Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]
Comments
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »I didn't ignore anything. I've not seen it. There's no tit for tat one-upmanship on my end.
You haven't answered the question I posed in relation to your post I fully quoted.
You are complaining about spending money on building housing for people while we spend money to buy housing for the same people.
If you are not in favour of current policy, what do you suggest, surely (edit: building affordable and social) it's a move in the right direction?
Perhaps try reading the post you quoted- "Is your proposal better than what we have now? Maybe, but that isn't what we should be using as the benchmark.". Where I say exactly that we shouldn't use what we have now as the benchmark and maybe his proposal is better.
In the post you quoted, I complained about the proposal by Sam Russell where the cost of social housing would be bourne solely by the people buying houses. House buyers would be financing social housing through their mortgages under his method, which I definitely don't agree with.
As regards your question, I had already said that his method might be better. I don't really know, but I would see both of them as a fairly crappy deal for working taxpayers.
So yes, I am against the current system. What I would try is only housing those who need to be housed in the cities. Without trying to sound stereotypical, that would mean no Margaret Cash in Dublin. Now, I've no idea how many Margaret Cash's there are and how much overall difference it would make, but not allowing such blatant milking of the system would make any other proposal an easier sell to taxpayers (including social housing).
Second, but more importantly, is an overhaul of planning. The docks and along Luas lines should all have high rise, which has the added benefit of reducing commute times, traffic. And more homes = lower prices.
Maybe the planning thing wouldn't work but I think it would be worth a try. If it didn't work we might have to try something else like social housing, despite the obvious drawbacks (welfare traps, rent based on income which would make even more of after tax pay rises disappear, social issues in some circumstances, etc.).0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
In the post you quoted, I complained about the proposal by Sam Russell where the cost of social housing would be bourne solely by the people buying houses. House buyers would be financing social housing through their mortgages under his method, which I definitely don't agree with.
As regards your question, I had already said that his method might be better. I don't really know, but I would see both of them as a fairly crappy deal for working taxpayers.
Well, if you accept the requirement for social housing for those unable to provide housing from there own resources, then it has to be paid for by someone.
My proposal is not to get mortgage holders to pay for it - not atall.
Currently the Gov is purchasing houses from the market that has had the effect of pushing up prices, which has the effect that purchasers are paying higher prices and so higher mortgages.
Paying for hotels is madness and should cease, but we need homes. So build them but in mixed developed estates as is current policy, so they must be built by someone. Who builds them effects the price, and my scheme minimises the cost.
The prices paid be purchasers are market prices, and extra new houses reduces the market price, so no-one misses out. The proportions of the three types of housing is a political decision, and getting the proportions right is the way to solve the current crisis.0 -
Perhaps try reading the post you quoted- "Is your proposal better than what we have now? Maybe, but that isn't what we should be using as the benchmark.". Where I say exactly that we shouldn't use what we have now as the benchmark and maybe his proposal is better.
In the post you quoted, I complained about the proposal by Sam Russell where the cost of social housing would be bourne solely by the people buying houses. House buyers would be financing social housing through their mortgages under his method, which I definitely don't agree with.
As regards your question, I had already said that his method might be better. I don't really know, but I would see both of them as a fairly crappy deal for working taxpayers.
So yes, I am against the current system. What I would try is only housing those who need to be housed in the cities. Without trying to sound stereotypical, that would mean no Margaret Cash in Dublin. Now, I've no idea how many Margaret Cash's there are and how much overall difference it would make, but not allowing such blatant milking of the system would make any other proposal an easier sell to taxpayers (including social housing).
Second, but more importantly, is an overhaul of planning. The docks and along Luas lines should all have high rise, which has the added benefit of reducing commute times, traffic. And more homes = lower prices.
Maybe the planning thing wouldn't work but I think it would be worth a try. If it didn't work we might have to try something else like social housing, despite the obvious drawbacks (welfare traps, rent based on income which would make even more of after tax pay rises disappear, social issues in some circumstances, etc.).
