A solution to the housing crisis

riclad

I was reading an article in home, the Irish Sunday Times property section. It says leaving it to the market will not fix the housing crisis. In our cities, we need high density housing. Houses built for cost for 3-4 times approximately the average income. We need to set aside land this site has only permission for long-term rental housing. We need more competition. IE setup contracts 1000s houses plus open to any EU building company. Maybe have a website setup for housing contracts. In English, French, German Build ireland ie. The biggest Irish builder might build 1000 houses in a year. We need 100 thousand houses at least.

Change the system of social housing so it’s more like Holland. If it’s not just for someone on welfare. There’s a wider spread on incomes there living in social housing. We need a new approach, reducing the taxes on builders for a few years is not gonna fix the problem. Building 20,000 social housing units is not enough. As an example to show the free market does not fix everything. The whole internet structure at least re basic design, layout, network layout, was paid for by government research. Or non-profit bodies who set standards for Wi-Fi, 3g etc. It was taken up by private companies and the public when it was shown to be faster and more efficient than previous communication methods. Just relying on the free market will probably just result in higher rents in the future. And will result in shortage of housing in cities and urban areas. As the writer says a builder builds a house, he will charge as much as he thinks he will get.

The government needs a 10-year plan for the housing market, rental costs, social housing, etc. So we would need houses built to be sold at 140k approx. I understand this will not happen under the present housing structure we have now.

Atlantic Dawn

There's too many protected interests for your plan to ever be allowed to work, not least TD's who are landlords.

the_syco

Dublin, where it seems anything above 5 stories is too high, and the only tall buildings seem to be banks and unions.

hytrogen

While I agree that council housing needs to be more densely intensified I also agree that it should NOT be sold off as so many are suggesting. Therefore council housing boards should look at enhancing their port folios for a start.
A bubble is only created by those who blow through a bubble wand

quadrifoglio verde

hytrogen wrote: »

While I agree that council housing needs to be more densely intensified I also agree that it should NOT be sold off as so many are suggesting. Therefore council housing boards should look at enhancing their port folios for a start.
A bubble is only created by those who blow through a bubble wand

It should also change based on your needs.
No longer have children in education, bye bye 3 bed, hello 1 bed.
Better to have a husband and wife in a one bedroom apartment than a couple and 3 kids in a hotel room.

Can't see Murphy and co being happy with that though

JustTheOne

Seems the majority of homeless are single mothers with kids maybe a bit of responsibility and family planning might help too.

syklops

Repealing the ban on studios would definitely help matters.

.45auto

JustTheOne wrote: »

Seems the majority of homeless are single mothers with kids maybe a bit of responsibility and family planning might help too.

I was homeless for a yr and a half can confirm

JustTheOne

.45auto wrote: »

I was homeless for a yr and a half can confirm

Confirm?

.45auto

JustTheOne wrote: »

Confirm?

Confirm that theres is A lOT of single parents in the homeless system

JustTheOne

.45auto wrote: »

Confirm that theres is A lOT of single parents in the homeless system

Oh sorry didn't understand!

.45auto

JustTheOne wrote: »

Oh sorry didn't understand!

Yer grand

Eric Cartman

I think the issue is , If I thought for one second that I would be buying a house and somebody next door to me could be getting the same thing for almost free, I wouldn't buy that house.

When people get money , one of the first things they do is move away from the unemployed. Where you live / what your house is like is one of the biggest personal statements to be made in Ireland, and theres nothing cool / enviable about living next to welfare tenants. Between that and the inevitable rise in anti social behaviour, poor maintenance and the general issues that come with apartment living anyway, this would never work. Within 5 years the housing would just become a slum again and all the privately owned units rented out on the cheap to probably more RA tenants and low income families.

Once you go over 20% social housing / RA housing in an estate or even 10% in an apartment block, you're going to get income flight and end up with another ballymun scenario all over again.

jimmycrackcorm

Eric Cartman wrote:

I think the issue is , If I thought for one second that I would be buying a house and somebody next door to me could be getting the same thing for almost free, I wouldn't buy that house.

We need to get rid of that stupid rule that says 20% of a developers build should be given over for social housing. Its the other buyers paying for it, not society. While the argument for is about integration and avoiding ghettoization like Ballymun, the real answer is to have residents given the powers to ensure that social housing is managed to prevent antisocial behaviours.

riclad

I think they changed the requirement from 20 to 10 per cent in dublin ,
for social housing .
Also he said there should be more one room units built ,
there,s a lot of single people or older people which will require housing in the future .

