2,000 affordable homes planned Dublin

Franz Von Peppercorn

Simona1986 wrote: »

I wasn't saying that either, just I think it's fairly reasonable that a person with a single-income of 50k would not be able to afford a decent family-sized home in the near vicinity of our capital city.

If people earning 50k were able to buy decent family homes near the city centre, think of all the MacMansions we'd have to be building for the couples!

It isn’t just single people, it’s single earners. Who might have families. And of course historically that was possible.

Sleeper12

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

It isn’t just single people, it’s single earners. Who might have families. And of course historically that was possible.

Single earners with a family will be classed as a couple. Both members of the couple don't have to be earning

quadrifoglio verde

ted1 wrote: »

Do you think families in council homes should be turned out once a child flies the coup and a bedroom becomes empty

Yes they should.
As there needs change, as the kids have flown the nest, and you're down to just the husband and wife then there's no need or reason for you to be in a 3 bed council house when someone on the council's housing list is in need of it.
The council has to meet the needs of people, it has no remit to meet their wants.
A forever home is a want. A secure place for you and your family is a need.

Sleeper12

quadrifoglio verde wrote:

Yes they should. As there needs change, as the kids have flown the nest, and you're down to just the husband and wife then there's no need or reason for you to be in a 3 bed council house when someone on the council's housing list is in need of it. The council has to meet the needs of people, it has no remit to meet their wants. A forever home is a want. A secure place for you and your family is a need.

Same goes for private homes imo. I'm not talking about forcing someone to sell their own home but I do think that the government could try encourage people with tax breaks. There are too many single oaps rattling around 3 and 4 bedroom homes in Dublin.

Fol20

Pelvis wrote: »

Another affordable housing scheme.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-2-000-affordable-homes-planned-for-10-dublin-sites-1.3619644


Once again, those caught between the "rich" and the "poor" are screwed.

Tbh all these houses should not be sold to anyone ever. They should be kept by the government to provide for social housing and as a family gets older and. People should be downgraded to 1 beds etc or whatever is suitable for said household

titan18

Yay, more houses for the layabouts. Wonder which house that one who has kids sleeping in the guards station will get.

Sleeper12

titan18 wrote:

Yay, more houses for the layabouts. Wonder which house that one who has kids sleeping in the guards station will get.

Ah come on. These are affordable houses not free houses. People would have to actually pay for them.

It's a leg up these people will be getting not a handout. There's a huge difference

surrender monkey

Fol20 wrote: »

Pelvis wrote: »

Another affordable housing scheme.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/more-than-2-000-affordable-homes-planned-for-10-dublin-sites-1.3619644


Once again, those caught between the "rich" and the "poor" are screwed.

Tbh all these houses should not be sold to anyone ever. They should be kept by the government to provide for social housing and as a family gets older and. People should be downgraded to 1 beds etc or whatever is suitable for said household

But these aren't Council housing. The Council is providing the land for free to developers to construct apartments on. People will apply to the council to go on an affordable housing list and when approved they will be able to purchase the apartments with their own mortgage. There will be a reduction on the price paid but there will a substantial sum of money paid by the purchaser. There are other people in need of help with regards to housing in society than people who qualify for social housing. Up to now the govt. Have only concentrated on social housing this is the first thing for the squeezed middle we keep hearing about.

WoollyRedHat

titan18 wrote: »

Yay, more houses for the layabouts. Wonder which house that one who has kids sleeping in the guards station will get.

What? That's not what this is at all..

Viscount Aggro

It IS all about the culture of "wheres me free gaff"
Thats what we are talking about here.

Tell, ye, I am not paying more in taxes to support this - I have reached my limit.
I am leaving the country if my nett monthly income changes is reduced.
The Irish state already has too much interference in people's lives.

Carlos Orange

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Ah come on. These are affordable houses not free houses. People would have to actually pay for them.

It's a leg up these people will be getting not a handout. There's a huge difference

Some will pay some. Others will pay none. None will actually be paying for them, none of the people living in them anyway.

Sleeper12

psinno wrote:

Some will pay some. Others will pay none. None will actually be paying for them, none of the people living in them anyway.

You need to research affordable housing.

No one gets it free. All pay a mortgage in their own names. These are totally private homes. Council won't own them, government won't own them. The people living in them will own them. If they fail to meet their mortgage payments they risk loosing their homes the same as you & I.

Mrs OBumble

pwurple wrote: »

Is it me, or is housing single people in individual units a new thing? Have we lost the ability to live with eachother? My parents' generation, the siblings or cousins who didn't get married would have either lived together and shared, or joined a community living arrangement, like a religious community. Even in my own generation, I don't think I've ever lived alone, and I wouldn't know too many people who do either. 

It strikes me as hard on the environment, wasteful of resources, solitary / not good for mental health, and possibly poor community outcome to house every single person individually.