I believe we would recoup over time and save the tax payer by building. The only other ideas I'm aware of, which we currently practice serve only to heat the market and keep those in throws of the crisis reliant on the state, including the majority who are working tax payers. We've people still posting like everyone affected by the crisis dodges work and sponges off the state.
I think moving people around the country is a bad idea and feeds into the drive to keep the land in areas deemed prime, for the wealthy and companies who speculate making on the misery of others. The regeneration program only served to free up neighbourhoods for private property speculators with a percentage going to communities. This was the publics land. Now it's seen as profit making while we pay for landlords and hotels.
I don't think moving families to another county because the LA's and state want to sell off public land is fair. Of course there's an element of the market driving the work force to relocate due to work and pricing but the LA's and State are queering the market with their interference IMO. I blame them for a market where the seller sets his own price and the tax payer ponies up any shortcomings on the side of the customer with rent subsidies and grants, all of which are needed of course because pricing is so high for most.
As regards High-Rise, great if they are affordable. More over priced and out of reach housing won't help. They'll likely be picked up by landlord renting companies for the state to rent.
I think even if the government put as much effort into social and affordable housing as they do aiding and assisting private developers, vulture funds and other property speculators, we may not solve the problem but it would not be getting worse.
There are thousands of homes previously social housing were the council received rents for decades and then sold on the houses. The councils did not lose out on this deal by any stretch and families were housed with no hotel or private landlord bills. It's just people seem to think we should be gouging the tax payer to make profits, to what end, considering the cost of maintaining the housing crisis, I don't know.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, if you accept the requirement for social housing for those unable to provide housing from there own resources, then it has to be paid for by someone.
My proposal is not to get mortgage holders to pay for it - not atall.
Currently the Gov is purchasing houses from the market that has had the effect of pushing up prices, which has the effect that purchasers are paying higher prices and so higher mortgages.
Paying for hotels is madness and should cease, but we need homes. So build them but in mixed developed estates as is current policy, so they must be built by someone. Who builds them effects the price, and my scheme minimises the cost.
The prices paid be purchasers are market prices, and extra new houses reduces the market price, so no-one misses out. The proportions of the three types of housing is a political decision, and getting the proportions right is the way to solve the current crisis.
Maybe I picked up what you were saying incorrectly but I thought the basic principle was that in any estate, that the houses sold at market value would fund the social houses in that estate? Therefore those that take out the mortgages to pay market rate would be funding them? Apologies if I made a error.
I would accept the need for social housing if amending the planning and other regulations did not work, but this hasn't been tried yet.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Well, if you accept the requirement for social housing for those unable to provide housing from there own resources, then it has to be paid for by someone.
My proposal is not to get mortgage holders to pay for it - not atall.
Currently the Gov is purchasing houses from the market that has had the effect of pushing up prices, which has the effect that purchasers are paying higher prices and so higher mortgages.
Paying for hotels is madness and should cease, but we need homes. So build them but in mixed developed estates as is current policy, so they must be built by someone. Who builds them effects the price, and my scheme minimises the cost.
The prices paid be purchasers are market prices, and extra new houses reduces the market price, so no-one misses out. The proportions of the three types of housing is a political decision, and getting the proportions right is the way to solve the current crisis.
There is merit in your proposal, but how about making the purchase price of anyone that buys incremental on how much they earn?
Say those that qualify are made to take the maximum mortgage their earnings allow and even if that's not the full purchase price, put a stipulation in that if they decide to move on or up they must sell back to the state at the original price.
I can see problems for those who purchase at the full market price if they decided to move on or up and are trying to recoup their money, if someone else is selling on the open market and are prepared to sell at the lower price they paid at the same time.
Perhaps everyone should have a mortgage as opposed to rent and make it that the bottom price is the full building cost but the mortgage can be lifetime mortgage and carried on by another family member when the original purchaser is no longer able or around to pay.
This would perhaps make purchasers take more care of what would be a family investment really and cut out the need for state maintenance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »There are thousands of homes previously social housing were the council received rents for decades and then sold on the houses. The councils did not lose out on this deal by any stretch and families were housed with no hotel or private landlord bills. It's just people seem to think we should be gouging the tax payer to make profits, to what end, considering the cost of maintaining the housing crisis, I don't know.
