General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

Well see, I know how the scam works. It's why you're not questioning it is what has me pondering.

What scam? Those are the real-life figures audited by the Local Authority Auditing Service.

Throwing your arms up in the air, calling it a scam, saying that you get more from your own work as a wealthy private landlord, none of that changes anything or will change anything.

What the figures tells us is that building more social housing isn't the straight-forward answer that some posters on here keep telling us in every second post that it is.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

What scam? Those are the real-life figures audited by the Local Authority Auditing Service.

Throwing your arms up in the air, calling it a scam, saying that you get more from your own work as a wealthy private landlord, none of that changes anything or will change anything.

What the figures tells us is that building more social housing isn't the straight-forward answer that some posters on here keep telling us in every second post that it is.

What it does is give me a big window where I can see the system for what it is.

And this is why I know that it's politically damaging for you to admit just what the problem is.

Chips Lovell

Posted this last year on another thread

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I don't think social housing was ever intended to be a money spinner for the state, nor should it be really.

If you want to do the maths on social housing, the Dublin City Council budget provides plenty of numbers.

This year Dublin City Council's entire housing and building expenditure will amount to €323 million, while its housing and building income comes to €261 million.

The average council rent is €60.89 per week, based on approximately 24,000 tenancies. That's an average rent of €3,166 a year.

Maintenance costs for those 24,000 units runs to €50.2 million a year, or €2,092 per unit.

That means, the council is making €1,074 per year "profit" on each unit.

Going by this, if they were to build 100 new units at a cost of €165,000 each and rent them out at the average rent, it would be approximately 153 years before they recoup the building costs and starting making money on them.

That's not to say we shouldn't build a lot more social housing, just that we shouldn't expect it to be an earner.

The whole point of social housing is that it's subsidised.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Posted this last year on another thread



The whole point of social housing is that it's subsidised.

Agreed, but despite the figures you have posted, and the links I have provided, the argument is continually made here that the State would have a nice little earner from building social housing. That is simply not true, as your figures explicitly confirm.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Agreed, but despite the figures you have posted, and the links I have provided, the argument is continually made here that the State would have a nice little earner from building social housing. That is simply not true, as your figures explicitly confirm.

What are you on about? Like the other poster pointed out, they are already profitable 'even' at 1k pa.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

What are you on about? Like the other poster pointed out, they are already profitable 'even' at 1k pa.

There is an operational profit, but that is profit before administration, interest and capital repayments.

Once you factor in any level of interest payable on the money borrowed to build the housing units plus capital repayments, it is clear that the units will never pay for themselves.

As I pointed out many posts ago now, an operational profit of €1,000 with an interest rate of 2% requires building costs to be below €50,000. Now we all know they are close to €200,000 per unit.

Furthermore, the audit figures only included maintenance costs, not the cost of administration etc. Even the operational profit probably wouldn't exist if you factored those in.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

There is an operational profit, but that is profit before administration, interest and capital repayments.

Once you factor in any level of interest payable on the money borrowed to build the housing units plus capital repayments, it is clear that the units will never pay for themselves.

As I pointed out many posts ago now, an operational profit of €1,000 with an interest rate of 2% requires building costs to be below €50,000. Now we all know they are close to €200,000 per unit.

Furthermore, the audit figures only included maintenance costs, not the cost of administration etc. Even the operational profit probably wouldn't exist if you factored those in.

No offence. But you're talking bollox.

Banned.

blanch152

Havockk wrote: »

No offence. But you're talking bollox.

Well, sorry, I have backed up my posts with links to the relevant audit reports. My posts are factually based.

I haven't seen a single piece of empirical evidence from anyone else that backs up what they are saying.

I know that there are a number of posters here ideologically committed to the idea of social housing being built by local authorities. Unfortunately, the figures don't back them up, mainly because of inefficiency and incompetence at local authority level, something those same posters refuse to condemn.

You asked about "politically damaging" to admit something in an earlier post. As I don't have an ideological or political commitment to any party or cause, and just assess things on their merits, I won't be unhappy to be wrong, if someone can actually present hard figures that show that I am wrong.

