State competing against First Time Buyers

oceanman

Wexforllion wrote: »

I know someone who spent 370k on a house.
They are slaving every day with no spare cash only to to find their neighbors were gifted a council house. To make it worse the neighbors are loud, inconsiderate and just seem to hang around all day making a nuisance of themselves. Demoralizing.

The truth is this Country is perfect for the rich and poor. The normal people keep the rich getting richer and keep the poor(or sometimes lazy) housed.

why don't you join one of those groups?.....the rich or the poor.

Wexforllion

oceanman wrote: »

why don't you join one of those groups?.....the rich or the poor.

Its not so easy to break into the rich. Its like the royal family . If you arent born into it, to move up you need to take risks and have a lot of luck.

I have been raised to work, I never really considered becoming a welfare bum.

oceanman

Wexforllion wrote: »

Its not so easy to break into the rich. Its like the royal family . If you arent born into it, to move up you need to take risks and have a lot of luck.

I have been raised to work, I never really considered becoming a welfare bum.

fair enough.

Ray Palmer

I think people dont quite understand certain aspects of REITs and developers. Planning rules are different for to let construction. The developer can build more properties in this case. They can't be sold to private individuals as residents so not being taken from the market.
Occupancy rates in rentals is higher than privately owned property.
So REITs funding to let developments house more people and quickly. There is an increase in property to live which is what we need.

Old diesel

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

Old diesel

The cost of emergency accommodation is off the scale.

I saw a figure of 3500 to house a family for 2 weeks recently.

That would be 364 k over 4 years.

You could instead buy a house on the market - and if a family stays there more then 4 years - you start getting payback vs the hotel option.

So it's a logical step.

Presumably there is no need to tender to buy houses from the market.

jimmycrackcorm

Old diesel wrote: »

The cost of emergency accommodation is off the scale.

I saw a figure of 3500 to house a family for 2 weeks recently.

That would be 364 k over 4 years.

You could instead buy a house on the market - and if a family stays there more then 4 years - you start getting payback vs the hotel option.

So it's a logical step.

Presumably there is no need to tender to buy houses from the market.

How exactly is hitting a free 364k house a logical step?

The logical step is to build mass cheap council
housing. Sell a percentage privately as affordable housing to achieve a "mix" of social and private.

The argument against social housing is about breeding anti social behaviour. This can be dealt with by putting in place solid actions to remove / evict undesirables.

Under no circumstances should the social housing be sold off. There should be no concept of a free 4eva home. Once a family grows up then the trending occupants should be moved to more appropriately sized accommodation to free up larger homes for needy families. But of course, this can't happen in this country full of bleeding hearts.

Ray Palmer

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

The problem with this view is it rewards lack of personal responsibility and punishes those who do take personal responsibility.

Access to housing what is needed not housing to be provide for free or extremely cheap to everyone.

Old diesel

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

The cost of emergency accommodation is off the scale.

I saw a figure of 3500 to house a family for 2 weeks recently.

That would be 364 k over 4 years.

You could instead buy a house on the market - and if a family stays there more then 4 years - you start getting payback vs the hotel option.

So it's a logical step.

Presumably there is no need to tender to buy houses from the market.

How exactly is hitting a free 364k house a logical step?

The logical step is to build mass cheap council
housing. Sell a percentage privately as affordable housing to achieve a "mix" of social and private.

The argument against social housing is about breeding anti social behaviour. This can be dealt with by putting in place solid actions to remove / evict undesirables.

Under no circumstances should the social housing be sold off. There should be no concept of a free 4eva home. Once a family grows up then the trending occupants should be moved to more appropriately sized accommodation to free up larger homes for needy families. But of course, this can't happen in this country full of bleeding hearts.

364 k is what not buying or building *anything* costs you in emergency accommodation costs.

Remember too - the house that's built under mass production still costs *something* to build.

The purchase of homes cannot be the only solution of course.

But in the short term it can get someone into a home quickly.

At a cost that is at worst no more than 4 to 5 years emergency accomodation...

It's not perfect but it's worthwhile if you can get houses available to people on housing lists and what not quicker...

In an era where 1500 euros a month for glorified house shares - sorry I mean co living for small rooms are a solution to housing shortage - its not the worst idea for the State to buy some homes from the market.