It's not that new.

There have always been some people who remained single. Some live with relatives, some don't. For those who do live with relatives, things can get sticky if the relative gets old/sick and needs full time care: they also lose their home, and have to try and rent on the open market. (Remember the other thread about the ticking timebomb of people not buying and so not having anywhere to live when they get old).

The aging population and rising divorce rate is exacerbating this: there are more single-again people, who probably don't feel like house sharing after living with a partner for years.

It doesn't need to be harder on the environment: well designed 1 or 2 bed units in space-efficient complexes can make public transport viable in ways that suburban sprawl doesn't.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's wonderful that single people dream of owning a house but you can't expect affordable housing scheme to give the same breaks as couples. The way things usually work is you buy your apartment first & move into a bigger property as you need it. The scheme isn't designed to provide you with what you might need sometime in the future. It's designed to meet peoples needs in the present

The scheme isn't about affordable houses. it's about affordable homes. Some will be houses (likely duplex or terraced), some will be apartments.

It's totally unreasonable for a government to refuse housing assistance to someone just because they don't have a partner. I believe the phrase is discrimination on the basis of family status. Plenty of single people have kids (and they will be judged as a single, not a couple). Plenty will never partner up, either.

Sleeper12

Mrs OBumble wrote:

It's totally unreasonable for a government to refuse housing assistance to someone just because they don't have a partner. I believe the phrase is discrimination on the basis of family status. Plenty of single people have kids (and they will be judged as a single, not a couple). Plenty will never partner up, either.

There is no suggestion that the government will refuse housing assistance to a single person.

This isn't the first affordable housing scheme. They've been doing these schemes for decades now under different names like shared ownership. In all of these schemes a lone parent got the same or better breaks than couples & rightly so. They were never treated as single if they have a family. This scheme won't be any different.

Sleeper12

At present, the sites are currently owned by Dublin City Council. With regards to the specific areas in Dublin, 200 affordable houses are being planned on sites in Ballymun, 500 in Cherry Orchard, and another 500 in the new Poolbeg Strategic Development Zone.

Elsewhere, land in Darndale, Finglas, O’Devaney Gardens and the Oscar Traynor Road have also been identified for future developments.

surrender monkey

But an affordable apartment will be the same price whether a single person, lone parent or couple buy it. The price is the price doesn't matter who you are. There are no breaks based on the individuals circumstances in affordable housing. You hace to qualify on the scheme and be able to finance the purchase there is no favourable treatment. In the good old days a working couple could get double the tax relief on their mortgage than a single could but that's about it.

padd b1975

Pixel Eater wrote: »

The council will literally do anything not to build public housing themselves. Part of the reason they have so little stock at the moment was becasue they sold of so much of their housing over the last few decades (and didn't replace them). They should simply just up the income threshold for public housing (to at least 50k), charge more rent and use the money gained to keep building more hosuing.

Maybe be a bit more proactive in collecting the 74,000,000 that's currently owed to them in rents?

WoollyRedHat

Viscount Aggro wrote: »

It IS all about the culture of "wheres me free gaff"
Thats what we are talking about here.

Tell, ye, I am not paying more in taxes to support this - I have reached my limit.
I am leaving the country if my nett monthly income changes is reduced.
The Irish state already has too much interference in people's lives.

We're experiencing a housing crisis because of policy makers inaction. Once again, such iniatives as link posted in OP are nothing to do with free housing.. stop mudding the waters please.

Carlos Orange

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You need to research affordable housing.

No one gets it free. All pay a mortgage in their own names. These are totally private homes. Council won't own them, government won't own them. The people living in them will own them. If they fail to meet their mortgage payments they risk loosing their homes the same as you & I.

I think with the newer schemes the government retains an ownership stake in the house but it is true I don't pay much attention to the detail since it's just another way for me to subsidise other peoples lives that doesn't apply to me because I'm marginally better off than them. Just like my interest rate being higher because relatively few repossessions happen when people don't pay their mortgages.

Mrs OBumble

surrender monkey wrote: »

But an affordable apartment will be the same price whether a single person, lone parent or couple buy it. The price is the price doesn't matter who you are. There are no breaks based on the individuals circumstances in affordable housing. it.

Yes there are.

A couple will be eligible to purchase if their joint income is less than about 75k ( even if one earns 60k and the other works part time for 10k). A one-adult-however-many kids family will be eligible if their income is less than 50k.

They pay the same price for sure. But singles jump thru bigger hurdles to even join in the game.

Dravokivich

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Starter homes have been around a lot longer than the property boom. People in the 50s & 60s didn't buy 4 or 5 bedroom homes when they only had one child. They bought a 3 bed starter home & moved up as their needs dictated.



