Inside Dublin’s Housing Crisis

Old diesel

Old diesel wrote: »

How does deliberately making yourself homeless work exactly................

You live with your folks in your late teens, early 20s.
Going to work etc doesn't appeal. You hook up with some like minded lad / lady, fall in love, have a child or two, go on the housing list, have more kids. Proclaim that you can no longer stay with the folks and you are now homeless.
That's one method, commonly used.

Peter Flynt

Very interesting article and surprised I never noticed it at the time.

The answer to this is simple: the state has to build houses and/or apartments. But Fine Gael don't want to do that because the people who will occupy those social houses are unlikely to vote for them.

Also the future economic prosperity of the country is at serious risk because Varadkar & co don't want to live up to their responsibilities. No houses, or excessive rents (I checked Daft a few days ago. . . 3 grand for apartments in central Dublin per month. . . utterly insane) will lead to a downturn in prosperity because skilled workers will leave and/or not immigrate into this country. Thus this leaves behind the poor who do not have the means to emigrate and when I say the poor I don't mean the homeless and unemployed. . . I'm referring to those in once respected jobs in all sectors of society.

Those skilled workers who do remain can ask for pay rises (and they are) or seek accommodation from their employer (which is happening). This will generally only happen in the private sector as FG are not interested in public sector workers. . . . Hence we have ongoing shortages in nursing, teaching, and other areas.

This is why Micheal Martin agreed to extend his confidence & supply with FG.
He knows the longer he leaves Varadkar in taoiseach's office the more people will get sick of the spin, and dump him.

Also time to get rid of the likes of Air B&B.
Legislation should be used to ban rents which do not exceed one month and it should be illegal for people who do rent to use rental sites like Air B&B.

Fol20

Peter Flynt wrote: »

1.The answer to this is simple: the state has to build houses and/or apartments.

2.But Fine Gael don't want to do that because the people who will occupy those social houses are unlikely to vote for them.

3.Also the future economic prosperity of the country is at serious risk because Varadkar & co don't want to live up to their responsibilities. No houses, or excessive rents (I checked Daft a few days ago. . . 3 grand for apartments in central Dublin per month. . . utterly insane)

4.This will generally only happen in the private sector as FG are not interested in public sector workers. . . . Hence we have ongoing shortages in nursing, teaching, and other areas.

5.This is why Micheal Martin agreed to extend his confidence & supply with FG.
He knows the longer he leaves Varadkar in taoiseach's office the more people will get sick of the spin, and dump him.

6.Also time to get rid of the likes of Air B&B.
Legislation should be used to ban rents which do not exceed one month and it should be illegal for people who do rent to use rental sites like Air B&B.

1. No more houses within dublin city, It should only be apartments with good infrastructure. I have stayed in apartment blocks in other countries where they have their own gym, pool, sauna, jacuzzi, security reception with staff, local shop all within the same block. This wasn't fancy, it was just a regular block where they all had them. Depending on what they are built for, having all these in the same room could create a good community spirit.

2. Never heard that before, highly doubt its true.

3. I agree with you however disagree in sentiment. The current government are not dealing with the issue properly as they are putting band aids on a issue which is making things worse, instead of making hard choices, that a lot of the voting people may not like in short term. Where do you want the government to get the money for building houses, its either tax the working groups more or increase debt which we already have enough of to begin with. People need to take responsibility for their own actions and not expect others to help all the time.

4.TBH public sector pay incl benefits compared to the equivalent in private sector is scandalous. They are getting well too much and if anything all perks and benefits should be matched to how private sector operates..

5. This was more for stability with Brexit rather than anything else. It could all be rosy this time next year or we may have s***storm of situation where FF might blame FG for the problems while it was the reverse during the last recession.

6. They are doing this. I dont know why you want to ban renters from using airbnb, i think its a great service and am sad to see it go. Hotel owners will be delighted with the ban.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

With different figures coming from different agencies, is there any definition of homelessness? Also can homeless charities actually get you a house?

Idbatterim

I read this article yesterday. Unless the state build, forget "affordable housing" A developer understandably wants to maximise their return, they dont have an obligation to the citizens of this country, the scum we elect do though, or you would think so!

This notion that they need to be landlords to love the rising prices is laughable, the wasters from local to national government to ABP, safe to assume the vast majority are home owners, they also love the rising prices. Those making the decisions interests, are totally out of line with many of us...

Another big issue that I have raised is the ridiculous apartment build cost, your average income worker here couldnt come close to affording it, the costs need to be reduced down to what most of the working masses can afford...

Its all so f**cking simple, but we have morons of the highest order and or total snakes making all the decisions....