There,s no point in just building 3 bed house,s .
We need more competition in the market apart from irish builders.
Of course i doubt whether any irish government would
have the courage to do all these things or to go against certain interests
to change the housing market .
if the Government just relys on market forces , we will muddle along
as we see now ,rising rents and
not even enough private accomodation even for working people and students .
IF 20,ooo social housing units are built they should not be sold off ,
in 10 years ,
just pay rent depending on your income .

The Student

While it is accepted that there has always been and probably will always be a need for some sort of social housing the current model is not working.

99% of people in social housing are decent people some working some not working. It is the 1% of people who create the anti social element. These are people who the State allow to do this. People found guilty of anti social behaviour should be treated on the 3 strikes and your out model.

Mixing social housing with private housing is only needed because of the unwillingness of the State to deal with the Anti social element. Similiar size houses in similiar locations are priced differently for a reason.

If the anti social element was tackled the number of existing council houses boarded up will no doubt decline as some of those boarded up houses are boarded up because people are unwilling to live in particular areas because of the reputation of the area.

In terms of mixing social tenants with private owners, yes it is the private owners who are ultimately paying for the social houses each development must allocate to the State.

As a min social tenants rent should reflect the rent in the locale rather than the rent being calculated on the income of the household. By correlating the rent the social tenant pays with the rent in the area you will have a much fairer allocation of housing.

if the social tenant is in employment they will have more disposable income than someone on fixed social benefits, not only does give social tenants in employment and incentive to continue and progress in employment it has the added benefit of instilling in their children the benefits of working and potentially reducing the number of intergenerational social welfare tenants who have no intention of ever working.

Please note that the above is not a rant on social tenants, if same is construed in this fashion it is not intended. As I opened this reply 99% of social tenants are the nicest people you will ever meet.

lima

I find it very difficult to read your posts, can you please structure them normally.

Apologies if there is a reason this can't be done

the_syco

The Student wrote: »

It is the 1% of people who create the anti social element. These are people who the State allow to do this. People found guilty of anti social behaviour should be treated on the 3 strikes and your out model.

The current bodies who are not in power (as well as a few that are) will not allow people to be turfed out of their free houses for anything, including anti-social behaviour it would seem. And when I state "free houses", I mean that those on Social Welfare who engage in anti-social behaviour are often the same who stop paying rent, and thus another landlord suffers, and once the anti-social tenant is evicted, the landlord never rents to someone on Rent Allowance again. It may only be 1%, but that 1% is slowly eroding the amount of landlords that rent to Social Welfare.

The Student wrote: »

Mixing social housing with private housing is only needed because of the unwillingness of the State to deal with the Anti social element.

So the private housing must not only pay for the social housing, but suffer the results? Sorry, but this is not a solution. This is a f**k up.

The Student wrote: »

If the anti social element was tackled the number of existing council houses boarded up will no doubt decline as some of those boarded up houses are boarded up because people are unwilling to live in particular areas because of the reputation of the area.

Jail time is probably the only thing they'd understand, as they don't have money that can be taken by fines.

The Student wrote: »

In terms of mixing social tenants with private owners, yes it is the private owners who are ultimately paying for the social houses each development must allocate to the State.

Paying, both in monetary and in sanity.

The Student wrote: »

As a min social tenants rent should reflect the rent in the locale rather than the rent being calculated on the income of the household. By correlating the rent the social tenant pays with the rent in the area you will have a much fairer allocation of housing.

The reason they rent social housing is because they can't afford the rent in the first place.

The Student

Hi Syco

I am trying to keep this topic on the housing issue in its entirety rather than just on the private market fulfilling the housing needs of the State.

In relation to the payment of social housing by private housing. If we want some form of a civilised society then those who need help should receive it, but those who don't deserve it should not receive the help. We may all need the safety net of the social system be it housing or whatever at some point in time. However there needs to be equity as well.

I think you may have misunderstood my point regarding the rent paid reflecting the rent in the locale. Social rent charged should be a % of the local market rent rather than a fig based on the income of the household.

Mrs OBumble

the_syco wrote: »

The current bodies who are not in power (as well as a few that are) will not allow people to be turfed out of their free houses for anything, including anti-social behaviour it would seem. And when I state "free houses", I mean that those on Social Welfare who engage in anti-social behaviour are often the same who stop paying rent, ...

