New council house

Chickatee11

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is jealous of somebody who got a council house, but we certainly don't like paying for them.

Ok so you're not jealous fair play. Everyone who pays tax by your logic pays for them though, including every Local authority tenant.

Chickatee11

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure if you think i was perhaps slamming the whole concept of selling to tenants. If so, I wasn't. I think it's a great scheme, but only in certain conditions/areas.

This is part of the issue. I'll re-write your opening line from my life:

I'm 29 and live in a council estate for 22 years, it has 297 houses. Apart from a handful of those houses, every household has people that work, pay their taxes (that also fund social housing just like private tenants) as well as paying their rent, cut their lawn, trim their hedges. However, the small handful wreck the estate and the quality of life of those in it.

I agree that Council's should sell the houses in bad areas. People like ownership of things, will take care of things more if it's their own, etc. and it can try to force gentrification on an area. The idea being that over time, the area will go from being a no-go sh/thole to an average sh/thole, to a half decent area to being as nice as a private estate (as eventually all houses will be private).


The issue that has arisen so far in my estate, is that loooooads of people bought the houses, used the house as collateral on another house, and were gone within a year, to another house in a better area, and rented their old council house to an asshole tenant that didn't care about the house in the first place.

So the gentrification stalled, as one bad tenant has been replaced with another.

I bought my Council house last year. I read the contract, terms, conditions, etc. but i can still see how it's easy for me to move on and rent this house out with no punishment or issue from the Council (except that I like the house, and wouldn't do that to my mostly decent neighbours).

Thanks for adding your experience / perpective, it's intersting to read, good luck with the house.

Chickatee11

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Chickatee,

I understand why you defend the deal you recieved. The websites tell me that the tenant purchase scheme gives a massive discount. Massive.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/node/235
You will pay the market value of the house – less a discount.
Depending on income, the discounts will vary between 40% and 60%.

If your getting this large a discount and look at the cost of new houses and the price they receive from you then the council will struggle to replace the house with new. Its giving them away for chips :pac:

We are about the same age but I dont have the masters and rented for years, moved house several times, with no possibility of buying off any of my landlords, I am PAYE and also pay all of the taxes and charges etc. When I bought my own I have to pay full price, no discount, no deal and nobody cares.

Now I pay high income tax to try to fund the construction of more social housing because we are flogging off the current ones to the lucky entitled few. Can you see my point?



I rented for about 15 years as I moved about for work, a few years here and there, it was renting, sentiment and emotion didnt come into it. I followed the work and it was a business transaction between me and the landlord.

I can see your point of course I can. Yes it's a huge discount, it is, and it's grossly unfair to private tenants there's no view otherwise. But i didn't ask for it, it's the legislation that was introduced. That's not my fault or any other LA tenants though. You have to understand also, that vast majority of my mates are in your position, have young families, are either paying an exorbitant amount of rent or are taking on huge mortgages if they can get one and it's not fair, but it's also not my fault.

I see your point, and we all pay tax for everything. About moving around, that's fine, but is there not a family home somewhere you have a sentimental attachement too perhaps, your parent's place or so? The attachement is there because I've lived in this house for 21 years this week, it's my home, who wouldn't be attached to a place after that time. I wanted to buy it under the previous scheme before they scrapped that one but had no way to afford it then. The new scheme was introduced and i got exceptionally lucky with that, had also just recently got a new job so could actually afford it. I'm aware of how lucky i am in this situation and how unlucky and unserved by the state my friends are in theirs.

Chickatee11

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Ok one thing that needs to be cleared up.

If you are not working and are in claim of social welfare and using that money to pay your 30 euro a week to the council well yes you are getting a free house.

It’s basic logic.

Ok , and who here is doing that?

Time

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Ok , and who here is doing that?

Literally thousands of people in council estates up and down the country whose only income is a social welfare payment

Chickatee11

ELM327 wrote: »

A lecturer? In a council house?
Well now I've heard it all.


This social housing system needs to be decimated from the ground up.
A new one in its place should have housing for those that need it. A lecturer does not need a council house.

That's right, a lecturer in a (former) council house. Is class society not a fluidity? A complex of dialectically opposing forces? Indeed, Marx believed that society was structured to oppose itself for the sole purpose of the preservation of the ruling elite.

