The housing crisis and where we go from here

relax carry on

The housing issue is just one facet of the never ending problem in Ireland. That is what type of society do we want and how will we fund it.
We want to fix all our problems but balk at the prospect of paying the tax required to fund the solutions. Then depending on what solution we chose, we could end up paying the tax to cover it indefinitely.
Is there a limit to what should be expected of the state? Do we just keep throwing money at our problems for ever hoping that somehow it will all workout in the end?

Ray Palmer

There are a number of initiatives that could be tried to help and build more solid communities. If they tried them our communities got together. There are some houses with large enough plots to aid in building housing ideal for elderly people. This would allow certain elderly people to stay in the community and downsize. This would free up the large residential housing many elderly people live in and around major areas of employment and amenities. Tax breaks for pension funds could be used and incentives to sell to family could be added.

Not much cost and possibly actually save money in the long term keeping people happier in their old age and independent. Much better use of current housing stock.
It could be a touchy subject but can be handled in a constructive way.

slowjoe17

relax carry on wrote: »

The housing issue is just one facet of the never ending problem in Ireland. That is what type of society do we want and how will we fund it.
We want to fix all our problems but balk at the prospect of paying the tax required to fund the solutions. Then depending on what solution we chose, we could end up paying the tax to cover it indefinitely.
Is there a limit to what should be expected of the state? Do we just keep throwing money at our problems for ever hoping that somehow it will all workout in the end?

To be fair, the housing problem is NOT related to philosophical questions.

The housing problem is because, in areas where the population was growing at 10% per year, we were building 2% extra housing stock. The math isn't socialist or capitalist. 10% is bigger than 2% no matter the politics.

If we hadn't had a bubble, and didn't have ghost estates to release the pressure, there would be well paid working people living in tents or squatting derelict buildings.

What we need:
1. Streamlined planning permission. It costs about 60k per house in red tape to build.
2. Get builders building. This can be a bank guarantee from the government.
3. Fix the social rental market so landlords don't blacklist all social tenants:
3.1 Pay the benefit to the landlord. The cost of one dodgy tenants is keeping lls from dealing with any social tenant.
3.2 Make it easier to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour.
3.3 Remove the duty for the state to house repeat criminals or their families.
4. Attach housing and planning permission conditions to county council grants. If Wicklow doesn't want to allow any building that's fine. But I don't want a penny of Irish tax money spent in the Republic of Wicklow.

Ray Palmer

slowjoe17 wrote: »

The housing problem is because, in areas where the population was growing at 10% per year, we were building 2% extra housing stock. The math isn't socialist or capitalist. 10% is bigger than 2% no matter the politics.

The thing is there is a massive absence from the figures you are using. Under utilized housing. If you accept housing is getting smaller than older houses are big enough for two modern houses. There are large estates of housing where the vast majority of the housing is lived in by no more than 2 people when capable of housing 4-5. In Dublin that must account for over 10% of the houses within easy commute of the city.
People talk of increased density by building up but the easier cheaper solution is to reuse. Where I grew up the vast majority of the original residents are living there after their kids left. They built extensions for their large families and now live rattling around them. We literally don't need more housing we need to rework the housing we have. With some choice decisions we could build a beautiful community with regenerative use. Good mix and flow of property building trade wouldn't lose out as their would be much more remodeling work. Houses would still be built but could consider the same future for the developments.

athtrasna

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The thing is there is a massive absence from the figures you are using. Under utilized housing. If you accept housing is getting smaller than older houses are big enough for two modern houses. There are large estates of housing where the vast majority of the housing is lived in by no more than 2 people when capable of housing 4-5. In Dublin that must account for over 10% of the houses within easy commute of the city.
People talk of increased density by building up but the easier cheaper solution is to reuse. Where I grew up the vast majority of the original residents are living there after their kids left. They built extensions for their large families and now live rattling around them. We literally don't need more housing we need to rework the housing we have. With some choice decisions we could build a beautiful community with regenerative use. Good mix and flow of property building trade wouldn't lose out as their would be much more remodeling work. Houses would still be built but could consider the same future for the developments.

Good point, two non related adults in my place, capacity for 5 adults or more if mixed adults and kids. BTW private housing, just a total under utilisation of bed spaces. (And I like it that way lol)

Gatling

athtrasna wrote: »

Good point, two non related adults in my place, capacity for 5 adults or more if mixed adults and kids.