I'm not going to respond to each point individually, but all that ignores the problems I mentioned with social housing: welfare traps, disincentives to work, social problems, subsidising private profit, etc. As I said I'm not a fan of the current setup, I think we should try the high rise option, regulations... To borrow your phrase, it may not solve things but I don't think it would make it worse.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
Too complicated both in concept and also in administration.There is merit in your proposal, but how about making the purchase price of anyone that buys incremental on how much they earn?
Say those that qualify are made to take the maximum mortgage their earnings allow and even if that's not the full purchase price, put a stipulation in that if they decide to move on or up they must sell back to the state at the original price.
I can see problems for those who purchase at the full market price if they decided to move on or up and are trying to recoup their money, if someone else is selling on the open market and are prepared to sell at the lower price they paid at the same time.
Perhaps everyone should have a mortgage as opposed to rent and make it that the bottom price is the full building cost but the mortgage can be lifetime mortgage and carried on by another family member when the original purchaser is no longer able or around to pay.
This would perhaps make purchasers take more care of what would be a family investment really and cut out the need for state maintenance.
My proposal is to pay for social housing by the 'sale' of state land, by avoiing developer margin, and recycling the VAT element on houses.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »This isn't the case though.
Currently you are paying to buy new houses off the market to house the very same people.
As for the 'wasters' and those who 'don't want to work', how many are we talking and how are they dodging getting caught out? Didn't Leo run some PR thing on that very issue?
You can fund state builds used as social housing for fellow tax payers on low income or you can fund buying social housing off the market at the going rate or cheap loans for private developers to do same. Your choice.
The majority of your post is anecdotal tosh. It smacks of PR for current failed policy using blarney as it's basis. Even your story suggests the current system is flawed. Enjoy paying the Gresham to put up people who don't want to work.
I must admit that leo really tightened the screw with his PR thing!! :rolleyes:
you say tax payers should fund this and fund that! I don't think anyone should be subsidising homes for others, people stuck in bedsits and living in tenement like situations should be motivated enough to get there sh1t in order and better themselves by working hard like everyone else, there is a bit of merit in tough love, don't let them sleep on streets but don't give them a safety net that lasts a lifetime.
for people struggling to purchase first home in new developments a reduction in vat would be a good idea, but on a vat back scenario,
savings should be incentivised more by the government, like an ssia scheme
quick solutions to housing problems will never be looked back on as being good decisions.
also, hate to burst your bubble but if your the matt barrett I know, you don't have any experience in property development.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »Too complicated both in concept and also in administration.
My proposal is to pay for social housing by the 'sale' of state land, by avoiing developer margin, and recycling the VAT element on houses.
That wasn't your proposal at all, your proposal was to sell houses at market rates to some and at a greatly reduced rate to others, who if they were cute hoors could sell on again in a few years at the market rate.
If you think people wouldn't take advantage of that then you are more trusting than me.
Either that or the people who paid the higher price would quickly find themselves in negative equity.0 -
There is merit in your proposal, but how about making the purchase price of anyone that buys incremental on how much they earn?
Say those that qualify are made to take the maximum mortgage their earnings allow and even if that's not the full purchase price, put a stipulation in that if they decide to move on or up they must sell back to the state at the original price.
I can see problems for those who purchase at the full market price if they decided to move on or up and are trying to recoup their money, if someone else is selling on the open market and are prepared to sell at the lower price they paid at the same time.
Perhaps everyone should have a mortgage as opposed to rent and make it that the bottom price is the full building cost but the mortgage can be lifetime mortgage and carried on by another family member when the original purchaser is no longer able or around to pay.
This would perhaps make purchasers take more care of what would be a family investment really and cut out the need for state maintenance.
I believe that's pretty much how affordable housing works. You need be in a particular income bracket and as with purchasing your rented council home there's a claw back if you sell within a particular window.
