10 years). At the end of this period- you qualify for rehousing, if you haven't managed to house yourself- however you loose your tenancy of the current building and have to move.

I don't know why you have to set a maximum tenancy length - why not just allow people to keep renting?

Some (or most?) of the council housing, could be used for social houing but it can also be for "normal" people. I've seen some pretty nice council houses in places like Sweden that aren't social housing - a distinction I think we fail to make in this country.

smccarrick wrote: »

All councils to have a target of say 15% of all housing units in their area to be council units in perpetuity- and additional units added to the housing stock- by means of a levy on future planning permissions granted (so 15% of any future developments- simply handed over- or equivalent units, but not cash)......?

Yes, I would say 15%, as the amount of housing in council hands, is a start. Either the council can build them itself or take a percentage of new developments - none of this "equivalent units in the back of beyond" crap.