I remember living in North Wales a few years back one of the systems they put in place was taking 4 bed house and divided it in two so for one property they could house 2 families with their own front doors and a shared front and back gardens.
Here in tallaght I know tons of 4 beds been occupied by one or at most 2 adults that needs to be looked it for a start .
In social housing your housed on needs but here local authorities can't seem to review housing needs every few years especially if kids and growing up and moving out ,but you stay in a property 3/4 + rooms

rawn

Gatling wrote: »

Another thing that had to be addressed is this 100,000 on the housing lists ,
They need to go through the lists and find out who's genuinely in need of social housing and those who are on it just to receive rent supplement.
If people are in a position where they can afford private rents or are living with families and aren't at risk of becoming homeless then remove them and set up a secondary housing list as not in need of urgent housing

This. My sister-in-law lives with her parents with my young nephew. She is still with the father (my brother). He lives with my mother. He works full time and she works 8 hours per week. She refuses to move in with him because she wants to wait for the social welfare to give her a house, even though it will be over 8 years. She does not NEED this house, but she will get it... eventually. They can afford a house now, she could get more hours... but there's nothing in place to check this... how many others have free houses that don't need them?

gosplan

slowjoe17 wrote: »

To be fair, the housing problem is NOT related to philosophical questions.

The housing problem is because, in areas where the population was growing at 10% per year, we were building 2% extra housing stock. The math isn't socialist or capitalist. 10% is bigger than 2% no matter the politics.

If we hadn't had a bubble, and didn't have ghost estates to release the pressure, there would be well paid working people living in tents or squatting derelict buildings.

What we need:
1. Streamlined planning permission. It costs about 60k per house in red tape to build.
2. Get builders building. This can be a bank guarantee from the government.
3. Fix the social rental market so landlords don't blacklist all social tenants:
3.1 Pay the benefit to the landlord. The cost of one dodgy tenants is keeping lls from dealing with any social tenant.
3.2 Make it easier to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour.
3.3 Remove the duty for the state to house repeat criminals or their families.
4. Attach housing and planning permission conditions to county council grants. If Wicklow doesn't want to allow any building that's fine. But I don't want a penny of Irish tax money spent in the Republic of Wicklow.

3.3 so if you committ two crimes, you and your family are made homeless till you have deposit money. Yes, that should help criminals rehabilitate.

Gatling

gosplan wrote: »

3.3 so if you committ two crimes, you and your family are made homeless till you have deposit money. Yes, that should help criminals rehabilitate.

3.3. antisocial behaviour families can and do get evicted from social housing due to one or more of the family been involved in recorded anti social behaviour

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The thing is there is a massive absence from the figures you are using. Under utilized housing. If you accept housing is getting smaller than older houses are big enough for two modern houses. There are large estates of housing where the vast majority of the housing is lived in by no more than 2 people when capable of housing 4-5. In Dublin that must account for over 10% of the houses within easy commute of the city.
People talk of increased density by building up but the easier cheaper solution is to reuse. Where I grew up the vast majority of the original residents are living there after their kids left. They built extensions for their large families and now live rattling around them. We literally don't need more housing we need to rework the housing we have. With some choice decisions we could build a beautiful community with regenerative use. Good mix and flow of property building trade wouldn't lose out as their would be much more remodeling work. Houses would still be built but could consider the same future for the developments.

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).


Also even if only two people are living in the house full time their children most likely visit regularly, possibly staying over if living further away and then they may have their own kids in toe also so big houses are very much utalised.

Gatling

Tanner Old Claw wrote: »

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).


Also even if only two people are living in the house full time their children most likely visit regularly, possibly staying over if living further away and then they may have their own kids in toe also so big houses are very much utalised.

Not in social housing there not though .
Which is why your housed on your need 2,3,4 kids .
But these kids grow up and move out then a lot of times properties with 3-4 + beds are occupied with 1-2 adults at most .
While family's desperately in need of housing are left waiting till one or both pass away or move themselves

gosplan

Gatling wrote: »

3.3. antisocial behaviour families can and do get evicted from social housing due to one or more of the family been involved in recorded anti social behaviour

Which is a bit different to be honest.

I get where it's coming from. I just think that striking the families of criminals off the social housing register is a bit cold and fairly short-sighted in terms of being beneficial.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Not in social housing there not though .
Which is why your housed on your need 2,3,4 kids .
But these kids grow up and move out then a lot of times properties with 3-4 + beds are occupied with 1-2 adults at most .
While family's desperately in need of housing are left waiting till one or both pass away or move themselves

I agree on social housing, you are being handed a house so if you are no longer in need of a house of that size then people should be moved on.