Can anyone explain how one person should get the same as two people? It doesn't make sense. Couples or families were always helped out more than single people & they always will be.


As I said earlier a single person wont ever get a 3 bed council house. They will get a one bed apartment because they are only one person. Same person telling the council that eventually will have a partner & children won't wash. Council will tell them to come back when the person has a partner & children.



We really have turned into an entitled society :mad:

In the 50s/60s there was very little of that property ladder nonsense amongst average workers. My da had 6 siblings in a 2 bedroom house.

And I'm not one to expect property to be handed out. A affordably priced property needs to be available. If the market wont provide that, it has to come from somewhere.

surrender monkey

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

surrender monkey wrote: »

But an affordable apartment will be the same price whether a single person, lone parent or couple buy it. The price is the price doesn't matter who you are. There are no breaks based on the individuals circumstances in affordable housing. it.

Yes there are.

A couple will be eligible to purchase if their joint income is less than about 75k ( even if one earns 60k and the other works part time for 10k). A one-adult-however-many kids family will be eligible if their income is less than 50k.

They pay the same price for sure. But singles jump thru bigger hurdles to even join in the game.

Two working people being able to pool their resources to purchase a property is not a break. I was actually responding to the poster who said all of these schemes in the past gave breaks to single parents they really did not.The only housing type that favours single parents would be council housing as often one income households would be under the income limits.

GaGa21

Sleeper12 wrote:

200 affordable houses are being planned on sites in Ballymun, 500 in Cherry Orchard, and another 500 in the new Poolbeg Strategic Development Zone.Elsewhere, land in Devaney Gardens and the Oscar Traynor Road have also been identified for future developments.

To be honest, the locations of the houses would put me off applying for this. I suppose it will suit a lot of locals that may want to be near family etc, but for me, I personally would not pay 250k to live in these areas.

the_syco

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Same goes for private homes imo. I'm not talking about forcing someone to sell their own home but I do think that the government could try encourage people with tax breaks. There are too many single oaps rattling around 3 and 4 bedroom homes in Dublin.

No. You buy the house, it's yours. If you don't own the house, you can't stay in it if you're not using it for your family members.

When the OAP goes onto care, their house pays for said care. If they downsize into a smaller house, will they get the same benefit that they would get from going into the nursing home from the bigger house?

Sleeper12

the_syco wrote: »

No. You buy the house, it's yours. If you don't own the house, you can't stay in it if you're not using it for your family members.

When the OAP goes onto care, their house pays for said care. If they downsize into a smaller house, will they get the same benefit that they would get from going into the nursing home from the bigger house?

Yes

Sleeper12

psinno wrote: »

I think with the newer schemes the government retains an ownership stake in the house but it is true I don't pay much attention to the detail since it's just another way for me to subsidise other peoples lives that doesn't apply to me because I'm marginally better off than them. Just like my interest rate being higher because relatively few repossessions happen when people don't pay their mortgages.

This is not true. You really should read up on these things before casting judgement. This affordable housing scheme wont cost you any money as a tax payer. Unless you buy one that is.

Sleeper12

Dravokivich wrote: »

In the 50s/60s there was very little of that property ladder nonsense amongst average workers. My da had 6 siblings in a 2 bedroom house.

And I'm not one to expect property to be handed out. A affordably priced property needs to be available. If the market wont provide that, it has to come from somewhere.

Not everyone could afford to move up but many did. Out of all the 4 & 5 bed housed sold from the 50s to today only a tiny, tiny minority were couples with one or no children. The vast majority started in smaller homes & moved up as their family grew.

GaGa21 wrote: »

To be honest, the locations of the houses would put me off applying for this. I suppose it will suit a lot of locals that may want to be near family etc, but for me, I personally would not pay 250k to live in these areas.

That's why I posted them. Some posters thought these homes were in prime locations & they most certainly aren't. Regular homes in most of these areas wouldn't be selling for much more than affordable home prices as it is. Some of the neighboring estates you'll find boarded up council homes with sheet metal on the windows & doors

Pixel Eater

padd b1975 wrote: »

Maybe be a bit more proactive in collecting the 74,000,000 that's currently owed to them in rents?

Absolutely. And evict those involved in anti-social behaviour.

power pants

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Absolutely. And evict those involved in anti-social behaviour.

Indeed. Any anti social or arrears evict and live in hostels/hotels

With any housing at a premium these days, there is no excuse to have unruly tenants/families

pwurple

power pants wrote: »

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Absolutely. And evict those involved in anti-social behaviour.

Indeed. Any anti social or arrears evict and live in hostels/hotels

With any housing at a premium these days, there is no excuse to have unruly tenants/families

Well there's the crux of the problem isn't it. 
You need to house everyone who rocks up in order to "solve the homeless crisis".
Inability to follow rules/standards is what has a pile of them in this state in the first place.