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
State competing against First Time Buyers
Options
Comments
-
To be clear Thornwood estate in Beaumont was bought by Tuath for social housing. The purchase price was €450k per property. Rent is €55 a week and they are A rated.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.
They stopped local families from being able to purchase and charge pittance in rent. Fantastic deal but knocks your claims of costs out of the water.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »
To be clear Thornwood estate in Beaumont was bought by Tuath for social housing. The purchase price was €450k per property. Rent is €55 a week and they are A rated.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.
They stopped local families from being able to purchase and charge pittance in rent. Fantastic deal but knocks your claims of costs out of the water.
If Thornwood is the same place i recall.....
The big issue there was the moron developer/seller deciding to pull out of agreements with normal buyers and then selling to Tuath.
The 450 k is very strong money too.
But I don't think that alters the wider idea of the state purchasing homes.
Would you be happier with the state buying the homes if people on 100 k a year were to pay 1400 a month for them.
For me the old random person buying to let model is NOT sufficiently reliable for the future as the only source of future accommodation.
Ditto the REITS.....
Need a 3rd tier - a backstop.
I see as a general concept the state buying some properties as a route to achieving that.
So I've no problem with the state buying some properties.
They could even provide a route to allow landlords leave the sector but the tenants stay in the property.0 -
Old desil
Your claim was property only cost 200k to buy. I have given you an example of how they paid over double that.
Not sure why you deflect direct responses to specific points by bringing up other stuff.
To be clear you made a statement proved not to be factual.
The only issue with the purchase of the estate was one group bought them for social housing not aware of ones sold.
€1400 a month on €100k is bloody great. My mortgage was that when our combined salary was €65k and we were doing much better than our friends. If we could have got rent at €55 a week would be doing amazing. Well over a grand better off a month and a far superior house to boot.
Not sure why you think being in social housing should mean people with it are in a far superior situation to those that provide for themselves. It would cost over €60k to bring my home up to this standard. We also paid stamp duty equal to over 7 years of their rent and pay LPT while they don't.
Do you not see how inequitable this is and how it seems extremely unfair?0 -
Old diesel wrote: »If Thornwood is the same place i recall.....
The big issue there was the moron developer/seller deciding to pull out of agreements with normal buyers and then selling to Tuath.
The 450 k is very strong money too.
But I don't think that alters the wider idea of the state purchasing homes.
Would you be happier with the state buying the homes if people on 100 k a year were to pay 1400 a month for them.
For me the old random person buying to let model is NOT sufficiently reliable for the future as the only source of future accommodation.
Ditto the REITS.....
Need a 3rd tier - a backstop.
I see as a general concept the state buying some properties as a route to achieving that.
So I've no problem with the state buying some properties.
They could even provide a route to allow landlords leave the sector but the tenants stay in the property.
The State (via local authorities) are not capable of managing housing stock which is where the Approved Housing Body came about.
It is completely unfair that two people can live on the same street where the council own one property and the other is mortgaged. The person in the council property is paying a differential rate while the other is paying a mortgage.
There is no incentive on the council tenant to save for their future or try to better themselves so they purchase nice cars, go on holidays and buy expensive electrical equipment.
Now compare that to the person who is purchasing their own home, they can't afford a nice car, can't afford holidays, or expensive electrical equipment.
We are encouraging an "entitlement culture" whereby people feel they are entitled to something whereas those who are working and outside the welfare system get nothing in comparison to those in the system.
This is one of the main reasons there is so much frustration around, rather than encouraging people to stand on their own two feet (or as much as possible) we encourage them to feel entitled.0 -
OK. If that's unfair though what is the solution as putting social housing tenants on their own doesn't work.
There is one big advantage for owners. It is their asset and they will have the choice to move on benefiting from that asset.0 -
Advertisement
-
OK. If that's unfair though what is the solution as putting social housing tenants on their own doesn't work.
There is one big advantage for owners. It is their asset and they will have the choice to move on benefiting from that asset.
Actually it's not their asset, bank owns it until it's paid off, so 30 years.
Not sure if that's still possible, but a few years ago my neighbour bought her social housing semi-d house with 50k, next door neighbours signed on 315k mortgage for a terraced.
Most of social housing tenants can and should work like the rest of us, give them a job, not a free house.
