Fixing the housing crisis without massively increasing tax or borrowing

golfwallah

I’m inclined to agree with economist, Colm McCarthy’s view, that the housing crisis is a result of failed government policy rather than a shortage of land.
Here’s what he says about it in today’s Sunday Independent:

In a thinly populated country, the price of a new home should equal the cost of construction plus the value of the land in its best alternative use. Outside the sought-after inner suburbs of Dublin and a few provincial cities, the alternative use is agriculture, and agricultural land is worth around €10,000 per acre. The site 'cost' regularly quoted for the outer Dublin suburbs equates to half-a-million, in cases a million euro, per acre. This is not a consequence of scarcity, it is a consequence of policy. There is no shortage of land, there is a shortage of zoned and serviced land. There is no point complaining about developers around Dublin, currently in possession of the few sites suited for early construction, if they hang on for the right price. Nor is there much point to an undeveloped site tax. The answer is to create a shiver of fear that the sites to the north, south, east and west, currently zoned for agriculture or "amenity", will shortly be zoned for residential use.

Ironically, government policy of high house prices finds support with an unlikely alliance of voting interests between wealthy landowners / developers hanging on for the “right price” and ordinary working house owners, wanting to get out of negative equity.

golfwallah

After 5 years of wasted opportunities in office, our minister responsible for housing, Alan Kelly, is now telling us that the current administration finally has a plan.

How can such a plan have any credibility when the following Government policy, as reflected in deliberate acts and failures to act, has added to the housing crisis rather than making things better:
• Sale of distressed mortgages to overseas vulture funds as massive discounts instead of allowing existing mortgage holders to bid on them. See Stephen Donnelly’s article in today’s Independent. Result: 13,000 families screwed for life.
• Too much land around Dublin is currently zoned for agriculture or "amenity", rather than residential - Result: Hoarding of existing residential sites and shortage of zoned and serviced land for housing.
• The outgoing government is committed to restoring the policy of council house sell-offs at large discounts (temporarily phased down some years back) – result: reduced stock of social housing for the 90,000 families on the waiting lists. See Irish Times article.
• Failure to update planning processes to remove avoidable costs and enable construction of denser, more affordable housing.
• Failure in its handling of Irish Water that is holding up the provision of upgraded water infrastructure needed for housing.

All government did for the last 5 years was sit back, stick to the previous government’s recovery plan (Brian Lenihan’s MOU) and hope that growth would take care of everything else. Alan Kelly is now blaming economic growth for the housing crisis. He appears convinced of his own righteousness, as if there was nothing more he could do!

Let’s hope the electorate passes a more balanced judgement on his administration’s actions and failure to act on housing.

Icepick

golfwallah wrote: »

I’m inclined to agree with economist, Colm McCarthy’s view, that the housing crisis is a result of failed government policy rather than a shortage of land.
Here’s what he says about it in today’s Sunday Independent:


Ironically, government policy of high house prices finds support with an unlikely alliance of voting interests between wealthy landowners / developers hanging on for the “right price” and ordinary working house owners, wanting to get out of negative equity.

Endless housing estates surrounding cities are not an answer, not a good one anyway.
We need to build high density with matching infrastructure, especially public transport.

Villa05

golfwallah wrote: »

Specific actions and inactions by Government that are making the housing crisis worse

All government did for the last 5 years was sit back, stick to the previous government’s recovery plan (Brian Lenihan’s MOU) and hope that growth would take care of everything else. Alan Kelly is now blaming economic growth for the housing crisis. He appears convinced of his own righteousness, as if there was nothing more he could do!

Let’s hope the electorate passes a more balanced judgement on his administration’s actions and failure to act on housing.

Your post implies that the Government are interested in solving the housing crisis and maybe they are?

The Government have put greater emphasis on saving the Banks. The housing crisis is the collateral damage in this objective. This is why supply has been choked.

As stated before Land Labour and Capital the key ingredients for supply, all are plentiful but are prevented from being put to use by the Government.

Land: Colin Mcarthy's article on availability of land within and around Dublin
Labour: Dole queues swelled with constrution workers when bubble burst. Access to EU Labour markets for Construction Workers
Capital: Money has never been cheaper with Gov and Financial Institutions able to raise funds at less than 2%. Many Governments including our own can raise money at negative interest rates.


Supply is not being increased because that would mean homes would be affordable and Banks balance sheets would be seriously affected.

This is current Government Policy.

golfwallah

Villa05 wrote: »

Your post implies that the Government are interested in solving the housing crisis and maybe they are?

The Government have put greater emphasis on saving the Banks. The housing crisis is the collateral damage in this objective. This is why supply has been choked.

As stated before Land Labour and Capital the key ingredients for supply, all are plentiful but are prevented from being put to use by the Government.

Land: Colin Mcarthy's article on availability of land within and around Dublin
Labour: Dole queues swelled with constrution workers when bubble burst. Access to EU Labour markets for Construction Workers
Capital: Money has never been cheaper with Gov and Financial Institutions able to raise funds at less than 2%. Many Governments including our own can raise money at negative interest rates.


Supply is not being increased because that would mean homes would be affordable and Banks balance sheets would be seriously affected.

This is current Government Policy.

I agree with much of what you've said, but to be honest, I am more concerned with Government performance and achievements than what they are interested in.

Sure they have managed to implement the plan agreed with the Troika and we are not as bad as Greece and Portugal. But really, is this good enough, when there are many other issues around housing, health, the justice system, transparency and accountability they could also have progressed at lot further? They have relied mainly on growth to solve all problems, whilst doing very little in these areas of vital concern to voters and the economy in general.

Based on pre-election promises, we expected Premiership performance but what we got more befits 2nd or 3rd division.

As I see it, government management style is the source of much of the problem, i.e. 4-person Economic Management Council making all key decisions with little strategic power or accountability delegated to ministerial level.

We need capable ministers who are given achievable goals, the tools to do the job and are held accountable for their performance.

For example, the minister responsible for housing is a junior minister, who has presided over growing housing lists whilst delivering little other than excuses and a long term plan. Maybe this should be a senior cabinet position, as proposed by the Social Democrats.

There are many suggestions put forward as to how to achieve real improvement, including Nama:

a lack of urgency by the State is stalling the development of much-needed housing units in the capital.
The bad bank made a series of drastic proposals aimed at tackling the country's housing crisis, including:
■ reducing the VAT rate paid by builders and developers to stimulate the housing market;
■ appointing a full-time independent advisor to assist the Government with issues surrounding the delivery of housing;
■ implementing measures to provide infrastructure and aid construction.

The coming elections will show what the electorate think of government performance in housing.

golfwallah

Good article by David McWilliams in today's Independent:

With a few simple steps, State could provide social houses for €800 a year

It's not a perfect solution (even if there were such a thing) but certainly gives a balanced perspective and "can do" approach to resolving the issue.

