The real problem with Housing in Ireland

mariaalice

Its the same few always on these threads, if they are offered evidence that most in social housing work they move the argument on to ...well they don't work enough or earn enough its illogical.

Jinglejangle69

The_Brood wrote: »

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.

Because Irish people know they have it good after all the bluster.

Jinglejangle69

X111111111111 wrote: »

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

How much you pay?

markodaly

Idbatterim wrote: »

In what way don’t they work ?

Put simply it cuts off much-needed supply, which in turn makes the problem worse

The evidence is clear that rent controls alone does nothing in terms of supply.
There is a little bit of evidence that along with a massive increased development that it may have a positive impact, but then if we had a massive increase of housing development, rent should come down regardless, so what is the point?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47028342

Standard economic theory is that rent control does not work, because if you force rents down, landlords may decide not to rent out their properties, which reduces the amount of rental property available.

The researchers, led by Prof Rebecca Diamond, found that between 1994 and 2010, people who were living in rent-controlled properties had benefited from lower rents by about $2.9bn (£2.2bn) between them.

But they found that, coincidentally, renters who came to the city later paid an extra $2.9bn in higher rent over the same period, largely because of a shortage of available housing.

So the expansion of rent control had, in effect, been a transfer of money from newer (generally younger) renters to ones who had been living in the city for longer (and were generally older).

The evidence for rent control or caps is extremely thin.

Beware of people telling you otherwise, especially politicians.
They only way to reduce rent is to increase supply.
The best way to increase supply is to build thousands of new apartments in key locations in Dublin, next to transport links.
The higher, the better.

markodaly

On rent control, this is a decent paper on the subject.


https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html

Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.”1 Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2 The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman and friedrich hayek on the “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal, an important architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare state, on the “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision.

markodaly

Idbatterim wrote: »

Go look at the sheer amount of planning applications going through first time round now, way higher than would have been permitted before...

This is in large part thanks to Eoghan Murphy. He was sick and tired of waiting for the LA's especially DCC to come up with the goods. When it was clear they were content on doing nothing, he mandated more high rise.

https://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-high-rise-housing-4707824-Jul2019/

Bit cynical

At the broadest levels:

1. Too many people chasing too few units.
2. Too much money chasing too few units.

Can't do too much on the demand side; therefore must find solutions on the supply side.

I don't think there's any one magic bullet solution; it requires solving many smaller partial problems each of which will have its objectors.

Social housing.
Increase supply of serviced land.
Regulation for higher density in cities.
Expansion of rent a room schemes.
Planning permission efficiency.
Transport and infrastructure.

etc.

Probably a whole load of other measures need examining.

KyussB

markodaly wrote: »

Put simply it cuts off much-needed supply, which in turn makes the problem worse

The evidence is clear that rent controls alone does nothing in terms of supply.
There is a little bit of evidence that along with a massive increased development that it may have a positive impact, but then if we had a massive increase of housing development, rent should come down regardless, so what is the point?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47028342

The evidence for rent control or caps is extremely thin.

Beware of people telling you otherwise, especially politicians.
They only way to reduce rent is to increase supply.
The best way to increase supply is to build thousands of new apartments in key locations in Dublin, next to transport links.
The higher, the better.

Rent controls work perfectly well: They cap rents. Case closed - their job is to cap rents, and combined with proper policy to fix supply, they do that.

Rent controls are not used to fix supply, and they are not intended to fix supply. That requires additional policies - such as government directly hiring people to build houses, multiple tens of thousands of units a year, in a mix of for-profit and social housing, with the entire project being self-financing through the profit generated.

X111111111111

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

How much you pay?

A very fair percentage of our combined wages.

katiek102010

X111111111111 wrote: »

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

A social housing estate near me 15 houses in total. 5 of the houses are for elderly and people with additional needs. Out of the 10 remaining houses, there is at a minimum of 1 adult in every house working full time.

A private estate near me is the one that causes the trouble.

People make judgements on what they read in social media and the press.

The average take home pay iin ireland sits at around 45k pa. With the current average rent in my area in excess of 1200 pa. How many people can afford to support a family, pay rents and save for a house on that.

Eric Cartman

mariaalice wrote: »

Its the same few always on these threads, if they are offered evidence that most in social housing work they move the argument on to ...well they don't work enough or earn enough its illogical.

