Sinn Fein - 230k cap on affordable housing

Hubertj

predictable but pathetic populist boll*xology from SF. If programme for government included 1 million house, SF would say 2 million. And 24% people voted for these spoofers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sinn-fein-call-for-230k-cap-on-price-of-affordable-urban-housing-1009670.html

19233974

Hubertj wrote: »

predictable but pathetic populist boll*xology from SF. If programme for government included 1 million house, SF would say 2 million. And 24% people voted for these spoofers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sinn-fein-call-for-230k-cap-on-price-of-affordable-urban-housing-1009670.html

Although unrealistic, SF are not the people who got us into the absolute sh*tshow of a situation with the housing market. So your anger should probably be redirected to the people actually responsible for the housing crisis

The Belly

Hubertj wrote: »

predictable but pathetic populist boll*xology from SF. If programme for government included 1 million house, SF would say 2 million. And 24% people voted for these spoofers

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/sinn-fein-call-for-230k-cap-on-price-of-affordable-urban-housing-1009670.html

People voted for them as there is was no other choice. What is important is that people who never would vote SF are sending out a signal to FF FG that the old policys cant continue.

Since 2008 wages are stagnent the cost of living and taxes have continued up and the ability to afford a average house is beyond most people.

Effectively gutting middle Ireland.

SF's past and all the other reasons the media give don't cut it anymore. Voters are willing to take the risk as no other options are available.

Hubertj

19233974 wrote: »

Although unrealistic, SF are not the people who got us into the absolute sh*tshow of a situation with the housing market. So your anger should probably be redirected to the people actually responsible for the housing crisis

i agree with you but contributions like this from SF do nothing to help. First of all it is populist crap. Secondly, they are trying to deflect from the carry on last week - Paddy Holohan being put forward as mayor and then the party attending the funeral of a murdering terrorist in contravention of all guidelines.

fliball123

Hubertj wrote: »

i agree with you but contributions like this from SF do nothing to help. First of all it is populist crap. Secondly, they are trying to deflect from the carry on last week - Paddy Holohan being put forward as mayor and then the party attending the funeral of a murdering terrorist in contravention of all guidelines.

There needs to be more transparency and more accountability for government , all of them will sell you the sun moon and stars to get a bit of power. I would like all parties to come out with their top 10 things they want to achieve with full costings of where the money is coming from if they got into power. Then after the 4 years depending on how much they have done this would be reflected in their pensions as in if they got 1 thing achieved they receive 1/10th of their pension and so forth. The only way to put manners on politicians is by hitting them where it hurts "the pocket"

19233974

Hubertj wrote: »

i agree with you but contributions like this from SF do nothing to help. First of all it is populist crap. Secondly, they are trying to deflect from the carry on last week - Paddy Holohan being put forward as mayor and then the party attending the funeral of a murdering terrorist in contravention of all guidelines.

FF havent exactly covered themselves in glory over the last week either. Im not a SF supporter, beyond their top 3-4 guys the rest are absolute idiots, and i think most people are aware of that. However i think they will provide good opposition and actually challenge some of the ludicrious policies of the govt. in regards to housing instead of the yes men that FF provided over the last number of years.

They got their votes based on the desire for change and SF were the only option as an alternative.

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split

maxwell smart

I hope people realise this is all political point scoring as there is no hope of either side doing anything like they have promised.

Eoin is asking for the government to double it's commitment but at the same time saying they are incapable of delivering the original commitment.

This is why people are completely pi**ed off with politics and are beginning to lean towards populist platforms which have no substance behind them (although in fairness that's what we have always had, just without the extreme views).

All parties are in it for one thing, themselves

Naos

How much would it cost to build the house that is capped at 230k?

Truthvader

Where's Francie?

This thread has been critical of Sinn Fein for about an hour now and still no sign

Yurt2

Truthvader wrote: »

Where's Francie?

This thread has been critical of Sinn Fein for about an hour now and still no sign

You weren't long answering the batsignal yourself.

FWIW, FF's new housing minister is giving figures of 160-180k and 250k for larger housing units for affordable purchase.

SF's costings were more or less in the same ranges I think I recall and were based off constructions by housing associations they wish to scale up.

Knock yourselves out...

The_Conductor

Guys- if this thread descends into various political factions bashing lumps out of each other- I will close this thread without hesitation.
This is your one and only warning.

Eric Cartman

while I am absolutely loathe to agree with SF in any capacity but.. ,

230k is 207k (90%) and a 23k deposit

207k / 3.5 is 59k household income under ICB rules

from the CSO :

The median gross income per household was €45,256 in 2016, see Table 1.1.

Even their 230k cap is not affordable to the average household.

