The real problem with Housing in Ireland

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand, you complain at length about the amount of tax that you are paying, and that it should be reduced. On the other hand you want the State to start building more houses.

The mind boggles at the cognitive dissonance. With what money will the State build houses if it is reducing your taxes?

no not at all, you want to know where I want the money to come from? no problem, social housing start paying appropriate rents. You allow cheaper to build units, this dual aspect bull**** and all of the current requirements, its just far too expensive, to house masses of people. Minimum densities that effectively stop house building in urban areas, in dublin at least inside the m50, not what is most profitable for the developer. This would result in more money spent on a development, more more units, higher construction related taxes back to the government, more development levies, more LPT... you see where I am going with this? imagine housing people centrally instead of an hour commute easy way in misery on our **** transport system. Now I am talking really mad **** here, I get that, other countries have had proper planning and developments along the line of what I propose for decades. But I am awaiting your excuse as to why ireland is unique :rolleyes:

there is such resistance to any change here, I am talking about something , with as little upsetting the apple cart as possible...

This nonsense that is oh so complex, no, its very straight forward!

Jinglejangle69

blanch152 wrote: »

On the one hand, you complain at length about the amount of tax that you are paying, and that it should be reduced. On the other hand you want the State to start buildi

The mind boggles at the cognitive dissonance. With what money will the State build houses if it is reducing your taxes?

Exactly the poster gives out about FG giving social housing to people then complains they don’t build any.

Really?

Idbatterim

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

There's a few problems as far as I can tell:
Nimbyism. They should never be allowed comment on the housing crisis again.

Putting social housing in urban areas ideal for tax payers

Refusing to build up. Even a few extra stories.


City centre should be designated for workers, be they single or not, no place to raise a family. Family homes in the suburbs. Social housing, whatever is left

the nimbyism thing will always be there. But there are now a good few high rise approved even by DCC directly, without the developer appealling the refusal to ABP. for example, the 79.5 m building, that has just been approved yesterday beside ronans new tara street tower. DCC approved it, ten floor residential or so, on top of the ten floor commercial below it. I think the planning authorities here, have finally gotten real. Go look at the sheer amount of planning applications going through first time round now, way higher than would have been permitted before...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/marlet-to-add-10-storey-apartment-tower-to-top-of-apollo-house-office-scheme-1.4105981?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Fmarlet-to-add-10-storey-apartment-tower-to-top-of-apollo-house-office-scheme-1.4105981

tom1ie

Idbatterim wrote: »

the nimbyism thing will always be there. But there are now a good few high rise approved even by DCC directly, without the developer appealling the refusal to ABP. for example, the 79.5 m building, that has just been approved yesterday beside ronans new tara street tower. DCC approved it, ten floor residential or so, on top of the ten floor commercial below it. I think the planning authorities here, have finally gotten real. Go look at the sheer amount of planning applications going through first time round now, way higher than would have been permitted before...

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/marlet-to-add-10-storey-apartment-tower-to-top-of-apollo-house-office-scheme-1.4105981?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fcommercial-property%2Fmarlet-to-add-10-storey-apartment-tower-to-top-of-apollo-house-office-scheme-1.4105981

Genuine question, but are these apartments available to buy or are they owned by an investment company or large landlord?
I just wonder what sort of price point the rent/sale price will be.

Idbatterim

tom1ie wrote: »

Genuine question, but are these apartments available to buy or are they owned by an investment company or large landlord?
I just wonder what sort of price point the rent/sale price will be.

the money charged will be obscene, an investor like a pension fund might buy them. They will no doubt be build to rent apartments. I mean average 2 bed apartments in grand canal dock are going for 3,000 a month and when I mean average, I mean AVERAGE!


you never know here though, the council might lease them from a german cuckoo fund, you know what, I was going to type out a long winded answer, but the below link just explains the insanity itself. Have you heard about this?!

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/council-pays-up-to-3000-a-month-to-rent-plush-flats-off-cuckoo-fund-38740107.html

want to see what E3700 a month gets you in Dublin 2?

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/dublin-2/opus-6-hanover-quay-dublin-2-dublin-1980373/

ten thousand euro one here and there was one asking twenty or twenty five thousand a month for the penthouse in capital dock, and no that is not a mistake, could even be this one, ill look into it in more detail shortly...

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/grand-canal-dock/capital-dock-residence-sir-john-rogersons-quay-grand-canal-dock-dublin-1980713/

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Ultimate nonsense.

There are millions of people since the foundation of the State who have inherited a free house.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who have bought houses from local authorities on a subsidised basis.

How is this type of silly childish carelessness with facts allowed go on?

If your parents owned the home and willed it to you, sure.

The whole idea of a 'free' house is completely disingenuous.

