Sinn Fein - 230k cap on affordable housing

Idbatterim

Kyle Slimy Barn wrote: »

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.

I hear about 50,000 social houses. Listen , nobody gives a toss about them , people in general that vote for ffg , won't be qualifying for social houses. Many would have been those on the bread line themselves, qualifying for nothing and paying extortionate rent etc... paying a marginal tax rate of fifty percent over a pittance. To compensate for no water charges , as good as no lpt , as good as green motor tax now for most cars...

Ffg are done if they dont alert put housing for workers, cant wait to see how the next few years pan out... it must devastate them , that the young and young ish have had enough. Throwing more money at pensioners isnt enough to buy them power any more... normally corrupt incompetent disgraces.

Fg have presided over nearly a decade of free housing for some , prime location, a rated homes. Endless welfare etc , sf cant do much worse. At least However they may address the issue of housing for the working poor and middle class ...

19233974

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

well you definitely can, if it was a government initiative the land would have to be provided. Which is a small problem in the grand scheme of things as the state owns a hell of a lot of land!

you could easily build 3 beds for 230k, and go a long way towards relieving the pressure on the system. Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

DubCount

230k....how do you reduce the cost to achieve this? Reduce wages for those in the building trade, reduce VAT on property, reduce charges by local authorities to connect services, reduce building regulations on energy efficiency etc. ......

I would to see 3 bed houses in Dublin for that price, but who takes the pain to achieve it.

Yellow_Fern

19233974 wrote: »

well you definitely can, if it was a government initiative the land would have to be provided. Which is a small problem in the grand scheme of things as the state owns a hell of a lot of land!

you could easily build 3 beds for 230k, and go a long way towards relieving the pressure on the system. Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

If you give land away for free its just a handout to a certain class of society. Id much rather land be sold and used to pay for metros and public transport that would benfit everyone.

Yellow_Fern

19233974 wrote: »

Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

The gov doesnt do deals with REITs.

19233974

19233974 wrote: »

well you definitely can, if it was a government initiative the land would have to be provided. Which is a small problem in the grand scheme of things as the state owns a hell of a lot of land!

you could easily build 3 beds for 230k, and go a long way towards relieving the pressure on the system. Look at the RICS costings and you can see how it can be done. Its better than throwing millions and millions away on HAP and ridiculous deals with REITs

They would be small 3 beds. Even in the west build costs are minimum 155 euro a sq foot with a contractor (hence why I’m going direct labour myself). In Dublin that could easily be 170 to 180 a square foot. This is excluding land cost.

Yellow_Fern

Bear in mind that if you are using build cost estimates from a few years ago they are out of date, since NZEB regulations came in in last December.

Idbatterim

DubCount wrote: »

230k....how do you reduce the cost to achieve this? Reduce wages for those in the building trade, reduce VAT on property, reduce charges by local authorities to connect services, reduce building regulations on energy efficiency etc. ......

I would to see 3 bed houses in Dublin for that price, but who takes the pain to achieve it.

Reduce the government take. Adjust social housing rents from the near free amount they are now too.. let them implement a proper lpt too... I'd also abolish stamp duty if it's going to he your ppr

handlemaster

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

Nor are they ones to get us out of it.

Yurt2

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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.

Except for the units that have already been built within the m50 under the O’Culann model, and some units for significantly less than that, for affordable purchase.

Too many people are completely psychologically wedded to developer led housing provision in this country.

There will also be massive slack in the construction industry over the next couple of years. It would be a ballsy guy to invest in office space or hotels in the next 24-36 months. Now is the perfect time to seriously ramp up affordable housing construction in the state.

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If you give land away for free its just a handout to a certain class of society. Id much rather land be sold and used to pay for metros and public transport that would benfit everyone.

What class of person would that be? A couple applying for a mortgage for an affordable home that they will maintain and raise a family in?

There's more than economics and differing views on how housing can be financed and reasonably paid for here, there's also nuclear powered snobbery.