But the evidence says that is not the case

The majority (54.2%) of those qualified for social housing support are unemployed and in receipt of social welfare payments/ assistance. The number of households in this category dropped by 10,370 (-21%) since the previous assessment.

from : https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/summary_of_social_housing_assessments_2018_-_key_findings.pdf

and even in that document down lower it breaks it down further, that 54.2% figure is only for those who do absolutely nothing and havent, doesnt include lone parents, the retired or carers. only 24% of people in social housing are employed. Only 16% have an income derived only from working, 61.7% of applicants are social welfare only household incomes

blackbox

blanch152 wrote: »

They are also required to publish their accounts on their website if they have one.

Usually you have to dig deep to find the details.

There are dozens of homeless charities, how many of them pay their CEO more than 100k?

Focus Ireland paid their CEO 130k last year. That is about as much as the CEO of state bodies such as the Higher Education Authority which is responsible for all of higher education.

I don't think anyone working for a charity should be paid. If they want to volunteer, fair enough.

mariaalice

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But the evidence says that is not the case

from : https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/summary_of_social_housing_assessments_2018_-_key_findings.pdf

and even in that document down lower it breaks it down further, that 54.2% figure is only for those who do absolutely nothing and havent, doesnt include lone parents, the retired or carers. only 24% of people in social housing are employed. Only 16% have an income derived only from working, 61.7% of applicants are social welfare only household incomes

FIS family income supplement is a welfare payment that is paid to families on a low income who are working so someone can be in recpite of welfare an working at the same time.

Thos in social housing are more likley to be unemployed that in the general population but that dose not mean they are all unemployed which is the infeence from this and many threads like it.

Eric Cartman

mariaalice wrote: »

FIS family income supplement is a welfare payment that is paid to families on a low income who are working so someone can be in recpite of welfare an working at the same time.

which that document breaks down , 9.2% of them are in that minority case you have provided. if you look at the comprehensive table it very clearly explains that the majority of social housing tenants and new applicants are only in receipt of welfare with no income derived from work.

jmreire

katiek102010 wrote: »

A social housing estate near me 15 houses in total. 5 of the houses are for elderly and people with additional needs. Out of the 10 remaining houses, there is at a minimum of 1 adult in every house working full time.

A private estate near me is the one that causes the trouble.

People make judgements on what they read in social media and the press.

The average take home pay iin ireland sits at around 45k pa. With the current average rent in my area in excess of 1200 pa. How many people can afford to support a family, pay rents and save for a house on that.

I was reared in a housing estate, way back in the 50's. Small estate, only 50 houses built around a green area. I'd say that even less than 5% were social welfare occupant's, because social welfare back then was indeed very basic. The rest of the resident's worked, and all the houses were kept spotless and clean. Hooliganism as we know it today, did not exist...anyone behaving badly in any way, were quickly put in their place, and made to feel unwelcome...unruly behaviour was not tolerated in any shape and form by the resident's themselves. Everyone knew the unwritten rules, and kept them.
When we first moved in to the then brand new house, the council rent was based on a % your earning's. I think back at that time it was 15s per week based on my Father's salary of about 3 Pound's a week. Over time this rose by 2s & 6p increment's until it had reached the amount of 1 pound per week. At this stage of ever increasing rents, my Parents made the very difficult decision of " Buying Out " the house, at the then price of 1 pound 10 shilling's per week. Sounds like nothing, but when your salary was only 3.5 or 4 pounds per week..it was a very hard choice to make..and bearing in mind, that the phenomenon of inflation, was still a few year's into the future. So for 10 or 15 year's, they paid a very high price as a proportion of their income. ( I'm well aware that nowadays people are paying 50% and more in rentals) But back then, a third or more of your salary was hard going. So I have to laugh when I see posters on here making comment's about "free houses". believe, me when I say that the vast majority of council houses from back then were bought , and well paid for. So why cannot council's do the same now? Build and rent , and in time they will pay for them selves. And when they are finished paying for them, what they do with them is their own business. This business of so called "cheap subsidised council houses being sold after afew years for massive profit's" is pure and utter cr*p. In my case, all 50 house's were fully paid for in the lifetime of their tenants.

Colonel Claptrap

Business Post is reporting the SF Social Protection spokesman Aengus O Snodaigh leads objections against 1,000 apartment complex next to Bluebell Luas stop because "it just seems very bulky".

"We're not architects, we're not planners, it just seems like a substantial amount of housing on one site."

What rental crisis?

blanch152

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Business Post is reporting the SF Social Protection spokesman Aengus O Snodaigh leads objections against 1,000 apartment complex next to Bluebell Luas stop because "it just seems very bulky".

