Social Housing: a flawed system

Pixel Eater

dhaughton99 wrote: »

There’s 18 SDCC council houses being built 300m from my home. 3.6 million. They are fabulous looking. 3 and 4 bedroom, also comes with attic converted. 6 large solar panels per house. Front and back gardens. Stonemasons have been there doing a wall around the play area for past 6 weeks. No expense spared. Just hope they are looked after.

This has to be welcome, it's homes for 60 odd people but I wonder if the rent will reflect the type of property. Does the Council just take the tenant's income to calculate the rent and not where and what type of property?

So, for example, will the tenants in the above development - new, large family houses with gardens and solar panels - pay the same as a tenant in some run down, pokey flat in the centre of Dún Laoghaire (It's SDCC)?

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

This has to be welcome, it's homes for 60 odd people but I wonder if the rent will reflect the type of property. Does the Council just take the tenant's income to calculate the rent and not where and what type of property?

So, for example, will the tenants in the above development - new, large family houses with gardens and solar panels - pay the same as a tenant in some run down, pokey flat in the centre of Dún Laoghaire (It's SDCC)?

Just income.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

This has to be welcome, it's homes for 60 odd people but I wonder if the rent will reflect the type of property. Does the Council just take the tenant's income to calculate the rent and not where and what type of property?

The property or location is irrelevant, differential rent is what is applied.

Pixel Eater

Doesn't make much sense. Another major flaw in the system.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Doesn't make much sense. Another major flaw in the system.

For a developer intent on making profit. Yes.
For a L.A., providing a service. No

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

Doesn't make much sense. Another major flaw in the system.

Social housing is not profit driven, so where is the major flaw?

Pixel Eater

Fann Linn wrote: »

For a developer intent on making profit. Yes.
For a L.A., providing a service. No

That's too much a simplistic take and it does not make sense. So you think someone in a new, energy efficient house with a garden should pay the same as some in a cramped, run down flat? Doesn't matter if it's public or private, that's not fair in my book.

Presumably the Council spent far more money on this development, so even on a practicality level the Council needs to recoup some of the costs. I wouldn't envisage the huge level of different rent for the two properties if it were the private sector but the tenant in the newer, larger house should pay a little bit more.

The whole social housing system is utterly unviable as it is, this sort of approach only makes it worse.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

Presumably the Council spent far more money on this development, so even on a practicality level the Council needs to recoup some of the costs. I wouldn't envisage the huge level of different rent for the two properties if it were the private sector but the tenant in the newer, larger house should pay a little bit more.

The tenant pays what they can affrod using the council differential rent system. As for the build quality of the house they are built to the same standards are private developers are held.
Again the council is not there to turn a profit. Affordable social housing is part of the remit of local government.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Pixel Eater

Build quality is one thing but it's also the nature and extra amenities of the dwelling: gardens, size, insulation etc.

Yes public housing is not for profit but there is no such thing as a free lunch, these things have to be paid for somehow.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

Yes public housing is not for profit but there is no such thing as a free lunch, these things have to be paid for somehow.

They are paid for by the council through funding from the state and rented to people who qualify from the housing lists that councils operate. I would like to see the income limits increased and a greater social mix of tenants housed in these homes. The tenant pay rent based on their means so by no means a free lunch.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Build quality is one thing but it's also the nature and extra amenities of the dwelling: gardens, size, insulation etc.

Yes public housing is not for profit but there is no such thing as a free lunch, these things have to be paid for somehow.

The coco houses in Drimnagh, Coolock, Ballymun etc have all these facilities too. Should they have their rents increased also? Or is it just that the co co rents which are lower than private rents is the real issue?

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

Build quality is one thing but it's also the nature and extra amenities of the dwelling: gardens, size, insulation etc.

Insulation and solar are modern requirements why would you have an issue with these. All estates should aspire to offer amenities to occupiers, makes for more enjoyable living for all concerned.

Pixel Eater

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They are paid for by the council through funding from the state and rented to people who qualify from the housing lists that councils operate. I would like to see the income limits increased and a greater social mix of tenants housed in these homes. The tenant pay rent based on their means so by no means a free lunch.