I was talking about people who own their homes, these I would not in anyway expect to move on regardless of house size and number of people living there.

Villa05

Fianna Fail Senator Daragh O Brien said the country is facing a national crisis and Minister Kelly must return from holidays and face up to what is his ultimate reposnibility.

Looks like the problem is going to get worse as the politicians are getting involved.

This country is like a reality Monty python Movie some times

handlemaster

Villa05 wrote: »

Looks like the problem is going to get worse as the politicians are getting involved.

This country is like a reality Monty python Movie some times

Some TD always comes out with this ... come back early because theres à pressing issue. . Nothing more than wanting to get their name in the papers.. lots more of this BS coming up before the election

handlemaster

http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rent-out-spare-bedrooms-to-students-says-osullivan-31448198.html

With the rent à room scheme landlords get the first 12k free of tax. Why not apply the same to landlords who take social welfare tenants.

gaius c

So we need individual charity to fix a failure of government policy...
Words fail me re the disconnected reality she lives in.

Ray Palmer

Tanner Old Claw wrote: »

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).


Also even if only two people are living in the house full time their children most likely visit regularly, possibly staying over if living further away and then they may have their own kids in toe also so big houses are very much utalised.

I don't expect everybody to want to do it just some. The fact is some people do it as is and you could make it more appealing. I would expect some people would do it with their children so they would be close to parents. That is part of why it would be good for social elements. Not everybody needs to bump up their pension. It isn't about forcing people just increasing options.

We have a pension issue which will grow, we have a housing issue which will grow, we have a school problem here is a solution that should improve social cohesion. There are more problems that this would reduce. It isn't a perfect solution by any means certain older people would feel pressured to move from family for example. That is why it needs to be done delicately and probably some form of opinion gauging. I don't think you realise the isolation many older people feel as a community changes and neighbours die. Having children and families about especially descendants of friends/neighbours. It is kind of how society should be.

waxon-waxoff

Thats a good point about reviewing social housing after a few years to see if the occupant still needs a house when they are a widow or their family have moved out etc. A smaller apartment would be more suitable. Some will argue that they dont want to move as they know the area and their friends are there, but thats a luxury the councils cant afford.

On a related point, perhaps the councils should stop selling houses to tenants at prices below the market rate. This reduces the supply of houses available for future use.

handlemaster

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/0814/721142-homeless-dublin/
focus ireland say rent supplement not been raised is the problem

Villa05

handlemaster wrote:

focus ireland say rent supplement not been raised is the problem

Would it not be working people on low wages that would end up homeless if rent allowance was increased.
If there is a supply problem somebody has to be homeless.
Therefore the solution is to increase supply

castle2012

I'm not one bit surprised where in this scenario. I had a buy to let which I sold in may . I had no choice, Evict tenants etc. as to rent it legitimately I was loosing money every single month .Its government policy which has drove many landlords out of it . Until the government start incentivise people to get back into the business, I'm afraid the problem is going to get worse.

Mrs OBumble

Tanner Old Claw wrote: »

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).

But as people get older they are no longer able to maintain the big house they used to: the lawn that they used to mow in an hour or two eventually starts to look like it's a enormous, the pension won't stretch to heating extra bedroom that no one is sleeping in, etc.

I recall a poster here saying that through his work he regularly met older people who hadn't showered for years, because the shower is up the stairs that they can no longer manage.

Part of retirement planning for most people should involve moving to a lower-maintenance property that meets their changing needs and abilities.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Part of retirement planning for most people should involve moving to a lower-maintenance property that meets their changing needs and abilities.

Virtually nobody will want to willing move out of their family home. People are far too attached to them and will have no interest in moving. They will also want to keep the property in the family and not sell it on, usually with one of their children taking it over at some point.

I know you don't have the emotive attachment Irish people have to their home but for a large majority the family home is like part of the family.

Its the same reason Irish people only consider home as their home house and not places they are staying while renting etc.

Rodin

What crisis of supply?

There's over 2000 3+ bed properties on daft alone

Villa05

Rodin wrote: »

What crisis of supply?

There's over 2000 3+ bed properties on daft alone

Are they all empty?