"We're not architects, we're not planners, it just seems like a substantial amount of housing on one site."

What rental crisis?

That is absolutely the correct place to put 1,000 apartments.

My understanding is that it is a former industrial park. Similar brownfield sites around Dublin, including the area around Broombridge offer the only hope for future housing near the centre of the city.

Politicians should not be objecting to this.

Naos

Eric Cartman wrote: »

which that document breaks down , 9.2% of them are in that minority case you have provided. if you look at the comprehensive table it very clearly explains that the majority of social housing tenants and new applicants are only in receipt of welfare with no income derived from work.

I tried to go trough this with Xiiiiii before - she won't listen.

mariaalice wrote: »

Its the same few always on these threads, if they are offered evidence that most in social housing work they move the argument on to ...well they don't work enough or earn enough its illogical.

I'm genuinely interested in this - can you please show me the proof that most in social housing work as I could not find anything on it the last time I looked?

Thanks

James Brown

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.

...y

Eric, ffs, working tax payers, people on low incomes are also in social housing. People with working parents grew up in social housing. Social housing is low rent housing for low income people be you working or on the dole.
You're going down a rabbit hole.
I don't know why people who allegedly accept unemployment is low and we've more and more working people needing state aid in some form or other, that the conversation always goes back to 'dem that won't work'. It's a side issue and a minor one in regard to the housing crisis.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

But the evidence says that is not the case

from : https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/summary_of_social_housing_assessments_2018_-_key_findings.pdf

and even in that document down lower it breaks it down further, that 54.2% figure is only for those who do absolutely nothing and havent, doesnt include lone parents, the retired or carers. only 24% of people in social housing are employed. Only 16% have an income derived only from working, 61.7% of applicants are social welfare only household incomes

So the system is working. Great. Would you begrudge unemployed people a dig out while they're out of work? Of low paid people who can't afford rent? I wouldn't.
If you believe some to be fraudsters I hope they get caught.

It's almost to the point of pointless to talk on this in regard to the crisis. It either ignores the tax payer earning too much to avail of support or tries to place blame on the people victimised by the situation.
If you genuinely think it's all dole heads and chancers, maybe don't vote for them next time :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Eric, ffs, working tax payers, people on low incomes are also in social housing. People with working parents grew up in social housing. Social housing is low rent housing for low income people be you working or on the dole.
You're going down a rabbit hole.
I don't know why people who allegedly accept unemployment is low and we've more and more working people needing state aid in some form or other, that the conversation always goes back to 'dem that won't work'. It's a side issue and a minor one in regard to the housing crisis.

As the evidence from the government that I have provided states, only 16% of applicants are not in receipt of social welfare at all, those arenthe people on low incomes working , my argument has always been that the majority of social housing tenants are unemployed and tye givernments own documentation agrees with this.

Some posters claimed that most work
I posted a document from the government suggesting that 67% receive welfare as their only income
Another poster tried to dismiss that saying that ‘some of that 67% are on fis and wouldnt count in working’
I explained that the document seperated those people and they are 9% of the applicants.

Now heres you trying to say that most of those 67% are temporarily out of work , which theres no evidence to suggest at all. Can we not just deal with the data, stop making excuses and moving the goalposts.

When 67% of spcial housing applicants are on welfare and do not work , I can see no good reason to build social housing in dublin city.

There are 25% of applicants working or working and receiving welfare, they are the only people that should be receiving housing in or near cities.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

As the evidence from the government that I have provided states, only 16% of applicants are not in receipt of social welfare at all, those arenthe people on low incomes working , my argument has always been that the majority of social housing tenants are unemployed and tye givernments own documentation agrees with this.

Some posters claimed that most work
I posted a document from the government suggesting that 67% receive welfare as their only income
Another poster tried to dismiss that saying that ‘some of that 67% are on fis and wouldnt count in working’
I explained that the document seperated those people and they are 9% of the applicants.

Now heres you trying to say that most of those 67% are temporarily out of work , which theres no evidence to suggest at all. Can we not just deal with the data, stop making excuses and moving the goalposts.

When 67% of spcial housing applicants are on welfare and do not work , I can see no good reason to build social housing in dublin city.

There are 25% of applicants working or working and receiving welfare, they are the only people that should be receiving housing in or near cities.

Social housing is designed for those worse off so it would make sense it includes everyone with no job over those on lower incomes. We need more of it for low paid workers.