But anyway, what's been challenged more, your idea of what a lecturer represents, or your idea of council estate tenants? I can just as easily down dutch gold as I can sip a good tuscan wine. I like Bach, despise popular culture and go from a drunken kebab to a michelin star. I don't do the south of France as it's full of new money, prefer instead the lesser trodden path where your money goes further so i can pimp out my council crib with good Art, and classic pieces of edwardian furniture to complement my charity-shop tableware.

Chickatee11

Time wrote: »

Literally thousands of people in council estates up and down the country whose only income is a social welfare payment

I meant in this thread, but anyway. Have you come accross figures? Literally thousands is only literally thousands. Literally thousands of people are guilty of crimes against the state coffers from all levels of society. The wealthier the social group, the more money literally thousands of them will be able to pocket rather than paying into the state coffers.

UrbanFret

The council still retain an interest in a house purchased under the tenant purchase scheme for a certain number of years after the purchase and you have to get their permission to re sell it. after paying the council rent for over 40 years I gave my parents the money to buy out their house and after 40 years it was "their" house as far as I'm concerned for the nominal price of €3300. Now the begrudgers can **** off if they think that's unfair.

Wheeliebin30

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Ok , and who here is doing that?

Sigh.

Wheeliebin30

Chickatee11 wrote: »

I meant in this thread, but anyway. Have you come accross figures? Literally thousands is only literally thousands. Literally thousands of people are guilty of crimes against the state coffers from all levels of society. The wealthier the social group, the more money literally thousands of them will be able to pocket rather than paying into the state coffers.

The top 5% high earners pay 60% of the total tax intake in Ireland.

You’re talking nonsense.

Rubberchikken

I have no issue with the tax i pay providing council houses for those that need them.

Not everyone who lives in a council house is on social welfare.
Ive never understood the shame some see in them. Tbh compared to a lot of houses built during the celtic tiger years a lot of council houses are excellently built.

Topgear on Dave

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I have no issue with the tax i pay providing council houses for those that need them.

Neither have I. Not at all.

But I have regularly looked at stories like the one below and I could not understand how she has not recieved a house.

http://www.thejournal.ie/mother-disabled-son-home-3472083-Jul2017/

Well this thread has been a revelation to me!

I am learning that Chickatee can buy out a council house at half the market value and very likely much less than the 200k cost of replacing it, just because he rented it for a few years. Chickatee is not homeless, disabled, or a hard case, just someone in the right place at the right time, with a few bob, to pick up a valuable state asset!

No wonder theres no bloody council houses available.

I am sitting in work at 3am, having broken my bollix working over a number of years to pay rent, finish education and raise a deposit and I have no idea about marx, Tuscan wines and Michelin reataurants. If I do a day of overtime half of it goes to the taxman. Im having the piss taken out of me.

ELM327

Chickatee11 wrote: »

Ok so you're not jealous fair play. Everyone who pays tax by your logic pays for them though, including every Local authority tenant.

If you pay tax and get a discounted house paid for by the state these two will negate

ELM327

Chickatee11 wrote: »

That's right, a lecturer in a (former) council house. Is class society not a fluidity? A complex of dialectically opposing forces? Indeed, Marx believed that society was structured to oppose itself for the sole purpose of the preservation of the ruling elite.

But anyway, what's been challenged more, your idea of what a lecturer represents, or your idea of council estate tenants? I can just as easily down dutch gold as I can sip a good tuscan wine. I like Bach, despise popular culture and go from a drunken kebab to a michelin star. I don't do the south of France as it's full of new money, prefer instead the lesser trodden path where your money goes further so i can pimp out my council crib with good Art, and classic pieces of edwardian furniture to complement my charity-shop tableware.

You've missed the point.
A lecturer is a well paid job. You should not be occupying a council house.
It's not your fault, per se. It's the fault of the system. If there was no option to buy, then where you are living would have been vacated and a council tenant moved in.

Your comments about class systems etc are quite frankly irrelevant. I'm sure there's fans of vivaldi and of tiesto in council houses and in foxrock. But the proportions will be different!