Affordable housing should be the goal of the government. Locking huge amounts of people out of home ownership creates huge problems, not least the slow moving train crash of having hundreds of thousands (millions?) heading for being caught in the private rental trap in their old age. You, I, the next working generation and everyone else will end up paying through the nose for that disaster if we allow it to happen.

Old diesel

Yurt! wrote: »

Except for the units that have already been built within the m50 under the O’Culann model, and some units for significantly less than that, for affordable purchase.

Too many people are completely psychologically wedded to developer led housing provision in this country.

There will also be massive slack in the construction industry over the next couple of years. It would be a ballsy guy to invest in office space or hotels in the next 24-36 months. Now is the perfect time to seriously ramp up affordable housing construction in the state.

The Hugh Brennan model is excellent.

On the wider idea - I assume that 230 k is the capped cost to the buyer.

And there would be nothing to stop SF etc achieving the 230 k price by doing something like..


Price of house 270 k.

State support - 40 k.

Buyer still pays 230 k (270 k - 40 k).

Yellow_Fern

Yurt! wrote: »

Except for the units that have already been built within the m50 under the O’Culann model, and some units for significantly less than that, for affordable purchase.

That model involved getting cheap land and development levy waivers. If you try to scale that mode, local authorities will need raise money from elsewhere. There is no free lunches. Why not just cut waiver development levies for all? This model also restricts resale of the property, meaning the house has less intrinsic value. It is a nice option but they are no bargains.

Yurt! wrote: »

What class of person would that be? A couple applying for a mortgage for an affordable home that they will maintain and raise a family in?

There's more than economics and differing views on how housing can be financed and reasonably paid for here, there's also nuclear powered snobbery.

Why should low income renters subsidize middle income who are privileged enough to buy these houses?

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

That model involved getting cheap land and development levy waivers. If you try to scale that mode, local authorities will need raise money from elsewhere. There is no free lunches. Why not just cut waiver development levies for all? This model also restricts resale of the property, meaning the house has less intrinsic value. It is a nice option but they are no bargains.

Why should low income renters subsidize middle income who are privileged enough to buy these houses?

Low income renters are precisely the type of folks the current government plans (and the SF plans which are by in large similar) will have the boot removed from their neck by means of affordable purchase, or if they're not able to get access to a mortgage, cost rental.

People caught in the rental merry go round have been subsidising 'other classes' for quite long enough.

You're opposed to a workable solution staring you in the face for ideological reasons.

On your first point, you express concern for local authorities ability to raise revenue if development levies are waived, and then in the next sentance suggest waiving development levies for all (?).

Yellow_Fern

Yurt! wrote: »

Low income renters are precisely the type of folks the current government plans (and the SF plans which are by in large similar) will have the boot removed from their neck by means of affordable purchase, or if they're not able to get access to a mortgage, cost rental.

People caught in the rental merry go round have been subsidising 'other classes' for quite long enough.

You're opposed to a workable solution staring you in the face for ideological reasons.

On your first point, you express concern for local authorities ability to raise revenue if development levies are waived, and then in the next sentance suggest waiving development levies for all (?).

The point is this scheme is not so different to just raising income taxes and building more social houses or increasing income taxes and rolling out HAP to those on lightly higher incomes. More of the same.

fret_wimp2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Why should low income renters subsidize middle income who are privileged enough to buy these houses?

Privilege doesnt come into it for most people. People work hard to get educated, pay for school, move to where the work is, upskill and put in long hours in the office, do without nice things & save aggressively to afford these houses.