In my view it is worthy of consideration and a bit of action by those in charge of the current crisis!

Compensation

It's really the only way. His figures are mostly fairytales, but the message is correct, the Government will have to borrow and invest in Ireland.

However, that is definitely at odds with your thread title, there is no way to fix the housing crisis without either increasing taxes or borrowing. We have no other way to get money together to invest in ourselves.

He's effectively discussing borrowing capital to build houses with (I agree), borrowing cash to pay 'super-levies' (I would like to know more about who receives this money, seems very strange to me to consider getting rid of these, as the principle behind them is sound), and legislating to 'get land' (unfunded in his article).

That last bit is very wishy washy! Considering that CPOs are not exactly cheap...
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/losing_your_home/compulsory_purchase_and_compensation.html

Compensation wrote:

If your house and land are compulsorily purchased, you will be eligible for compensation to restore you as far as possible to the same position as you were in before the land and property were acquired.

• You should be paid compensation based on the market value of your property
• You should be left in the same financial position after the CPO as you were before the process
• The compensation should reflect both the actual land acquired and the reduction in value, if any, of the retained area as a result of the CPO
• The Society of Chartered Surveyors has published a client guide on CPOs and compensation.

So whilst I agree with the message, he is hand waving a fair bit!

FreudianSlippers

Even if one increased it to €1,200 a year, that's got to be "affordable" in the eyes of anyone.

Ray Burkes Pension

You have to change the culture were everyone sees houses as something to invest in not live in.

A simple law where you can't sell a house for more than you bought it for (adjusting for inflation) would kill any property bubble.

Reduce the price of housing and you reduce the cost of renting. Rents are only sky high because there are no houses to buy.

Social housing should stay social housing.
Everyone in the social housing area where I grew up ended up buying the houses they rented on the cheap. The social housing disappeared as everyone sold for a profit to people trying to get onto the 'property ladder'. The ones or two who sold back to the council pissed everyone off by "bringing the wrong type of people into the area".

djpbarry

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

You have to change the culture were everyone sees houses as something to invest in not live in.

...

Rents are only sky high because there are no houses to buy.

Kind of contradicting yourself there. You talk about changing a culture (which I agree with), but then espouse the belief that people only rent because they cannot afford to buy?

Bass Reeves

golfwallah wrote: »

Good article by David McWilliams in today's Independent:



It's not a perfect solution (even if there were such a thing) but certainly gives a balanced perspective and "can do" approach to resolving the issue.

In my view it is worthy of consideration and a bit of action by those in charge of the current crisis!

Interesting article however access to development land is the issue. Even a use it or lose it tax would take 3-5 years to kick in supply. Even a one year use it would take two years to get access to development land. An incentive such as a reduction in CGT for 1-2 years and a non development tax on land that is rezoned could allow access to supply

Deleted User wrote: »

It's really the only way. His figures are mostly fairytales, but the message is correct, the Government will have to borrow and invest in Ireland.

However, that is definitely at odds with your thread title, there is no way to fix the housing crisis without either increasing taxes or borrowing. We have no other way to get money together to invest in ourselves.

He's effectively discussing borrowing capital to build houses with (I agree), borrowing cash to pay 'super-levies' (I would like to know more about who receives this money, seems very strange to me to consider getting rid of these, as the principle behind them is sound), and legislating to 'get land' (unfunded in his article).

That last bit is very wishy washy! Considering that CPOs are not exactly cheap...
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/losing_your_home/compulsory_purchase_and_compensation.html


So whilst I agree with the message, he is hand waving a fair bit!

A use it or lose it could force supply onto the market. Using CGT incentives and an non development tax could force those hording to put land either on the market or to develop same. After that it is access to capital to build houses.

Ray Burkes Pension wrote: »

You have to change the culture were everyone sees houses as something to invest in not live in.

A simple law where you can't sell a house for more than you bought it for (adjusting for inflation) would kill any property bubble.

Reduce the price of housing and you reduce the cost of renting. Rents are only sky high because there are no houses to buy.

Social housing should stay social housing.
Everyone in the social housing area where I grew up ended up buying the houses they rented on the cheap. The social housing disappeared as everyone sold for a profit to people trying to get onto the 'property ladder'. The ones or two who sold back to the council pissed everyone off by "bringing the wrong type of people into the area".

In theory sound's a good idea but in practice it could run down housing stock. At present if you consider that build costs may be 70-80/sq ft, the development site may be 100-150K/unit and Local Authority/Government levies may be 20-60K no builder could afford to build a house. How would access to these cheap houses be limited.

In reality all that would happen is money would travel under the table to the seller. Houses would be for sale in a grey market you would pay the original inflation adjusted price to the owner and the actual valve balance in cash under the table less capital gains tax. it would allow the wealthy to access prime property at a discount as they would have access to money either in cash or that they could borrow in a different way.

Sam Russell

1. The key is that the 'council house' of old was sold by the council to the occupant on the basis that they were no longer to be housed by the council. The council then built another house with the proceeds. For the past 20 or so years, no new council houses were built in Ireland.

2. There is no security of tenure in Ireland. I remember the Mespil flats, owned by Irish Life (a state owned (well mostly) insurance company at the time), were sold off on the quiet to well connected people on the cheep, but not to the tenants - many long standing of twenty or more years. Currently a landlord can require the tenant to vacate because he wants it for his own use or he wants to sell it. This is wrong.

3. The property tax does not apply the development land.

Fix these three points and we might be getting somewhere. McWilliams does not mention the profits to be made by the developer - add that in and his sums fall apart.

Taco Chips

djpbarry wrote: »

Kind of contradicting yourself there. You talk about changing a culture (which I agree with), but then espouse the belief that people only rent because they cannot afford to buy?

I think theres a symbiotic aspect to it. People are being pushed to buy now because of lack of desirable supply on the rent market. If there were more houses of better quality on the rent side then people might be happier to long term rent. As it is, rents are so high now you may as well be taking out a mortgage, at least there'd be an asset at the end of it.

Bass Reeves

Sam Russell wrote: »

1. The key is that the 'council house' of old was sold by the council to the occupant on the basis that they were no longer to be housed by the council. The council then built another house with the proceeds. For the past 20 or so years, no new council houses were built in Ireland.

2. There is no security of tenure in Ireland. I remember the Mespil flats, owned by Irish Life (a state owned (well mostly) insurance company at the time), were sold off on the quiet to well connected people on the cheep, but not to the tenants - many long standing of twenty or more years. Currently a landlord can require the tenant to vacate because he wants it for his own use or he wants to sell it. This is wrong.

3. The property tax does not apply the development land.

Fix these three points and we might be getting somewhere. McWilliams does not mention the profits to be made by the developer - add that in and his sums fall apart.

