ESRI report - we are not overcooked, but house prices will rise 20% by 2020

server down

Graham wrote: »

People were stuck because the market crashed, not because they owned a 1 bedroom house.

That’s a fairly false distinction. They were stuck with a 1 bedroomed house because the market crashed.

There were probably more households stuck with a 3 or 4 bed semi that they could no-longer afford than your example 1-bed owners.

There were very few repossessions however, so these people had a sizeable house for a family.

In other words the housing ladder failed. Which is why Irish people want to get onto the middle rungs of the ladder, and buy a house for good prior to, or just after, having kids.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

apologies, but i didnt read all your post, will later. firstly i sympathise with you as a landlord, but our current housing model is actually failing both landlords and tenents, of course you can debate by how much of each. as i tried to explain earlier, i do personally believe this is largely due to our over reliance on flawed economic theories called neoclassical theory and 'the efficient market hypothesis', which strangely isnt very efficient at providing us with our actually needs, in this case, housing. we have decided that it is best to blame individuals and groups for our housing woes, including 'the entitled'. we have become indoctrinated to think, 'the market' solves all our needs, but reality doesnt show us this, it never has. when a theory mentions things such as 'rational expectations', start questioning it, as theres no such thing as a rational human being, and our behaviour tends towards irrationality in particular regarding housing.

The Landlord/Tenant situation is for another thread of which I have contributed to same.

The market will provide what we need in a more equitable manner than what we currently have. If I can use the Healthcare system as an example to illustrate my point. Currently a patient can be seen quicker in the Private Healthcare model than with the Public one. One of the main reasons for this is the inefficiency of the Public system. The whole concept of the free market is that shareholders/owners/managers are focused on efficiency and keeping costs down while competing in the market place. This mindset is missing in the provision of all public services.

People then exploit this lack of accountability to their own advantage. If I use the current housing issue to explain my point further. As a landlord I look upon my investment as a business and as such make it my business to keep an eye on my customers (in this case potential tenants). I am part of a number of facebook groups for rent/social housing etc I use this as market research to see what is the current trends in the market I am competing in.

I have seen numerous posts from young single mothers (by viewing their profiles you can see their situations etc) who regularly claim "this country's a joke, your entitled to a three bed house, hun!" (the hun is not my word by the way).

Rational human beings are those who will rationalize there own judgements/decisions these may not be at one with what society feels is rational but while we let these rationalizations go on our situation wont change.

The market will go some way to addressing the issue of what is acceptable and not acceptable. It is by no means the perfect answer it is however in my view one which is much better than the one currently in use.

Ironically enough and slightly off topic I was listening to RTE Radio 1 yesterday and a city Councilor was being interviewed as part of the homeless situation and he stated that he was aware of people who declared themselves homeless were given hotel accommodation and then went back to live with relatives only staying in the hotel a couple of nights a week. He did mention he had similar conversations with other councilors who said the same thing. The reason given for this was that if they gave back the hotel room they would not be a priority on the housing list. So the tax payer is paying in excess of €25k per year to a hotel where the room is not being used and the people who are homeless are playing the system for their own gains.

server down

The Student wrote: »

The Landlord/Tenant situation is for another thread of which I have contributed to same.

The market will provide what we need in a more equitable manner than what we currently have. If I can use the Healthcare system as an example to illustrate my point. Currently a patient can be seen quicker in the Private Healthcare model than with the Public one. One of the main reasons for this is the inefficiency of the Public system. The whole concept of the free market is that shareholders/owners/managers are focused on efficiency and keeping costs down while competing in the market place. This mindset is missing in the provision of all public services.

People then exploit this lack of accountability to their own advantage. If I use the current housing issue to explain my point further. As a landlord I look upon my investment as a business and as such make it my business to keep an eye on my customers (in this case potential tenants). I am part of a number of facebook groups for rent/social housing etc I use this as market research to see what is the current trends in the market I am competing in.

I have seen numerous posts from young single mothers (by viewing their profiles you can see their situations etc) who regularly claim "this country's a joke, your entitled to a three bed house, hun!" (the hun is not my word by the way).

Rational human beings are those who will rationalize there own judgements/decisions these may not be at one with what society feels is rational but while we let these rationalizations go on our situation wont change.

The market will go some way to addressing the issue of what is acceptable and not acceptable. It is by no means the perfect answer it is however in my view one which is much better than the one currently in use.