45,256 x 3.5 = 158.4k ( @ 90%) + deposit (17.6k) = 176k is the price an affordable house should be .

I don't usually agree with caps and other crap like this but I would thoroughly agree that no developer/council/policitian/planner should be able to call an affordable house 'affordable' unless its 176k or less. If you're planning rules or development plans stipulate that there has to be affordable housing, it should have to be affordable by that metric.

Assetbacked

I posted in the other thread, but the fact FF, FG and the Greens are now huddled together means that, if voters are not happy with the housing situation and want an alternative at the next election, they will look for an alternative party which means SF gain even further. Like it or not (I don't like it), the fact housing (in particular rent) has gone to Celtic Tiger levels in a very short space of time, is coming at a cost to the younger generations and this will be even further reflected in their voting preferences (i.e. SF popularity) over the coming elections unless something dramatic changes.

Fred Cryton

Eric Cartman wrote: »

while I am absolutely loathe to agree with SF in any capacity but.. ,

230k is 207k (90%) and a 23k deposit

207k / 3.5 is 59k household income under ICB rules

from the CSO :


Even their 230k cap is not affordable to the average household.

45,256 x 3.5 = 158.4k ( @ 90%) + deposit (17.6k) = 176k is the price an affordable house should be .

I don't usually agree with caps and other crap like this but I would thoroughly agree that no developer/council/policitian/planner should be able to call an affordable house 'affordable' unless its 176k or less. If you're planning rules or development plans stipulate that there has to be affordable housing, it should have to be affordable by that metric.

Does that CSO figure include all households, even pensioners?


I saw somewhere the average salary of full time worker was €49k. So surely the average household income of a household where at least one person was working full time and earning €49k, would be a lot more than €49k. You might have two people in the household both earning the average of €49k which would be €100k.

19233974

Eric Cartman wrote: »

while I am absolutely loathe to agree with SF in any capacity but.. ,

230k is 207k (90%) and a 23k deposit

207k / 3.5 is 59k household income under ICB rules

from the CSO :


Even their 230k cap is not affordable to the average household.

45,256 x 3.5 = 158.4k ( @ 90%) + deposit (17.6k) = 176k is the price an affordable house should be .

I don't usually agree with caps and other crap like this but I would thoroughly agree that no developer/council/policitian/planner should be able to call an affordable house 'affordable' unless its 176k or less. If you're planning rules or development plans stipulate that there has to be affordable housing, it should have to be affordable by that metric.

Tbf o broin is an actual expert in this area and it is definitely possible, big issue is land cost. The state being the biggest land owner obviously solves this problem.

3 bed terrace at 160sqm, at €1200 per sqm and you have your house for 192k.

So plenty of room for that target provided the state provides the land, which isnt a bad deal considering they are signing up for insnae 25 year leases at 2k per month or 750k per unit off some of the REITs and private developers.

Yurt2

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Does that CSO figure include all households, even pensioners?


I saw somewhere the average salary of full time worker was €49k. So surely the average household income of a household where at least one person was working full time and earning €49k, would be a lot more than €49k. You might have two people in the household both earning the average of €49k which would be €100k.

Average Vs median

Median is obviously has more utility when we're talking about housing affordability.

If you take 9 public servants and Bono, and calculate the average income vs the median income, you'll get two very different answers.

Eric Cartman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Does that CSO figure include all households, even pensioners?


I saw somewhere the average salary of full time worker was €49k. So surely the average household income of a household where at least one person was working full time and earning €49k, would be a lot more than €49k. You might have two people in the household both earning the average of €49k which would be €100k.

two people earning 49k or above in a household is absolutely no average here.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-gpii/geographicalprofilesofincomeinireland2016/incomeinireland/

Nearly two thirds (62.6%) of Irish households had a gross income of less than €60,000 in 2016. In contrast, only 14.1% had an income above €100,000, see Figure 1.2.

theres only 248,000 pensioners in Ireland. theres 2.4 million in the 'labour force' (not pensioners, disabled, in school, kids etc..)

176k is closer to the real figure than 230k for housing affordability. Its why I used median income rather than average. SF's number only helps those few at the top of that 62% and those above it, 230k represents less than 50% of the populations affordability.

Fred Cryton

Thing is, should we really be including households that are earning minimum wage? Not everyone is in a position to buy a home and people in minimum wage jobs whose employment is precarious (see the recent COVID-19 layoffs) would not exactly fit the bill.

To me affordability means a single person earning 50k being able to buy a home, or a couple earning up to 80k combined. An average nurse or primary school teacher.

The Belly

The Belly wrote: »

People voted for them as there is was no other choice..