Life always seems so simple, get rid of the big bad wolf and the woodsmans rescue's you. Little Red Riding Hood lives happily ever afterwards, instead of her being screwed by the wolf . Sorry it is not so simple.

On Dublin a serviced site costs 120-150K, to build a 3 bedroom semi D costs 90-100K, corporations levy's cost 40K? About 270K now add a developer's margin 15% this brings it to 310.5K. The Big bad wolf of a teacher, Guard or Nurse buys the house and rents it for 2K/month and we all know what happens to Little Red Riding Hood. She gets *****.

Along comes the Woodsman( a pension Fund provider) Buys the site gets a builder in and gets a discount of 10% off the Builder, every thing else costs the same. House is costing the woodsman, sorry the pension fund 300K.

Now what margin on investment will they want. We will go with a 5% return on investment. They will rent it for 15K oops we forgot costs. Fit out of house 30K, so real cost is 330K, now 5% margin is 16.5K. Now here is where it gets hairy. What lifespan has the house in a rental situation before a total refit. 40 years seems a little long but we will go with it. A refit costs as much as a rebuild so 95K/40 = 2375 to add to the rent.

The fit out of the house washing machine, dishwasher, beds, electric kettle and toaster, costs 30K we will assume that on average this lasts 8 Years so 30K/8= 3750/year. What will year on year maintenance cost, the plumbing leak, the broken key in the door, etc etc. When it is new 3-500/year after 5 years 4-800/year, after 10 years 1K/year. We will average it at 750/year. This bring your rent to 23375/year.

OOps we forgot the management company that pension funds. We can hardly expect the fund manger earning 500K/year to collect the rent like Tom the guard, or Mary the teacher. Neither can you ring him when the lawnmower fails to start, or the boiler is not working. Most property management company's charge 7.5% but a pension fund would get them for 5% or maybe a tad less but we will stick at 5%. Now we are up to 24.5K. We will add in an non occupancy rate of 1 month in two years so add 4% to the rent or 25,5K.

Why did Irish Life exit the Mespil flats. Maybe the return was not good enough. Why are pension funds not queing up to develop site and build apartments and houses to rent if it is so profitable. No pension would look at a margin of 5% in a case like this. If you add another 3% to the margin it adds 10K to the price of the rent.

The reason why landlords use the excuse of selling or family occupancy to get a tenant to exit is often if they have an issue with the tenant this is the cheapest option.

I am afraid LRRH will still gets ***** by the nice woodsman.

Sam Russell

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Why did Irish Life exit the Mespil flats.

The question was not 'Why did Irish Life exit the Mespil flats?' - but why did a state company sell those flats to the well connected on the cheep and on the quiet - but not to the tenants of long standing?

Why did councils stop replacing houses sold to the occupants? Councils have not been building houses for 20 years.

Why is there no security for tenants?

golfwallah

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Interesting article however access to development land is the issue. Even a use it or lose it tax would take 3-5 years to kick in supply. Even a one year use it would take two years to get access to development land. An incentive such as a reduction in CGT for 1-2 years and a non development tax on land that is rezoned could allow access to supply

The answer to this part of the problem is to re-zone agricultural and amenity land to residential, according to economist, Colm McCarthy. Here’s what he had to say about government policy that has created and maintains the scarcity of development land in last month’s Sunday Independent:

In a thinly populated country, the price of a new home should equal the cost of construction plus the value of the land in its best alternative use. Outside the sought-after inner suburbs of Dublin and a few provincial cities, the alternative use is agriculture, and agricultural land is worth around €10,000 per acre. The site 'cost' regularly quoted for the outer Dublin suburbs equates to half-a-million, in cases a million euro, per acre. This is not a consequence of scarcity, it is a consequence of policy. There is no shortage of land, there is a shortage of zoned and serviced land. There is no point complaining about developers around Dublin, currently in possession of the few sites suited for early construction, if they hang on for the right price. Nor is there much point to an undeveloped site tax. The answer is to create a shiver of fear that the sites to the north, south, east and west, currently zoned for agriculture or "amenity", will shortly be zoned for residential use.

A use it or lose it could force supply onto the market. Using CGT incentives and an non development tax could force those hording to put land either on the market or to develop same. After that it is access to capital to build houses.

Don't disagree. Action is required at government policy level. Government inertia in the face of the growing housing crisis is definitely not the way to go. Shirking responsibility, kicking the problem down the road and blaming others (bad and all as were FF) is not the route to a solution either. Like any other problem, the Minister responsible for housing should be required to research and bring forward alternative solutions for government to socialize, put before the Dail and implement.

In theory sound's a good idea but in practice it could run down housing stock. At present if you consider that build costs may be 70-80/sq ft, the development site may be 100-150K/unit and Local Authority/Government levies may be 20-60K no builder could afford to build a house. How would access to these cheap houses be limited.

In reality all that would happen is money would travel under the table to the seller. Houses would be for sale in a grey market you would pay the original inflation adjusted price to the owner and the actual valve balance in cash under the table less capital gains tax. it would allow the wealthy to access prime property at a discount as they would have access to money either in cash or that they could borrow in a different way.

I'd agree - price control, like communism, is great in theory but fails to deliver in practice.

Good loser

Villa05 wrote: »

Your post implies that the Government are interested in solving the housing crisis and maybe they are?

The Government have put greater emphasis on saving the Banks. The housing crisis is the collateral damage in this objective. This is why supply has been choked.

As stated before Land Labour and Capital the key ingredients for supply, all are plentiful but are prevented from being put to use by the Government.

Land: Colin Mcarthy's article on availability of land within and around Dublin
Labour: Dole queues swelled with constrution workers when bubble burst. Access to EU Labour markets for Construction Workers
Capital: Money has never been cheaper with Gov and Financial Institutions able to raise funds at less than 2%. Many Governments including our own can raise money at negative interest rates.


Supply is not being increased because that would mean homes would be affordable and Banks balance sheets would be seriously affected.

This is current Government Policy.

Your conclusions are absurd. You believe there's a conspiracy between the 'Banks' and the State to restrict supply. No evidence whatsoever that this is so.
In listing the factors of production you omit (conveniently for your thesis) Management and that is the critical one re housing development and supply.
The figures do not stack up currently for significant building schemes.

From listening to 'those who know' a major constraint is money/capital. The State can get money at 1% but no one else can. The builder will get 60% of the money at 10% if lucky and give up all his securities for that; the balancing 40% will be unsecured and cost 15% plus. these are crippling burdens. If that remaining 40% was supplied by the State at the cost of funds (1%) imo housing supply would increase significantly.

