FG to just do nothing for the next 5 years.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

The land is owned by the state.

The state is building the houses.

If a particular house end up as social housing both the house and the site remain in state ownership, so your argument is totally moot.

If the house is sold as an affordable home, at a massive discount compared to a similar home on the open market I might add, one of the conditions of sale is that if the owner wishes to sell they must sell back to the state at current market price. So even in this scenario being that the site will always be in public ownership your argument is totally null and void yet again.

Of course people wishing to buy a home do not have to choose to buy one of these, they can buy a home developed by a private developer at a significant increased cost. The whole point is to make a permanent home affordable to those that might not get mortgage approval for a more expensive home.

I see absolutely no draw backs in what SF have proposed (except the borrowing that will have to take place), and many benefits. Its the type of scheme that should have been put in place years ago, it would have gone some way in kerbing the excessive increases in property prices and at the same time reduced demand on private rental properties thus either reducing rents or making sure there were enough rental properties to fulfil demand.

So when the land runs out, and it will, the cost of housing then reverts back to having to factor in the price of the site as part of the house?

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

So when the land runs out, and it will, the cost of housing then reverts back to having to factor in the price of the site as part of the house?

So where are FG and FF going to build their social houses and affordable homes?
Are they going to buy green field sites so that they can hoard perfectly good for building homes?

What Eoin Ó Broin has put forward makes so much sense. I personally dont care whether it is SF that gets to build them when they are in government, or FF/FG build them if they actually can get a government formed. 100+ days now and still no government, and FG were bleating that SF could not form a government in the first week. How ironic.

The important thing for me personally, is that the housing crisis is addressed and this scheme helps those who need to avail of social housing and also those young couples who have been priced out of the property market.

Like Eoin Ó Broin has said he has done Eoghan Murphy's job for him because that guy hasnt got a clue, he couldn't run a sweet shop let alone a government department.
If I was Eoghan Murphy I wouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I would be working away developing this plan, so that if a FF/FG government is formed he can get to work straight away implementing it.

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

So where are FG and FF going to build their social houses and affordable homes?
Are they going to buy green field sites so that they can hoard perfectly good for building homes?

What Eoin Ó Broin has put forward makes so much sense. I personally dont care whether it is SF that gets to build them when they are in government, or FF/FG build them if they actually can get a government formed. 100+ days now and still no government, and FG were bleating that SF could not form a government in the first week. How ironic.

The important thing for me personally, is that the housing crisis is addressed and this scheme helps those who need to avail of social housing and also those young couples who have been priced out of the property market.

Like Eoin Ó Broin has said he has done Eoghan Murphy's job for him because that guy hasnt got a clue, he couldn't run a sweet shop let alone a government department.
If I was Eoghan Murphy I wouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. I would be working away developing this plan, so that if a FF/FG government is formed he can get to work straight away implementing it.

As I said, nothing wrong with the plan, but tell the true cost.
Any sites used up will have to be replaced, for this policy to work sites will have to be provided to replace what's there now.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

As I said, nothing wrong with the plan, but tell the true cost.
Any sites used up will have to be replaced, for this policy to work sites will have to be provided to replace what's there now.

Why replace sites that were left idle for years?
I am not getting your logic at all. Surely the argument should be having bought those sites and not used them was a horrendous waste of money.

With regards new sites, what is the problem? Its the government and its departments that decide what land can be rezoned for residential property.
The reality should be the government should have the farmers over a barrel. 'if you dont sell us land at reasonable cost, we wont rezone your land so that you can sell to private developers'.

This malarkey of developers having to set aside a percentage of houses they build on a development for social housing use needs to stop as well.
Those that require social housing do not need high end housing, a modest 2 or 3 bed home is more than sufficient for them and the government could build the far cheaper than a developer. What was the idiot that thought that one up thinking of? Probably because it enabled a housing minister to sit on his ar$e and do feck all and yet still deliver some social housing, but it is bloody expensive social housing. For every two of them they could build three perfectly adequate social or affordable homes.
Also it is a bit unfair for a young couple to be working their arses off to pay a mortgage, and be living next door to someone in a perfectly identical house who has never worked a day in their lives, and yet have their rent paid through HAP.