Ironically enough and slightly off topic I was listening to RTE Radio 1 yesterday and a city Councilor was being interviewed as part of the homeless situation and he stated that he was aware of people who declared themselves homeless were given hotel accommodation and then went back to live with relatives only staying in the hotel a couple of nights a week. He did mention he had similar conversations with other councilors who said the same thing. The reason given for this was that if they gave back the hotel room they would not be a priority on the housing list. So the tax payer is paying in excess of €25k per year to a hotel where the room is not being used and the people who are homeless are playing the system for their own gains.

What exactly do you mean by “the market”. There already is a market for private housing. There is very little state building going on. What do you mean?

Graham

server down wrote: »

That’s a fairly false distinction. They were stuck with a 1 bedroomed house because the market crashed.

Correct, and there were many stuck with 2/3/4/5 bedroom houses they couldn't afford because the market crashed.

server down wrote: »

There were very few repossessions however, so these people had a sizeable house for a family.

Lack of repossessions aside, I can't imagine it was anything other than permanent stress for the occupants of the 3/4/5 bedroom houses either.

I'm not sure what you're advocating here...

Buy a 3/4/5 bedroom 'house for life', because even if you can't afford it at some point, it won't be repossessed.

server down wrote: »

In other words the housing ladder failed. Which is why Irish people want to get onto the middle rungs of the ladder, and buy a house for good prior to, or just after, having kids.

The housing market failed, including the property ladder. The effects of which were felt across all property types.

I guess it's all a moot point anyway. Given increasing property prices and demand, most won't have the option of joining half-way up the property ladder.

fg1406

Although anecdotal evidence, is what it is, anecdotal. I have first hand knowledge of my husbands former housemate who is still friendly with him, doing the same. As a single, unemployed / unemployable man, who has been on the dole since 2009, is in emergency accommodation for 16 months now. He stays with his mother 2-3 nights a week (weekends) so he can keep his place on the housing list. He moved back in with his mother after my now husband moved in with me. He presented as homeless due to overcrowding at Home despite this not being true. 2 siblings are married and 1 is in Australia. But he’s playing the system to get what he wants. I honestly don’t know what social housing policy is for single childless people. There are no council owned 1 bed apartments where we live.

That point goes for single people looking to buy. With prices as they are, I would not have been able to buy our house without my husbands input. When I was single and in house-share hell, I used to panic about what I would do long term in terms of accommodation. Home-ownership is very out of reach of most single people, as is lone renting.

server down

Graham wrote: »

Correct, and there were many stuck with 2/3/4/5 bedroom houses they couldn't afford because the market crashed.



Lack of repossessions aside, I can't imagine it was anything other than permanent stress for the occupants of the 3/4/5 bedroom houses either.

I'm not sure what you're advocating here...

Buy a 3/4/5 bedroom 'house for life', because even if you can't afford it at some point, it won't be repossessed.


The housing market failed, including the property ladder. The effects of which were felt across all property types.

I guess it's all a moot point anyway. Given increasing property prices and demand, most won't have the option of joining half-way up the property ladder.

I’m suggesting that the property ladder - starting on a small house and moving up doesn’t work.

Lumen

server down wrote: »

I’m suggesting that the property ladder - starting on a small house and moving up doesn’t work.

I managed it myself but only under unusual circumstances. With marginal taxes at 50% you have to save 400k gross income to move from a 300k property to a 500k property, and that's hard.

A common model in the past was two young (<25) singles bought their own two bed apartments on ~20yr mortgages, got together, sold the apartments and bought a house ten years later with a chunk of equity.

But now it takes two incomes to buy an apartment on 30-35 year mortgages and people are starting later for various reasons.

The Student

server down wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by “the market”. There already is a market for private housing. There is very little state building going on. What do you mean?

The (free) market is not being allowed to function as it should. There is constant State interference in it. A free market would find a balance, I agree there is no State building going on because the simple fact is the State does not want to house people because the State does not want the costs, risk and hassle of being a landlord. The HAP scheme is a prime example of this. if the tenant stops paying their differential rate to the local authority then the local authority stops paying the landlord and the tenant is then the landlords problem.

There are some people who will never be able to house themselves but the State does not want to house them itself, it rather wants the Private market to do it but on the State's terms.

