€30 million for 61 apartments

surrender monkey

salmocab wrote: »

I think there is a new system in place, it’s a different setup, I know someone who moved into the development in Dundrum and it’s some 25 year contract. Not sure of the details but from what he said it’s not like the old system.

That's the long term leasing initiative. Where private funds purchase property and lease them back to the council for 80% of the market rate. These companies are going around hoovering up houses all over dublin especially in areas that all ready have a large social housing mix. To add insult to injury these companies don't pay any tax and the council is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the property. These 61 apartments are being purchased under cairn homes Part V obligations they will be owned by the council and will be eligible to be purchased by the tenants at up to 60% discount depending on household income after only 1 year of tenancy. The system is bat sh1t crazy !

James Brown

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So it should be for the poor and those that don't work at all, or the really wealthy? What about someone like me or many of my friends on about 40k?

Not at all. I don't know where you are getting that.
The idea is housing for people who can't afford it. You could say 'I'd love to live in a rat infested ****e hole in Oliver Bond for 20 pound a week' or what ever, but the principle is sound. Leasing luxury apartments for 25 years is the other end of the scale. You can whinge about people who need a dig out getting one or you can foot their hotel bills when it comes to that.
There is a means test. If you fall under it you can seek aid.
If you can afford your own house good man. If you can afford rent, good on you. If you can't you need a dig out. I'd rather my money went on renting you a tax payer owned flat than putting you up in a hotel or leasing an apartment for you.
How fashionable an area is should have f*** all to do with it IMO.

Now before the usual FG mob chime in with rent arrears, agreed. rent should be taken from source, wages or dole or pension. People in social housing in arrears can just as easily be people in luxury D4 apartments in arrears. It's a related but separate issue.
People who don't want to work: Who every they may be they are obviously good at defrauding the tax payer and they can do that in social housing or a luxuary D4 apartment. So again a related but separate issue.

In answer to you question, anyone who can't afford rent should get a state dig out with social housing IMO. I think it should be modest but up to code and your rent, based on income, should be taken out of your wages or dole.

tobefrank321

Bowie wrote: »

Not at all. I don't know where you are getting that.
The idea is housing for people who can't afford it. You could say 'I'd love to live in a rat infested ****e hole in Oliver Bond for 20 pound a week' or what ever, but the principle is sound. Leasing luxury apartments for 25 years is the other end of the scale. You can whinge about people who need a dig out getting one or you can foot their hotel bills when it comes to that.
There is a means test. If you fall under it you can seek aid.
If you can afford your own house good man. If you can afford rent, good on you. If you can't you need a dig out. I'd rather my money went on renting you a tax payer owned flat than putting you up in a hotel or leasing an apartment for you.
How fashionable an area is should have f*** all to do with it IMO.

Now before the usual FG mob chime in with rent arrears, agreed. rent should be taken from source, wages or dole or pension. People in social housing in arrears can just as easily be people in luxury D4 apartments in arrears. It's a related but separate issue.
People who don't want to work: Who every they may be they are obviously good at defrauding the tax payer and they can do that in social housing or a luxuary D4 apartment. So again a related but separate issue.

In answer to you question, anyone who can't afford rent should get a state dig out with social housing IMO. I think it should be modest but up to code and your rent, based on income, should be taken out of your wages or dole.

There are a number of fundamental problems with this deal though.

1 bed apartments are just not a good match for social housing. They are small living spaces. There is no room for friends or relatives to stay, and many people might have custody arrangements for children. You could be talking of a very limited number of people who want 1 bed accommodation and don't forget if you turn down a 1 bed apartment you could be forced to the back of the queue.

I can't think of a more unsocial environment than a 1 bed apartment.

Property prices will plummet in the next couple of years like the previous recession, and this recession may even be worse. A couple years from now these apartments will be worth half what they are now. The DCC official who signed this deal has to recognise this if they had any sense of whats going on in the world and we know that's not a strong point in those circles.

This will do nothing for the thousands of families in emergency accommodation.

472k for a 1 bed apartment - when Cairn homes previously sold houses for half that price.

D4 - hardly a deprived area. You'd actually be moving people from their own local areas to somewhere they are unfamiliar with.

The principle of paying top dollar by councils to tick the social housing box in well off areas is unsustainable. Where does it end, social housing mansions on Killiney Hill?

We're broke - value for money has to be at the core of everything we do from now on. Clearly some people haven't got the memo on this one.

Whether you agree or not, buying now at the very top of the market on the eve of a massive property crash is incompetent to say the least.

Topgear on Dave

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So it should be for the poor and those that don't work at all, or the really wealthy? What about someone like me or many of my friends on about 40k?

You will live out beyond the M50 like myself and all my work colleagues. :pac:

Kilcock and Dunshaughlin have serious amounts of housing going up the past 3 or 4 years. Its just too pricey in near the city, I couldn't afford it.