Well since a sizeable amount of social housing tenants are in arrears suggest that it is a free lunch for a lot of people. And the fact that the Councils are constructing very little housing suggests that the current funding model is flawed.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

Well since a sizeable amount of social housing tenants are in arrears suggest that it is a free lunch for a lot of people. And the fact that the Councils are constructing very little housing suggests that the current funding model is flawed.

Quite a few private mortgages also in arrears so not just council tenants having a free lunch or is it just council tenants you have a problem with? Lot of overholding in the private rental sector also, free lunch there too.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Well since a sizeable amount of social housing tenants are in arrears suggest that it is a free lunch for a lot of people. And the fact that the Councils are constructing very little housing suggests that the current funding model is flawed.

Approx 50,000 homes in arrears with their private mortgages also.

Pixel Eater

Fann Linn wrote: »

The coco houses in Drimnagh, Coolock, Ballymun etc have all these facilities too. Should they have their rents increased also? Or is it just that the co co rents which are lower than private rents is the real issue?

Maybe, if they are paying unsustainability low rent. Of course Council rents should be lower than the private sector, I never said anything to the contrary.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Insulation and solar are modern requirements why would you have an issue with these. All estates should aspire to offer amenities to occupiers, makes for more enjoyable living for all concerned.

I quite obviously don't have an issue with them, and agree that all units should have such things, but just highlighting that they need to be paid for and people who have them should pay extra compared to those who do not.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Quite a few private mortgages also in arrears so not just council tenants having a free lunch or is it just council tenants you have a problem with? Lot of overholding in the private rental sector also, free lunch there too.

Fann Linn wrote: »

Approx 50,000 homes in arrears with their private mortgages also.

Yes and mortgage arrears needs to be dealt with too but it hardly justifies arrears in the public housing sector.

Frankly the two of you can climb down of your moral high horses. Justifying people paying the same for wildly different standards of accommodation, even non-payment of rent and defending a broken system does not make you socialist or progressive, it makes you sound naive and impractical, and in fact acts as an impediment to development.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Maybe, if they are paying unsustainability low rent. Of course Council rents should be lower than the private sector, I never said anything to the contrary.



I quite obviously don't have an issue with them, and agree that all units should have such things, but just highlighting that they need to be paid for and people who have them should pay extra compared to those who do not.





Yes and mortgage arrears needs to be dealt with too but it hardly justifies arrears in the public housing sector.

Frankly the two of you can climb down of your moral high horses. Justifying people paying the same for wildly different standards of accommodation, even non-payment of rent and defending a broken system does not make you socialist or progressive, it makes you sound naive and impractical, and in fact acts as an impediment to development.

Play the ball not the man.

I never defended or justified non payments of rents. Just gave an example where non payment is not confined to co co tenants.

And as for two people paying identical rents for different accomodation, that is the fairest way. Done on income.
We give out medical cards based on income, university grants based on income, pensions based on incomes, a myriad of public funded schemes are based on income.
You however appear to want it based on address.

And as for address, should a person who lives in DL/Rathdown be penalised because he was born and raised there and probably works there earning €30k gross, as opposed to same sort of person applying to DCC for a property in D8 earning same amount. You do know that you can only apply to the LA where there is an attachement, be it working or born raised there etc.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

I quite obviously don't have an issue with them, and agree that all units should have such things, but just highlighting that they need to be paid for and people who have them should pay extra compared to those who do not.

They are in a social house for the simple reason they cannot afford to pay market rents. There is zero logic to you saying they should pay more just because they have a garden or insulation.

Pixel Eater

Fann Linn wrote: »

Play the ball not the man.

I never defended or justified non payments of rents. Just gave an example where non payment is not confined to co co tenants.

And as for two people paying identical rents for different accomodation, that is the fairest way. Done on income.
We give out medical cards based on income, university grants based on income, pensions based on incomes, a myriad of public funded schemes are based on income.
You however appear to want it based on address.

And as for address, should a person who lives in DL/Rathdown be penalised because he was born and raised there and probably works there earning €30k gross, as opposed to same sort of person applying to DCC for a property in D8 earning same amount. You do know that you can only apply to the LA where there is an attachement, be it working or born raised there etc.