Let's call it like it is:

If it's all down to the minuscule Margret Cash's gaming the system, we need change the system.

If it's low taxed vulture funds buying up making it out of reach for the tax payer, we need address this with different policies.

If it's lazy people defrauding the dole, we need route them out.

Either way we cannot spin it so the policy makers have zero accountability.
It's fine to throw in the Margret Cash's as an aside but it's complete blueshirt bull to fixate on it.
I'd suggest it's a mix of all of the above to varying degrees, with the using the private market, to their gain and the tax payers loss being the big, main, A number 1.

For what it's worth do folk recognise there is a problem and if so, any suggestions? The floor is open to all comers by the way.

Idbatterim

matt I dont know if I Agree, if your parents leave you a house, often both parents will have worked, paid market rate for it and a lot on interest etc... I would not deem that to be a free house, the way I would deem social housing , at a farcically low rate, then with the buy out scheme it is bought at a pittance!

Its one thing getting a pass me down "free" which I dont think it is in most cases, as outlined above. It is entirely another thing to give ridiculous cheap rent, no management free, LPT etc, then be offered to buy the house at a pittance...

tom1ie

Idbatterim wrote: »

the money charged will be obscene, an investor like a pension fund might buy them. They will no doubt be build to rent apartments. I mean average 2 bed apartments in grand canal dock are going for 3,000 a month and when I mean average, I mean AVERAGE!


you never know here though, the council might lease them from a german cuckoo fund, you know what, I was going to type out a long winded answer, but the below link just explains the insanity itself. Have you heard about this?!

https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/council-pays-up-to-3000-a-month-to-rent-plush-flats-off-cuckoo-fund-38740107.html

want to see what E3700 a month gets you in Dublin 2?

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/dublin-2/opus-6-hanover-quay-dublin-2-dublin-1980373/

ten thousand euro one here and there was one asking twenty or twenty five thousand a month for the penthouse in capital dock, and no that is not a mistake, could even be this one, ill look into it in more detail shortly...

https://www.daft.ie/dublin/apartments-for-rent/grand-canal-dock/capital-dock-residence-sir-john-rogersons-quay-grand-canal-dock-dublin-1980713/

So rents of 3700 must be getting paid by multinationals for their employees,or something to that effect.
Normal people can’t afford this.
Hell couples on 60k +60k + childcare would seriously struggle.
The likes of these builds aren’t helping the regular Dublin person at all.
Some sort of AFFORDABLE not SOCIAL housing must be built that might end up retailing at 250k max.
If builders say they can’t build a house for that, then the costs they quote need to be closely examined, including the tax take by the government/council, professional rates, builders suppliers materials costs, land costs etc.

X111111111111

Idbatterim wrote: »

matt I dont know if I Agree, if your parents leave you a house, often both parents will have worked, paid market rate for it and a lot on interest etc... I would not deem that to be a free house, the way I would deem social housing , at a farcically low rate, then with the buy out scheme it is bought at a pittance!

Its one thing getting a pass me down "free" which I dont think it is in most cases, as outlined above. It is entirely another thing to give ridiculous cheap rent, no management free, LPT etc, then be offered to buy the house at a pittance...

The rent is not "ridiculously cheap". It's a fair percentage of the renters wages.

X111111111111

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If your parents owned the home and willed it to you, sure.

The whole idea of a 'free' house is completely disingenuous.

Let's call it like it is:

If it's all down to the minuscule Margret Cash's gaming the system, we need change the system.

If it's low taxed vulture funds buying up making it out of reach for the tax payer, we need address this with different policies.

If it's lazy people defrauding the dole, we need route them out.

Either way we cannot spin it so the policy makers have zero accountability.
It's fine to throw in the Margret Cash's as an aside but it's complete blueshirt bull to fixate on it.
I'd suggest it's a mix of all of the above to varying degrees, with the using the private market, to their gain and the tax payers loss being the big, main, A number 1.

For what it's worth do folk recognise there is a problem and if so, any suggestions? The floor is open to all comers by the way.

My idea is if you are able bodied to work and have failed to find gainful employment for a determined period of time and are living in social housing in Dublin and other employment hotspots then you will be moved out to housing in ballygobackwards etc..and the social housing you reside in now should be given over to people who work and contibute.

This will account for imo 10-15% of all social housing tenents in the greater Dublin area on average and whilst not making a massive difference straight away in the long term it will stop this small minority from giving the vast amount of social tenents a bad name.

tom1ie

Have we ever seen the breakdown of a cost of a single standard 3 bed house in Dublin with no land cost?
I say no land cost as the state has land that can be given towards an affordable housing scheme at no cost.