Generally these estates are kept 100% affordable, this does away with a neighbour paying full market rate while next door was given a cut.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not going to respond to each point individually, but all that ignores the problems I mentioned with social housing: welfare traps, disincentives to work, social problems, subsidising private profit, etc. As I said I'm not a fan of the current setup, I think we should try the high rise option, regulations... To borrow your phrase, it may not solve things but I don't think it would make it worse.
Apologies, I wasn't ignoring it, I don't believe in welfare traps relating to housing.
I can only go by the small numbers on (edit: unemployment) welfare and the criteria any recipient needs meet. You can't walk in the door and expect welfare. That's a myth. I'm sure there are a number of chancers but they'd need be pretty wily. In short I do not believe people generally like being poor even if it means they don't have to get up early of a morning.
From personal experience, I grew up beside a formally 100% social housing estate, which is now pretty much private. There's even a FG TD in their number. To suggest aiding tax payers with affordable housing might cause them to be trapped is not what I've seen. What's the difference between building affordable housing or paying the rent to a private landlord concern as regards the poverty trap? I don't see any difference in that. In fact I would suggest the possibility of owning your home might be a driving factor, where living in a private rental it wouldn't as much.
hi-rise would be good if it was affordable/social. Otherwise it's merely more of the same but condensed.0 -
severeoversteer wrote: »I must admit that leo really tightened the screw with his PR thing!! :rolleyes:
you say tax payers should fund this and fund that! I don't think anyone should be subsidising homes for others, people stuck in bedsits and living in tenement like situations should be motivated enough to get there sh1t in order and better themselves by working hard like everyone else, there is a bit of merit in tough love, don't let them sleep on streets but don't give them a safety net that lasts a lifetime.
for people struggling to purchase first home in new developments a reduction in vat would be a good idea, but on a vat back scenario,
savings should be incentivised more by the government, like an ssia scheme
quick solutions to housing problems will never be looked back on as being good decisions.
also, hate to burst your bubble but if your the matt barrett I know, you don't have any experience in property development.
I agree people should help themselves but if you're on a low income and the cheapest rent isn't cheap enough, what do you do?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
That wasn't your proposal at all, your proposal was to sell houses at market rates to some and at a greatly reduced rate to others, who if they were cute hoors could sell on again in a few years at the market rate.
If you think people wouldn't take advantage of that then you are more trusting than me.
Either that or the people who paid the higher price would quickly find themselves in negative equity.
My proposal was that the proportion of social, affordable, and open market houses would be 30% 30% 40%. The land would be state owned with a notional value of €50 k per site and cost of build at €200 k. Open market houses could be built for a greater price, and they could be larger than the rest. The price of those would be market rate.
To get an affordable house would require the recipient to be at lowish income (set by politicians), and be subject to a claw back if sold at a profit within a set period (I would think a decade).
Recycle the VAT and site cost, and the social houses are paid for, and the rest are funded by the new owners.
That is the proposal.
We need 5,000 social houses in Dublin a year, so this scheme would need to deliver about 17,000 houses a year and the 12,000 houses sold would take the heat out of both the rental market and the house purchase market.
All together it should be a good direction to solve the current problem.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Apologies, I wasn't ignoring it, I don't believe in welfare traps relating to housing.
I can only go by the small numbers on (edit: unemployment) welfare and the criteria any recipient needs meet. You can't walk in the door and expect welfare. That's a myth. I'm sure there are a number of chancers but they'd need be pretty wily. In short I do not believe people generally like being poor even if it means they don't have to get up early of a morning.
From personal experience, I grew up beside a formally 100% social housing estate, which is now pretty much private. There's even a FG TD in their number. To suggest aiding tax payers with affordable housing might cause them to be trapped is not what I've seen. What's the difference between building affordable housing or paying the rent to a private landlord concern as regards the poverty trap? I don't see any difference in that. In fact I would suggest the possibility of owning your home might be a driving factor, where living in a private rental it wouldn't as much.
hi-rise would be good if it was affordable/social. Otherwise it's merely more of the same but condensed.
By welfare traps I meant where someone would be better off on the welfare (not just dole)i.e. where they would actually loose money by going back to work. You also have the distinctives to work and subsidising private profit issues as well.