This is why the housing market is so dysfunctional. Those who should not be in it are and those who should be in it can't because they are priced out of it by State subsidized rents.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote: »

The (free) market is not being allowed to function as it should. There is constant State interference in it. A free market would find a balance, I agree there is no State building going on because the simple fact is the State does not want to house people because the State does not want the costs, risk and hassle of being a landlord. The HAP scheme is a prime example of this. if the tenant stops paying their differential rate to the local authority then the local authority stops paying the landlord and the tenant is then the landlords problem.

There are some people who will never be able to house themselves but the State does not want to house them itself, it rather wants the Private market to do it but on the State's terms.

This is why the housing market is so dysfunctional. Those who should not be in it are and those who should be in it can't because they are priced out of it by State subsidized rents.

im very busy right now, but again, theres no proof that 'the market', left to its own devices, provides society with all its needs. theres plenty of peer reviewed and non peer reviewed work out there that proves this. this is why i call 'the market' a construct, i.e. we have convinced ourselves that linear models can be used to project future market needs. this is simply not the case leading to a development of nonlinear models using things such as 'complex system dynamics' are now being developed to try explain this. it is time for us to move on from this flawed thinking before we destroy our societies. 'market equilibrium' is simply a myth, period!

Danger781

The Student wrote: »

Based on one of your previous posts you referenced friends in their 30's so I made an assumption you were in your 30's also.

On the assumption you are in your 30's (and I apologize if I am wrong) then you like most of us would have left home (or liked to) somewhere in your early to mid 20's.

At which point a single bedroom property would be ideal for you and a partner. Then as your relationship progresses and as you say marriage and children you would be at the point of needing to upsize.

if we had a proper functioning market you would have bought a single bedroom property, held it for 5 or so years then traded up. At the other end of the spectrum you could have the mature people who are living in properties to big for them who could downsize to the one bed property you lived in.

In an ideal functioning market this is what would happen, but with our dysfunctional system of social welfare and our entitlement culture it is the likes of you and I who suffer.

I am in a similar situation to the OP you responded to, and while your situation might be the "ideal" scenario it is not suited to everyone's needs. I work in a technical IT role and while I'm normally in the office I do have the option of working from home when needed. One of my main hobbies also includes chilling out on my computer at home playing video games with a few friends, or watching Netflix, or working on a project etc.. If myself and the GF were going to buy a one bedroom place, then my Desk would either be in the bedroom, living room or kitchen. Nobody wants that, and it would make working from home more of a burden than a benefit. There is a good chance my hobby would start to cause conflict if I'm up late in the bedroom, or shouting in the living room... You get the idea. I need an office room.

So I need to start with something larger than a one bedroom apartment. I guess that means we could just look at a two bedroom apartment.. and then look for a new owner for her dog. We're not heartless people and could never get rid of her hairy baby so that means an apartment is ruled out. Suddenly our "needs" go from a single bedroom apartment to a two bedroom house. As part of my working needs, and to maintain my hobby, I need somewhere with a high speed consistent internet connection, which means that we "need" to look at city and suburbs more than likely.

On the note of my job, if you have a look for IT roles you'll notice that nearly all are located in Cork and / or Dublin.. and I'd rather emigrate than live in Dublin if I'm honest.

You can see my requirements to simply live my life at a somewhat comfortable standard mean that I'm going against what most posters in this thread are saying you should be doing to get on the property ladder..

This is not meant as a criticism to anyone, but more just to point out that you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

Cyrus

Danger781 wrote: »

I am in a similar situation to the OP you responded to, and while your situation might be the "ideal" scenario it is not suited to everyone's needs. I work in a technical IT role and while I'm normally in the office I do have the option of working from home when needed. One of my main hobbies also includes chilling out on my computer at home playing video games with a few friends, or watching Netflix, or working on a project etc.. If myself and the GF were going to buy a one bedroom place, then my Desk would either be in the bedroom, living room or kitchen. Nobody wants that, and it would make working from home more of a burden than a benefit. There is a good chance my hobby would start to cause conflict if I'm up late in the bedroom, or shouting in the living room... You get the idea. I need an office room.