What the government needs to do is take control of their wild card and use it with vigour, and instead when rezoning tracts of land make sure they get a portion at very reasonable cost or the land simply does not get rezoned.

Bishop of hope

The big stick like, a true FG policy there.
We all know why these sites were left vacant, because there wasn't money to build on them.
But now that there's a chance, when the mess is, finally sorted, then in rides the knights in shining armour on their bmxs.
But suddenly there's a new crisis, the promises ring hollow again.
The true cost of building is beginning to dawn on SF, their estimates are well up on their election estimates, but that doesent matter either, sure the land is there anyway.
That's OK for now, but what about future needs, the land bank has to be replaced, but to get it cheap, we will blackmail the landowners.
All the while not giving a thought to those who can't go down that route in the first place or don't qualify for this affordable housing, fcuk them.
Their taxes bought the land we have, will buy up what more we need and they can keep the developers happy.
Be honest at least, the true cost to the taxpayer is probably €70000 euro site costs + €230000 build cost, hardly a, saving of 100000.
Factor in the benefits to workers directly employed re pensions and holiday entitlements, you're back virtually to square 1.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

The big stick like, a true FG policy there.
We all know why these sites were left vacant, because there wasn't money to build on them.
But now that there's a chance, when the mess is, finally sorted, then in rides the knights in shining armour on their bmxs.
But suddenly there's a new crisis, the promises ring hollow again.
The true cost of building is beginning to dawn on SF, their estimates are well up on their election estimates, but that doesent matter either, sure the land is there anyway.
That's OK for now, but what about future needs, the land bank has to be replaced, but to get it cheap, we will blackmail the landowners.
All the while not giving a thought to those who can't go down that route in the first place or don't qualify for this affordable housing, fcuk them.
Their taxes bought the land we have, will buy up what more we need and they can keep the developers happy.
Be honest at least, the true cost to the taxpayer is probably €70000 euro site costs + €230000 build cost, hardly a, saving of 100000.
Factor in the benefits to workers directly employed re pensions and holiday entitlements, you're back virtually to square 1.

So what would be your alternative?

Bishop of hope

efanton wrote: »

So what would be your alternative?

I didn't say I had one.
But if you are building for the rental market and holding on to ownership completely, it's certainly feasible.
If you can build at the cost they say then factor in the site and sell at that.
If people can't get a mortgage at that then they should qualify for the rental programme.
With an option to buy if they ever qualify for a mortgage, minus rent paid.

Brendan Bendar

There’s little point arguing about ‘affordable housing’ when a bill of 37mil for the cheapest rent in the country commensurate with income is left unpaid.

Why not start there.

Jinglejangle69

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

There’s little point arguing about ‘affordable housing’ when a bill of 37mil for the cheapest rent in the country commensurate with income is left unpaid.

Why not start there.

Yep.

These people are incapable of paying 40 euro a week in rent for something someone else pays 2,000 a month.

Honestly out ya go and sort your own accommodation.

Bishop of hope

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

There’s little point arguing about ‘affordable housing’ when a bill of 37mil for the cheapest rent in the country commensurate with income is left unpaid.

Why not start there.

In the grand scheme of things, that's 120 houses or so.
Hardly a dent in the problem is it.

Jinglejangle69

Bishop of hope wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things, that's 120 houses or so.
Hardly a dent in the problem is it.

What problem?

Bishop of hope

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

What problem?

The housing problem.

efanton

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

There’s little point arguing about ‘affordable housing’ when a bill of 37mil for the cheapest rent in the country commensurate with income is left unpaid.

Why not start there.

I agree.

But believe it not most of that debt is from tenants who are in full time employment.
As for those on social welfare for most that is automatically deducted from their benefit BEFORE they withdraw it from the post office or it goes into their bank account.

But whether it is those on social welfare, or those working it seems crazy not to have automatic deductions from wages or benefit.
For those on social welfare they simply have to sign a form available from the post office, and for those working it would be relatively simple to modify their tax allowances. Virtually every housing association collect their rents this way, so why are the county councils and city councils not doing it as well.

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

I agree.