There was plenty of choice, people are just too stupid to do anything but believe bull and ignore the good job FG has done over the last few years.

Idbatterim

Kyle Slimy Barn wrote: »

There was plenty of choice, people are just too stupid to do anything but believe bull and ignore the good job FG has done over the last few years.

Troll attempts need to be a bit more subtle...

Hubertj

19233974 wrote: »

Tbf o broin is an actual expert in this area and it is definitely possible, big issue is land cost. The state being the biggest land owner obviously solves this problem.

3 bed terrace at 160sqm, at €1200 per sqm and you have your house for 192k.

So plenty of room for that target provided the state provides the land, which isnt a bad deal considering they are signing up for insnae 25 year leases at 2k per month or 750k per unit off some of the REITs and private developers.

what is he an expert in? From what i can see he has never had a job in private sector. Does he have any experience in construction, QS etc? Its easy to write a book about how things should be done in theory...

Eric Cartman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Thing is, should we really be including households that are earning minimum wage? Not everyone is in a position to buy a home and people in minimum wage jobs whose employment is precarious (see the recent COVID-19 layoffs) would not exactly fit the bill.

To me affordability means a single person earning 50k being able to buy a home, or a couple earning up to 80k combined. An average nurse or primary school teacher.

dual civil servant households never had an issue getting a mortgage.

Your average is still two professionals, nobody is advocating for a mortgage for 2 people stacking shelves for 9.80 an hour having a mortgage but if you had a couple where he’s on 35 and she works part time for 10-15k a year , that couple are not at the bottom rung, its quite average and they should be able to get a house

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

Troll attempts need to be a bit more subtle...

It's not a troll attempt it is facts. SF are a basket case and anyone voting for them hasn't two brain cells to rub together.

19233974

Hubertj wrote: »

what is he an expert in? From what i can see he has never had a job in private sector. Does he have any experience in construction, QS etc? Its easy to write a book about how things should be done in theory...

How many other ministers have a book on the housing market? I have actually read it, having years of experience in construction and its extremely well researched and gives a really comprehensive view of what is a very complex problem. So i would say from a ministerial viewpoint he is an expert, and the ideal person to make policy decisions.

But you are obviously commenting having never read the book, yet seem to be happy with the likes of eoghan murphy? I take it his arts degree makes him an expert in your eyes?

Hubertj

19233974 wrote: »

How many other ministers have a book on the housing market? I have actually read it, having years of experience in construction and its extremely well researched and gives a really comprehensive view of what is a very complex problem. So i would say from a ministerial viewpoint he is an expert, and the ideal person to make policy decisions.

But you are obviously commenting having never read the book, yet seem to be happy with the likes of eoghan murphy? I take it his arts degree makes him an expert in your eyes?

I wouldn’t give my hard earned money to SF or the animals they stand in front of. Clearly FF and FG made a balls of housing policy. I never said they didn’t. SF are full of crap the same as all the others.

Cuddlesworth

Eric Cartman wrote: »

dual civil servant households never had an issue getting a mortgage.

They do now. New entrants earn much less then their older counterparts and the 3.5 rules limit them.

SouthWesterly

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

They do now. New entrants earn much less then their older counterparts and the 3.5 rules limit them.

Dual CS house could have a combined income of under €50k.

Eric Cartman

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Dual CS house could have a combined income of under €50k.

There we go, thus making 230k houses not ‘affordable’ , 179 but lets round it to 180k, 180k is an affordable house

19233974

Eric Cartman wrote: »

There we go, thus making 230k houses not ‘affordable’ , 179 but lets round it to 180k, 180k is an affordable house

yes but 230k is likely the minimum price you could realistically build a 3 bed for in dublin if you included land costs. and 230k is sure as hell better than what we have at the moment, if it ever came to pass.

The only way of solving this is for the government to build, otherwise we are relying on deals with REITs etc. for the provision of housing which is insanity

Eric Cartman

19233974 wrote: »

yes but 230k is likely the minimum price you could realistically build a 3 bed for in dublin if you included land costs. and 230k is sure as hell better than what we have at the moment, if it ever came to pass.

The only way of solving this is for the government to build, otherwise we are relying on deals with REITs etc. for the provision of housing which is insanity

There is absolutely no way you could build a house for 230k inside the m50 or even outside it where there is reliable public transport aslong as you have to buy land. I think the idea of ‘affordable’ dublin housing without a massive government subsidy is pretty much dead.

If you look on daft for 3 beds and soecify all of dublin and dublin commuter towns, 175k limit, you get a few in oarts of clondalkin that I wouldnt let a dog live in, places in need of atleast 100k of resfurbishment, drogheda and portarlington.