As I said, I'm not in favour of the current setup, so no point making comparisons. But yes, HAP etc. also creates welfare traps.
The whole point of high rise and overhauling regulations I mentioned was to reduce the cost and thus make it affordable by increasing supply. And then eliminate or at least massively reduce the need for social housing.0 -
By welfare traps I meant where someone would be better off on the welfare (not just dole)i.e. where they would actually loose money by going back to work. You also have the distinctives to work and subsidising private profit issues as well.
As I said, I'm not in favour of the current setup, so no point making comparisons. But yes, HAP etc. also creates welfare traps.
The whole point of high rise and overhauling regulations I mentioned was to reduce the cost and thus make it affordable by increasing supply. And then eliminate or at least massively reduce the need for social housing.
Fair enough. I thought you meant becoming so use to social housing they don't bother looking to get ahead.but all that ignores the problems I mentioned with social housing: welfare traps, disincentives to work, social problems, subsidising private profit, etc.
The more prices get beyond a reasonable wage and the state needs to step in with financial aid, the more this would happen. It all goes back to the state and LA's helping to keep market prices high IMO.
The trouble is regardless of how cheap the state makes it to build, private landlords and developers will charge as much as they can get. That's business. I'd like to see the correlation between houses sold at market and those sold at market having availed of cheaper NAMA loans. I can't see any private developer selling at below market, digging into his/her profits.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Fair enough. I thought you meant becoming so use to social housing they don't bother looking to get ahead. The more prices get beyond a reasonable wage and the state needs to step in with financial aid, the more this would happen. It all goes back to the state and LA's helping to keep market prices high IMO.
The trouble is regardless of how cheap the state makes it to build, private landlords and developers will charge as much as they can get. That's business. I'd like to see the correlation between houses sold at market and those sold at market having availed of cheaper NAMA loans. I can't see any private developer selling at below market, digging into his/her profits.
I see your point, but what I would think would happen is if we managed to massively increase supply is that the market price would drop. A developer could still ask for whatever they like, but would you pay it if there was 3 similar houses down the road for a lesser price?0 -
I see your point, but what I would think would happen is if we managed to massively increase supply is that the market price would drop. A developer could still ask for whatever they like, but would you pay it if there was 3 similar houses down the road for a lesser price?
I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower prices.
From the tax payers perspective, I believe the cheaper option of state/LA builds is the better way. We cannot depend on the private market.
Companies are building and buying to rent to the state. This is causing the problem it's profiting off.
The state and LA's by looking to such companies is encouraging it.
It's literally feeding the problem.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19466
Matt Barrett wrote: »I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower prices.
From the tax payers perspective, I believe the cheaper option of state/LA builds is the better way. We cannot depend on the private market.
Companies are building and buying to rent to the state. This is causing the problem it's profiting off.
The state and LA's by looking to such companies is encouraging it.
It's literally feeding the problem.
Exactly.
Gov builds, and gets to decide cost location and selling prices and proportion of social and affordable houses.
Private developer builds using Gov land and cheap NAMA loans, decides to only go ahead if social housing is a minimum, and gets to keep huge profits.
Gov building does not mean direct labour model necessarily, and does mean Gov control of process. Gov building motorways is done by contracting out to private builders.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower pricess
Maybe, but why not try my way first? Social housing has the range of issues I already outlined. The current method has it's drawbacks. Nothing to loose really.
Edited to add, I'd be open to other options too- obviously what I've said is not very detailed.0 -
Maybe, but why not try my way first? Social housing has the range of issues I already outlined. The current method has it's drawbacks. Nothing to loose really.
Edited to add, I'd be open to other options too- obviously what I've said is not very detailed.
We are doing what you suggest just not in as big a number required. It seems they are using the private market to maintain and service the housing crisis. As noted, this is leading to more builds designed for the HAP kind of market IMO.
I honestly don't see how and rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and say being taken advantage of by ner do wells, differs from social housing to houses bought or rented privately to be used as social housing.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »We are doing what you suggest just not in as big a number required. It seems they are using the private market to maintain and service the housing crisis. As noted, this is leading to more builds designed for the HAP kind of market IMO.