Then again, I do have some sympathy for the local authorities when I see some of the entitlement culture becoming clear in the report:

"The principal challenges relating to tenant behaviour and attitudes that were identified by local authorities included:
 Increased tenant expectations and demands in relation to the quality and location of their accommodation preferences
 Tenants refusing housing offered
 Achieving tenant responsibility and compliance with tenancy agreements
 Level of aggression of tenants to local authority staff
 Anti-social behaviour
 Changing demographic – impact of older people’s disability needs on budgets and housing stock
 Tenants with identified medical and community support service needs that are not available to the local authority."

Chips Lovell

blanch152 wrote: »

I know that there are a number of posters here ideologically committed to the idea of social housing being built by local authorities. Unfortunately, the figures don't back them up, mainly because of inefficiency and incompetence at local authority level, something those same posters refuse to condemn.

Hold the phone there a second, all the figures do is demonstrate the costs. They don't prove (or disprove for that matter) inefficiency and incompetence.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

Well, sorry, I have backed up my posts with links to the relevant audit reports. My posts are factually based.

I haven't seen a single piece of empirical evidence from anyone else that backs up what they are saying.

I know that there are a number of posters here ideologically committed to the idea of social housing being built by local authorities. Unfortunately, the figures don't back them up, mainly because of inefficiency and incompetence at local authority level, something those same posters refuse to condemn.

You asked about "politically damaging" to admit something in an earlier post. As I don't have an ideological or political commitment to any party or cause, and just assess things on their merits, I won't be unhappy to be wrong, if someone can actually present hard figures that show that I am wrong.

Then again, I do have some sympathy for the local authorities when I see some of the entitlement culture becoming clear in the report:

"The principal challenges relating to tenant behaviour and attitudes that were identified by local authorities included:
 Increased tenant expectations and demands in relation to the quality and location of their accommodation preferences
 Tenants refusing housing offered
 Achieving tenant responsibility and compliance with tenancy agreements
 Level of aggression of tenants to local authority staff
 Anti-social behaviour
 Changing demographic – impact of older people’s disability needs on budgets and housing stock
 Tenants with identified medical and community support service needs that are not available to the local authority."

Aye of course. It's the poor people's fault. Should have known that would get peddled out eventually.

James Brown

We are losing money as the problem gets worse.
I don't believe any LA or Eoghan's department, (which oversees LA's by the way) should be looking to profit from a housing crisis.
The idea is to house people who are in need at a reasonable rate rather than at a massive loss, (see buying houses off market, private landlords and hotels).
Nobody on the pro putting dem that want something for nothing up in the Gresham side of the argument has come up with any solution. In fact I've asked a number of posters directly which they think is the better deal for the tax payer and the question is ignored, (as I've put two of them on ignore).

The government, local and national should be looking at housing people in the cheapest manner possible. It just so happens that social and affordable builds are a cheaper option than private landlords, hotels and buying off the market is all.
This upsets the 'rather see them in a hotel than a free house' brigade. I'd rather see struggling tax payers paying reasonable rent to an LA than being gouged by a private landlord who is paid partially or in full by the tax payer. Pretty straight forward really.

IMO, Leo and Eoghan want to keep the housing industry, (Noonan's Cerberus and their like too) sweet as it makes big money for one and all, helps the fabulous economy and all that is far more important to them than a few hundred thousand peons whinging about high rents.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are losing money as the problem gets worse.
I don't believe any LA or Eoghan's department, (which oversees LA's by the way) should be looking to profit from a housing crisis.
The idea is to house people who are in need at a reasonable rate rather than at a massive loss, (see buying houses off market, private landlords and hotels).
Nobody on the pro putting dem that want something for nothing up in the Gresham side of the argument has come up with any solution. In fact I've asked a number of posters directly which they think is the better deal for the tax payer and the question is ignored, (as I've put two of them on ignore).