You're right - but where would they be turfed out too?

If they were foreigners, sure they could be deported.

But more are our own indigenous specimens. And making them homeless just makes their ASB worse.

vagazzled

There are families being made homeless at an alarming rate (40+per month) and yet many begrudge seeing them re-housed.
Would you rather they lived in the parks and woods, and eventually due to crime all home -owners have to sign up to security services or live in gated communities? Not a dystopian pic of the future- but reality in South Africa, and parts of the USA.

I was listening to Fr. Peter McVerry this week, saying this of Ireland - Dublin especially.
But somehow I don't think the Social Services would allow children sleep in tents long term- or would they?
America has a solution for low cost housing - the trailer park. Nothing wrong with them.
But here we spend approx. 140k per unit "on 22 modular homes to be ready by christmas'. Wow.
When its all right to throw a family of travellers into caravans in a car park after half their family dying, but the settled community must have 'proper' housing?
As for bedsits, look on Daft, they'e still going strong, all IKEA'D up under the name of Student Accom.
The lowest rung of the ladder is gone, IMHO making those who owe mortgages to the bank nervous that this flotsam and jetsam of 'homeless people' and 'refugees' will be living next door, dragging down their self perceived social status.

mel123

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

It should also change based on your needs.
No longer have children in education, bye bye 3 bed, hello 1 bed.
Better to have a husband and wife in a one bedroom apartment than a couple and 3 kids in a hotel room.

Can't see Murphy and co being happy with that though

The UK do this. Ive seen it happen even in a situation where a child passed away, the whole family were down sized. I'm not saying this instance is right or wrong, but it highlights what kind of rules the UK have in place and enforce, whereas here its a shambles

the_syco

The Student wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood my point regarding the rent paid reflecting the rent in the locale. Social rent charged should be a % of the local market rent rather than a fig based on the income of the household.

Social rent limits are in place, however, as it's illegal to say no to someone paying with the help of RA, landlords are putting their rents above the RA threshold.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

But more are our own indigenous specimens. And making them homeless just makes their ASB worse.

Put them into housing controlled by the state, as opposed a private landlord.

vagazzled wrote: »

There are families being made homeless at an alarming rate (40+per month) and yet many begrudge seeing them re-housed.

They are being housed in temporary accomodation. Homeless means without a permanent home.

vagazzled wrote: »

But somehow I don't think the Social Services would allow children sleep in tents long term- or would they?

No. they'll house them.

vagazzled wrote: »

America has a solution for low cost housing - the trailer park. Nothing wrong with them.

If you opened a trailer park here, Travellers will arrive into it. I also doubt many of the homeless would want to live in a trailer park long term.

vagazzled wrote: »

But here we spend approx. 140k per unit "on 22 modular homes to be ready by christmas'. Wow.

The important part I highlighted. If it wasn't a quick-fix to look good in the media, I'd say they could have gotten a small housing estate built for the cost. However, they won't do this, as they'd be seen as building a ghetto.

vagazzled wrote: »

When its all right to throw a family of travellers into caravans in a car park after half their family dying, but the settled community must have 'proper' housing?

The last carpark was a "temporary" place for them. Yup, somehow eight years is somehow considered "temporary".

Oh, and 13 traveller houses cost €5,000,000

Whereas 22 houses for non-travellers people cost €3,080,000

vagazzled wrote: »

As for bedsits, look on Daft, they'e still going strong, all IKEA'D up under the name of Student Accom.

I don't doubt it, but there were homelessness when they existed. Them being sh|tholes didn't matter.

vagazzled wrote: »

The lowest rung of the ladder is gone, IMHO making those who owe mortgages to the bank nervous that this flotsam and jetsam of 'homeless people' and 'refugees' will be living next door, dragging down their self perceived social status.

But it's fair that I'd have to pay €300,000 for a house, but someone else could live in theirs for a fraction of the cost?

=-=

How this for a solution;

Don't house anyone without a job anywhere where the house costs more than 60% of the average price of houses in Dublin, and/or their nearest city (Dublin/Cork/Galway/Belfast).

They have a job, and claim social, sure, they can stay in their house near the cities, but if they don't have a job, don't intend to have a job, spread them across the countryside into social housing, and put them into programs that the unemployed were put into during the 80's which built walls, etc.

JustTheOne

Look at this one.

8 kids. 2 unemployed parents.

10 years on the housing list.