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/19-simple-steps-to-finally-getting-the-housing-crisis-under-control-37671965.html

Fol20

crlpgunfwo93js wrote: »

With different figures coming from different agencies, is there any definition of homelessness? Also can homeless charities actually get you a house?

I actually hate the way they classify as homelessness. If you are on the street. Your homeless. If you have a roof over your head, your not. They should classify each of them differently to get more precise figures. I would love to know figures of people declining a property also. This would give us a better idea of true figures

Peter Flynt

Fol20 wrote: »

I actually hate the way they classify as homelessness. If you are on the street. Your homeless. If you have a roof over your head, your not.

Idiotic.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Fol20 wrote: »

I actually hate the way they classify as homelessness. If you are on the street. Your homeless. If you have a roof over your head, your not. They should classify each of them differently to get more precise figures. I would love to know figures of people declining a property also. This would give us a better idea of true figures

I soppose there's no definition, so how can it be solved if we don't know. Also do charities provide houses, or are they provided by Govt. appointed construction companies?

Spanish Eyes

Any LL who lets a property on HAP or RA or RAS etc. should sublet to the relevant council. Council says thanks very much for your property, that's another family off our list, well done. We'll take over now for 5-10 years or whatever. Guaranteed rent to LL and any issues ie eviction, overholding dealt with by the Council, but LL gets paid every month directly from the Council.

I am sure there are a few (many) holes in that statement, but why should a LL who is providing a home for those on the housing list etc. be potentially on the rack if the tenant turns rogue.

DubCount

Fol20 wrote: »

I actually hate the way they classify as homelessness. If you are on the street. Your homeless. If you have a roof over your head, your not. They should classify each of them differently to get more precise figures. I would love to know figures of people declining a property also. This would give us a better idea of true figures

+1.

It is nuts that if the government takes people off the street and into emergency accommodation, "Homelessness" increases. Meanwhile, if someone leaves emergency accommodation to sleep on a relatives couch, "Homelessness" decreases.

We should have separate figures for homeless (living on the streets), emergency accommodation residents, and numbers on housing lists (consolidated - not a separate list of each Local Authority)

Old diesel

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read this article yesterday. Unless the state build, forget "affordable housing" A developer understandably wants to maximise their return, they dont have an obligation to the citizens of this country, the scum we elect do though, or you would think so!

This notion that they need to be landlords to love the rising prices is laughable, the wasters from local to national government to ABP, safe to assume the vast majority are home owners, they also love the rising prices. Those making the decisions interests, are totally out of line with many of us...

Another big issue that I have raised is the ridiculous apartment build cost, your average income worker here couldnt come close to affording it, the costs need to be reduced down to what most of the working masses can afford...

Its all so f**cking simple, but we have morons of the highest order and or total snakes making all the decisions....

https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/19-simple-steps-to-finally-getting-the-housing-crisis-under-control-37671965.html

For me lower standards requires proper analysis.

1) what is the end product going to be.

2) can I gurantee that the buyer gets a worthwhile saving.

3) How can a buyer have confidence in a home DELIBERATELY built to "does not meet building regs" standard.

Marks car analogy is crap because the Volvo merely is one magazines car of the year. ALL cars must meet the same legal standards.

Heres a far more suitable car analogy for Marks proposed solution.

He is effectively saying - don't bother with euro 6 emissions because it makes the car too expensive.

In fact lets go further - he wants to only build a temporary car to tide you over while a proper car gets built for you. Quite possible that car will be Indian built with no airbags or ABS. Good fun.

beauf

Old diesel wrote: »

...How do we measure deliberate homelessness and under that heading - if someone works a low paid job in Dublin how far from their job should they be expected to live.

What I mean is - if you feel you need to be in Dublin but the available houses are in Roscommon is that "deliterate homelessness"

Interesting questions.

If I move to London what determines, how close to the center or my work, I will be able to live.

If I'm born in London does that change?

beauf

Old diesel wrote: »

.....Heres a far more suitable car analogy for Marks proposed solution.

He is effectively saying - don't bother with euro 6 emissions because it makes the car too expensive.

In fact lets go further - he wants to only build a temporary car to tide you over while a proper car gets built for you. Quite possible that car will be Indian built with no airbags or ABS. Good fun.

Maybe we can only afford that car. Isn't that way people keep very old cars on the road, knowing they are expensive to run, and less safe.

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice
The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice runs thus:

At the time of Men at Arms, Samuel Vimes earned thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. This was beyond his pocket and the most he could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars.

Therefore over a period of ten years, he might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet.