So I need to start with something larger than a one bedroom apartment. I guess that means we could just look at a two bedroom apartment.. and then look for a new owner for her dog. We're not heartless people and could never get rid of her hairy baby so that means an apartment is ruled out. Suddenly our "needs" go from a single bedroom apartment to a two bedroom house. As part of my working needs, and to maintain my hobby, I need somewhere with a high speed consistent internet connection, which means that we "need" to look at city and suburbs more than likely.

On the note of my job, if you have a look for IT roles you'll notice that nearly all are located in Cork and / or Dublin.. and I'd rather emigrate than live in Dublin if I'm honest.

You can see my requirements to simply live my life at a somewhat comfortable standard mean that I'm going against what most posters in this thread are saying you should be doing to get on the property ladder..

This is not meant as a criticism to anyone, but more just to point out that you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

you are conflating needs and wants above

Danger781

Cyrus wrote: »

you are conflating needs and wants above

You're not wrong. In reality all I "need" is a roof over my head and a place to call home.

However If I choose an apartment it means abandoning the dog. If I choose rural it means lesser ability to do my job effectively. If I choose a one bedroom place it could mean relationship conflict.

None of the above are needs, and they may not even be necessarily true in reality, but they are most definitely important factors in my life and I wouldn't consider buying a house or apartment of any kind unless they were met. Maybe that's a naive approach, and I'm sure I'll learn in the long run if it is.

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im very busy right now, but again, theres no proof that 'the market', left to its own devices, provides society with all its needs. theres plenty of peer reviewed and non peer reviewed work out there that proves this. this is why i call 'the market' a construct, i.e. we have convinced ourselves that linear models can be used to project future market needs. this is simply not the case leading to a development of nonlinear models using things such as 'complex system dynamics' are now being developed to try explain this. it is time for us to move on from this flawed thinking before we destroy our societies. 'market equilibrium' is simply a myth, period!

I think we may be at cross purposes. The Housing market is made up of two segments those who wish to purchase their own home and those who will never be able to purchase one. Currently the State is interfering in the Private one by subsidizing rents and not allowing the market to find its correct level. The market in the private housing side should be allowed work.

For those who can't and will never be able to house themselves then let the State house them in State owned and controlled property.

However what the State in its wisdom is interfering in the Private property market and screwing it up for all concerned.

The homeless issue is high on all media agendas and it is being used as a political bat to beat up the Govt. We as a country want to give people what they want but don't seem to understand where the resources will come from to do it. We need to realize that we cant be all things to all people no matter how much we would like it.

keane2097

The government refusing to build social housing is an artefact of a free market ideology, but it seems to be implied as some way they are preventing the market working properly here

I can't get my head around an argument that seems to suggest rental assistance which drives up the cost of rent is to blame in any way for a situation where we are not building enough houses.

If we put all the people on HAP onto the streets (ignoring all the obvious problems with this) and left it to everyone else to find and pay for their own accommodation the price would at best reduce across the board. This would not be an incentive to private developers to build more houses.

@TheStudent - I can't follow your reasoning here at all. Is it possible you are conflating the problem of your family members not being able to rent in an area due to HAP with the problems which are stalling private developers building housing units? These two things seem to be pressures in the opposite directions to me.

The Student

Danger781 wrote: »

I am in a similar situation to the OP you responded to, and while your situation might be the "ideal" scenario it is not suited to everyone's needs. I work in a technical IT role and while I'm normally in the office I do have the option of working from home when needed. One of my main hobbies also includes chilling out on my computer at home playing video games with a few friends, or watching Netflix, or working on a project etc.. If myself and the GF were going to buy a one bedroom place, then my Desk would either be in the bedroom, living room or kitchen. Nobody wants that, and it would make working from home more of a burden than a benefit. There is a good chance my hobby would start to cause conflict if I'm up late in the bedroom, or shouting in the living room... You get the idea. I need an office room.

So I need to start with something larger than a one bedroom apartment. I guess that means we could just look at a two bedroom apartment.. and then look for a new owner for her dog. We're not heartless people and could never get rid of her hairy baby so that means an apartment is ruled out. Suddenly our "needs" go from a single bedroom apartment to a two bedroom house. As part of my working needs, and to maintain my hobby, I need somewhere with a high speed consistent internet connection, which means that we "need" to look at city and suburbs more than likely.

On the note of my job, if you have a look for IT roles you'll notice that nearly all are located in Cork and / or Dublin.. and I'd rather emigrate than live in Dublin if I'm honest.