Old diesel

Why is "the solution" for this - linking rent to an excessive figure.

Why not work out a rate of rent that's actually financially sustainable for the tenant.

Have a set up where a tenant pays that - and if Landlords need more then a subsidy is paid.

Lower rent actually has benefits to the economy - we can see this with the example of someone been able to buy a new Audi with the savings in rent.

Imagine a scenario where.......

State supported affordable housing/Social housing/housing association property cost 200 k a pop to deliver.

Rent was based on the following a) cost to build/maintain 200 k house, b) sustainable on net income of tenant.

The tenant could buy things like that Audi AND live in an A rated - possibly even Passive* house.

Vs

Tenants finances are drained each month to pay a high rent - for a product that's of questionable standard for the money paid.

*Wexford builder Michael Bennett delivered Passive house for 190 k a unit in Enniscorthy. Which implies land cost in Dublin is too high

ELM327

The laws of supply and demand should dictate the pricing... not "how much can the state (ie the working joes) be gouged for"

Old diesel

ELM327 wrote: »

The laws of supply and demand should dictate the pricing... not "how much can the state (ie the working joes) be gouged for"

I meant the "working Joes" getting a house costing 180 k for the state to deliver - at a rent based on cost of supplying and maintaining that 180 k home over a period of time.

Who is being Gouged in that scenario if it's a cost neutral situation.

And if basing rent on ability to pay is a problem then that's fine but.....

Is that worse then a system where a person is forced into a totally unviable financial situation because well it's the market.

The market isn't really interested in fixing homelessness or expensive rents because solving both of those is contrary to what the market would like.

If sustainable rent is say 1200 euros a month and the market is 1800 euro - there is ZERO incentive for the market to supply enough to bring rent down to 1200.

Someone with 2 houses to rent at 1800 a month has SAME income as someone renting 3 houses at 1200 euros.

But 2 houses cost less to maintain then 3 of them.

2 houses cost less to buy then 3.

2 houses take up less time then 3 for the owner.

So a rethink is needed

Time

Old diesel wrote: »

I meant the "working Joes" getting a house costing 180 k for the state to deliver - at a rent based on cost of supplying and maintaining that 180 k home over a period of time.

Who is being Gouged in that scenario if it's a cost neutral situation

You assume it will be cost neutral but it won’t be and tbh, that’s fair enough some people need a hand out and would never be in a position to pay the amount to make t cost neutral. But at the moment the system is too far the other way, people being able to buy council houses at a vast reduction on their value and paying rents far below not only the market rate, but below a fair rate means the tax payer is paying above what they should be towards social housing and that’s not right.

ELM327

Old diesel wrote: »

I meant the "working Joes" getting a house costing 180 k for the state to deliver - at a rent based on cost of supplying and maintaining that 180 k home over a period of time.

Who is being Gouged in that scenario if it's a cost neutral situation.
And if basing rent on ability to pay is a problem then that's fine but.....

The state shouldn't be supplied with a house by the state anyway.
Rent should not be based on ability to pay. Rent is a commodity and the highest bidder should be allowed to take the property.


Council houses should be temporary in nature.


Rent is not based on the cost of supply and maintenance - who'd enter business merely to cover their costs?

Old diesel wrote: »

Is that worse then a system where a person is forced into a totally unviable financial situation because well it's the market.
The market isn't really interested in fixing homelessness or expensive rents because solving both of those is contrary to what the market would like.

Not everyone has to live in Dublin. There's a house for every man woman and child in the country.

Taking my example, I earned closer to 100k than 50k in the last year. Yet myself and my partner who also has a relatively good job (but lesser paid than mine) cannot afford to live in Dublin. So we bought in the commuter belt.

Someone not supporting themselves is likely to be given a council house in Dublin, that we, on a combined salary well over 100k, cannot afford, nor dream of being able to rent in the current market.


The fixes offered by the market are viable accommodation 25/50/75/100km down the road.