The government, local and national should be looking at housing people in the cheapest manner possible. It just so happens that social and affordable builds are a cheaper option than private landlords, hotels and buying off the market is all.
This upsets the 'rather see them in a hotel than a free house' brigade. I'd rather see struggling tax payers paying reasonable rent to an LA than being gouged by a private landlord who is paid partially or in full by the tax payer. Pretty straight forward really.

IMO, Leo and Eoghan want to keep the housing industry, (Noonan's Cerberus and their like too) sweet as it makes big money for one and all, helps the fabulous economy and all that is far more important to them than a few hundred thousand peons whinging about high rents.

You complained about the State losing money in relation to renting off private landlords, without presenting any empirical evidence to back up your position.

I pointed out that the State is losing a lot of money whenever it builds social housing, but suddenly this isn't a problem.

If you want to persuade me that building social housing is a good idea, you would want to explain, using actual real figures from local authority audits, how you will be able to turn it into something that isn't flushing money down the drain.

Did you ever look into why local authorities sold off so much housing stock in the 1970s and 1980s? The answer is because they were losing money on them.

Havockk

blanch152 wrote: »

I pointed out that the State is losing a lot of money whenever it builds social housing, but suddenly this isn't a problem.

That's not what those numbers said.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We are losing money as the problem gets worse.
I don't believe any LA or Eoghan's department, (which oversees LA's by the way) should be looking to profit from a housing crisis.
The idea is to house people who are in need at a reasonable rate rather than at a massive loss, (see buying houses off market, private landlords and hotels).
Nobody on the pro putting dem that want something for nothing up in the Gresham side of the argument has come up with any solution. In fact I've asked a number of posters directly which they think is the better deal for the tax payer and the question is ignored, (as I've put two of them on ignore).

The government, local and national should be looking at housing people in the cheapest manner possible. It just so happens that social and affordable builds are a cheaper option than private landlords, hotels and buying off the market is all.
This upsets the 'rather see them in a hotel than a free house' brigade. I'd rather see struggling tax payers paying reasonable rent to an LA than being gouged by a private landlord who is paid partially or in full by the tax payer. Pretty straight forward really.

IMO, Leo and Eoghan want to keep the housing industry, (Noonan's Cerberus and their like too) sweet as it makes big money for one and all, helps the fabulous economy and all that is far more important to them than a few hundred thousand peons whinging about high rents.

Where does the money for all this social house build come from though?

Good loser

Edward M wrote: »

Where does the money for all this social house build come from though?

Edward he (Matt) hasn't a clue. Extremely tenuous grasp of both logic and arithmetic. As for maths it's a foreign country.

He hasn't yet suggested giving winning lottery tickets (in lieu of houses) to about 1,000 families in Dublin per month. Sounds as reasonable to me as any other of his suggestions.

Good loser

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Few questions..

How did you reach a figure of 300k for the initial cost of the house?

Is the initial tenant expected to remain in place for 300 years, or might themselves or a future tenant get finance and buy outright?

Presumably the houses can be sold by the state at as well as just available to let? (mortgaged by tenants/ie bought outright)?

Is throwing 1k or more at private landlords or hotel owners serious loss making or profitable?

Do you believe everything you read on boards?

Thanks.

All taken care of.

Thanks to Edward, Blanch and the Baron.
Incidentally why didn't you thank them for answering your questions?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Where does the money for all this social house build come from though?

At the risk of going back down this rabbit hole again. The same place NAMA finds funds for loaning to developers. The same place the state finds 1.2b to 'invest' in mostly private builds. The same place the state finds the money to buy property off entities NAMA sold it to, the same place Eoghan finds money to buy housing off the market to pass off as social housing. The same place the state finds the money for the ever increasing private landlord rents and hotels costs.
In short they can find it when it suits their agenda.

Good loser wrote: »

Edward he (Matt) hasn't a clue. Extremely tenuous grasp of both logic and arithmetic. As for maths it's a foreign country.

He hasn't yet suggested giving winning lottery tickets (in lieu of houses) to about 1,000 families in Dublin per month. Sounds as reasonable to me as any other of his suggestions.

You never respond directly to posts that call you out on your 'facts'.
I've posted on the problem and given my ideas on solutions. All you seem to do is try throw in personal digs.
I'm all ears, what's your idea? Instead of getting personal how about an adult discussion?