Villa05

Unfortunately the banks and state are two sides of the same coin. Noonan consistently sided with the banks where it may well have been against the countries interest.
1 House price inflation not a problem in fact he stated they needed to go a little higher

2 Done nothing regarding mortgage interest rates being double the European average. Banks profitability was more important than mortgage holders (irish citizens) being fleeced

3 actively tried to water down or set up workarounds on the Central Bank rules on mortgage lending

4 brought in measures that added significant cost to building with little, if any, improvement in the output quality

5 Nama controlling supply to ensure higher prices

With regard to finance, do you think it is an accident that banks charge extortinate rates on loans to developers while these same banks gain considerably through the lack of supply

The major shortage is in affordable housing, this is where the state has responsibility and they can get money at 1% and building of social and affordable housing has hit a brick wall. This is all happening while NAMA is selling residential accommodation in Dublin at less than a third of the "build cost" to vulture funds

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. Its a f****** duck

You are aware that there's a difficult* balance to be attempted to bear regarding the banks?

Given that we the people effectively own the banks at the moment, we can either fleece ourselves by forcing them to be unprofitable, or we can fleece ourselves by paying higher rates to keep them in profit. Either way we have a cost to bear.

If we choose the former, we doom the banks that we own (and have significant money tied up in) to failure.
If we choose the second, we offer ourselves the ability to some day sell a portion of our investment in those banks and hopefully return a significant amount to the exchequer.

Appreciating nuance is useful.

*extreme understatement

Villa05

Deleted User wrote:

Given that we the people effectively own the banks at the moment, we can either fleece ourselves by forcing them to be unprofitable, or we can fleece ourselves by paying higher rates to keep them in profit. Either way we have a cost to bear.

If people own the banks, would it not be appropriate that all people pay rather than dumping the whole burden on mortgage payers.
Would a significantly higher property tax be fairer as it's our obsession with same that got us in this mess.

Balance is not a word I'd use to describe saving parasite banks

nice_guy80

Build more mixed use units, with a mix of apartments, duplex houses and semi detached. Get in young architects eager to design very functional buildings with good social spaces.

These projects work in other countries so I don't see why Ireland is different.

I think housing organisations are the way to go, as the state is terrible at delivering projects on time and costed.

golfwallah

The electorate saw through Fine Gael’s electoral slogan “Let’s keep the recovery going”. An increasingly better educated, reasonably well informed and discerning electorate was not going to be taken in by such spin, with mounting evidence of long term problems of unaffordable housing, deteriorating health services and the water charges mess at the top of the list.

Enough people showed their displeasure with government short-termism by voting against their “business as usual” approach.

Voters have demonstrated that they aren’t stupid and expect our political leaders to face up to and address problems in such a way as to carry the majority of the electorate with them. This was never going to be an easy task but we now know that concentrating decision making in the hands of an elite few (the Economic Management Council), ignoring the needs and wants of the electorate and relying on growth and spin to carry government through to a second term was never going to work.

Let’s hope that the current impasse in forming a government will lead firstly to a real acknowledgement that problems like housing, health, water charges, etc., do exist and must be tackled in a way that is agreeable to the majority of voters in this country. It’s time to move away from personal attacks and political point scoring and do the job of running the country in an open and transparent way – or is it too much to expect our elected politicians to behave like real grown-ups?

golfwallah

golfwallah wrote: »

...
Let’s hope that the current impasse in forming a government will lead firstly to a real acknowledgement that problems like housing, health, water charges, etc., do exist and must be tackled in a way that is agreeable to the majority of voters in this country. It’s time to move away from personal attacks and political point scoring and do the job of running the country in an open and transparent way – or is it too much to expect our elected politicians to behave like real grown-ups?

Which is this way that is agreeable to the majority of voters in the country?

Increased Taxes or Increased Borrowing?

As before, the thread title is paradoxical, given that the Government cannot get things for free, and so in order to pay for things, must get money from *somewhere*.

djpbarry

golfwallah wrote: »

The electorate saw through Fine Gael’s electoral slogan “Let’s keep the recovery going”. An increasingly better educated, reasonably well informed and discerning electorate was not going to be taken in by such spin…

…

Enough people showed their displeasure with government short-termism by voting against their “business as usual” approach.

…

Voters have demonstrated that they aren’t stupid...

And yet, the party primarily responsible for getting Ireland into a dire economic state gained twenty-five seats in the last election.

golfwallah

djpbarry wrote: »

And yet, the party primarily responsible for getting Ireland into a dire economic state gained twenty-five seats in the last election.

Which is precisely why we don’t want to head back into another economic crisis prompted this time by unaffordable housing, driving yet more unaffordable wage demands. It’s time for politicians to stop the blame game, which solves nothing, start talking with one another and come up with an agreed way of running the country.

Problems are not solved by pointing the finger – only by facing up to them, developing alternative courses of action, debating the pros and cons in an open and transparent way, choosing how to go forward and then implementing the chosen solutions.

It’s really that simple – but I guess it’s easier to sit on one’s dignity, preserve the status quo and do nothing!

golfwallah

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is this way that is agreeable to the majority of voters in the country?

Increased Taxes or Increased Borrowing?

As before, the thread title is paradoxical, given that the Government cannot get things for free, and so in order to pay for things, must get money from *somewhere*.

To get any kind of consensus, there needs to be open, transparent debate on the key issues. This will give voters a better understanding of the choices before them and the pros and cons thereof. Deciding on such stuff behind closed doors and forcing solutions through, as for example, happened in the case of Irish Water is not a good way of handling issues. Selling off defaulted house mortgages to vulture funds and throwing more families onto public housing lists is not a good way or the only way to go either.

Another example is the way county councils do their business. Accounts are highly aggregated (in a format agreed between the Minister and County Managers), so that it’s impossible for ordinary citizens to ascertain what is being spent on what. Result – County Managers and their senior officials can make decisions with little real accountability to the general public. Don’t get me wrong – councils do a lot right but this doesn’t mean they couldn’t do a lot better.

It’s not just a simple question of increased taxes or increased borrowing. There are a lot of inefficiencies and sub-optimal solutions left in place for far too long, when the taxpayer has to pay (now or at some time in the future through borrowing) and the facts are hidden from them. Lack of transparency makes life easier for ministers and senior officials by covering up their mistakes and failing to learn from them.

Contrast this with the culture of openness in the airline industry, where airline accidents are openly investigated - the imperative is to learn of mistakes and do things better in the future.

golfwallah

golfwallah wrote: »

To get any kind of consensus, there needs to be open, transparent debate on the key issues. This will give voters a better understanding of the choices before them and the pros and cons thereof. Deciding on such stuff behind closed doors and forcing solutions through, as for example, happened in the case of Irish Water is not a good way of handling issues. Selling off defaulted house mortgages to vulture funds and throwing more families onto public housing lists is not a good way or the only way to go either.