We're discussing social housing; why bring up private mortgages? I highlight an issue but your retort doesn't actually deal with the issue highlighted.

Well medical cards are accessed more on medical necessity rather than income. And pensions are accessed on how much an individual pays into them. And I think it should be based predominately done on income but not exclusively. And not address - again I never said that - but on proximity to the city centre and standard of accommodation should be factored in.

Pixel Eater

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They are in a social house for the simple reason they cannot afford to pay market rents. There is zero logic to you saying they should pay more just because they have a garden or insulation.

It's definitely zero logic to suggest that someone in a large house, which cost a lot more to build and maintain, should pay the same as someone in a tiny flat. In each case they would still be paying less than market rent.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

We're discussing social housing; why bring up private mortgages? I highlight an issue but your retort doesn't actually deal with the issue highlighted.

Well medical cards are accessed more on medical necessity rather than income. And pensions are accessed on how much an individual pays into them. And I think it should be based predominately done on income but not exclusively. And not address - again I never said that - but on proximity to the city centre and standard of accommodation should be factored in.

Main criteria for qualification for medical card is income.
Main criteria for qualification for social housing is income. In the case of Dublin LAs I think its €40k pa.

A person in a coco house in Dublin 1 earning exactly the same money as someone in coco accomodation in D24 shouldn't be penalised.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

It's definitely zero logic to suggest that someone in a large house, which cost a lot more to build and maintain, should pay the same as someone in a tiny flat. In each case they would still be paying less than market rent.

You're arguing against council policy. The council sets the rent in accordance with rental policy. Nothing else such as size, location or ameinties is relevant. This may grate with you but it's not going to change anytime soon. Tbh as far as I'm concerned the only factor should be that the income limits should be set alot higher.

The Student

Fann Linn wrote: »

Main criteria for qualification for medical card is income.
Main criteria for qualification for social housing is income. In the case of Dublin LAs I think its €40k pa.

A person in a coco house in Dublin 1 earning exactly the same money as someone in coco accomodation in D24 shouldn't be penalised.

Why not? Surely the rent you pay should reflect the amenities you have around you?

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

Why not? Surely the rent you pay should reflect the amenities you have around you?

In the private sector it's part of the market. In social housing absolutely not.

Fann Linn

The Student wrote: »

Why not? Surely the rent you pay should reflect the amenities you have around you?

Social housing is provided for those who cannot house themselves. Its not down to market forces.

The Student

Fann Linn wrote: »

Social housing is provided for those who cannot house themselves. Its not down to market forces.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

In the private sector it's part of the market. In social housing absolutely not.

So its fair that two social housing one with good transport links and good amenities should cost the same rent as one without good transport links or amenities simply because the make up of the household and the incomes are the same?

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

So its fair that two social housing one with good transport links and good amenities should cost the same rent as one without good transport links or amenities simply because the make up of the household and the incomes are the same?

Fairness doesn't enter into it. Rental policy males no distinctions regards location or amenities. To do so would be the start of discrimination in social housing policy a route I think would not be desirable.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Fairness doesn't enter into it. Rental policy males no distinctions regards location or amenities. To do so would be the start of discrimination in social housing policy a route I think would not be desirable.

Why then do the HAP levels differ depending on your location in the country? is this not a form of discrimination in social housing policy?

Fann Linn

The Student wrote: »

So its fair that two social housing one with good transport links and good amenities should cost the same rent as one without good transport links or amenities simply because the make up of the household and the incomes are the same?

Social housing is affordable rented accomodation for people who cannot afford same from their own resources.

Social housing is provided by housing authorities and housing associations.

Social housing tenants pay rent under differential scheme.

DCC provides housing in its functional area and no where elseas does every other LA in the country.
The fact that DCC has acess to Luas, trains, pubs, clubs, etc and every other service available and Fingal or Galway CoCo or Leitrim CoCo hasn't does not come into the equation.

The only thing which is different is the qualifying criteria: Approx €40k for Dublin and approx €30k for rural councils.