.......

Roisin76 wrote: »

If the State started hiring construction workers directly you'd be complaining that the State is sucking up the workforce out of the private sector.

Plus, as noticed above. Public investments are NEVER as efficient as private investments.

Give it two, maybe three more years and people will be moaning about oversupply and flooding the market with ghost estates. The irony of the cyclical Green Island.

In 2012 we were being told it would take 43 years to fill all the empty properties in the country.

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/itll-take-us-43-years-to-fill-all-empty-houses-26863864.html

Old diesel

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

The problem with this view is it rewards lack of personal responsibility and punishes those who do take personal responsibility.

Access to housing what is needed not housing to be provide for free or extremely cheap to everyone.

Access at what cost though......

Who decides what is an acceptable price for anyone to pay for a house.

Presunably there is also a point where the house is also too dear right?????.

My point is that whatever about free houses - it's likely cheaper for the state to buy a house then pay a hotel - long term.

The Specialist

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

This is the kind of view enabling these lazy parasites - in what sane world should someone sitting on the dole be given a 200-300k house for absolutely nothing, while everyone else has to pay through the eyeballs and work their ass off to own one?

And I would think a first time buyer has a much bigger entitlement to a house than some freeloader, you know considering they are have saved a deposit and are willing to PAY for the house....

This is most certainly a them vs us situation - the wasters,freeloaders and parasites who have never worked a wet day with their hands out vs the taxpayers who bust their holes going out every day to work to fund their social welfare.

BrokenArrows

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

Because the state buying on the open market pushes prices up even further. They have very deep pockets so its not realistic to compete with them. You cant outbid them.

If they overpay for 1 house in an estate then that sets a bench mark price for every house in that estate of the same type. Pushing prices up even more.

The people who cant afford to buy or rent end up possibly falling into the homeless category (as wide as that definition seems to be these days).

The_Brood

I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.

ted1

Dolbhad wrote: »

Wow that is very surprising. I don’t understand why the government won’t built. They have the land and surely, as the article points out, they are market value for houses they could build cheaply. I grow up in a council house and they knew how to build them in the 80’s!

Really shows they don’t care about those getting up to work and pay taxes.

The state have to buy 10% for part v. Which is the requirements for social housing

BrokenArrows

The_Brood wrote: »

I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.

Buy outside of dublin with your current dublin salaries. Then once you have purchased outside of dublin and your monthly repayments are much less than rent, you will be able to afford to change jobs to somewhere nearer to your house. You will have a lower salary, but at least you will have a house.

Its a **** situation, but you cant have everything.

Old diesel

The Specialist wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

This is the kind of view enabling these lazy parasites - in what sane world should someone sitting on the dole be given a 200-300k house for absolutely nothing, while everyone else has to pay through the eyeballs and work their ass off to own one?

And I would think a first time buyer has a much bigger entitlement to a house than some freeloader, you know considering they are have saved a deposit and are willing to PAY for the house....

This is most certainly a them vs us situation - the wasters,freeloaders and parasites who have never worked a wet day with their hands out vs the taxpayers who bust their holes going out every day to work to fund their social welfare.

The first time buyer has an entitlement to buy a house.

What they dont have an entitlement to is to stop someone else buying the house - perhaps because they offered a better price.

The person on the housing list is allowed to access social housing because their circumstances fit the criteria.

The state has obviously decided that in the short term some social housing can be delivered by buying homes from the market.

Unless your solution is to stop people going into any social housing then I still don't see the problem.

If someone gets a social house then does it matter where it came from?????.

Wheeliebin30

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

Homeless crisis my hole.

A tiny tiny amount of wasters have now found out why they shouldn’t have dossed in school and actually took responsibilty themselves.

Tough you reap what you sow.

Why is it called a homeless crisis in Ireland yet most country’s have more homeless and its never referred to as a crisis?

Absolute scam and gravy train.

No one should ever get a new house for 40 euro a week if they have criminal records, are too lazy to work.

While working people get the same house and pay 1000 a month.

The Specialist

Old diesel wrote: »

If someone gets a social house then does it matter where it came from?????.

Yes it absolutely does matter when the government are buying up houses in new developments for them - as I said how can you justify a freeloader being handed a 300k house for nothing in a street full of people who worked their asses off to buy theirs?