You can see my requirements to simply live my life at a somewhat comfortable standard mean that I'm going against what most posters in this thread are saying you should be doing to get on the property ladder..

This is not meant as a criticism to anyone, but more just to point out that you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

My comments would not cover every person but they would account for the majority. There will always be extremes unique situations which yours would appear to be one.

I note that another poster has questioned need v want. I would have to agree with them. You need a roof over your head, you want that roof to be in Dublin and you want it to be a two bedroom property.

With a properly functioning market you would be allowed use your resources to compete for you want but because of State interference you are been denied the opportunity to compete for the two bed property on a level footing because the State is pricing you out of the market because of its subsidies it is giving to house others.

Lumen

The Student wrote: »

I think we may be at cross purposes. The Housing market is made up of two segments those who wish to purchase their own home and those who will never be able to purchase one. Currently the State is interfering in the Private one by subsidizing rents and not allowing the market to find its correct level. The market in the private housing side should be allowed work.

For those who can't and will never be able to house themselves then let the State house them in State owned and controlled property.

However what the State in its wisdom is interfering in the Private property market and screwing it up for all concerned.

The homeless issue is high on all media agendas and it is being used as a political bat to beat up the Govt. We as a country want to give people what they want but don't seem to understand where the resources will come from to do it. We need to realize that we cant be all things to all people no matter how much we would like it.

It's really not that simple at all. You're conflating wants and means. Almost everyone would like to own their own home, but only some have the means. That "can afford it" cohort is shrinking. Everyone else tries to make do with renting, and at the more financially helpless end people throw themselves at the housing lists.

The private market is also complicated by the State outsourcing provision to private landlords.

The Student

keane2097 wrote: »

The government refusing to build social housing is an artefact of a free market ideology, but it seems to be implied as some way they are preventing the market working properly here

I can't get my head around an argument that seems to suggest rental assistance which drives up the cost of rent is to blame in any way for a situation where we are not building enough houses.

If we put all the people on HAP onto the streets (ignoring all the obvious problems with this) and left it to everyone else to find and pay for their own accommodation the price would at best reduce across the board. This would not be an incentive to private developers to build more houses.

@TheStudent - I can't follow your reasoning here at all. Is it possible you are conflating the problem of your family members not being able to rent in an area due to HAP with the problems which are stalling private developers building housing units? These two things seem to be pressures in the opposite directions to me.

I think the issue goes much deeper. I will try to explain a bit better in case I am not being clear (if so I apologise). The State has refused to build social housing as they don't want the responsibility of housing and maintaining those properties. They have moved their responsibility to the private market which has skewed how the private market should work. The State by subsidizing rent has put a floor on the rents achievable this is not how a free market is intended to work.

If I look at this from a business perspective (by the way I am not a developer). In any functioning market if Supernormal profits are being earned it attracts new entrants to the market to get a share of those Supernormal profits and drives them down to normal profits.

An article in a recent paper referenced that there are two mortgage approved parties for every one property due to come on stream. If this is the case then developers should be flooding the market with properties as demand is there to meet supply. The question has to be asked why not. Investors like so sort of certainty in their investments, any large scale developments will take anywhere from 6 months upwards to build. Yes there are risks associated with a market which all investors should consider but their are risks that they have no control over most notably State interference. The State at the stroke of a pen can change the market and there is nothing the market can do about it.

By removing all subsidies to HAP tenants it would then "level the playing field" for those looking for accommodation.

Ironically by subsidizing rents the State in making it increasingly difficult for people who in a normal functioning market could buy their own property and would not need to be housed by the State now rely on the State for housing. Private renters at the moment are paying in some situations double in rent what they would pay on a mortgage for exactly the same property.

The State however needs to be seen to do something and by tinkering around the edges it is in my mind making the situation worse rather than better.

The Student

Lumen wrote: »

It's really not that simple at all. You're conflating wants and means. Almost everyone would like to own their own home, but only some have the means. That "can afford it" cohort is shrinking. Everyone else tries to make do with renting, and at the more financially helpless end people throw themselves at the housing lists.

The private market is also complicated by the State outsourcing provision to private landlords.

I agree a lot of people would like to own their homes for nothing else other than security. The reason the cohort of those who can afford it is shrinking is because the market is not been allowed find its natural position.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote: »

I agree a lot of people would like to own their homes for nothing else other than security. The reason the cohort of those who can afford it is shrinking is because the market is not been allowed find its natural position.

i suspect we re back to 'equilibrium' again;)

The Student

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i suspect we re back to 'equilibrium' again;)

You are correct we are back at the "equilibrium" again.