Old diesel wrote: »

If sustainable rent is say 1200 euros a month and the market is 1800 euro - there is ZERO incentive for the market to supply enough to bring rent down to 1200.
Someone with 2 houses to rent at 1800 a month has SAME income as someone renting 3 houses at 1200 euros.
But 2 houses cost less to maintain then 3 of them.
2 houses cost less to buy then 3.
2 houses take up less time then 3 for the owner.
So a rethink is needed

That's capitalism. If the landlord can find two private tenants willing to pay 1800 why would he accept 1200? In this instance the landlord has probably invested many multiples of that 1800 into the property (BTL finance generally has a minimum 25:75 LTV)


No rethink is needed, I'm sick of interference in private markets by the state.

Ush1

ELM327 wrote: »

Someone not supporting themselves is likely to be given a council house in Dublin, that we, on a combined salary well over 100k, cannot afford, nor dream of being able to rent in the current market.

You could easily get a house in Dublin with that income?

ELM327

Ush1 wrote: »

You could easily get a house in Dublin with that income?

(Not to derail the thread too much)

No we couldn't.
Rental market has no properties beyond (Ironically) ex council houses which we were not willing to take and other houses in bad areas.
I also had an outstanding loan which the banks viewed very negatively.



So we've both decided to buy a cheaper large apartment in meath and wait a couple of years to make ourselves more "mortgage ready" for our forever house. The plan is to then keep the apartment as the first entry in our first investment property portfolio.


PS - we could afford it, that wasn't the problem. The problem was convincing the bank to lend us the money. And in that sense, we couldn't afford it. We're now saving like mad!

Ush1

ELM327 wrote: »

(Not to derail the thread too much)

No we couldn't.
Rental market has no properties beyond (Ironically) ex council houses which we were not willing to take and other houses in bad areas.
I also had an outstanding loan which the banks viewed very negatively.



So we've both decided to buy a cheaper large apartment in meath and wait a couple of years to make ourselves more "mortgage ready" for our forever house. The plan is to then keep the apartment as the first entry in our first investment property portfolio.


PS - we could afford it, that wasn't the problem. The problem was convincing the bank to lend us the money. And in that sense, we couldn't afford it. We're now saving like mad!

That's fair enough but most council houses in Dublin are probably in areas you don't want to buy. So you aren't really competing with the person getting the council house in Dublin since they are living somewhere you don't want to.

But I do understand your frustration at the meddling in the market.

Old diesel

ELM327 wrote: »

The state shouldn't be supplied with a house by the state anyway.
Rent should not be based on ability to pay. Rent is a commodity and the highest bidder should be allowed to take the property.


Council houses should be temporary in nature.


Rent is not based on the cost of supply and maintenance - who'd enter business merely to cover their costs?




Not everyone has to live in Dublin. There's a house for every man woman and child in the country.

Taking my example, I earned closer to 100k than 50k in the last year. Yet myself and my partner who also has a relatively good job (but lesser paid than mine) cannot afford to live in Dublin. So we bought in the commuter belt.

Someone not supporting themselves is likely to be given a council house in Dublin, that we, on a combined salary well over 100k, cannot afford, nor dream of being able to rent in the current market.


The fixes offered by the market are viable accommodation 25/50/75/100km down the road.




That's capitalism. If the landlord can find two private tenants willing to pay 1800 why would he accept 1200? In this instance the landlord has probably invested many multiples of that 1800 into the property (BTL finance generally has a minimum 25:75 LTV)


No rethink is needed, I'm sick of interference in private markets by the state.

My point on the 1200 vs 1800 is that there is no incentive to actually supply enough for the supply/demand thing to bring down rent.

The reason air fares can be cheap is that Michael O Leary and Herb Kelleher (Southwest) and Co broke the traditional mold .

Housing requires some of the same thinking and it feels to me that the only likely way to do it is stuff like Co Op housing, cost rental and other measures.

Is the market interested in that?????.

Re the moving out further - there is a school of thought among people into planning that we need to move away from sprawl and the idea of making areas like Kildare, Dundalk, Mullingar extended sub areas for Dublin. This is part of why we hear much talk of apartments etc as the future.

Great/fast train services would reduce the travel time to Dundalk or Mullingar.

But then the market wants more for accommodation in Mullingar because if a super fast train could do Mullingar to Dublin City centre in 30 mins - homes in Mullingar go up in price - both for rent or purchase.

Real catch 22 situation.

And finally - I'm talking of 180 k to deliver homes for WORKING people .