Spanish Eyes

Just for a minute, let's think about rent allowance and the landlords who will take them on.

These LL's are performing a social function for the State, i.e. housing those in need.

However up to 52% of the income is taken back from the LL in tax. Also LL has to bear non payment, upkeep, replacement of white goods, redecoration and so on. I know this can be offset against tax.

So can anyone tell me why any landlord would perform the State's function for them without any incentive to do so. I am talking about LL's who DO take RA and that number is dwindling fast. And I can see why.

Imagine taking on a RA tenant to house them on behalf of the State, and having to pay over 50% back to said Government for doing this!

As a poster above said, anyone taking on RA clients should be allowed a huge amount of the rent tax free. The crisis would end overnight.

riclad

There,s people living in council houses, 3bed , alone .
Paying 50 euro a week rent .
Children grow up ,leave home ,get married .
Meanwhile women with 2 kids are living in a hotel for a year .
i go down 1 street ,3 empty council house,s boarded up.
When someone leaves it may take council ,
a year to re let the house.
I,M not talking about houses that are damaged .
Maybe some small basic repairs needed .painting etc .
Make bed sits legal again for 2-3 years .
Make a new rule landlord,s , who rent out a house on rent allowance get extra 5k tax credit .pay no prsi.
All house rentals , on rent allowance , rent Must be paid to landlords bank account .
AT the moment in dublin, cork etc there is zero incentive to take on
a rent allowance client for a house .
bed sits are gone ,so where does someone on a low income go ?
Many landlords are struggling ,in negative equity ,
make it easy to take on a ra client.
first rent payment must be gauranteed to be payed in 4weeks from the day the tenant moves in.
Give extra tax credits to a landlord who takes on a single person on rent
allowance , maybe 2k per year .
extra 2k for landlords tax credit who take ra client under the rent a room
scheme .
Announce a plan government will build or buy x amount of
houses for social housing every year .
Just make it tax free ,
you rent a house ,pay no tax ,simple , if you have a rent allowance tenant in this tax year .
you can get a form from hse .
joe bloggs has a tenant on ra.
2015-2016. thats it send to tax office .
make it simple .no tax or prsi will be due on this property .
for this year .re rental income .
Landlords think if i,m gonna fill in all these forms ,
i may as just take on a private tenant .
IF you own a house you have a right to stay there .
IF the government did this they would save money ,
rather than pay millions to a hotel .
Let a private company bid on fixing up council houses,apartments,
if the house is empty after 4 months .

of course the real solution is increase the supply of social housing .
i know someone who has 2 tenants ,they pay zero euros tax.
AS they make no profit , after paying mortgage interest,insurance, property tax etc
They are in ne negatve equity ,house is worth 65k,
loan is 140k.
They make a tax return every year on rental income .

slowjoe17

Gatling wrote: »

Another thing that had to be addressed is this 100,000 on the housing lists ,
They need to go through the lists and find out who's genuinely in need of social housing and those who are on it just to receive rent supplement.
If people are in a position where they can afford private rents or are living with families and aren't at risk of becoming homeless then remove them and set up a secondary housing list as not in need of urgent housing

I wish it were that simple. There are serious problems with "judging need" in this sort of situation.

In the UK, some councils said you need x kids for a y bedroom house, and some women I knew in the 90s planned that way.

If you require "dramatic poverty" to supply housing, then a subset of people will magically appear in "dramatic poverty" in order to qualify.

slowjoe17

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Just for a minute, let's think about rent allowance and the landlords who will take them on.

These LL's are performing a social function for the State, i.e. housing those in need.

However up to 52% of the income is taken back from the LL in tax. Also LL has to bear non payment, upkeep, replacement of white goods, redecoration and so on. I know this can be offset against tax.

So can anyone tell me why any landlord would perform the State's function for them without any incentive to do so. I am talking about LL's who DO take RA and that number is dwindling fast. And I can see why.

Imagine taking on a RA tenant to house them on behalf of the State, and having to pay over 50% back to said Government for doing this!

As a poster above said, anyone taking on RA clients should be allowed a huge amount of the rent tax free. The crisis would end overnight.

This ignores the supply problem. As Villa05 points out above, if you give a tax break for RAS tenants, landlords will simply displace working tenants because of the tax incentive. That would create a crisis in the employed rental market (and that's not particularly healthy atm).

The key way to make the country's housing market function is actually build sufficient extra homes in places people want to live.