Come on like seriously. You have no job yet you have 8 kids and expect a house and the tax payer to pay for you.

To be honest I'm bloody sick of these leeches. No wonder our social welfare is 30 billion a year.

That money been wasted could go to building a better country for my children.

JustTheOne

Look at this one.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1071392489567181&id=191236384249467

8 kids. 2 unemployed parents.

10 years on the housing list.

Come on like seriously. You have no job yet you have 8 kids and expect a house and the tax payer to pay for you.

To be honest I'm bloody sick of these leeches. No wonder our social welfare is 30 billion a year.

Money been wasted could go to building a better country for my children.

Silverbling

JustTheOne wrote: »

Seems the majority of homeless are single mothers with kids maybe a bit of responsibility and family planning might help too.

And some of us are self employed single parents who sank their savings into a business as they were on their 2nd part 4 and still had 2 years to go on their lease.

After 6 years renting myself and my children should have longer than 112 days to get a contingency plan together

vagazzled

JustTheOne wrote: »

Look at this one.

8 kids. 2 unemployed parents.

10 years on the housing list.

Come on like seriously. You have no job yet you have 8 kids and expect a house and the tax payer to pay for you.

To be honest I'm bloody sick of these leeches. No wonder our social welfare is 30 billion a year.

That money been wasted could go to building a better country for my children.

And is that the norm? No, It's an extreme case- and its 6 children, btw, not 8.
S0 30bn paid to keep about (off the top of my head) 30% of the country housed and fed is wasted? Move to South Africa, mate, you'd love it there. Better buy a gun, though. Those poor people will be after all your stuff.

oceanman

JustTheOne wrote: »

Look at this one.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1071392489567181&id=191236384249467

8 kids. 2 unemployed parents.

10 years on the housing list.

Come on like seriously. You have no job yet you have 8 kids and expect a house and the tax payer to pay for you.

To be honest I'm bloody sick of these leeches. No wonder our social welfare is 30 billion a year.

Money been wasted could go to building a better country for my children.

but what if your children need to sign on for social welfare at some stage? would you consider them leeches too!...

newacc2015

vagazzled wrote: »

There are families being made homeless at an alarming rate (40+per month) and yet many begrudge seeing them re-housed.
Would you rather they lived in the parks and woods, and eventually due to crime all home -owners have to sign up to security services or live in gated communities? Not a dystopian pic of the future- but reality in South Africa, and parts of the USA.

I was listening to Fr. Peter McVerry this week, saying this of Ireland - Dublin especially.
But somehow I don't think the Social Services would allow children sleep in tents long term- or would they?
America has a solution for low cost housing - the trailer park. Nothing wrong with them.
But here we spend approx. 140k per unit "on 22 modular homes to be ready by christmas'. Wow.
When its all right to throw a family of travellers into caravans in a car park after half their family dying, but the settled community must have 'proper' housing?
As for bedsits, look on Daft, they'e still going strong, all IKEA'D up under the name of Student Accom.
The lowest rung of the ladder is gone, IMHO making those who owe mortgages to the bank nervous that this flotsam and jetsam of 'homeless people' and 'refugees' will be living next door, dragging down their self perceived social status.

I think trailer parks are good temporary solution. They arent ideal long term. Plenty of people in America live in them or timber frame houses that are no bigger than them. But I think the problem with them being successful in Ireland is the bad image from a certain minority of people living in them. I dont think even Don Draper would successful convince anyone to live in a trailer here in Ireland.

I do think they would make a good temporary solution for student housing. Thats part of the problem. Everyone wants a quick fix solution for the housing crisis. No one wants to commit to changing height rules and demolishing low density social housing with high density housing. Look at all the 4 storey social housing around TCD. If that was any other European city, it would be a minimum of 8 storeys

JustTheOne

oceanman wrote: »

but what if your children need to sign on for social welfare at some stage? would you consider them leeches too!...

So we should all just have 6 kids and expect the someone else to pay for them?

Where would that get us?

Of course social welfare should be there but for genuine cases of people who lost their job and need help.

Not people who have no intention of ever working and just pop out kids expecting others to pay for them.

JustTheOne

Silverbling wrote: »

And some of us are self employed single parents who sank their savings into a business as they were on their 2nd part 4 and still had 2 years to go on their lease.

After 6 years renting myself and my children should have longer than 112 days to get a contingency plan together

Yep you sound genuine but unfortunately there is a huge number taking advantage of the system and giving genuine cases a bad name.