I've said all I want to say so I wish you all a good Friday ☺☺☺

ELM327

Ush1 wrote: »

That's fair enough but most council houses in Dublin are probably in areas you don't want to buy. So you aren't really competing with the person getting the council house in Dublin since they are living somewhere you don't want to.

But I do understand your frustration at the meddling in the market.

I'm not. But indirectly I am, due to the impact on the market of their purchase. They displaced someone else who then has to look elsewhere, perhaps closer to a house I wanted.


But regardless of all that, the main crux of this issue still remains that the option to purchase at a discount (even if you are buying at cost of build + maintenance it's still at a discount) property that should be available to those that need it, is causing many problems. Not least of which, the fact that this property needs to be rebuilt elsewhere to house the next needy family. Even if the existing council house is now inhabited by a well paid individual.

dhaughton99

I’ll give you a good one. The SDCC are building 20 houses about 200 meters from my small estate. They are just about finished and are being given out at the moment. I just heard from a builder who is in the know, that the thug who caused nothing but problems in our estate has been given one. Between the gangs that the family brought in, the drug dealing, scramblers, horses etc, they destroyed this community. Although he’s probably on the list around 1 year as baby is 1. The extended family already have 3 houses in my small estate of 30 houses. A 3 bed fab looking house. This is what you get when you play the poor mouth to the local clergy and left wing councilors. I am absolutely fuming.

ELM327

dhaughton99 wrote: »

I’ll give you a good one. The SDCC are building 20 houses about 200 meters from my small estate. They are just about finished and are being given out at the moment. I just heard from a builder who is in the know, that the thug who caused nothing but problems in our estate has been given one. Between the gangs that the family brought in, the drug dealing, scramblers, horses etc, the destroyer this community. Although he’s probably on the list around 1 year as baby is 1. The extended family already have 3 houses in my small estate of 30 houses. A 3 bed fab looking house. This is what you get when you play the poor mouth to the local clergy and left wing councilors. I am absolutely fuming.

This is the second problem with social housing.
First - there;s not enough of them
Second - they are given to the wrong people.

Old diesel

dhaughton99 wrote: »

I’ll give you a good one. The SDCC are building 20 houses about 200 meters from my small estate. They are just about finished and are being given out at the moment. I just heard from a builder who is in the know, that the thug who caused nothing but problems in our estate has been given one. Between the gangs that the family brought in, the drug dealing, scramblers, horses etc, they destroyed this community. Although he’s probably on the list around 1 year as baby is 1. The extended family already have 3 houses in my small estate of 30 houses. A 3 bed fab looking house. This is what you get when you play the poor mouth to the local clergy and left wing councilors. I am absolutely fuming.

a) how would the builder know????. Theres no need for a builder to know whose getting the council house.

b) where is the thug living now????. If he's on HAP I thought you came off the main list if on that

dhaughton99

Old diesel wrote: »

a) how would the builder know????. Theres no need for a builder to know whose getting the council house.

b) where is the thug living now????. If he's on HAP I thought you came off the main list if on that

He is in an HAP apartment in Tallaght. He knows because people who applied for the houses are being allowed to view them. The builder is a mate of mine and the thug gave him the thumbs up and told him that he got one this morning.

Chickatee11

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

The top 5% high earners pay 60% of the total tax intake in Ireland.

You’re talking nonsense.

My point was referring to money they don't pay through fiddling the system, not the money they do pay. If you believe that all of the 5 % you refer to are all above board and aren't fiddling the system to the tune of millions then your talking nonsense yourself.

Chickatee11

ELM327 wrote: »

You've missed the point.
A lecturer is a well paid job. You should not be occupying a council house.
It's not your fault, per se. It's the fault of the system. If there was no option to buy, then where you are living would have been vacated and a council tenant moved in.

Your comments about class systems etc are quite frankly irrelevant. I'm sure there's fans of vivaldi and of tiesto in council houses and in foxrock. But the proportions will be different!

Exactly how are comments RE class systems irrelevant, in a thread started about social housing, that discusses tax, values, social conscience, social welfare, social cohesion and social tension and government policy, and peoples incomes aassets and entitlements? Those things are the class system.