40k Euro available for repairs/upgrades for empty properties to be used for social ho

Finbarr Murphy

Read it here

I'm not sure if I agree with it but I can see that its cheaper than building properties from scratch.

Cuddlesworth

The property owner will enter into an agreement with the council on the cost of renovations, the terms of the lease and the repayment cost of the works.

So its a loan, probably with the usual 50-60% market rates crap on the rent, on a 20 year lease that goes way against the rate of inflation. I'll take a guess and say like usual you will be responsible for damage done by ****ty tenants and chasing the council for rent not paid when they mess up.

I used to know a lot of landlords, plus I worked with a fair number of builders and they would all say the same thing. Never work with a council.

jimmycrackcorm

It's an interesting idea and I think will suit some run down properties where a landlord might not be in a position to easily get refurbishment.

We need more of this lateral thinking to help increase supply.

Spanish Eyes

There are thousands of unoccupied fairly decent houses because of the rules of the Fair Deal Scheme.

The family home is not taken into account. But if it is rented out, the income is fully taxable and the gross income would reduce the amount available for subsidy to the owner.

Something that is easily solved. Rent it to the Council. 20% flat tax, and exemption from USC. Or something like that.

Tigerandahalf

This sort of stuff could cause a lot of problems for neighbours of the vacant property. Let us say it is a half decent area and your refurbished home next to it could have troublesome untidy council tenants landed next door. Potential nightmare and totally ruins the value of the neighbour's home. And I am not just talking about money.

Why don't they just cpo land and build proper social housing on it.

While FG are in power this policy is unlikely. Looks like the situation will only get worse.

Graham

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

This sort of stuff could cause a lot of problems for neighbours of the vacant property. Let us say it is a half decent area and your refurbished home next to it could have troublesome untidy council tenants landed next door. Potential nightmare and totally ruins the value of the neighbour's home. And I am not just talking about money.

Why don't they just cpo land and build proper social housing on it.

While FG are in power this policy is unlikely. Looks like the situation will only get worse.

On the other hand, a property that requires renovation to bring it back into use has most likely been abandoned for quite some time. It's likely to be run-down and act as a magnet for crime/anti-social behaviour.

There's a good chance the neighbours would be delighted to see such properties improved and brought back into use.

Tigerandahalf

Graham wrote: »

On the other hand, a property that requires renovation to bring it back into use has most likely been abandoned for quite some time. It's likely to be run-down and act as a magnet for crime/anti-social behaviour.

There's a good chance the neighbours would be delighted to see such properties improved and brought back into use.

True to an extent.

Is there a property tax on vacant units?

Graham

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

True to an extent.

Is there a property tax on vacant units?

No, as a country we appear to prefer to rely on taxation at the construction stage.

pilly

Finbarr Murphy wrote: »

Read it here

I'm not sure if I agree with it but I can see that its cheaper than building properties from scratch.

Why wouldn't you agree with it? I see no downside?

Tigerandahalf

The big problem with this is that it provides no long term security for housing tenants.

A family could be in a unit with teenage kids and then be forced to move to another area and possibly have to switch schools.

What about when tenants retire and enter old age. Would they be expected to move at some stage then?

Daft idea.

pilly

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The big problem with this is that it provides no long term security for housing tenants.

A family could be a unit with teenage kids and then be forced to move to another area and possibly have to switch schools.

What about when tenants retire and enter old age. Would they be expected to move at some stage then?

Daft idea.

It's for 10-20 years, more than enough time to bring up a family. It's better than having no home.

And older people more often than not are more than willing to move to smaller houses or apartments as their needs change.

Tigerandahalf

pilly wrote: »

And older people more often than not are more than willing to move to smaller houses or apartments as their needs change.

And what if they don't want to move having settled and lived in the area for most of their life? Very few older people downsize to smaller properties.

What happens if a tenant refuses to leave at the end of the agreement?

pilly

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

And what if they don't want to move having settled and lived in the area for most of their life? Very few older people downsize to smaller properties.

What happens if a tenant refuses to leave at the end of the agreement?

I think people will have to get over the idea of a council house for life if I'm honest, it's no longer practical.

And I know lots of older people who would downsize if they had the option, it's just not there at the moment. In the UK they are much better at this, small developments specifically built for older people close to shops, amenities etc.

Graham

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

And what if they don't want to move having settled and lived in the area for most of their life? Very few older people downsize to smaller properties.