Another example is the way county councils do their business. Accounts are highly aggregated (in a format agreed between the Minister and County Managers), so that it’s impossible for ordinary citizens to ascertain what is being spent on what. Result – County Managers and their senior officials can make decisions with little real accountability to the general public. Don’t get me wrong – councils do a lot right but this doesn’t mean they couldn’t do a lot better.

It’s not just a simple question of increased taxes or increased borrowing. There are a lot of inefficiencies and sub-optimal solutions left in place for far too long, when the taxpayer has to pay (now or at some time in the future through borrowing) and the facts are hidden from them. Lack of transparency makes life easier for ministers and senior officials by covering up their mistakes and failing to learn from them.

Contrast this with the culture of openness in the airline industry, where airline accidents are openly investigated - the imperative is to learn of mistakes and do things better in the future.

It really is. If you want the Government to build houses, they need to pay for them somehow.

golfwallah

Deleted User wrote: »

It really is. If you want the Government to build houses, they need to pay for them somehow.

The housing supply in Ireland is not 100% provided by government or local authorities.

And fixing the housing crisis is not just a question of government raising more taxes and throwing money at the problem. I’d agree that availability of money is an issue but the problem is multi factorial and solving it requires a lot more than just money or a few quick political strokes.

Even if it were just a question of spending more money – where is this money to come from? Taxpayers are unwilling to pay more and more taxes. Private businesses, unlike governments and local authorities, do not have the ability to borrow their way out when money becomes short – they have to adapt quickly to changes in the environment or go out of business. They have to find new ways of solving problems that are not 100% dependent on more funding. The same approach is needed here.

There are lots of ways to solve the housing crisis, which has resulted from bad and quick fix government policies anyway, see the following few examples:
• As suggested by economist, Colm McCarthy, by re-zoning “amenity” land to “development” land and thus the price of land for new housing – see Independent article.
• Prevent sale of distressed mortgages to overseas vulture funds at massive discounts and allowing existing mortgage holders to bid on them. See Stephen Donnelly’s article in The Independent.
• Reverse government commitment to restoring the policy of council house sell-offs at large discounts (temporarily phased down some years back) – See Irish Times.
• Update planning processes to enable construction of denser, more affordable housing.
• Sort out the Irish Water delays in provision of upgraded water infrastructure needed for housing.
• Make it easier for voluntary housing agencies to contribute to providing more housing (e.g. by removing the need for agencies and directors thereof to put their personal assets on the line for borrowings).

djpbarry

golfwallah wrote: »

Which is precisely why we don’t want to head back into another economic crisis prompted this time by unaffordable housing, driving yet more unaffordable wage demands.

Of course we don’t, but I don’t really understand your argument.

You’re saying the electorate is becoming increasingly sophisticated, better-informed and recognises the issues that are in need of addressing by the next government. However, it could be argued that many of the issues that need to be tackled stem from policies implanted by Fianna Fáil-led governments of the recent past. Given that the last government did a reasonable job of steadying the ship that they inherited from Fianna Fáil (I’m by no means saying the last government was perfect), it makes absolutely no sense to me that their numbers were decimated in the last election, with Fianna Fáil, in particular, making big gains at their expense.

In short, I think you’re giving the electorate far too much credit. I think they’ve simply vented their dissatisfaction with the last government. I don’t doubt that elements of the electorate had just cause for doing so, but turfing out the government, whose term in office consisted almost entirely of cleaning up Fianna Fáil’s mess, in favour of Fianna Fáil suggests to me that there was, in general, little more to the electorate’s reasoning than “You want us to pay for public services?!? Boo! Out you go!”

golfwallah

golfwallah wrote: »

• As suggested by economist, Colm McCarthy, by re-zoning “amenity” land to “development” land and thus the price of land for new housing – see Independent article.

Absolutely believe that some rezoning is required, and should be encouraged. No en-masse efforts though! However, it is important to note that the planners (professionals) who have not yet rezoned specific areas of land have not done so for a reason. I would assert that in at least some of those cases, those reasons still absolutely stand.

golfwallah wrote: »

• Prevent sale of distressed mortgages to overseas vulture funds at massive discounts and allowing existing mortgage holders to bid on them. See Stephen Donnelly’s article in The Independent.

Does nothing to address supply whatsoever. Those houses exist already.

golfwallah wrote: »

• Reverse government commitment to restoring the policy of council house sell-offs at large discounts (temporarily phased down some years back) – See Irish Times.

Nothing to address supply. Houses already exist.

golfwallah wrote: »

• Update planning processes to enable construction of denser, more affordable housing.

Yup, this is a step that absolutely can and should be done. Won't address supply directly, but will make it easier for developers to get building and share infrastructure better.

golfwallah wrote: »

• Sort out the Irish Water delays in provision of upgraded water infrastructure needed for housing.

?

golfwallah wrote: »

• Make it easier for voluntary housing agencies to contribute to providing more housing (e.g. by removing the need for agencies and directors thereof to put their personal assets on the line for borrowings).

Encourage banks to offer cheap and unsecured credit? hmmm, can't see how that might be acceptable to an electorate still bearing the brunt of that problem.

-

If the Government wants to increase supply (which just about everyone agrees is the only way to solve the housing crisis), it can either become a supplier (through an extensive infrastructure project) or it can attempt to encourage supply (mainly by making the cost of building a house cheaper).

I think at this stage almost every effort to encourage supply should be at least on the table, whilst the nuclear option of becoming a supplier is still available, but is patently unwanted by the electorate at large (would absolutely require more taxes or more borrowing).

keane2097

Was there any meat to the stuff going around from the Credit Unions that they had €5B they wanted to hand over to facilitate the building of houses?

Bass Reeves

I was surprised lately the housing issue came up in discussion while having a pint with a few lads. One lad a true blue FG lad not a builder or anything like that. He was of the opinion that the government need to intervene and start building. The conversation developed out, he was of the opinion that we needed too many houses in Dublin for developers alone to build alone to provide. His fear was that the Government would concentrate on social housing alone he said it had to be a mix of social and affordable. His view was that the funding need was too much for the private sector alone and that we will need to bring building workers from abroad in.

He had read David McWilliams article and considered that the state tendered contracts for large mixed developments were the only option. He also said that state build houses would be of as good if not better quality than some developers and might prevent poor quality housing being thrown onto the market.

I was kind of surprised by his views as he is an out and out capitalist and see state intervention usually as fruit of all evil. He has fears about it from the point of view of building cost etc and often of government being unable to control costs'

keane2097 wrote: »

Was there any meat to the stuff going around from the Credit Unions that they had €5B they wanted to hand hto facilitate the building of houses?

Credit unions have a huge issue because they have large sums on deposit that they cannot lend. They have this on deposit with banks earning around 1%, it is a drag on the deposit rate that they can give and is adding nothing to there margin.

