Housing Co-operatives

Sleepy

Seems the main reason it could work was because the council gave them the land for pennies on the pound and wrote off the development levy.

Something tells me it's the sort of scheme that a few lucky people get to benefit from and the council get to show off their "innovative thinking" and "support for the community" but that would never be rolled out en-masse because it'd bankrupt the council.

mel123

I know someone in this co-op, and its been going on years and years, many many times looked like it wasnt going ahead....just a bit of useless info :-)

LirW

That's interesting because in the article it appears that it is fairly recent. Do you know if they paid for their houses years ago or just now? Because that wouldn't mean a lot then when it says there are houses from 140k up.

mel123

LirW wrote: »

That's interesting because in the article it appears that it is fairly recent. Do you know if they paid for their houses years ago or just now? Because that wouldn't mean a lot then when it says there are houses from 140k up.

I cant be certain, i havnt been talking to him in a good while, but i imagine they are paying todays cost. The whole thing must be at least 10 years old now if not more, so when you consider waiting that long and everything thats gone on between, it probably isnt as glorious as it sounds.

Mrs OBumble

They got the land from the council with the stipulation that it be used for "co-op housing".

Will the people moving into the houses own them once they've finished paying off their mortgages, or not? Or is there some clause that the house can only be sold back to the co-op?

LirW

Article indicates that there is full ownership but a clawback clause. If the owners of a house sell within a certain time after buying (doesn't say how long exactly) they have to give half of the selling price back to the council. They implied this to make sure these homes are not used as investments and can be sold for a lot more just after a few years but people intend to stay there long term.
It also says that 70% of the people moving in are from the area.

The clawback clause made it difficult for people getting a mortgage on the place but it seems like it worked out in the end.

Sleepy

I really couldn't be more against such a model tbh. By all means, I'd be in favour of the council providing project assistance to a co-op looking to reduce their private building costs but, while there are some strings attached, each of these homeowners has effectively been gifted in excess of €50k by the tax payer.

mike_2009

One of the new owners are a couple earning 50K between them. How they can expect to find a house in their budget to own and live in Dublin by paying market prices - that day is long gone. Yet should they not have an opportunity to do just that?
Housing cooperatives set up the budget and I applaud the price this one managed to obtain....well done to them and congrats to the lucky new owners....

LirW

I get the point when it upsets people that can buy houses that cheap. But mike has a point there: People with an income of 50k don't have endless choices in Dublin. If these people plan families then it's even worse. It gives people and especially families somewhat of a perspective, because if they want to buy it would take them in the area of Portlaoise and towns in similar distances to be able to buy. Is it really a solution to push lower income families out?
These people still pay for their houses, they pay all they can afford into a mortgage. Also there is no income limitation, even as a high income earner you can buy into this. So it's not that these people are oozing from entitlement and want everything handed for free. I do feel for them because we were in a similar situation and it was really difficult.

Browney7

Sleepy wrote: »

I really couldn't be more against such a model tbh. By all means, I'd be in favour of the council providing project assistance to a co-op looking to reduce their private building costs but, while there are some strings attached, each of these homeowners has effectively been gifted in excess of €50k by the tax payer.

Or the council pays "market" rent for four years to a private landlord via HAP and that makes up the 50k instead?

Graham

Sleepy wrote: »

I really couldn't be more against such a model tbh. By all means, I'd be in favour of the council providing project assistance to a co-op looking to reduce their private building costs but, while there are some strings attached, each of these homeowners has effectively been gifted in excess of €50k by the tax payer.

I really rather like this type of model. Even though you may consider the sites are 'gifted', the recipients have to contribute in the form of hundreds of hours work.

I suspect the land used for such project had already been earmarked for social housing so this type of project must work out more cost effective for local authorities who could have otherwise spend multiples of 50k building houses only to risk them being sold off to tenants for a fraction of that amount in the future.

I can only imagine there's a great sense of community in this type of development, that's got to have significant cost/societal benefits over the long term.

Mrs OBumble

Graham wrote: »

I really rather like this type of model. Even though you may consider the sites are 'gifted', the recipients have to contribute in the form of hundreds of hours work.

I suspect the land used for such project had already been earmarked for social housing so this type of project must work out more cost effective for local authorities who could have otherwise spend multiples of 50k building houses only to risk them being sold off to tenants for a fraction of that amount in the future.

I can only imagine there's a great sense of community in this type of development, that's got to have significant cost/societal benefits over the long term.

Eh? What work do the recipients do?

Graham

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Eh? What work do the recipients do?

Sorry Mrs B, the project I'm familiar with was the Grand Designs one mentioned earlier in the thread. It looks like the Poppintree development didn't contain the sweat-equity element that I referred to.

KathleenF

For anyone looking for more detail on this, ocualann.ie is worth a look. Hugh Brennan is the head guy on this, very decent and experienced fella. First five purchasers due to move in by the end of the month I think. Great scheme for those lucky enough to get on it. Ts and Cs apply and it's not for everyone, but if it can succeed in Dublin it can succeed anywhere in the country IMO. Quality of houses is unreal, all A2 BER.

KathleenF

Graham wrote: »

Sorry Mrs B, the project I'm familiar with was the Grand Designs one mentioned earlier in the thread. It looks like the Poppintree development didn't contain the sweat-equity element that I referred to.

No it doesn't, cash equity only!

KathleenF

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

They got the land from the council with the stipulation that it be used for "co-op housing".

Will the people moving into the houses own them once they've finished paying off their mortgages, or not? Or is there some clause that the house can only be sold back to the co-op?

Yes they will and can sell them to whoever they want. Clawback expires after ten years.

Sleepy

Graham wrote: »

Sorry Mrs B, the project I'm familiar with was the Grand Designs one mentioned earlier in the thread. It looks like the Poppintree development didn't contain the sweat-equity element that I referred to.

For that form of co-op I could support the knock-down price of the site or the waiving of development levies - the home-owner will have "earned" the equity.

As KathleenF says, the clawback on these properties where no such contribution has been made, expires in ten years. That's a relatively short period of home-ownership. The lucky few that get to take advantage of it, benefit greatly and at the expense of the taxpayer: many of whom are no better off, or even worse off, than they.

This type of scheme is un-scalable. Our Local Authorities can't afford to subsidise the building of every home in their county. And to cherry pick such a small number of homeowners is inequitable in the extreme.

Had the site been sold at it's commercial value, the council would have been able to lower (or waive) development levies across a much larger number of housing units - benefitting far more of their citizens.

Now, while there's almost certainly a strategic developmental aim here (i.e. to increase home ownership levels in the greater Ballymun area and to hopefully gain the societal benefits that usually brings), it's one with an extremely narrow focus and it's quite a gamble. How many of us would be all that surprised to see the council purchasing or renting these homes to be used as social housing in 15 years time?

mike_2009

FYI - there's an event taking place in Dublin next week regarding Co-Housing...
https://soa.ie