What happens if a tenant refuses to leave at the end of the agreement?

Welcome to the world of ANYONE renting in the private sector.

wordofwarning

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

And what if they don't want to move having settled and lived in the area for most of their life? Very few older people downsize to smaller properties.

Tough, that is life. I find it bizarre that people in social housing think they should be entitled to live in the expect area they were raised in and their child should live there too etc etc. You hear of people refusing social housing, as it was 'not where their family lives'. You don't hear people from Clontarf, Ballsbridge, Blackrock, Drumcondra etc demanding the state provides them a nice affordable home beside their family. Yet a certain group of people believe, the state should provide them a house for life wherever they like.

The social safety net, should be a safety net. It should not be an attractive alternative to risking it in the real world and working hard.

The job for life is over. Why should a council house for life still be normal?

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What happens if a tenant refuses to leave at the end of the agreement?

They will be evicted like any other tenant, as at the end of the day they are another tenant. This could take up to a year. Ideally if you are not paying rent, you should be on the kerb within 60-90 days. If you don't pay for a service, you should not continue to benefit from it.

Tigerandahalf

But surely you are forgetting that the tax payer needs to get value for money.

Is giving a landord upto €40,000 to redo a property better value for money than building a social housing unit. And this property could be taken back after 20 years with the council then having to find another property or put tenants up in a hotel.

What about the fees involved in getting a tenant to vacate a property and possibly having to renovate the property again, all paid by the tax payer.

To me it seems like a poor value for money solution.

To add I don't think anyone should be entitled to choose where they live etc.

My main gripe is the huge money being spent while no long term solution is provided.

It is also bad for homebuyers as investors/landlords compete for properties pushing up prices.

pilly

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

But surely you are forgetting that the tax payer needs to get value for money.

Is giving a landord upto €40,000 to redo a property better value for money than building a social housing unit. And this property could be taken back after 20 years with the council then having to find another property or put tenants up in a hotel.

What about the fees involved in getting a tenant to vacate a property and possibly having to renovate the property again, all paid by the tax payer.

To me it seems like a poor value for money solution.

To add I don't think anyone should be entitled to choose where they live etc.

My main gripe is the huge money being spent while no long term solution is provided.

It is also bad for homebuyers as investors/landlords compete for properties pushing up prices.

Did you read the article? The money is not given to the owner of the property, it's loaned to them.

pilly

The reality is that to build the amount of houses we need apparently will take 40 years so alternative solutions have to be looked at.

Tigerandahalf

pilly wrote: »

The reality is that to build the amount of houses we need apparently will take 40 years so alternative solutions have to be looked at.

Why 40 years though?

Or maybe the political will isn't there.

FG are a landlord/big farmer party. Their supporters don't want social housing as one of their possible incomes disappears.

They have done a good job in getting the country's finances back on track but on social/public service issues they are very much against putting money into provision.

When you consider the tax take that a government takes on all stages of building and selling a house units could be built relatively cheaply.

I would love to see figures on what it is costing to house people in bnbs and hotels.

the_syco

Finbarr Murphy wrote: »

Read it here

Is that 40k a once off, or is it available each time the tenant wrecks the house?

pilly wrote: »

Why wouldn't you agree with it? I see no downside?

A once off payment and then locked into a 20 year lease where you'd most likely end up paying at least that amount in repairs during that 20 years.

Also, say a house is done up, but no-one wants to live there as it's in the backarse of nowhere; do they have to keep it empty for 20 years, in case someone will want to move into it?

pilly

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Why 40 years though?

Or maybe the political will isn't there.

FG are a landlord/big farmer party. Their supporters don't want social housing as one of their possible incomes disappears.

They have done a good job in getting the country's finances back on track but on social/public service issues they are very much against putting money into provision.

When you consider the tax take that a government takes on all stages of building and selling a house units could be built relatively cheaply.

I would love to see figures on what it is costing to house people in bnbs and hotels.

All those are long stories, not relevant to this thread though.

pilly

the_syco wrote: »

Is that 40k a once off, or is it available each time the tenant wrecks the house?


A once off payment and then locked into a 20 year lease where you'd most likely end up paying at least that amount in repairs during that 20 years.

Also, say a house is done up, but no-one wants to live there as it's in the backarse of nowhere; do they have to keep it empty for 20 years, in case someone will want to move into it?

You've obviously had some bad experiences.

Tigerandahalf

the_syco wrote: »

Is that 40k a once off, or is it available each time the tenant wrecks the house?