Or do you think buying houses off the market to use as social housing is better than the state building it's own to use as social housing?

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

At the risk of going back down this rabbit hole again. The same place NAMA finds funds for loaning to developers.

You don't want to go down it because it's rubbish - there are no public funds currently going into NAMA.

The same place the state finds 1.2b to 'invest' in mostly private builds.

The markets - ISIF and private capital.

"The LDA will be given access to land that is already in wider State ownership or control for development, and it will have access to capital from the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund and other private finance, which it will raise itself commercially."

https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/Releases/Government_Launches_€1_25bn_Land_Development_Agency_to_build_150_000_New_Homes.html

Edward M

Fianna fail taking an approach that seems to support Matt's theories, only in certain areas though.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/willie-odea-criticised-for-blocking-social-housing-in-limerick-870147.html

I read somewhere that they want a social housing package included in the budget, whereby LAs would buy off the market and subsidise purchases with these houses for 30k to 90k earners and a package of LA house builds also.
It seems that they, or some of them anyway, think these social builds should only be in certain areas though.

McMurphy

Good loser wrote: »

All taken care of.

Thanks to Edward, Blanch and the Baron.
Incidentally why didn't you thank them for answering your questions?

I don't know if you realise it, but the post Baron made would somewhat tally with what we have been saying.

The post may end with stating that any social housing initiative would result in marginal profits for the govt, not some nice money spinner.

However, a slight marginal profit - with added state owned assets (houses) should be a more sensible outcome than perpetual payments to hotel's and private landlords - with no returns - zilch - nada - zero at the end of the tenancy agreement all day any day.

This is really basic economics here one would have thought.

blanch152

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I don't know if you realise it, but the post Baron made would somewhat tally with what we have been saying.

The post may end with stating that any social housing initiative would result in marginal profits for the govt, not some nice money spinner.

However, a slight marginal profit - with added state owned assets (houses) should be a more sensible outcome than perpetual payments to hotel's and private landlords - with no returns - zilch - nada - zero at the end of the tenancy agreement all day any day.

This is really basic economics here one would have thought.

I don't understand how basic economics concludes that something requiring subsidisation is making a slight marginal profit?

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

The whole point of social housing is that it's subsidised.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: A few bans have been handed out and posts deleted. Keep it civil please.

Geuze

blanch152 wrote: »

Finally, I am fed up of seeing "rebuttals" by those defending local authorities or suggesting it is easy to build houses, but cannot produce a single piece of empirical evidence to back up what they are saying.

In this case, the facts are there in black and white. Local authorities collect very little rent and have high maintenance costs, making the cost of building social housing prohibitive.

I recently had a conversation with a senior council official.

He stated that although not very high, the rental revenue from social houses is welcome.

Bear in mind that the council recoup the capital costs from CG, so if the rents exceed the maintenance, then from the point of view of the LA, the house is producing a surplus.

Of course, the CG has borrowed and/or taxed to cover the capex.

oscarBravo

Edward M wrote: »

I read somewhere that they want a social housing package included in the budget, whereby LAs would buy off the market and subsidise purchases with these houses for 30k to 90k earners...

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that subsidising the purchase of houses will only serve to drive up house prices.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I don't understand how basic economics concludes that something requiring subsidisation is making a slight marginal profit?

Guess Geuze cleared it up.

Geuze wrote: »

I recently had a conversation with a senior council official.

He stated that although not very high, the rental revenue from social houses is welcome.

Bear in mind that the council recoup the capital costs from CG, so if the rents exceed the maintenance, then from the point of view of the LA, the house is producing a surplus.

Of course, the CG has borrowed and/or taxed to cover the capex.

Edward M

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm no economist, but it seems to me that subsidising the purchase of houses will only serve to drive up house prices.

Here's the link to it, I couldn't get it at the time.