Mad_maxx

surrender monkey wrote: »

That's the long term leasing initiative. Where private funds purchase property and lease them back to the council for 80% of the market rate. These companies are going around hoovering up houses all over dublin especially in areas that all ready have a large social housing mix. To add insult to injury these companies don't pay any tax and the council is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the property. These 61 apartments are being purchased under cairn homes Part V obligations they will be owned by the council and will be eligible to be purchased by the tenants at up to 60% discount depending on household income after only 1 year of tenancy. The system is bat sh1t crazy !

the councils use those long term lease schemes to house problem clients , i should know, i have one , the rent is guarenteed but in the case of my own , within six months , the carpet was ripped off the stairs , most of the furniture missing and the property a pig sty

Mad_maxx

tobefrank321 wrote: »

472k for 1 bed apartment. Nothing to do with who lives where. Or snobbery. Do you think its value for the taxpayer? It won't even accomodate a family.

Where do we draw the line? €1 million for social houses? On Killiney Hill perhaps? Just to prove we can mix the super rich with the poor? That seems to be what you are advocating.

We're broke and we are forking out 472k for a 1 bed apartment. At a time when we had one of the lowest ICU bed ratios in Europe. I know which one we should have prioritised.

Had Dublin City Council waited a year they would have got these apartments for substantially less. Instead they went in at the very top of the market.

Its completely indefensible.

thats the politically correct ireland we have today , ideology trumps fiscal common sense every time

Mad_maxx

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The biggest issue with this is that living in good areas should be an aspiration, something to aim for for a better life.

That aspiration appears to have been removed recently which means yet less incentive to get off your hole.

It's not a great state of affairs really. If you do things right, work hard, are responsible then you shouldn't be threatened with your life being turned upside down by a dysfunctional and out of control family being put next door.

It's morally wrong in my view.

im reliably told this is known as " equality "

nigeldaniel

Let me see now, lots of people complain about that lack of social housing. Then, when the social housing goes up lots of people complain.

colm_mcm

nigeldaniel wrote: »

Let me see now, lots of people complain about that lack of social housing. Then, when the social housing goes up lots of people complain.

That’s like saying, lots of people complain about lack of buses, but when Dublin Bus spend 100 billion on a solid gold bus that seats 20 people, they’re still complaining.

enricoh

enricoh wrote: »

Maybe someone should whisper in the government's ear that we're a little bit bankrupt!!

Who is in charge in that council area? FF, Greens, Social Democrats and Labour. Not FG.

surrender monkey

Mad_maxx wrote: »

the councils use those long term lease schemes to house problem clients , i should know, i have one , the rent is guarenteed but in the case of my own , within six months , the carpet was ripped off the stairs , most of the furniture missing and the property a pig sty

These leases are not with private individuals such as yourself. These are large companies with huge portfolios of houses. One in particular has bought over 200 houses in Dublin in the last year and is leasing them for a 25 year term. It's a different set up to the earlier system single property owners wouldn't qualify.

Mad_maxx

surrender monkey wrote: »

These leases are not with private individuals such as yourself. These are large companies with huge portfolios of houses. One in particular has bought over 200 houses in Dublin in the last year and is leasing them for a 25 year term. It's a different set up to the earlier system single property owners wouldn't qualify.

Either way, the councils seize the chance to get troublemakers off their books for a long time

JJJackal

I cant say I agree that spending this quantity of money on social housing is good use of tax payers money.

Most people who have to buy their own house from their own money cannot afford to live in D4.

You could build twice the number of social houses (eg 3 bed semis) further out for the same money? If there is a limited pot of money surely your better off getting double the bang for your buck

ChikiChiki

This is madness. Need to follow the money trail here. Who is signing off on this? Shocking misuse of public funds.

salmocab

JJJackal wrote: »

I cant say I agree that spending this quantity of money on social housing is good use of tax payers money.

Most people who have to buy their own house from their own money cannot afford to live in D4.

You could build twice the number of social houses (eg 3 bed semis) further out for the same money? If there is a limited pot of money surely your better off getting double the bang for your buck

I agree the money could be better spent as in go further elsewhere but there Are plenty of people from D4 that need social housing and I think that in general they try to house people close to where they have family etc.

Muahahaha

Bowie wrote: »

It's another argument on how we feel about tenants buying social housing.

Its probably a whole other thread but I dont get why the State sells social housing on to tenants. All that does is reduce the stock of social housing instead of building upon it. It would seem a no brainer for tenants be allowed to live there until they die and then the unit goes on to house another family who need it. Instead we've this situation where each social housing unit built is only ever used by one family who then buy it and it ends up on the private market.

I know Thatcher privatized large swathes of social housing in England during the 80s and all it did is make some people money and left the State with still needing to build more units. A complete failure of a policy imo.

walshb

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Great value for money for the taxpayer.

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/cairn-homes-agrees-30m-deal-to-sell-61-apartments-to-council-on-former-rte-lands-in-donnybrook-39260558.html

472,000 for a 1 bed apartment. Not even a family home.

So Sonny was right after all...

“The working man is a sucker.”

y0ssar1an22

colm_mcm wrote: »

At least this will hit the property prices in the area


This is bonkers, same story in Dundrum. Where’s the incentive for anyone to get off their arse and work?