Both working professionals, married for 10 years and we can't afford a child or a house, while others have 6 kids and are crying on TV that government doesn't do anything for them, sickening.0 -
OK. If that's unfair though what is the solution as putting social housing tenants on their own doesn't work.
There is one big advantage for owners. It is their asset and they will have the choice to move on benefiting from that asset.
Putting social housing tenants on their own would work if we as a society dealt with the small number of those who create anti social issues in social housing areas.
99.9% of those people in social housing areas are the nicest people you will ever meet. It is the .01% who cause the trouble.
Evict those who cause the trouble, move them to a rural location where they can't cause problems, if the location does not have facilities then that's tough. They were living in accommodation that had facilities but they choose to cause anti social problems. There has to be some consequences for not adhering to what society deems as normal behavior.
We have this bizarre notion that we have to look after everybody no matter what they do. I for one don't agree with this philosophy.
Yes help those that need it, but at some point realize some people just can't be helped no matter what you do for them.
Behavior is learnt and if it not changed it will continue on. We need to actively discourage the wrong behavior.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »Old desil
Your claim was property only cost 200k to buy. I have given you an example of how they paid over double that.
Not sure why you deflect direct responses to specific points by bringing up other stuff.
To be clear you made a statement proved not to be factual.
The only issue with the purchase of the estate was one group bought them for social housing not aware of ones sold.
€1400 a month on €100k is bloody great. My mortgage was that when our combined salary was €65k and we were doing much better than our friends. If we could have got rent at €55 a week would be doing amazing. Well over a grand better off a month and a far superior house to boot.
Not sure why you think being in social housing should mean people with it are in a far superior situation to those that provide for themselves. It would cost over €60k to bring my home up to this standard. We also paid stamp duty equal to over 7 years of their rent and pay LPT while they don't.
Do you not see how inequitable this is and how it seems extremely unfair?
180 to 200 k is what I've seen cited for a local authority to build a social house.
I'm sorry I wasnt clearer when I said it originally.
I was trying to point out at the time that even a home in a social housing estate has a cost..
That cost was cited by Simon Coveney and experts like Mel Reynolds in the 180 to 200 k bracket.
When someone goes buying in the open market then prices can vary depending on what property, it's location.
My point on cost is that if it's costing 91 k to keep someone in a hotel or other accommodation....
That's 364 k over 4 years.
Even with the 450 k property as bad as it is - that's still only 5 years emergency accomodation cost.
And the 450 k house is STILL there at the end of the period.0 -
450 k is actually excessive but the wider point of this thread was the simple concept of the state competing for property against first time buyers.
Not the ethics of the prices paid0 -
Old diesel wrote: »450 k is actually excessive but the wider point of this thread was the simple concept of the state competing for property against first time buyers.
Not the ethics of the prices paid
By competing with first time buyers the State is putting a floor on the prices houses will sell for.
In around about way the State is circumventing the Central Bank rules. If the State did not compete then theoretically the house would only sell for the price the mortgage holders could get as a mortgage plus whatever savings/help they get from parents etc.
These people who were outbid must now save more to compete the next time a house comes up. This then results in these bidders having to pay more for the same house and with it the associated VAT etc.
So they are being screwed firstly by being outbid by the State then having to pay more for a property including VAT that the State gets back.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Student wrote: »So they are being screwed firstly by being outbid by the State then having to pay more for a property including VAT that the State gets back.
Not to mention they are also being screwed from another angle in that the 20%/40% income tax they pay from working is being used by the State to purchase said properties for people not working.0 -
The ethics and the prices paid are exactly what the thread is about. The consequences of the governments actions on those paying their own way.Old diesel wrote: »450 k is actually excessive but the wider point of this thread was the simple concept of the state competing for property against first time buyers.
Not the ethics of the prices paid
As for your simple logic and maths I am afraid you don't understand basic accounting and doubt you have correct figures.
91k a year on a hotel is €250 a night. That would be way way above a standard hotel room in Dublin. The council negotiated cheaper than standard rates so I am pretty sure that figure is way off. Can you provide proof of this figure?
Then using your simple maths you get in 4 years they spend just over €360k and compare it to a purchase price of €450k and they own it.
The thing is owning a property costs money and it has to be maintained. So you thinking for an extra 90k they have an asset. The reality is they have a liability that they have to maintain and calculate the running costs of such as LPT, boiler maintenance replacement, windows etc...