A once off payment and then locked into a 20 year lease where you'd most likely end up paying at least that amount in repairs during that 20 years.

Also, say a house is done up, but no-one wants to live there as it's in the backarse of nowhere; do they have to keep it empty for 20 years, in case someone will want to move into it?

A property tax on vacant units would be a viable solution. It would force people to do them up or sell them.

We need to get away from the mindset of property being a cash cow for people to add to their incomes.

pilly

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

A property tax on vacant units would be a viable solution. It would force people to do them up or sell them.

We need to get away from the mindset of property being a cash cow for people to add to their incomes.

You're contradicting yourself there. How can an empty property be a cash cow?

Graham

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

We need to get away from the mindset of property being a cash cow for people to add to their incomes.

You'll find by far the loudest objection to property taxes comes from owner occupiers.

Tigerandahalf

Graham wrote: »

You'll find by far the loudest objection to property taxes comes from owner occupiers.

Nobody likes to pay taxes end of. Farmers hated the rates they once had to pay and which are now no longer part of the scene.

It may be the case that too much tax is taken from new builds. It might be better to tax it further on when people have more disposable income and gone past the creche stage.

Anyway it is not clear in the Examiner article how the €40,000 would be repaid.

No matter what the government would still need to provide €40,000 (via a loan) when the money would be better spent providing social housing on a larger scale to meet demand.

pilly

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Nobody likes to pay taxes end of. Farmers hated the rates they once had to pay and which are now no longer part of the scene.

It may be the case that too much tax is taken from new builds. It might be better to tax it further on when people have more disposable income and gone past the creche stage.

Anyway it is not clear in the Examiner article how the €40,000 would be repaid.

No matter what the government would still need to provide €40,000 (via a loan) when the money would be better spent providing social housing on a larger scale to meet demand.

You're being deliberately obtuse now because you initially didn't read the article and just jumped in with your dumb comment.

A loan is not money SPENT, you do understand that right?

Also, this is about speed, they simply can't build the level of houses we need right now quickly.

Graham

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

It may be the case that too much tax is taken from new builds. It might be better to tax it further on when people have more disposable income and gone past the creche stage.

Personally I don't think there's any 'may be' about it.

Reliance on taxing property at the construction stage has undeniably shown to be an erratic form of income.

Property taxes also encourage home-owners to right-size their accommodation as they move through the differing life stages.

Here's how the argument against property-taxes is likely to go:

We're retired, we've contributed/worked all our life and now you want to tax us out of our home.
It's forcing people out the family home.
We already get fleeced on our mortgage.
We already get fleeced on childcare
The wealthy landlords should pay property tax
The people in million+ homes should pay property tax

No political party has the stones to argue against any/all of the above, politically it's much safer to throw businesses and new builds under the bus.

Graham

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

No matter what the government would still need to provide €40,000 (via a loan) when the money would be better spent providing social housing on a larger scale to meet demand.

I don't think that stacks up. Short of pitching tents or buying caravans I can't think of a faster/cheaper way of bringing housing into the social housing market.

mel123

We as a nation find faults in everything our government do - I'm sure every country does.

To me, what it seems the council are trying to do is two things, one, minimalise homelessness which they are getting very heavily critised for, and two, as in this particular article, get rid of derelict properties in rural towns. We have to remember, the boom is mostly in Dublin. Many small towns across Ireland are struggling and never recovered from the recession. If we forget about giving out about landlords, if it's getting property back on the market it has to be a good thing IMO.

Dublin City Council are doing their own deals all over Dublin at the moment, be it buying up hotels, warehouses, doing deals with LL's before properties are even built.

I'm completly guilty of it myself, but it seems they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

oppenheimer1

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Why 40 years though?

Or maybe the political will isn't there.

FG are a landlord/big farmer party. Their supporters don't want social housing as one of their possible incomes disappears.

They have done a good job in getting the country's finances back on track but on social/public service issues they are very much against putting money into provision.

When you consider the tax take that a government takes on all stages of building and selling a house units could be built relatively cheaply.

I would love to see figures on what it is costing to house people in bnbs and hotels.

It will take 40 years because the capacity isn't in the economy to build the required number of houses without overheating it.

Land, followed by labour, then materials make up the cost of a house. The reason building houses is expensive is because we insist on low density housing and pay in construction is high.

The only way to get costs down is to increase density and reduce pay