Yeah, I know, not all social housing is blah blah blah

right near the luas line as well. perfect for workers.

make the workers commute for a few hours a day, they'll be grand!

salmocab

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

right near the luas line as well. perfect for workers.

make the workers commute for a few hours a day, they'll be grand!

I know two people who got apartments in the Dundrum complex and both work, I’d imagine most there do.

TallGlass2

ChikiChiki wrote: »

This is madness. Need to follow the money trail here. Who is signing off on this? Shocking misuse of public funds.

It's in the public interests, the public in this case not willing to do **** all except get everything spoon fed to you. Even if it's a 500k house. Mean while the idiots like myself working away funding this madness, trying to get on the ladder by buying some F rated house costing a fortune.

If you also think it's just the house these people get you are mistaken, they'll walk into it fully kitted out.

Muahahaha

salmocab wrote: »

I know two people who got apartments in the Dundrum complex and both work, I’d imagine most there do.

what their circumstances that they both work but got a social housing apartment in Dundrum? Are they both on really low wages or just working part time?

salmocab

Muahahaha wrote: »

what their circumstances that they both work but got a social housing apartment in Dundrum? Are they both on really low wages or just working part time?

Both work full time, don’t know how much they earn but doubt either are on great money. They don’t live together by the way it’s two Separate apartments. Where I live lots of my neighbours are in council housing and they nearly all seem to work and I might add look after their homes extremely well. There seems to be a misconception that social housing is for the unemployed and wasters.

ziggyman17

Lots of apartments in private developments are being bought up all over the city by private investors and then are being leased to back to the council for 25yrs, I work in property management and in all the complex's we look after this is happening, the management companies are having to put their foot down and limiting the amount of sales in each complex's, because a lot of the people that are being put in these places are not fit for purpose.... People who get things for free do not usually follow the rules that are set down to all the residents for the benefit of everybody living there....

Fred Cryton

listermint wrote: »

The usual to and fro crap talk from the usual suspects

Meanwhile mixing socially provided housing with normal units is common in the continent where a lawyer living next door to a plumber in say Vienna would be fine.

But here in the Cosmopolitan Dublin the snobby gits look down on working people and claim they get everything for quite literally free.

It's boring now lads. Absolutely boring.

No-one has a problem with living next to a plumber, or anyone else who's working....


You still don't get it do you? The people in question are called the welfare class, not the working class.

ted1

Will the council have to pay an annual management charge ? Is the development going to have a gym/concierge etc fir the social tenants to use?

Kivaro

Fred Cryton wrote: »

No-one has a problem with living next to a plumber, or anyone else who's working....


You still don't get it do you? The people in question are called the welfare class, not the working class.

I think he is trying to imply that there will be working recipients who will be living in these social units. We know he is talking nonsense when he uses plumbers as an example. In the old days, we had lots of working people in council houses, but these days it is far more lucrative for people to just sit at home and not work due to the cumulative unsustainable welfare benefits that they receive.

In Ireland, we have the insane situation of people being better off financially by not working in this country than those who actually do work. When you have a system that creates and sustains this imbalance, you just know that it is deeply flawed system.

Snow Garden

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Great value for money for the taxpayer.

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/cairn-homes-agrees-30m-deal-to-sell-61-apartments-to-council-on-former-rte-lands-in-donnybrook-39260558.html

472,000 for a 1 bed apartment. Not even a family home.

Another shockingly poor deal by our wasteful government. I wonder who benefits.

Fred Cryton

Kivaro wrote: »

I think he is trying to imply that there will be working recipients who will be living in these social units. We know he is talking nonsense when he uses plumbers as an example. In the old days, we had lots of working people in council houses, but these days it is far more lucrative for people to just sit at home and not work due to the cumulative unsustainable welfare benefits that they receive.

In Ireland, we have the insane situation of people being better off financially by not working in this country than those who actually do work. When you have a system that creates and sustains this imbalance, you just know that it is deeply flawed system.

Correct, and the very act of not working because you're getting more for free off the taxpayer is in of itself a morally reprehensible act, and on its own is enough for all of decent society to not want to have any association with these people. That's even before i get into their behaviour.



Apparently the apartments in the IFSC above the M&S are up to 30% social housing. There are feral kids roaming the hallways, threatening, thugish, stealing bikes in the basement, stealing peoples post from their letterboxes. Imagine being one of the 70% non-social residents, either paying 2k a month or 400k+ for an apartment there and having to put up with that.

y0ssar1an22

Muahahaha wrote: »

yeah likewise, not against social housing but the state has to get value for money. Nearly 500k for a 1 bed apartment is not that. I suppose its a slight improvement on what went on out in Dundrum with the state taking a 30 year lease at huge rents of up to 3k and then at the end of it all the developer still owns it and will likely be given another 30 year lease. Thats fcuked up.

there must be some sort of rational explanation for this surely?! aside from leo being able to say we built X number of houses?

LuasSimon

Wonder how many are for travellers ??
About time Donnybrook got their share of travellers that nearby RTÉ loves , hope those apartments have somewhere for horses or there will be trouble ??