Idbatterim

X111111111111 wrote: »

The rent is not "ridiculously cheap". It's a fair percentage of the renters wages.

right, is the fifty percent some workers pay from their wages for the same standard of accomodation, is that "fair" ?

tom1ie

X111111111111 wrote: »

My idea is if you are able bodied to work and have failed to find gainful employment for a determined period of time and are living in social housing in Dublin and other employment hotspots then you will be moved out to housing in ballygobackwards etc..and the social housing you reside in now should be given over to people who work and contibute.

This will account for imo 10-15% of all social housing tenents in the greater Dublin area on average and whilst not making a massive difference straight away in the long term it will stop this small minority from giving the vast amount of social tenents a bad name.

I see the merit in this idea, but the problem is you then create social disaster zones in “ballygobackwards”.
That’s not great either.

Idbatterim

tom1ie wrote: »

So rents of 3700 must be getting paid by multinationals for their employees,or something to that effect.
Normal people can’t afford this.
Hell couples on 60k +60k + childcare would seriously struggle.
The likes of these builds aren’t helping the regular Dublin person at all.
Some sort of AFFORDABLE not SOCIAL housing must be built that might end up retailing at 250k max.
If builders say they can’t build a house for that, then the costs they quote need to be closely examined, including the tax take by the government/council, professional rates, builders suppliers materials costs, land costs etc.

yeah the government take a large amount in taxes. See this is my problem, take a fortune from some people, that then pay europes highest interest rates. Other people, "nah you can have it for near nothing" :rolleyes: the system is a farce, other countries in europe operate public housing that is open to all, you pay a percentage of your income, what we have here is just criminal!

tom1ie

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah the government take a large amount in taxes. See this is my problem, take a fortune from some people, that then pay europes highest interest rates. Other people, "nah you can have it for near nothing" :rolleyes: the system is a farce, other countries in europe operate public housing that is open to all, you pay a percentage of your income, what we have here is just criminal!

Yeah but I think the cost of building a house needs to be looked at too. Frankly I don’t believe the cost builders tell you it costs to build a house. Especially when you factor in economies of scale.

hatrickpatrick

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, is the fifty percent some workers pay from their wages for the same standard of accomodation, is that "fair" ?

Of course it isn't, but you're squeezing the toothpaste from the wrong end. Rent based on a fair percentage of income, as in social housing, is fair. Rent based on market value, as in the private market, is not. It's the latter which should be changed to suit society's needs, not the former.

tom1ie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course it isn't, but you're squeezing the toothpaste from the wrong end. Rent based on a fair percentage of income, as in social housing, is fair. Rent based on market value, as in the private market, is not. It's the latter which should be changed to suit society's needs, not the former

I don’t think it’s very fair the councils have such massive rent arrears either though.
However it’s the cost of new builds we need to be looking into as a new generation of home buyer are being enslaved to massive mortgage debt, at a time when rates are historically low. It’s a ticking time bomb when/if rates increase.

X111111111111

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, is the fifty percent some workers pay from their wages for the same standard of accomodation, is that "fair" ?

No. That's not the fault of those in social housing. It's actually the people who keep falling for FFG's BS election after election and keep them in office

X111111111111

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

There's a few problems as far as I can tell:
Nimbyism. They should never be allowed comment on the housing crisis again.

Putting social housing in urban areas ideal for tax payers

Refusing to build up. Even a few extra stories.


City centre should be designated for workers, be they single or not, no place to raise a family. Family homes in the suburbs. Social housing, whatever is left

Social tenents are tax payers.

tom1ie

This thread seems to be more of a private conversation about why social housing is bad or good........than what the real problem is with housing in Ireland.

X111111111111

tom1ie wrote: »

This thread seems to be more of a private conversation about why social housing is bad or good........than what the real problem is with housing in Ireland.

Unfortunately it's gone that way because certain posters seem to believe for some strange reason social housing tenents are somehow responsible for the current clusterfcu k

tom1ie

X111111111111 wrote: »

Unfortunately it's gone that way because certain posters seem to believe for some strange reason social housing tenents are somehow responsible for the current clusterfcu k

Well personally I think that problem represents maybe 10% on the pie chart if even!
The cost of delivering a house is where this problem lies.

Idbatterim

https://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/martina-devlin-this-rising-tide-of-anger-over-housing-can-only-be-held-back-for-so-long-the-walls-will-come-crashing-down-on-fine-gael-38761943.html

various artistes

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Importing non nationals is not the answer though, that only leads to an erosion of culture. One solution would be to stop encouraging women into the workplace, instead, encourage them to stay in the home raising children (where they are happiest anyway*). Ironically, households having two incomes increases the cost of purchasing a home as there is more money coming into each family. If we lived in a paradigm where there was only one income on average to each household, the cost of borrowing would be less - supply and demand.