Go and build social housing estates for these people and give them their free houses in those estates - if they want to live in 300k house then they can get off their lazy ****ing arses and work for it like the rest of us.

The_Brood

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The_Brood wrote: »

I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.

Buy outside of dublin with your current dublin salaries. Then once you have purchased outside of dublin and your monthly repayments are much less than rent, you will be able to afford to change jobs to somewhere nearer to your house. You will have a lower salary, but at least you will have a house.

Its a **** situation, but you cant have everything.

If only it was that simple. It took me 4 years of applying for jobs to get the one I have now. I have looked elsewhere but this is the only available place that took me on. Outside of Dublin they rarely if ever have jobs in my line of work. I don't understand how regular Dublin salaries are not enough to be able to afford to live in Dublin itself, other than if you permanently rent, which has a very heavy consequence at the end.

Old diesel

The Specialist wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

If someone gets a social house then does it matter where it came from?????.

Yes it absolutely does matter when the government are buying up houses in new developments for them - as I said how can you justify a freeloader being handed a 300k house for nothing in a street full of people who worked their asses off to buy theirs?

Go and build social housing estates for these people and give them their free houses in those estates - if they want to live in 300k house then they can get off their lazy ****ing arses and work for it like the rest of us.

What kind of house do you expect social housing tenants to live in.....

What type of cost do you think should be paid?????.

And are you willing to see 91 k going out the gate to pay a hotel owner or the like each year - just to keep someone out of a 200 k to 300 k house.

Btw 180 to 200 k is the type of figure trotted out as a potential cost per home for new social housing.

So a brand new house is going to be a 200 k house even in a "social housing estate".

It might even be more if you get into stupid procurement process which adds cost.

The Specialist

Old diesel wrote: »

What kind of house do you expect social housing tenants to live in.....

What type of cost do you think should be paid?????.

And are you willing to see 91 k going out the gate to pay a hotel owner or the like each year - just to keep someone out of a 200 k to 300 k house.

Btw 180 to 200 k is the type of figure trotted out as a potential cost per home for new social housing.

So a brand new house is going to be a 200 k house even in a "social housing estate".

It might even be more if you get into stupid procurement process which adds cost.

As basic an accommodation unit as possible that can be built in 2/3/4 bed capacity, no frills and no expensive finishes. Should significantly lower the cost of building them. Why should they be given anything more than that?

rosmoke

Both working professionals, can't get a mortgage for the same type of house others receive for free.

There shouldn't even be a debate, it's like some are winning the lotto while others are stuck in paying 1800 rent.
Of course this is wrong, and it is wrong at so many levels there are no words to describe.

Old diesel

The Specialist wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

What kind of house do you expect social housing tenants to live in.....

What type of cost do you think should be paid?????.

And are you willing to see 91 k going out the gate to pay a hotel owner or the like each year - just to keep someone out of a 200 k to 300 k house.

Btw 180 to 200 k is the type of figure trotted out as a potential cost per home for new social housing.

So a brand new house is going to be a 200 k house even in a "social housing estate".

It might even be more if you get into stupid procurement process which adds cost.

As basic an accommodation unit as possible that can be built in 2/3/4 bed capacity, no frills and no expensive finishes. Should significantly lower the cost of building them. Why should they be given anything more than that?

What do you consider a frill?????.

Heating?????.

Modern insulation???????.

What efficiency standard are you going for.....

Efficiency matters as we have climate change targets to look at.

So should avoid building homes with poor energy efficiency.

We will actually need to deep retrofit homes in the future.

So makes sense to get any new homes (of all kinds) as right as possible from the start.

Better to get a 200 k house right from day 1 rather then pay 100 k now and then have to pay 150 k retrofit in 10 years.

The reality is that all housing costs money even at the cheapest level.

Ray Palmer

Old diesel wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Old diesel wrote: »

In a homelessness crisis i really can't see an issue with the state buying properties available on the open market to house people.

I dont think a first time buyer who actually has a place to live in should feel entitled to get to buy a house if that means stopping a family in a hotel room being housed.

Housing needs to be provided for all needs.

The them and us situation helps no one and wont solve a crIsis.