But believe it not most of that debt is from tenants who are in full time employment.
As for those on social welfare for most that is automatically deducted from their benefit BEFORE they withdraw it from the post office or it goes into their bank account.

But whether it is those on social welfare, or those working it seems crazy not to have automatic deductions from wages or benefit.
For those on social welfare they simply have to sign a form available from the post office, and for those working it would be relatively simple to modify their tax allowances. Virtually every housing association collect their rents this way, so why are the county councils and city councils not doing it as well.

Have you a link to most of that debt is from people in full time employment?

Brendan Bendar

It won’t sort the housing problem, but it shows that the housing problem will never be sorted if a bill of 37m is allowed to build up for what is mostly the most central attractive locations in Dublin City.

It’s the principal of the thing.

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Have you a link to most of that debt is from people in full time employment?

It was in the news article that I am sure Brendan Bendar is refereing too.
About a month ago there was a big story about Dublin City Council having 33 million in unpaid rent, built up over a number of years

A total of 17,775 tenants are behind on their rent, owing a cumulative total of €33.5 million. Just under €15 million was owed by the council’s best-paid tenants – those with household incomes of more than €800 a week.

High income
“The lower-income households account for the smallest percentage of the arrears,” Rose Kenny executive manager of the council’s housing department said. “When you take €800-plus as something we would call a high income, and that includes subsidiary earners in a household, they account for over 44 per cent of the outstanding arrears.”

The 25 tenants who have allowed their debts to exceed €27,000 were in this higher-earning bracket, she said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/top-earning-city-council-tenants-most-likely-to-default-on-rent-1.4106254

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

It was in the news article that I am sure Brendan Bendar is refereing too.
About a month ago there was a big story about Dublin City Council having 33 million in unpaid rent, built up over a number of years


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/top-earning-city-council-tenants-most-likely-to-default-on-rent-1.4106254

Lol you said most are in full time employment!!

Did you read the article?

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Lol you said most are in full time employment!!

Did you read the article?

I did read that in another article, actually trying to find that at the moment.
I cant say that's 100% true, but that was certainly what was reported.

Are you jumping to conclusions and suggesting that's it only those on social welfare that are refusing to pay their rents?
Have you any evidence this is the case?

Anyhow what's you point?
We both agree there's no need for these arrears to ever build up, they are easily avoided if the county councils would actually do something about it by imposing automatic deductions.
If there is a need for legislation then why hasn't Eoghan Murphy or the government done something about it? I assume they were well aware of this arrears issue well before the papers go hold of it..

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

I did read that in another article, actually trying to find that at the moment.
I cant say that's 100% true, but that was certainly what was reported.

Are you jumping to conclusions and suggesting that's it only those on social welfare that are refusing to pay their rents?
Have you any evidence this is the case?

Anyhow what's you point?
We both agree there's no need for these arrears to ever build up, they are easily avoided if the county councils would actually do something about it by imposing automatic deductions.
If there is a need for legislation then why hasn't Eoghan Murphy or the government done something about it? I assume they were well aware of this arrears issue well before the papers go hold of it..

I didn't imply anything you did:)

I asked you for a link and you can't provide it.

That's about it really.

Bishop of hope

Anyway, they're all talking about it, promising big on it, the politicians that is, the lads looking to be in Govt, the electorate prior to the election and still.
There must be a problem with it somewhere?

Jinglejangle69

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Anyway, they're all talking about it, promising big on it, the politicians that is, the lads looking to be in Govt, the electorate prior to the election and still.
There must be a problem with it somewhere?

Of course there is.

Its ridiculous and every party knows it.

Handing out 100,000 houses to people for 40 euro a week is bonkers and never financially viable.

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I didn't imply anything you did:)

I asked you for a link and you can't provide it.

That's about it really.

Even without the article (that I am still trying to find) do you not think that its reasonable to assume that many people who are working have not paid their rents, along with many who are on social welfare.

We are talking about council rents here so there's no HAP involved, and there wouldn't be a large number of households that are getting more than €800 per week from social welfare.
Remember too that child benefit is not used by councils to access income.
So the reality is that you would need a household of at least 4 people all claiming some form of unemployment benefit, pension or disability benefit.
While I am sure this occurs, there's certainly not 17,000 households that would meet that criteria in just the area served by Dublin City Council.