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/couples-earning-up-to-90000-may-avail-of-new-affordable-housing-scheme-after-budget-37335667.html

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Fianna fail taking an approach that seems to support Matt's theories, only in certain areas though.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/willie-odea-criticised-for-blocking-social-housing-in-limerick-870147.html

I read somewhere that they want a social housing package included in the budget, whereby LAs would buy off the market and subsidise purchases with these houses for 30k to 90k earners and a package of LA house builds also.
It seems that they, or some of them anyway, think these social builds should only be in certain areas though.

You've not read my comments that closely.
I'm 100% against buying off the market. It use to be only done in emergency situations. It's par for the course now and a complete waste.

It's not my proven workable 'theory'. I'm just rehashing old housing policy from the 1930's, you know when we were so wealthy building social housing was easy peasy like...

The only differences from then to today are the will isn't there, we are a far wealthier nation and government don't like private concerns to lose profits, because that's how they measure success it seems, by how well private business is faring. Any crisis be it housing or health is just whingers and chancers.

Buyers grants and rent subsidies are all needed because of the lack of social housing stock.

Willie and Leo on the same page re: housing it seems.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've not read my comments that closely.
I'm 100% against buying off the market. It use to be only done in emergency situations. It's par for the course now and a complete waste.

It's not my proven workable 'theory'. I'm just rehashing old housing policy from the 1930's, you know when we were so wealthy building social housing was easy peasy like...

The only differences from then to today are the will isn't there, we are a far wealthier nation and government don't like private concerns to lose profits, because that's how they measure success it seems, by how well private business is faring. Any crisis be it housing or health is just whingers and chancers.

Buyers grants and rent subsidies are all needed because of the lack of social housing stock.

Just rehashing old housing policy from the 1930s doesn't mean it will work. Ireland is a different place, the Irish are a different people.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You've not read my comments that closely.
I'm 100% against buying off the market. It use to be only done in emergency situations. It's par for the course now and a complete waste.

It's not my proven workable 'theory'. I'm just rehashing old housing policy from the 1930's, you know when we were so wealthy building social housing was easy peasy like...

The only differences from then to today are the will isn't there, we are a far wealthier nation and government don't like private concerns to lose profits, because that's how they measure success it seems, by how well private business is faring. Any crisis be it housing or health is just whingers and chancers.

Buyers grants and rent subsidies are all needed because of the lack of social housing stock.

Willie and Leo on the same page re: housing it seems.

Let me get this straight if I can.
You don't want housing bought off the private market? Except in emergency situations?
OK, so we don't buy off the market, we build our own stock, wekeep the homeless in emergency accommodation until we get house built for them, however long that may be.
Tell the truth here, that sounds a bit mixed up, id say everyone in the situation of needing a home considers themselves an emergency, I wonder if you tell them they are as they are until such time as their LA gets a house built or refurbished for them how would they react?
I'd say that with your policy ideals the housing crisis is going to last a long long time!

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Let me get this straight if I can.
You don't want housing bought off the private market? Except in emergency situations?
OK, so we don't buy off the market, we build our own stock, wekeep the homeless in emergency accommodation until we get house built for them, however long that may be.
Tell the truth here, that sounds a bit mixed up, id say everyone in the situation of needing a home considers themselves an emergency, I wonder if you tell them they are as they are until such time as their LA gets a house built or refurbished for them how would they react?
I'd say that with your policy ideals the housing crisis is going to last a long long time!

You seem very mixed up.
The Homeless and Housing crises need different approaches.
I'm been talking on the housing crisis.
I think buying off the market for social housing should only be an emergency stop gap measure.
Yes, we are currently in a crisis, however more effort seems to be going to utilising the private market policy wise. This does not work. Following these tactics will continue to make the crisis worse. I don't see any reasons it wouldn't. This is all about making renting and buying viable for tax payers caught in the current crisis. It's about a better deal for the tax payer.

Where homelessness crosses paths with the housing crisis requires emergency accommodation. The key word is 'emergency' now it's a crutch flawed housing policy depends upon. This is needed. I do not think policy that creates an ever increasing reliance on it is the way to get free of the need.

Do you think investing in the private industry may turn around at some point? If not do you have any ideas yourself or are things just the way things are, sure what can you do?