With the hotel costs there is a 23% vat charge which goes back into the government's pocket. The house is also covered under the right to buy later. The house will never be worth €450k to the council again because they will always sell it for less to the resident than cost.
Let's not forget the tenants are able to save well over €1k a month so in 5 years should have a €60k deposit too.
The whole reason to provide social housing is an ethical argument so it all falls squarely on the ethics of the impact of doing this.0 -
Ray Palmer wrote: »The ethics and the prices paid are exactly what the thread is about. The consequences of the governments actions on those paying their own way.
As for your simple logic and maths I am afraid you don't understand basic accounting and doubt you have correct figures.
91k a year on a hotel is €250 a night. That would be way way above a standard hotel room in Dublin. The council negotiated cheaper than standard rates so I am pretty sure that figure is way off. Can you provide proof of this figure?
Then using your simple maths you get in 4 years they spend just over €360k and compare it to a purchase price of €450k and they own it.
The thing is owning a property costs money and it has to be maintained. So you thinking for an extra 90k they have an asset. The reality is they have a liability that they have to maintain and calculate the running costs of such as LPT, boiler maintenance replacement, windows etc...
With the hotel costs there is a 23% vat charge which goes back into the government's pocket. The house is also covered under the right to buy later. The house will never be worth €450k to the council again because they will always sell it for less to the resident than cost.
Let's not forget the tenants are able to save well over €1k a month so in 5 years should have a €60k deposit too.
The whole reason to provide social housing is an ethical argument so it all falls squarely on the ethics of the impact of doing this.
I got the 91 k figure - by taking the 3500 for 2 weeks cited in this article
https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Emergency-accommodation-in-Cork-City-is-full-with-homeless-families-forced-into-the-county-7e0bfe93-a9dc-4630-937b-f3f1414e6a6d-ds and multiplying it by 26.
If we take a nice reasonable price for a hotel room of 125 a night - that still gives you 45 k a year - or 450 k over 10 years.
The chances of getting a room for a family of 4 for 125 a night seem slim.
The whole housing situation is a mess with many different elements to that mess.
For a lot of first time buyers i suspect the answer could be the co op model like Hugh Brennans
https://www.housing.eolasmagazine.ie/o-cualanns-co-operative-vision/.
Why pay 450 k if with Hughs model you could have a home of your own for 200 k or thereabouts. Needs government backing though.0 -
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
Yeah , you’d probably never fill them. However the properties in nice parts of dublin and commuter towns you’d fill in a heartbeat. Still plenty of empty properties in crime riddled estates and rural locations that nobody on either the housing list or mortgaged wants. Thats where the issue lies0 -
Old Diesel
I see now that you took an exceptional circumstance as the standard pricing. That is not the case for all emergency housing and I have seen figures of €100 in Dublin for families with 2 rooms.
As I already explained to you calculation for the value of a house compared to emergency accommodation is too simplistic. To add to that they are 2 separate services types. The hotels do more than if you were living in a property. The are cleaning the rooms for example. These people should be paid for their service and that costs.
Yes some great ideas with coop building and that is how my in laws built their house in the 70s. It isn't new but the additional restrictions on the model you post make it next to impossible to do. Very few construction firms would want to get involved.
We really dont have a housing issue we have an occupancy issues. Vast areas of Dublin are grossly under occupied. Houses containing 1 to 2 people that can hold families. That is where effort should be focused because it would have the biggest impact quickly.0 -
Mod Note
The Specialist, do not post on this thread again.0 -
The problem is people in council houses shouldn't get to live in properties that are to the same standard as those who bought their own house.
This creates a scenario were some people will decide they are better off not working.
Build up some kind of cheap barracks to house the "homeless" seems like the only solution.
As long as there is something there to be taken for free, there will always be someone willing to take it.
The unfortunate thing is that its the people who really need help due to unpredictable or unforeseen circumstances that will suffer. But there are leeches out there and it cant be denied. Anyone who is pro council houses attitude quickly changes when one is housed next door.0 -
On my street (15 houses) I know of 3 houses with no one living in them for years, I'm gonna fill that online form from vacanthomes.ie now.