Jinglejangle69

efanton wrote: »

Even without the article (that I am still trying to find) do you not think that its reasonable to assume that many people who are working have not paid their rents, along with many who are on social welfare.

We are talking about council rents here so there's no HAP involved, and there wouldn't be a large number of households that are getting more than €800 per week from social welfare.
Remember too that child benefit is not used by councils to access income.
So the reality is that you would need a household of at least 4 people all claiming some form of unemployment benefit, pension or disability benefit.
While I am sure this occurs, there's certainly not 17,000 households that would meet that criteria in just the area served by Dublin City Council.

I dunno.

That's why I asked for some information about what you claim.

Its OK you don't have it so we move on.

https://rebuildingireland.ie/news/annual-summary-of-social-housing-assessments-is-published/

Before we do.

Just a link to show the majority in social housing are unemployed.

Bishop of hope

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Of course there is.

Its ridiculous and every party knows it.

Handing out 100,000 houses to people for 40 euro a week is bonkers and never financially viable.

Which party is doing that?
SF are talking 700 to 900, where is, the 40 coming from?

Jinglejangle69

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Which party is doing that?
SF are talking 700 to 900, where is, the 40 coming from?

They are proposing social housing tenants pay 700-900 a month?

Is that not affordable housing?

efanton

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

I dunno.

That's why I asked for some information about what you claim.

Its OK you don't have it so we move on.

https://rebuildingireland.ie/news/annual-summary-of-social-housing-assessments-is-published/

Before we do.

Just a link to show the majority in social housing are unemployed.

And I would not argue with that at all. Not unexpected really is it. If you earn over 35k (single person) or 42k (three adults 4 children) you simply will not get on a council list in the first place because of their income threshold rules.

Of course many people that are currently council tenants, might well be working now and earning above the threshold, that threshold only counts at the time of application.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Housing/table_with_2016_income_limits.pdf


so we both agree, council rents should be collected, and there should be no reason for arrears.

So do you not agree that Eoghan Murphy should instruct the councils to insist on rental payments being automatically withdrawn from benefit or wages for every council tenancy, and if that requires legislation then that he should put that legislation before the Dail if FF/FG finally form a government?

Bishop of hope

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

They are proposing social housing tenants pay 700-900 a month?

Is that not affordable housing?

Yes it is, thats the housing I'm talking about too.
Social housing could run on the same principle.
Local authorities could charge reasonable rents subsidised by the exchequer, they're doing it to private landlords anyway.
No local authority should have to provide housing at 40 a week.

efanton

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Yes it is, thats the housing I'm talking about too.
Social housing could run on the same principle.
Local authorities could charge reasonable rents subsidised by the exchequer, they're doing it to private landlords anyway.
No local authority should have to provide housing at 40 a week.

So why havent the governments over the last 20 years adjusted the rents?

RandomViewer

Bishop of hope wrote: »

Yes it is, thats the housing I'm talking about too.
Social housing could run on the same principle.
Local authorities could charge reasonable rents subsidised by the exchequer, they're doing it to private landlords anyway.
No local authority should have to provide housing at 40 a week.

Lot of houses at those rents are what's known as SI houses, tenant provided the site

efanton

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/varadkar-martin-and-ryan-to-try-and-overcome-major-obstacles-encountered-in-talks-1002707.html

Leo Varadkar, Micheál Martin and Eamon Ryan are to meet to try and overcome major obstacles encountered in talks between the parties seeking to form a government.

Issues relating to housing, the pension age, Direct Provision and the country’s roads are among the major stumbling blocks between the parties who cannot agree.

The Green Party is seeking to “gut entirely” the country’s road budget but this is being sharply resisted by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil in talks aimed at forming a government.

There have been sharp clashes between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil with resentment building that Micheál Martin’s team have sided with the Greens on issues.

The parties will for the first time today grapple with the highly contentious area of agriculture, amid commitments to reduce carbon emissions by 7% a year.

Well if the Green's will not back down on this it's possible we are looking at GE2