€700 million a year given to private landlords.

amcalester

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Because landlords can't officially decline HAP, when you set HAP to 800, the rent in an area then automatically becomes 900.

When HAP was set at 800, market rent was already 1000.

beauf

If anything HAP has capped the money given to HAP tenants.

The issue is that due to shortage of supply, the market rate keeps moving beyond that HAP allows.

Thus the critical issue is supply. Not anything else.

Eric Cartman

Graham wrote: »

Which bit of legislation limits market rent to HAP + €100?

there isnt , but the rule of thumb is generally the market rent will be far enough over the HAP threshold to make those on HAP not even bother calling.

amcalester wrote: »

When HAP was set at 800, market rent was already 1000.

there are parts of the country that arent the greater dublin area.

beauf

an_fathach wrote: »

It didnt though.
Many social housing estates were diasters and it was always crippling expensive.

Well which do you prefer that or the current housing crisis.

In fairness the new model of mixed development solves some of the social issues. But then it causes new ones.

pwurple

marieholmfan wrote: »

Landlords are not working people (even if they work) landlords are by definition rentiers.
Don't feel bad about not knowing this.

Um thanks, I guess? Yes, I'm well aware us landlords don't get to charge for our time spent, or set up a business, and indeed are a completely special category for maximisation of being screwed over. Notwithstanding this, we still "work" at providing and maintaining properties, vetting tenants, counselling and resolving their domestic disputes when they are putting fists through walls, doing paperwork for all the agencies involved, providing our capital, negotiating with neighbours, training people how to screw in a lightbulb and empty a hoover bag etc. Which is why I called us 'working'.

Magnatu

Highest HAP payments in Dublin



Dublin City Council €2,800

Fingal County Council €2,046

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown €1,950

South Dublin Council €1,950





Renting privately



Someone working 39 hours a week on the minimum wage receives €19367 –

which gives a take home pay of €18,258 a year or €1522 a month

amcalester

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there isnt , but the rule of thumb is generally the market rent will be far enough over the HAP threshold to make those on HAP not even bother calling.



there are parts of the country that arent the greater dublin area.

Very true, no idea why you're telling me that though.

There's a shortage of housing below the HAP limits in pretty much all areas of the country because the HAP limits are failing to keep pace with the increase in rental prices, not because landlords are pricing properties above the HAP limits.

HAP tenants can top up their payment any way, so pricing a property at HAP +100 (or whatever) will not necessarily dissuade people from applying.

Idbatterim

As if you have to be a landlord to want rising prices. Most of the decision makers on planning here etc will be homeowners, they want rising prices and have a vested interest...

Graham

Magnatu wrote: »

Highest HAP payments in Dublin

Dublin City Council €2,800

Fingal County Council €2,046

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown €1,950

South Dublin Council €1,950

Renting privately

Someone working 39 hours a week on the minimum wage receives €19367 –

which gives a take home pay of €18,258 a year or €1522 a month

If you think those exceptional figures represent the norm, your misguided understanding of the effect of HAP on market rents are somewhat understandable.

Idbatterim

Graham wrote: »

If you think those exceptional figures represent the norm, your misguided understanding of the effect of HAP on market rents are somewhat understandable.

Those figures are totally unacceptable, no matter what way you try to spin it. Build higher density and get those in social housing already , to pay their fair share! That would go a long way towards providing more housing!

cursai

Has this been solved yet? Has the corporate industrial machine not been shot?
Who's holding the gun?
How much rent are they charging?
And do they take the hap?

Magnatu

Social housing refusal rates are now very high.
Because of HAP.
And if a landlord argues that his income would be too low without the HAP millions let him leave the market or apply for means rested dole payments instead.

Magnatu

Graham wrote: »

There's little point setting the HAP limits at €800 if the going rate is €1300.

And how is a worker on minimum wage of €1500 a month meant to complete with a HAP payment of €1300 a month. Answer is they cant. Low income workers have been priced out of the rental market. By
HAP.

Graham

Magnatu wrote: »

And how is a worker on minimum wage of €1500 a month meant to complete with a HAP payment of €1300 a month. Answer is they cant. Low income workers have been priced out of the rental market. By
HAP.

Low income workers are being stretched because of increased market rates mostly as a result of lack of supply.

Eric Cartman

amcalester wrote: »

Very true, no idea why you're telling me that though.