Without any special rancour, Vimes stretched this theory to explain why Sybil Ramkin lived twice as comfortably as he did by spending about half as much every month.

https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Economic_Injustice

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I think building regs., insulation regs, health and safety regs, etc. have all gone too far, and add hugely to the costs in housing.

Old diesel

beauf wrote: »

Interesting questions.

If I move to London what determines, how close to the center or my work, I will be able to live.

If I'm born in London does that change?

If we take the Roscommon example - is it even possible to commute from Roscommon to Dublin 5 days a week if no car.

What's childcare availability like there - is it affordable.

Is the commute time feasible when combined with a working day.

Is it better to have someone in a social house in Dublin 4 but they actually work.

Vs the same person in Roscommon but they can't get work.

beauf

Better to create a job in Roscommon...

Old diesel

crlpgunfwo93js wrote: »

I think building regs., insulation regs, health and safety regs, etc. have all gone too far, and add hugely to the costs in housing.

Passive house has been built in Wexford - 3 bed for 190 k a unit.

It would be a 350 k house in Dublin.

The difference between 190 k and 350 k is where cost reduction is best targeted.

In Ballymun with development levies removed, land at 1 k a plot from DCC, a developer margin of 5 percent vs a norm of 25 percent etc Hugh Brennan delivered A2 BER for 180 k a unit.

Eric Cartman

Old diesel wrote: »

If we take the Roscommon example - is it even possible to commute from Roscommon to Dublin 5 days a week if no car.

What's childcare availability like there - is it affordable.

Is the commute time feasible when combined with a working day.

Is it better to have someone in a social house in Dublin 4 but they actually work.

Vs the same person in Roscommon but they can't get work.

In theory yes, but that social house would be on land thats needlessly expensive to buy , and the reality is its a complete dice roll as to whether any adult in that house has a job, then you have the current problem of people wanting to be 'near their ma' which condemns the next generation to having the hand out asking for a house in dublin 4.

We would be better off taking this crisis as a great reason to repopulate rural ireland and rejuvenate some neglected counties. then when the next generation comes along theres still plenty of cheap land to build on. If atleast 50% of the adults in a house are not in full time employment in dublin then they shouldnt get a house in dublin, its really simple.

Spanish Eyes

I want to be beside me Ma.

Stop me. Gettit?

Seems they cannot stop people from demanding accommodation that they want. For life.

I just give up now. I and many others have never had that choice, not to mention at taxpayer's expense either.

Spanish Eyes

Oh and while I am having a rant, should those who don't work and will never work be housed in Dublin? Just asking and await the fallout. But so be it.

Fol20

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Oh and while I am having a rant, should those who don't work and will never work be housed in Dublin? Just asking and await the fallout. But so be it.

If all the people in dublin that are classed as homeless were willing to move to midlands where the costs of building and buying land is more than likely a 3rd the cost if not less and would also be easy to build on. Im sure this housing crisis would be solved within a few years. Instead. We have people who feel like they should be entitled to live near their parents without using their own money to fund it while other who do work have to live an hour away from family due to affordability is a travesty

NIMAN

There was a radio piece about the 'homelessness crisis' on NYE news, and they invented a new way to describe the near 10,000 people.

The newsreader said They are now nearly 10,000 people without a permanent address.

So its basically getting away from calling them homeless cos me, you and the dogs in the street know they aren't actually homeless, they are all living somewhere but are waiting for the right house to come up for them.

hmmm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I just give up now. I and many others have never had that choice, not to mention at taxpayer's expense either.

That's the essential unfairness that annoys people isn't it - this expectation that people expecting social housing have of being housed in a particular area that suits them. People buying their own houses quite regularly have to live away from where they would like to live.

We're only fueling this "homeless" crisis by encouraging the idea that getting on the housing/homeless list is going to lead to a nice house in a nice area close to yer ma.

There is enough private estates already where small numbers of social housing causes nothing but trouble, and the government and all the other bleeding hearts don't do anything about it. Best case they move the troublemakers on, but then they just end up terrorising some other estate.

I think we have to bite the bullet and build another couple of giant social housing estates, away on the outskirts of Dublin. Put a strong police presence in the area, and make sure children in the estates are given every opportunity to get an education and a job. If the parents want to live somewhere else, they should get a job and buy a house.

theguzman

NIMAN wrote: »

There was a radio piece about the 'homelessness crisis' on NYE news, and they invented a new way to describe the near 10,000 people.

The newsreader said They are now nearly 10,000 people without a permanent address.

So its basically getting away from calling them homeless cos me, you and the dogs in the street know they aren't actually homeless, they are all living somewhere but are waiting for the right house to come up for them.