They have lost there reason de etre in that there interest rates are no longer competitive compared to banks. They are getting caught in paperwork and losing loans Lately in our house we have not bothered to look for loans on two instants from the CU that would have been CU compatible.

golfwallah

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely believe that some rezoning is required, and should be encouraged. No en-masse efforts though! However, it is important to note that the planners (professionals) who have not yet rezoned specific areas of land have not done so for a reason. I would assert that in at least some of those cases, those reasons still absolutely stand.

Re-zoning doesn't require truck loads of money and enough re-zoning to solve the artificial land scarcity problem as suggested by economist, Colm McCarthy, should do the trick!

Deleted User wrote: »

Does nothing to address supply whatsoever. Those houses exist already.

Agreed, the biggest part of the problem is supply – but no point in fixing an immediate fiscal or banking problem by selling distressed mortages to vulture funds. That just adds to public housing costs in the long run. We need more long term, joined up thinking and fewer expensive quick fixes.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to address supply. Houses already exist.

As above, sale of council houses doesn’t affect overall supply but does impact on the mix of social and private housing to the financial benefit of relatively small numbers of council tenants and the extra cost to taxpayers having to replace discounted public housing sales.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup, this is a step that absolutely can and should be done. Won't address supply directly, but will make it easier for developers to get building and share infrastructure better.

Again - updated planning processes won't cost truckloads of money - but might upset planners with entrenched views and/or other vested interests.

Deleted User wrote: »

?

Serviced sites for building need additional water infrastructure. We can’t go on pumping untreated sewage into rivers and the sea and issuing boil notices to many householders simply because a political “balls up” was made of setting up the single water utility.

Deleted User wrote: »

Encourage banks to offer cheap and unsecured credit? hmmm, can't see how that might be acceptable to an electorate still bearing the brunt of that problem.

County councils have abrogated their responsibilities for provision of public housing and dumped them mainly onto the private sector but also onto voluntary housing agencies. Very little will be built by builders when they can’t make a profit or by voluntary housing agencies when they are expected by government to borrow at personal risk to directors. Maybe the latter problem could be solved by Directors Liability insurance but these directors are volunteers and government have just dumped their responsibilities here (I witnessed this myself as a director of a housing agency in a meeting with Dublin City Council).

Other solutions can be found, provided the political will is there to make the issue a real priority and take real action, as opposed to offering excuses and blaming others.

Deleted User wrote: »

If the Government wants to increase supply (which just about everyone agrees is the only way to solve the housing crisis), it can either become a supplier (through an extensive infrastructure project) or it can attempt to encourage supply (mainly by making the cost of building a house cheaper).

I think at this stage almost every effort to encourage supply should be at least on the table, whilst the nuclear option of becoming a supplier is still available, but is patently unwanted by the electorate at large (would absolutely require more taxes or more borrowing).

Agreed, supply is the main problem – but the point I am making is that there are many facets to the problem – not just money.

It certainly wasn’t not good enough to place all key decisions in the hands of a 4 man Economic Management Council, leaving government ministers as mere office managers and TDs as voting fodder to do what they are told. Reform, in which more elected officials can be made responsible and accountable for resolving problems is badly needed. This is what happens in modern, well run commercial companies – it’s called delegation – not retaining power to a small group and doing nothing on many issues except blaming the previous administration.

It was sad listening to Minister Alan Kelly on the radio today, blaming housing problems on the constitution. These guys who were given ministerial jobs are pathetic when it comes to problem solving and not too good with excuses either!

nice_guy80

If they had started building houses when the last homelessness crisis summit was they'd have been coming on stream by now, and so easing the crisis

However, this being Ireland they chose instead crap stop gap measures

golfwallah

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course we don’t, but I don’t really understand your argument.

You’re saying the electorate is becoming increasingly sophisticated, better-informed and recognises the issues that are in need of addressing by the next government. However, it could be argued that many of the issues that need to be tackled stem from policies implanted by Fianna Fáil-led governments of the recent past. Given that the last government did a reasonable job of steadying the ship that they inherited from Fianna Fáil (I’m by no means saying the last government was perfect), it makes absolutely no sense to me that their numbers were decimated in the last election, with Fianna Fáil, in particular, making big gains at their expense.

In short, I think you’re giving the electorate far too much credit. I think they’ve simply vented their dissatisfaction with the last government. I don’t doubt that elements of the electorate had just cause for doing so, but turfing out the government, whose term in office consisted almost entirely of cleaning up Fianna Fáil’s mess, in favour of Fianna Fáil suggests to me that there was, in general, little more to the electorate’s reasoning than “You want us to pay for public services?!? Boo! Out you go!”

One journalist put FG’s poor electoral result down to Hubris (an excess of pride before a fall), another on over-reliance on advice from David Cameron’s electorate message.

I’m not so sure – the electorate are a fickle lot, sometimes rational, sometimes emotional, sick of what’s been going on and driven by the desire to try something new. Some politicians have a very low opinion of the electorate and go for simplistic messages to win them over.

The truth is probably a bit more nuanced and, I think, how government performs in office plays a much more important part than electoral messages during the election campaign. Then again, I guess politics, like life and golf, just “ain’t fair”. No matter the performance (and it’s impossible to be perfect), you just can’t satisfy everyone.

Take a quick look at historic examples. In September 1938, Chamberlain’s message “peace in our time” had a lot more populist appeal that Churchill’s “warmongering”, yet Chamberlain declared war barely a year later and was replaced by Churchill in May 1940.

In 1945, after victory was declared, Churchill, in his own words, was give the “order of the boot” by the electorate.

In 1957, 6 months after becoming prime minister, Harold McMillan declared that “most of our people have never had it so good”. Asked what was most feared by a prime minister, he reputedly told one journalist “events, dear boy, events”. Ultimately, he resigned because of ill health.

Then there’s the political demise of Margaret Thatcher because of “ungrateful” cabinet colleagues. Even Benjamin Disraeli, who had “climbed to the top of the greasy pole”, ultimately lost out.

In politics, like everything else, there’s always someone claiming they've done great and others that they could do better – and indeed they could – if only it were that simple!

Good loser

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course we don’t, but I don’t really understand your argument.

You’re saying the electorate is becoming increasingly sophisticated, better-informed and recognises the issues that are in need of addressing by the next government. However, it could be argued that many of the issues that need to be tackled stem from policies implanted by Fianna Fáil-led governments of the recent past. Given that the last government did a reasonable job of steadying the ship that they inherited from Fianna Fáil (I’m by no means saying the last government was perfect), it makes absolutely no sense to me that their numbers were decimated in the last election, with Fianna Fáil, in particular, making big gains at their expense.