There's a shortage of housing below the HAP limits in pretty much all areas of the country because the HAP limits are failing to keep pace with the increase in rental prices, not because landlords are pricing properties above the HAP limits.

HAP tenants can top up their payment any way, so pricing a property at HAP +100 (or whatever) will not necessarily dissuade people from applying.

But they are, being unable to refuse HAP, landlords are all opting to (outside of rpz’s) keep increasing rent above HAP rates, it creates an artificial floor and rasing HAP rates just increases rent everywhere. There are many landlords who do not want to take HAP and this is their only avenue, allowing landlords to specify no HAP again would lower rents in lower demand areas.

jimmycrackcorm

Magnatu wrote:

You are completely missing the point. It was ideological. There were large numbers of empty houses and NAMA had significant stocks which it offered to the government for social housing. FG rejected the offer. They decided to stop providing social housing at the exact time that tens of thousands of housing units were available to them. Instead they started to dramatically and significantly increase financial transfers to private landlords.

NAMA offered a large block of apartments in tallaght to SDCC for use for social housing at a very good price.

SDCC refused on the basis that they didn't want to have a non mixed social and private development.

Socisl housing tenants are a blocker themselves. As long as the bleeding heart approach that means expensive private housing is required for social housing we will never be able to provide enough.

The success in the past was to build council estates. But the anti social elements were never tackled to deal with the task problems preventing us from letting doing this.

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But they are, being unable to refuse HAP, landlords are all opting to (outside of rpz’s) keep increasing rent above HAP rates, it creates an artificial floor and rasing HAP rates just increases rent everywhere.

If a landlord can charge rent above the HAP limits that's an indication that the market rates are above HAP limits.

GGTrek

Magnatu wrote: »

Highest HAP payments in Dublin



Dublin City Council €2,800

Fingal County Council €2,046

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown €1,950

South Dublin Council €1,950





Renting privately



Someone working 39 hours a week on the minimum wage receives €19367 –

which gives a take home pay of €18,258 a year or €1522 a month

Like every good comrade you like to pass the propaganda line of the party. HAP limits are ridiculously low for Dublin.
They have not been changed since 1st July 2016 and it is useless to quote (as you have done) the top limits which are very much the tail of the distribution (and a tiny minority), you are just posting SF BS propaganda again which will get very strong pushback in this forum.


These are the HAP Limits in the Dublin region:
https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s7309/8%20HAP%20Report%20to%20Housing%20SPC.pdf
https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetings/documents/s19534/HAP%20RAS%20Leasing%20Presentation.pdf


1 adult in shared accommodation €430
1 adult €660
Couple €900
Couple or 1 adult with 1 child €1,250
Couple or 1 adult with 2 children €1,275
Couple or 1 adult with 3 children €1,300


So as you can see HAP on average is very cheap for the govvie and please stop quoting BS propaganda.

the_syco

nostro wrote: »

Social housing worked for generations.

Are you referring to the estates that are now no-go areas for most people? Or the estates that only locals would live in? Estates that the homeless refuse houses in if offered?

amcalester

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But they are, being unable to refuse HAP, landlords are all opting to (outside of rpz’s) keep increasing rent above HAP rates, it creates an artificial floor and rasing HAP rates just increases rent everywhere. There are many landlords who do not want to take HAP and this is their only avenue, allowing landlords to specify no HAP again would lower rents in lower demand areas.

The landlord can opt to increase the asking rent above the HAP limits, but if no one is willing to pay that he'll reduce it. That the landlord doesn't have to reduce it is evidence that HAP is trailing the market.

If rents start falling then HAP as it stands may create an artificial floor, but I would expect local councils to lower the HAP limits quicker than they are raising them to counter this.

the_syco

amcalester wrote: »

The landlord can opt to increase the asking rent above the HAP limits, but if no one is willing to pay that he'll reduce it. That the landlord doesn't have to reduce it is evidence that HAP is trailing the market.

If no-one is willing to pay, the LL may leave it above HAP limits, because some see no rent better than HAP rent.

Magnatu

the_syco wrote: »

If no-one is willing to pay, the LL may leave it above HAP limits, because some see no rent better than HAP rent.

Can ye not see the contradiction in what ye are claiming?
If market rent really was above HAP limits all a landlord would have to do is set rent asked for avove the limit and no HAP applicant could accept it. So it shows the argument that ye are forced to take the €700 million or that HAP is not keeping rents artificially high to be total nonsense.