If the State wants to house people then build properties to house them. Investors invest to make a profit or suffer a loss that's what business is all about.

If the State wants to fulfill its social obligations then build themselves and let the market decide what happens to the investors.

Wanderer78

The Student wrote: »

You are correct we are back at the "equilibrium" again.

If the State wants to house people then build properties to house them. Investors invest to make a profit or suffer a loss that's what business is all about.

If the State wants to fulfill its social obligations then build themselves and let the market decide what happens to the investors.

ive always liked joe stiglitz's use of the term, 'markets dont happen in a vacuum':)

keane2097

@TheStudent - appreciate you taking the time to expand on your points. I haven't the time now to clarify my objections but will hopefully get a chance later.

The Student

keane2097 wrote: »

@TheStudent - appreciate you taking the time to expand on your points. I haven't the time now to clarify my objections but will hopefully get a chance later.

Thank you for the decency of acknowledging my efforts.

server down

The Student wrote: »

Thank you for the decency of acknowledging my efforts.

Well as a rehash of discredited econ 101, its perfectly fine.

There is no way the free market would produce enough houses for everybody. We would end up, as we did in the late 19C and early 20C with slums, 20 people to a house. We are almost there now.

We also can't not have planning laws. The mantra that the "free market" will solve this is merely a quasi religious belief system.

The Student

server down wrote: »

Well as a rehash of discredited econ 101, its perfectly fine.

There is no way the free market would produce enough houses for everybody. We would end up, as we did in the late 19C and early 20C with slums, 20 people to a house. We are almost there now.

We also can't not have planning laws. The mantra that the "free market" will solve this is merely a quasi religious belief system.

If you take the time to read my posts you may find I am not suggesting the free market on its own will improve the situation. I did not make any reference to not having any planning laws etc. Planning is important and necessary. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have confused the reference you make to planning above with another posters comments as I have never made any reference to removing planning in any way shape or form.

The premise of my posts are that the State should house those who can't house themselves and those who can should be allowed try and compete on a level playing field!

Graham

server down wrote: »

I’m suggesting that the property ladder - starting on a small house and moving up doesn’t work.

You're not though. You're saying it didn't work when we had a global financial crisis.

keane2097

The Student wrote: »

If you take the time to read my posts you may find I am not suggesting the free market on its own will improve the situation. I did not make any reference to not having any planning laws etc. Planning is important and necessary. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have confused the reference you make to planning above with another posters comments as I have never made any reference to removing planning in any way shape or form.

The premise of my posts are that the State should house those who can't house themselves and those who can should be allowed try and compete on a level playing field!

Honestly I think you are just misusing the term 'free market' to mean types and amounts of interference by the government that you agree with.

That was what the long-winded post I was planning for later was going to amount to also, really!

A free housing market implies lack of regulation, planning etc. It most certainly rules out a government doing anything as interventionalist as building houses directly!

The Student

keane2097 wrote: »

Honestly I think you are just misusing the term 'free market' to mean types and amounts of interference by the government that you agree with.

That was what the long-winded post I was planning for later was going to amount to also, really!

A free housing market implies lack of regulation, planning etc. It most certainly rules out a government doing anything as interventionalist as building houses directly!

Fair enough if there was a misinterpretation of The free market I was referencing is intervention by the Govt/State in terms of price setting etc.

The State/Govt does have a part to play in Health and Safety, Planning etc.

keane2097

The Student wrote: »

Fair enough if there was a misinterpretation of The free market I was referencing is intervention by the Govt/State in terms of price setting etc.

The State/Govt does have a part to play in Health and Safety, Planning etc.

Ah, ok - with that minor terminology issue sorted out I can follow what you're saying much better.

Agree with several of your points in that case, most importantly the idea that the government should be taking active part in building social houses.

keane2097

I saw an interesting notion on twitter during the week also, where apparently in certain parts of Dublin in the past the eligibility for social housing was relaxed (i.e. people on higher wages could get a place) and it led to a greater socio-economic mix in these areas.

I don't know if this actually happened or have any of the details really, but it's an interesting twist on the affordable housing idea I thought.