I honestly don't see how and rent arrears, anti-social behaviour and say being taken advantage of by ner do wells, differs from social housing to houses bought or rented privately to be used as social housing.
We're not doing what I suggest, what is the highest residential building in Dublin? Why are non contributors still being housed in cities? (Go back to my earlier post where I am not blaming the problems on this). Why do we still have some ridiculous building regulations? (Note some, not all).
As i said, i am not in favour of the current system. So yes, we have similar problems in both systems, but as I'm not in favour of either you won't find me defending them.
Anyway, over and out. Don't think I've much more to add.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »I can only see that happening if there's a massive injection of tax payer money into the private market. We'd essentially be spending tax monies on building grants or cutting tax/fees, selling off public land to encourage more private builds, in the hopes it would lead to lower prices.
From the tax payers perspective, I believe the cheaper option of state/LA builds is the better way. We cannot depend on the private market.
Companies are building and buying to rent to the state. This is causing the problem it's profiting off.
The state and LA's by looking to such companies is encouraging it.
It's literally feeding the problem.
The Cheaper Option?
I am sure that you have an independent study to back this up.
The only one I have seen suggests that this isn't always the case.0 -
The Cheaper Option?
I am sure that you have an independent study to back this up.
The only one I have seen suggests that this isn't always the case.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/horrendous-procurement-rules-pushing-up-social-housing-costs-1.3637482?mode=amp
The government isn't necessarily the cheapest option as government bodies have to deal with government procurement rules that add time and money. These are regulations private companies don't have to worry about. See the link above.0 -
The vote on the Sinn Fein motion of no confidence in the Housing minister is taking place in the dail at the moment. I assume that he will survive with FF help.0
-
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/horrendous-procurement-rules-pushing-up-social-housing-costs-1.3637482?mode=amp
The government isn't necessarily the cheapest option as government bodies have to deal with government procurement rules that add time and money. These are regulations private companies don't have to worry about. See the link above.
Exactly, but why do people keep telling us that building social housing is cheaper???0 -
There was an electronic vote by which I think the Motion was defeated but now there is a manual (through the voting lobbies) vote because of the blue votes according to Sinn Fein. The blue votes are abstentions from FF.0
-
There was an electronic vote by which I think the Motion was defeated but now there is a manual (through the voting lobbies) vote because of the blue votes according to Sinn Fein. The blue votes are abstentions from FF.
Hard to see the FF angle here really. Abstaining, is that an expression of no confidence really but we will let him work away anyway?0 -
We're not doing what I suggest, what is the highest residential building in Dublin? Why are non contributors still being housed in cities? (Go back to my earlier post where I am not blaming the problems on this). Why do we still have some ridiculous building regulations? (Note some, not all).
As i said, i am not in favour of the current system. So yes, we have similar problems in both systems, but as I'm not in favour of either you won't find me defending them.
Anyway, over and out. Don't think I've much more to add.
I was talking about not going with Social housing. We are using the private market and I agree high density/high rise is a good idea in certain areas, but again they'd need be affordable to the working tax payers without the need of state aid.
Thanks for talking it out.
It seems every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.Hard to see the FF angle here really. Abstaining, is that an expression of no confidence really but we will let him work away anyway?
It's playing both sides. They've not given approval so they can faux complain about Murphy, but they've not voted against him so they're all still pals. It's the sneakiest. Any upcoming election will be quite amusing. FG talking about how bad their partners FF are and FF doing same.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »
It seems every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.
Does it? I haven't seen anything to suggest every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.
I would guess that every qualified commentator says that we need to find a way to house people, but that they then differ on the multitude of solutions on offer.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/horrendous-procurement-rules-pushing-up-social-housing-costs-1.3637482?mode=amp
Given the cost of social housing as outlined in that Irish Times article, there may well be better and cheaper options as already outlined.
Just saying that we believe in social housing just doesn't cut it for me.0 -
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »
It seems every qualified commentator says social and affordable is the only way to go.
I'm not sure exactly what makes you a "qualified commentator"?0
Advertisement