I find the claims that ye are taking the money for alturistic reasons or that it wouldn't be fair to ask those in need of social housing to live in actual social housing to be equally ridiculous and self serving.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Are you referring to the estates that are now no-go areas for most people? Or the estates that only locals would live in? Estates that the homeless refuse houses in if offered?

I agree with your point in general....i.e. lumping social tenants in together is not the solution. There are, however, very few 'no-go' areas in Dublin any more. Couple of parts of Tallaght, O'Devaney Gardens, maybe one or two parts of Finglas, but sure why would you need to go through those areas anyway?


The irony is that the social housing program areas from the 50s through the 70s that were once considered rough are now mature and settled. Some are even in pretty high demand, like practically all of Marino, Donnycarney, Killester etc.

marieholmfan

O'Devanney Gardens?

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with your point in general....i.e. lumping social tenants in together is not the solution. There are, however, very few 'no-go' areas in Dublin any more. Couple of parts of Tallaght, O'Devaney Gardens, maybe one or two parts of Finglas, but sure why would you need to go through those areas anyway?


The irony is that the social housing program areas from the 50s through the 70s that were once considered rough are now mature and settled. Some are even in pretty high demand, like practically all of Marino, Donnycarney, Killester etc.

Eric Cartman

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with your point in general....i.e. lumping social tenants in together is not the solution. There are, however, very few 'no-go' areas in Dublin any more. Couple of parts of Tallaght, O'Devaney Gardens, maybe one or two parts of Finglas, but sure why would you need to go through those areas anyway?


The irony is that the social housing program areas from the 50s through the 70s that were once considered rough are now mature and settled. Some are even in pretty high demand, like practically all of Marino, Donnycarney, Killester etc.

social housing goes through phases , the real problem is concentrating people in the 16-35 age group. Areas like Marino ar much better now because theres almost no young people left in social housing there. its a great predictor for the future , Adamstown, Kilcock, Carrickmines to an extent , all currently housing social tenants with young children. When they become teens theres a high chance of those areas becoming 'no go' areas and it'll last until theres almost nobody under 30 left.

The_Conductor

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You are alleging that the last census is completely incorrect and that there are hundreds of thousands more people in the country than were counted (living in the houses counted as vacant).

Can you provide any evidence for any of the statements above? Because I don’t remember any massive restatement of CSO results. (I don’t remember any law being passed allowing ministers to demand census data either.)

For starters: from the Irish Times That just relates to Fingal- there are similar startling discrepancies across all local authorities- and if you Google- you'll find lots of media discussion concerning the matter.

Essentially- the CSO recorded large numbers of properties as vacant- that the local authorities when they investigated found not to be vacant. There ensued a verbal spat between the local authorities and the CSO- the gist of which is the CSO's definition of a vacant dwelling does not correspond with the local authority's definition (don't ask me how or why they differ- but they do).

If you Google you can find this discrepancy replicated across the board- and you can also find CSO statements and counter statements from the Dublin local authorities- on the matter.

Graham

Magnatu wrote: »

I find the claims that ye are taking the money for alturistic reasons or that it wouldn't be fair to ask those in need of social housing to live in actual social housing to be equally ridiculous and self serving.

put the strawman away.

amcalester

the_syco wrote: »

If no-one is willing to pay, the LL may leave it above HAP limits, because some see no rent better than HAP rent.

That is a possibility, but with the make up of landlords in Ireland owning mostly 1 or 2 properties I think that is unlikely.

The majority will either sell up, which appears to be happening,or lower the rent/accept HAP.

Graham

Eric Cartman wrote: »

social housing goes through phases , the real problem is concentrating people in the 16-35 age group.

I spotted something in the Irish Times yesterday that suggests plans are afoot to incentivise older/retired households could be offered incentives to move from accommodation that may now be larger than needed.

If I can find the link again I'll post it up but the gist was the incentives would apply to owner occupiers and social housing tenants.

That might help limit the concentrations of specific age demographics being concentrated into new developments.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

O'Devanney Gardens?

Yes. I'm aware the flats themselves have been derelict/torn down for a few years but the area in and around the old flats ain't exactly Bel Air.......Montpelier Park is one of the estates I think.