Its all a big conspiracy by the elites, get women working thereby lowering the cost of labor. This is why feminism is funded by the large multinationals - it is in their interest to reduce costs.


All that being said, I think women should work if they want to, nothing should be stopping them of course, I think however that women prefer to raise children and men prefer to go out and get resources, it is natural and has been that way since the dawn of time. These preferences explain the "wage gap" which is not a wage gap, it is in face and earnings gap explained by looking at preferences between the sexes.



* very hard to find links to that. All of the searches I have done yield feminist inspired "statistics". I am basing my claim that women are happier in the home raising children on my own observations and common, rational sense.

Is there a major difference between the percentage of women who work full time in Dublin as opposed to, say, Cavan? If there isn't it would indicate women want an income.

A man could relatively easily work and provide for a wife and children in a house bought on mortgage for 70k, on a take home income of about 2000 per month or even less. I'd say in Dublin the man would want at least 3000 to do this on a, say, a 250k mortage.

The_Brood

The French are a nation who protest. Actual protests: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50682071

What happened to Ireland? Why did people surrender? Seems like there is no will, no motivation, no desire to stand up for working class people.

Very said as the Irish were once a nation of fighters as well. Now it's the opposite.

maninasia

The problem is very simple..The population is growing and the planning laws haven't changed to allow construction of high density housing especially more mid rise apartment complexes.

Problem of planning law. There's only one real solution which is to change the current system to reflect a European country and capital with a rapidly growing population.

It's not the banks, the landlords , the immigrants, the developers, the IT industry ,it's not even the concentration of jobs in Dublin . It's the planning restrictions.

That means allowing mid rise housing (ten floors ) all around Dublin city not only in the city center.
They will permit it sooner or later there's absolutely no choice .

Eric Cartman

X111111111111 wrote: »

Social tenents are tax payers.

This is just pedantry , when people say ‘taxpayers’ they mean income tax , this false equivalence because theres tax on smokes and booze is completely false and you know it is

Most social tenants either do not work or do not work enough to pay income tax , they are net detractors from the tax economy.

There are people in social houses who will pay 30 quid a week for the house, that is effectively free, if it comes out of dole money then that is free to them as they have had to put no labour towards it. Those paying 30 euro a week to have a social house will never in their lifetime have paid enpugh rent to cover the cost of that house, if you have a social house and have generations of tenants on 30 a week it will actually never ever pay for itself, it will always be a loss to the economy

maninasia

Huntergonzo wrote: »

There are many reasons for people's problems around housing (never use the bullshít media term 'housing crisis', they love a good 'crisis', it gets attention). In my opinion here are some of the main reasons in no particular order:

1. Greed of developers (charging insane money for homes).
2. Greed of money lenders (lend more, earn more, crash and you'll be bailed out, how can they lose?)
3. Greed of people who think they are 'entitled' to a house payed for by the tax payers and bring as many children into the world as possible to act as bargaining chips (look no further than Margaret Cash).
4. The crash, no building = no homes, people were still having sex though, creating more people. More people + less homes = d'oh!
5. The Irish psyche that we need to buy our own houses.
6. Government for coming up with wishy washy solutions that favour the developers and lenders.
7. Probably most of all, the media and dreaded opposition politicians for absolutely flogging and riding this 'crisis' (there's that word again) to death under the guise of concern but purely and utterly for their own personal gains, ie greed.

It's incredible you didn't mention the massive demand and the lack of supply due to restrictive and outdated planning laws. There's enough money in Ireland (plenty of jobs, good pay ) to buy houses/apartments , housing isn't being built at high density in the right place to meet demand with supply.

X111111111111

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is just pedantry , when people say ‘taxpayers’ they mean income tax , this false equivalence because theres tax on smokes and booze is completely false and you know it is

Most social tenants either do not work or do not work enough to pay income tax , they are net detractors from the tax economy.

There are people in social houses who will pay 30 quid a week for the house, that is effectively free, if it comes out of dole money then that is free to them as they have had to put no labour towards it. Those paying 30 euro a week to have a social house will never in their lifetime have paid enpugh rent to cover the cost of that house, if you have a social house and have generations of tenants on 30 a week it will actually never ever pay for itself, it will always be a loss to the economy

I'm in social housing and how I wish I paid that little.

Most social housing tenants do work in my experience.

I don't smoke and am just a social drinker sorry for not being the stereotype

X111111111111

X111111111111 wrote: »

I don't smoke and am just a social drinker sorry for not being the stereotype

For myself, I don't think any forgiveness is necessary. Based on my experience of meeting people in Social housing, you are the minority though. Most of those I met aren't what those I'd classify as deserving of social housing though, since they're on welfare and not working. (nope, no links to back it up. just stating an opinion.)