The problem with this view is it rewards lack of personal responsibility and punishes those who do take personal responsibility.

Access to housing what is needed not housing to be provide for free or extremely cheap to everyone.

Access at what cost though......

Who decides what is an acceptable price for anyone to pay for a house.

Presunably there is also a point where the house is also too dear right?????.

My point is that whatever about free houses - it's likely cheaper for the state to buy a house then pay a hotel - long term.

Your point that I was addressing was your belief social housing purchases are more important that private purchases.

The market decide on the value of the property nothing else. You want to have somebody controlling prices or wonder who should the answer is simple nobody. The market decides.

As for putting people in hotels,b&bs etc... being too expensive that is the governments fault. They increased the need for more social housing while not getting more stock after selling social housing to tenants. The cost of those decisions led to current costs.

Give you an example of waste. I know a women with 2 kids, she live in private rental 3 bed house paid for by HAP. Baby daddy 1 lives in a private rental 2 bed apartment paid for by HAP. Two beds because his son visits at weekend. Baby daddy 2 also has a 2 bed apartment paid for by HAP. That is 3 properties for 3 adults and 2 children. Easily 2 properties would do for the people. My mother grew up in a house where there were 4 kids, 2 parents and an adult lodger. The same type of house this single mother lives in with 2 kids. In a housing crisis it seems crazy for such a waste of property by the state.

The Specialist

Old diesel wrote: »

What do you consider a frill?????.

Heating?????.

Modern insulation???????.

What efficiency standard are you going for.....

Efficiency matters as we have climate change targets to look at.

So should avoid building homes with poor energy efficiency.

We will actually need to deep retrofit homes in the future.

So makes sense to get any new homes (of all kinds) as right as possible from the start.

Better to get a 200 k house right from day 1 rather then pay 100 k now and then have to pay 150 k retrofit in 10 years.

The reality is that all housing costs money even at the cheapest level.

Basics such as heating/energy rating obviously but I mean absolutely basic - here's your bedroom(s), bathroom, sitting room/kitchen (with a lick of standard paint and cheap white appliances) and a small garden area (sell the trampoline because it won't fit).

If they don't want to work and expect to get everything for free, then they should be provided the most basic accommodation going. I don't care how depressing that might sound to live in, if you want nice things you need to work for them and not sit around with your hands out playing poor little me - a lesson I hope is beaten relentlessly in to the next generation so we can fade out the welfare parasite society we have to deal with now.

Graham

Mod Note

The Specialist, please go and review the forum charter before posting again. Pay particular attention to the section that begins "Bashing of particular demographics...."

The_Brood

rosmoke wrote: »

Both working professionals, can't get a mortgage for the same type of house others receive for free.

There shouldn't even be a debate, it's like some are winning the lotto while others are stuck in paying 1800 rent.
Of course this is wrong, and it is wrong at so many levels there are no words to describe.

Amen. And it just goes to show how masterful politicians are they have reduced us to this circumstance yet are still getting us to vote for them, hoping for improvement that never comes.

Most are working people, most recognize how absurd and sever of a problem this is. Yet most are still tolerating it and helpless to change things.

Nightmare

rosmoke

I grew up living in a 50m2, 1 bedroom apartment within a family of 4 where both my parents were divorced, so we slept 3 in a bedroom and 1 in living room. They worked their ass off for it and it wasn't easy but it had to be done, nothing should come for free.
There's no excuse that some receive a free ticket in life or 300k. Most can earn their living IF they want.
I once had a lecturer who was blind and was doing his job very well, he is technically more f***ed by the system than Margaret Cash.

Cal4567

The_Brood wrote: »

I and my partner, both full time employed with decent savings, are trying to be first time buyers but are in absolute checkmate.

Even half decent homes anywhere near Dublin are insane prices and banks refuse to lend us the money. The most they could lend us is barely enough to buy a low level miserable kip.

We can't live outside Dublin far because our jobs are in Dublin.

The only thing we are left is being robbed blind by landlords living in a moldy shoebox, as is the condition now. But if we don't buy a house we will be too poor to pay rent after we retire.

It is absolute hell and I don't know what to do.

Was in exactly your situation. We bought outside Dublin and commute in now on the train. It was our only option to buy.