Imagine social housing had no Margret Cash or the like. What about the workers, do you think we'd be sorted for housing? You put so much weight on the minuscule chancers, what do you think would happen if we'd zero chancers? Problem solved across the board?

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Social housing is designed for those worse off so it would make sense it includes everyone with no job over those on lower incomes. We need more of it for low paid workers.

Imagine social housing had no Margret Cash or the like. What about the workers, do you think we'd be sorted for housing? You put so much weight on the minuscule chancers, what do you think would happen if we'd zero chancers? Problem solved across the board?

I put so much weight on the majority of applicants. Social housing for low income people that work is a good thing, I have never not supported that, those who actually work on low incomes do need assistance.

Margaret cash and all of the other chancers are unfortunately still entitled to housing , but theres no reason to allow them to compete for housing in dublin or other cities , take them out of the equasion, provide that housing to those who work, sent the lifelong do nothings to rural towns job done.

Jinglejangle69

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I put so much weight on the majority of applicants. Social housing for low income people that work is a good thing, I have never not supported that, those who actually work on low incomes do need assistance.

Margaret cash and all of the other chancers are unfortunately still entitled to housing , but theres no reason to allow them to compete for housing in dublin or other cities , take them out of the equasion, provide that housing to those who work, sent the lifelong do nothings to rural towns job done.

My point all along.

James Brown

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I put so much weight on the majority of applicants. Social housing for low income people that work is a good thing, I have never not supported that, those who actually work on low incomes do need assistance.

Margaret cash and all of the other chancers are unfortunately still entitled to housing , but theres no reason to allow them to compete for housing in dublin or other cities , take them out of the equasion, provide that housing to those who work, sent the lifelong do nothings to rural towns job done.

I disagree. We need revisit the eligibility criteria. An unemployed person has a better chance of finding work near a city. Anyone caught gaming or chancing their arm should be put on a time limit to get their act together resulting in being cut off. Cash should never have gotten that house IMO, not for the stunt anyway.
That said, even if we'd zero chancers we'd still be in crisis. I don't think a few chancers is 'the real problem with housing in Ireland'.

Naos

One of the real problems is the sense of entitlement for a house.

There should be no houses provided, it should be apartments just like in every other European city, to the standard of every other European city.

Eric Cartman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I disagree. We need revisit the eligibility criteria. An unemployed person has a better chance of finding work near a city. Anyone caught gaming or chancing their arm should be put on a time limit to get their act together resulting in being cut off. Cash should never have gotten that house IMO, not for the stunt anyway.
That said, even if we'd zero chancers we'd still be in crisis. I don't think a few chancers is 'the real problem with housing in Ireland'.

Leople do have more of a chance to find work near cities but then were into a multitude of questions

1) do they even want to find work
2) should we take a chance on somebody maybe finding work or give the house to somebody who has work. Id be more in favour of the sure bet.

It should be pretty easy to chance the eligibility criteria, if you get to 35 and you havent had 5 years of working under your belt, the chances of you working full time for the rest of your life are pretty much none. If youve 5+ years continuous unemployment and theres no giant recession to explain it then its fair to say your chances of working again are low. We could and should use this to decide who can have a house in our cities and suburbs. People with substance abuse issues or who have criminal backgrounds for theft or violence should absolutely be removed as far away from a city as possible to minimuse contact with other criminal elements and improve safety for the public

Eric Cartman

Naos wrote: »

One of the real problems is the sense of entitlement for a house.

There should be no houses provided, it should be apartments just like in every other European city, to the standard of every other European city.

Thats it, no gardens, no semi detached , only apartments with a common door where services can be concentrated and security monitored more easily

Tacitus Kilgore

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I put so much weight on the majority of applicants. Social housing for low income people that work is a good thing, I have never not supported that, those who actually work on low incomes do need assistance.

Margaret cash and all of the other chancers are unfortunately still entitled to housing , but theres no reason to allow them to compete for housing in dublin or other cities , take them out of the equasion, provide that housing to those who work, sent the lifelong do nothings to rural towns job done.

Fuck that, why should rural towns be burdened with the sloppy seconds from the cities? There's enough in them already.

It's a genuine utopia you wanna set up isn't it :rolleyes:

Eric Cartman

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

Fuck that, why should rural towns be burdened with the sloppy seconds from the cities? There's enough in them already.

It's a genuine utopia you wanna set up isn't it :rolleyes:

Well putting them all on spike island is a non runner, just trying to find the cheapest place to let them run out their days, if i have dealz level of compassion for them, not giving them M&S level houses