In short, I think you’re giving the electorate far too much credit. I think they’ve simply vented their dissatisfaction with the last government. I don’t doubt that elements of the electorate had just cause for doing so, but turfing out the government, whose term in office consisted almost entirely of cleaning up Fianna Fáil’s mess, in favour of Fianna Fáil suggests to me that there was, in general, little more to the electorate’s reasoning than “You want us to pay for public services?!? Boo! Out you go!”

Superb piece of analysis there djp. Spot on as far as I am concerned.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate about sums it up.

I do think though Fg mishandled the campaign. In hindsight it was too short - by about two weeks.

Also I don't think they did a good media job over the years in power. They should know by now that they should have a dog in every dogfight in the media (radio/TV especially). Not turning up at those ridiculous VB 'debates' was thoroughly bad politics.

golfwallah

Whether it was government performance in office that did for them or the election campaign’s failure to have them re-elected is a matter of opinion. But one thing for sure, we still have a massive housing problem to be faced up to and resolved.

Most people are agreed that the single biggest factor in housing scarcity and rising prices is supply. Governments of all hues have contributed to this situation over the years – so elected politicians need to lay off finger pointing and name calling and take a serious look at what is causing this scarcity – in a country that has oceans of undeveloped land that could be used for housing.

2 of Irelands prominent economists, Colm McCarthy and Ronan Lyons have concluded that our dysfunctional planning regime is the root cause of the problem and I am inclined to agree with them. Housing needs to be managed as a key driver in the economy rather than as a purely academic exercise in retaining urban green belts and restricting high rise to meet purist, isolated and silo-based planning ideals.

What we need right now (as soon as the politicians can agree on how to run the country) is a planning regime that is much better integrated with the country’s economic and social needs, and thus much more affordable housing. See these Irish Independent articles by Colm McCarthy
and Ronan Lyons

golfwallah

This is what we need to solve housing supply problem:
Re-zoning of agricultural & amenity land close to the city and within city boundaries as suggested by economists such as Colm McCarthy and Ronan Lyons (links on previous post).

This is what will help reduce housing waiting lists: Compulsory purchase of repossessed houses from vulture funds as suggested by Master of the High Court, Edmund Honohan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJaw8Zmj9LA.

This is what we got from Environment Minister, Alan Kelly and Finance Minister, Michael Noonan, to solve housing supply problem: inaction, spin about growth solving the problem, reports, reports, etc.

This is what we got from Junior Minister, Paudie Coffey, and Finance Minister, Michael Noonan: Spin and sales by NAMA and the banks to vulture funds.

What is more important – Making house prices affordable or keeping them unaffordably high for ordinary working people? Unaffordable housing is not a personal issue for senior politicians and planning officials living in the leafy suburbs ("I’m allright Jack”). All it takes is continued inaction on a not-fit-for-purpose planning process and quick sell-offs by banks / NAMA.

Maybe it’s easier to do nothing and kick problems down the road until after the election. But the electorate aren’t completely stupid – ye can’t fool all of the people all of the time! The chickens are now coming home to roost with another way of wrecking the economy through demands for uncompetitive pay rises and looser Central Bank Rules, all prompted by unaffordable housing.

Haven’t we been this way before and who will our politicians blame for the next housing bubble?

macraignil

golfwallah wrote: »

This is what we need to solve housing supply problem:
Re-zoning of agricultural & amenity land close to the city and within city boundaries as suggested by economists such as Colm McCarthy and Ronan Lyons (links on previous post).

looser Central Bank Rules, all prompted by unaffordable housing.

Haven’t we been this way before and who will our politicians blame for the next housing bubble?

The rest makes some sense but aren't the lending rules of the central bank supposed to be protecting Ireland from a possible crash in the economy in the future? How does this equate with "loser" status?

The cost of building homes here needs to be competitive with other places in the world if we are to keep wages competitive with other countries. It should be possible to sell homes for less than the 220,000euro threshold at a profit if serious efforts were made to reduce the costs involved. Cutting tax on all aspects of the process. Streamlining planing process for well located developments. Finance for necessary infrastructure improvements. The FG/FFail bickering over water charges is just a distraction from continued inaction on the critical issue of housing.

riclad

I Read in the Sunday times, it costs a builder 40-50k per house under the new
rules for house safety standards,building regs , house inspection .
This cost could be reduced greatly if the local councils just employed 100 plus
new building inspectors to inspect new houses ,apartment .
The specialist who inspects the new buildings has to pay expensive insurance to cover the risk in case the building has a problem in say 10 years.

The new system in ireland seems designed to make new building
more expensive than any other european country .
At a time when dublin and other urban areas, has a serious need for
low cost housing or houses affordable for people on average income .

hatrickpatrick

I refuse to believe that we have no money to build social housing, when governments of Ireland during the early and mid 20th centuries when the country was far more destitute than it is now were able to build blocks upon blocks of good quality council flats (not the shoddy ones of the 1960s and 70s which are now being routinely demolished, the earlier pre-1950s once such as Thorncastle St, Oliver Bond, Pearse St, Marriwbone Lane etc), while the current government is only capable of doing public-private partnerships where nearly all of the newly build units are sold at full market price and only a ridiculous 20% is required to be affordable, or retained by the council itself.

Crumlin was fully build by the local council to meet housing needs, not a chance in hell of a project like that being undertaken now. If Crumlin was being built today, you'd probably have hundreds of full market price houses and one or two tiny cul de sacs of council houses tucked away somewhere inside it.

Given the vast amounts of money local councils have to waste on vanity projects year after year, the "but we took the rates away!" argument is clearly bullsh!t. They can afford to build social housing, they just aren't bothered.

KingBrian2

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I refuse to believe that we have no money to build social housing, when governments of Ireland during the early and mid 20th centuries when the country was far more destitute than it is now were able to build blocks upon blocks of good quality council flats (not the shoddy ones of the 1960s and 70s which are now being routinely demolished, the earlier pre-1950s once such as Thorncastle St, Oliver Bond, Pearse St, Marriwbone Lane etc), while the current government is only capable of doing public-private partnerships where nearly all of the newly build units are sold at full market price and only a ridiculous 20% is required to be affordable, or retained by the council itself.

Crumlin was fully build by the local council to meet housing needs, not a chance in hell of a project like that being undertaken now. If Crumlin was being built today, you'd probably have hundreds of full market price houses and one or two tiny cul de sacs of council houses tucked away somewhere inside it.

Given the vast amounts of money local councils have to waste on vanity projects year after year, the "but we took the rates away!" argument is clearly bullsh!t. They can afford to build social housing, they just aren't bothered.

Crime in some parts of the Capital makes it impossible to attract any investment into inner city communities. Try building social housing when reports of old women living in fear of junkies and robbers.