No fixed abode Boss!

Eric Cartman

hmmm wrote: »

That's the essential unfairness that annoys people isn't it - this expectation that people expecting social housing have of being housed in a particular area that suits them. People buying their own houses quite regularly have to live away from where they would like to live.

We're only fueling this "homeless" crisis by encouraging the idea that getting on the housing/homeless list is going to lead to a nice house in a nice area close to yer ma.

There is enough private estates already where small numbers of social housing causes nothing but trouble, and the government and all the other bleeding hearts don't do anything about it. Best case they move the troublemakers on, but then they just end up terrorising some other estate.

I think we have to bite the bullet and build another couple of giant social housing estates, away on the outskirts of Dublin. Put a strong police presence in the area, and make sure children in the estates are given every opportunity to get an education and a job. If the parents want to live somewhere else, they should get a job and buy a house.

And this is the problem, the idea is just to dilute the trouble makers , people act like putting them all together like ballymun is what caused the problems, but space them out and they still cause problems just not all in the same place so it doesnt look as big or bad.

Most of the people saying 'well social housing is fine in our estate' are usually either living in a former council house where the 'social tenants' are now in their 50s and the kids have moved on or theyre actually living near 'affordable houses' which are inhabited by working people.

Anyone living in one of these '10%' developments with a few houses all with younger single mothers , boyfriends in and out, house parties and a gaggle of kids running round will tell you different, or if theyve their head in the sand they think 'sure its just a bunch of noisy 8 years olds, its not really trouble' which they wont be saying in 8 years when those teenagers are robbing cars.

LotharIngum

Should be loads of houses and apartments for sale soon.
Every landlord who I know of it seems is now either giving notice that they are selling up straight away or planning to not renew tenancies and sell up at the end of the current one even if its a good one.
At least the houses for sale crisis will be solved soon.

Eric Cartman

LotharIngum wrote: »

Should be loads of houses and apartments for sale soon.
Every landlord who I know of it seems is now either giving notice that they are selling up straight away or planning to not renew tenancies and sell up at the end of the current one even if its a good one.
At least the houses for sale crisis will be solved soon.

Aload of agreements on btl debts end in 2019 and people havent paid the mortgage fully to date, expect a lot of reposession proceedings to begin this year

beauf

I'm getting the feeling the govt has just dumped another can of petrol on the crisis.

Old diesel

The houses won't disappear though - so the question to be addressed is what is the best policy to address how these homes will get used.

How many of them should be owner occupied????.

How many should ideally come back to rental market - and who should be buying them for that purpose.

Part of the challenge with the current rental supply is that it's in the hands of random people whose decisions are random in the context of a bigger picture.

You wouldnt be able to run a company with 170 k people if all 170 k wanted to do their own thing and make totally random decisions.

But we want to rebuild housing like that.

It's not very workable.

The system will likely need to evolve from the traditional model.

People talk of the backstop in Brexit terms.

Housing almost feels like it needs backstop solutions with a supply chain cranked up to identify the housing needs of the country and to deliver the housing with some always taken up by a backstop housing company.

Such a company which could be state backed would take on supply that comes into the housing market both new and 2nd hand so people have homes to move into.

The reality is that a tenant can't create supply in housing. But the exact same Tenant can have a company Passat for their work ordered up to a spec from the VW factory even on a lease car they will never actually own.

Housing needs some of that thinking imo.

Klonker

Great interesting discussion on here particularly around social housing with no easy answers.

My big annoyance is why can't our politicians have this discussion in public with questions and debate? They're all afraid say anything bad about social tenants and people on the dole etc. and some of this is the media's fault for witch hunting anyone who does say anything. The whole thing of social tenants are no more likely to be bad neighbours and cause harm etc is a joke, why lie about it? It's the same with the travellers. Then you'll get it's because there are no parks or playgrounds there, that's why there's issues. If there was a park it would be a no go area with work bikes and anti social behaviour and they'd burn the park! You can throw in that draw in Strokestown too, not paying a cent for 10 years and feel entitled to stay in the house ffs.

This is just a rant but an honest discussion on the problems and issues of social housing needs to be discussed nationally with politicians and the media playing their large part.

There's not enough about tenants and particularly HAP tenants not paying rent to private landlords also. Like if the landlords were all making as much as some would like you to believe why the hell are they selling in record numbers? Media and politicians talk about needing to bring in regulations to stop landlords SELLING THEIR OWN ASSETS!, without ever discussing why this is the case. It's all a load of left wing, no offending anyone nonsense.