I'd suggest others do the same.0 -
Absolutely. The same problem, over and over again. Who wants to take part in the lottery where you might get the problem social housing in their neighbourhood?The Student wrote: »Putting social housing tenants on their own would work if we as a society dealt with the small number of those who create anti social issues in social housing areas.
The State has decided that the best way to deal with anti-social behaviour is to spread it around middle class estates instead of concentrating it in social housing estates. I've seen this at work in Limerick during "regeneration" - the relatively small number of troublesome social housing tenants were spread all over the city, and ended up wrecking estates full of people who bought their own houses. This is still going on.
The problem with this new plan of 10% social housing in private estates is that the middle class population has decided that they don't want to take the chance, so we are not building as much as is needed to meet demand.
The State buying extra new builds on top of this is a scam - a sleight of hand really. Instead of buying a house with 10% social housing, you might find it's 30 or 40%. Wait until this becomes common knowledge, and then you'll see demand drop away.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Hope you get decent tenants in, if you get scumbags in you might no longer suggest others do the same!
I've already someone who used to rob banks living in the next house, we're friends, I'm sorted.
Sad reality is I'm not even joking, maybe exaggerated a bit with 'friends', but other than that ..0 -
Wexforllion wrote: »The problem is people in council houses shouldn't get to live in properties that are to the same standard as those who bought their own house.
This creates a scenario were some people will decide they are better off not working.
Build up some kind of cheap barracks to house the "homeless" seems like the only solution.
As long as there is something there to be taken for free, there will always be someone willing to take it.
The unfortunate thing is that its the people who really need help due to unpredictable or unforeseen circumstances that will suffer. But there are leeches out there and it cant be denied. Anyone who is pro council houses attitude quickly changes when one is housed next door.
I don't think the standard is the problem here but just giving away houses because someone walked in somewhere and said "I'm homeless". Definition of "homeless" in this country doesn't have any touch with reality.
Definition mentioned here needs to be addressed first and then sort the relations to it:
"Key legislation relating to homelessness in Ireland includes the Health Act, 1953 and Childcare Act, 1991, the Housing Act 1988 and most recently the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009."
https://www.homelessdublin.ie/info/policy
Homeless is a person who doesn't have family to stay with, doesn't have a roof under their head of any kind. Not someone who is in the payed hotel, hostel or what ever else there might be. Then everyone who is not a home owner is basically "homeless".0 -
Absolutely. The same problem, over and over again. Who wants to take part in the lottery where you might get the problem social housing in their neighbourhood?
The State has decided that the best way to deal with anti-social behaviour is to spread it around middle class estates instead of concentrating it in social housing estates. I've seen this at work in Limerick during "regeneration" - the relatively small number of troublesome social housing tenants were spread all over the city, and ended up wrecking estates full of people who bought their own houses. This is still going on.
The problem with this new plan of 10% social housing in private estates is that the middle class population has decided that they don't want to take the chance, so we are not building as much as is needed to meet demand.
The State buying extra new builds on top of this is a scam - a sleight of hand really. Instead of buying a house with 10% social housing, you might find it's 30 or 40%. Wait until this becomes common knowledge, and then you'll see demand drop away.
Here though you are assuming that all social housing tenants are a 'problem'. In reality, it is about 5% who are so.0 -
Here though you are assuming that all social housing tenants are a 'problem'. In reality, it is about 5% who are so.
The issue is not with social housing tenants per se, it is the States unwillingness to deal with them when they do cause issues. If the State is unwilling to deal with these people who do cause the issues then people don't want to "run the risk" of getting a social housing tenant beside them in the first place.0 -
-
Lots of figures been bandied about here about what the cost of a social house should cost to build.
And it is no wonder people are throwing these figures about when they are quoting Simon Coveney.
Coveney and his ilk are the very people responsible for this whole mess. They have been in power too long at this stage. They sold all the properties and land at fire sale prices through NAMA and now they are dependant on the small percentages that are built for social housing by the very developers who bought the land at rock bottom prices or they have a scenario whereby the Council has to buy at retail prices.
Had the politicians in power set aside these very properties for social housing, then the Councils could have went back to what they used to do and actually build social and affordable housing at the required cost prices.
Its cost the taxpayer a shít load of money and benefited big time developers and vulture funds.
Its come full circle and you now have the state competing, when they shouldn't have to be had they got the basics right. Incompetence definitely. Corruption possibly.0
Advertisement