Icepick

golfwallah wrote: »

A much simpler and novel way to make a significant immediate difference in public sector supply has been put forward in today’s Sunday Independent, by Master of the High Court, Edmund Honohan SC (brother of Patrick Honohan) – “nationalise repossessed homes”:

Sounds like a good, workable solution to me – he has put out this challenge to political parties in advance of the general election – will tell us something about political will in this country of ours as to whether our politicians will rise to the challenge – or even come up with more workable initiatives.

Such an idiotic proposal can only come from someone living an afluent life off the taxpayer.
That we cannot give away expensive stuff to people refusing to take care of their lives is not a crisis.

golfwallah

macraignil wrote: »

The rest makes some sense but aren't the lending rules of the central bank supposed to be protecting Ireland from a possible crash in the economy in the future? How does this equate with "loser" status?

The extra “o” in looser does make a difference –

Dictionary definition of loser:

a person, team, nation, etc., that loses:
The visiting team was the loser in the series.

Dictionary definition of looser:

free or released from fastening or attachment:
a loose end.

The cost of building homes here needs to be competitive with other places in the world if we are to keep wages competitive with other countries. It should be possible to sell homes for less than the 220,000euro threshold at a profit if serious efforts were made to reduce the costs involved. Cutting tax on all aspects of the process. Streamlining planing process for well located developments. Finance for necessary infrastructure improvements. The FG/FFail bickering over water charges is just a distraction from continued inaction on the critical issue of housing.

I’d agree that house prices need to be competitive with other economies with whom we are competing. Unfortunately, common sense is not an in-built feature of our multi-seat PR electoral system, which places greater emphasis on local and populist issues over and above high priority national issues. This facilitates election of populist candidates and parties on issues such as water, cardiac facilities in a regional hospital, etc. Such relatively minor issues are then elevated to the status of “red line” game changers in formation or continued support of a coalition or minority government.

But then, that’s the electoral system we decided upon in referendums held in 1959 and 1968 – see here.

The Convention on the Constitution, established under the last government in 2012 to discuss proposed amendments to the Constitution, also decided to retain the current electoral system.

golfwallah

Icepick wrote: »

Such an idiotic proposal can only come from someone living an afluent life off the taxpayer.
That we cannot give away expensive stuff to people refusing to take care of their lives is not a crisis.

You are mixing a number of separate issues here and treating them as one:

Firstly, there is issue of whether the state should redistribute wealth through taxation and helping the less fortunate who have insufficient means to help themselves.

Whether it’s FF, FG or Labour who command the majority support, all are middle ground parties of the social democrat school of political economy. The differences are sometimes historical, sometimes tribal but policies are similar with variations towards the left or right. All these parties have policies of using taxation to help the less fortunate to help themselves and by so doing help the nation in the long run, through social cohesion and inclusiveness. No the system isn’t perfect, but the alternatives (as in the USA) aren’t either.


Secondly, there is the issue of giving away expensive stuff. You need to bear in mind that intervention in the market through “perfectionist” planning and building regulation processes has been a major factor in the unaffordably high cost of housing. This is compounded by government and local authority inertia when things go wrong to the extent that ordinary folk on ordinary incomes can no longer afford a home.

Workers need a roof over their heads in order for an economy to function in a way that it can support the majority of its citizens.

Having made decisions under the middle ground social democratic political system that has found majority democratic support in this country, then there is the issue of social housing and how it should be funded. “Giving away” housing at knock down prices to vulture funds is not a policy that sits well with the majority in this country – not just those who live in the “leafy suburbs”. This just enriches the privileged few at the expense of both the ordinary taxpayer and those on the housing lists. That is why Edmund Honohan’s proposal makes perfect sense!

djpbarry

golfwallah wrote: »

Unfortunately, common sense is not an in-built feature of our multi-seat PR electoral system, which places greater emphasis on local and populist issues over and above high priority national issues. This facilitates election of populist candidates and parties on issues such as water, cardiac facilities in a regional hospital, etc. Such relatively minor issues are then elevated to the status of “red line” game changers in formation or continued support of a coalition or minority government.

Social housing is a national issue but water supply is not?

golfwallah

djpbarry wrote: »

Social housing is a national issue but water supply is not?

No.

Both Social and Private Sector Housing are national issues as is water. Nobody thinks that water supply is unimportant. It’s just that promises of low taxes and top class public services, appealing as they are to many people, didn’t cut the mustard in the last election and we are now left with political uncertainty. People simply didn’t buy into government party slogans.
Most people regard housing, homelessness, health, transparency and accountability, ending of cronyism, the justice system, etc. as far more important than Irish Water, which only emerged as the key political football in discussions on government formation after the election.

Operation of Irish Water and water charges rather than water supply did bother people during the election and afterwards but these issues were not a prominent part of the election campaign.

Water and charges were not the key issues that dominated political debate during the election campaign. Fine Gael’s campaign was based on “keeping the recovery going” coupled with “stability versus chaos”, “Fianna Fail can’t be trusted” and Michael Noonan’s preference for jargon about “Fiscal Space”. Fianna Fail’s campaign was based on “An Ireland for All” plus opposition to FG’s promises of US-style taxes and abolishing USC. This article shows that.

My point, in response to that in an earlier post that

FG/FFail bickering over water charges is just a distraction from continued inaction on the critical issue of housing

is that low priority, populist and local issues help elect minority parties and independents under our present PR system. The water “distraction” is an effect rather than a cause of electorate voting patterns because it became the brand identifier of Sinn Fein and the Independent Alliance.

oscarBravo

golfwallah wrote: »

Most people regard housing, homelessness, health, transparency and accountability, ending of cronyism, the justice system, etc. as far more important than Irish Water...

I guess that's why we've had so many marches and protests over housing, homelessness, health, transparency and accountability, ending of cronyism, the justice system, etc. and so few over water.

Relevant news from Dublin City council where they elect to not listen to the city planners, nor the Chief Executive (Owen Keegan) and further restrict the ability to grow 'up'

Story first broke over a year ago!

Last Night's meeting - High rise apartment buildings debated by Dublin councillors
Video

Today - Dublin councillors seek to restrict apartment heights

Plans to increase the height of apartment buildings that can be constructed in Dublin city could be blocked by councillors through proposed changes to the city development plan.

However, councillors of all parties except Sinn Féin, as well as several Independents, are seeking to restrict the height of residential developments throughout the city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_City_Council

DCC Seats
Sinn Féin 16
IND 11
Fine Gael 8
Labour Party 8
Fianna Fáil 6
PBP 5
Green 3
AAA 1
SD 1
Workers 1

There is no cash cost to the council to allow building higher. There are other costs which are less tangible and difficult to cost fairly, but from a purely cash perspective, the council's actions in this case can only restrict the ability of the capital to adequately house it's people.

keane2097

Presumably this decision will be traced back to Jackie Healy Rae somehow.