Nowhere in that do i say that low income workers dont work hard, im sure most do too, but the idea that all people who have and can afford houses are privileged is just wrong.

nerrad01

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

If you give land away for free its just a handout to a certain class of society. Id much rather land be sold and used to pay for metros and public transport that would benfit everyone.

do you realise how much we are spending on HAP and providing hotels and other forms of private rental accomodation? you are already giving it away! may aswell get something for the money in the form of social housing stock

Hubertj

We need to deliver affordable housing as the current system doesn’t look sustainable. I don’t know if the new government policy is the right way. What ever happens, we need to increase supply and a % of that supply has to be delivered at a lower cost so that can it can be sold/rented at a lower rate to people that qualify for it (dunno the criteria). I just have no confidence that public service can deliver at scale efficiently.

perfectkama

nerrad01 wrote: »

do you realise how much we are spending on HAP and providing hotels and other forms of private rental accomodation? you are already giving it away! may aswell get something for the money in the form of social housing stock

Do you realize that 1/2 of it goes back to revenue as tax?
de private thing doesn't need exp management or risk of non payment of rent which is rife in state housing DOH....

Yellow_Fern

nerrad01 wrote: »

do you realise how much we are spending on HAP and providing hotels and other forms of private rental accomodation? you are already giving it away! may aswell get something for the money in the form of social housing stock

I am not convinced that any of these plans are massively cheaper. I would say though that HAP is a significant prosupply measure and there is no doubt that it incentivised house construction. Cutting development levies for all builders would be another prosupply measure.There is no magic solutions, just small differences, small benefits to some of these models. The smartest ones are where there is intelligent incentive structures ie. profit incentives.

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The point is this scheme is not so different to just raising income taxes and building more social houses or increasing income taxes and rolling out HAP to those on lightly higher incomes. More of the same.

It's completely different. This is more or less cost neutral to the state. People take out mortgages on these properties and equity will be shared with the state. There are clawback clauses if the property is sold also. Traditional social housing and HAP sees the state carrying the can for almost everything.

I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you understand the proposals at all.

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am not convinced that any of these plans are massively cheaper. I would say though that HAP is a significant prosupply measure and there is no doubt that it incentivised house construction. Cutting development levies for all builders would be another prosupply measure.There is no magic solutions, just small differences, small benefits to some of these models. The smartest ones are where there is intelligent incentive structures ie. profit incentives.

This is ideological bunk, and supply supply supply zombies have been proven wrong in every major western property market.

IAmTheReign

Yurt! wrote: »

It's completely different. This is more or less cost neutral to the state. People take out mortgages on these properties and equity will be shared with the state. There are clawback clauses if the property is sold also. Traditional social housing and HAP sees the state carrying the can for almost everything.

I'm sorry to say, but I don't think you understand the proposals at all.

I've said this before but a scheme like this is only cost neutral if you assume everyone will actually pay back their mortgage. Considering that 60% of people in social housing in Dublin city are currently in arrears I think this extremely naive.

SF said specifically that this scheme would be aimed at households with incomes of 45k -75k. Since a household earning 45k can only get a mortgage for 157.5k under the CBs LTI rules there is simply no way they could get a mortgage from a bank to purchase a 230k property. The only way this scheme could work is if the government takes on the liability for the mortgage, either by acting a guarantor for the bank or by offering state mortgages.

What are the government going to do when these people stop paying their mortgages?

Limpy

"€521,377 on the two-bed apartments and €472,797 on the one-bed apartments". Purchased from cairn homes.

Imagine being lucky enough to score one of those apartments off the council. 61 lucky people, I hope whoever gets them won't turn it into another Ballymun in 20 year's.

The Belly

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I've said this before but a scheme like this is only cost neutral if you assume everyone will actually pay back their mortgage. Considering that 60% of people in social housing in Dublin city are currently in arrears I think this extremely naive.

SF said specifically that this scheme would be aimed at households with incomes of 45k -75k. Since a household earning 45k can only get a mortgage for 157.5k under the CBs LTI rules there is simply no way they could get a mortgage from a bank to purchase a 230k property. The only way this scheme could work is if the government takes on the liability for the mortgage, either by acting a guarantor for the bank or by offering state mortgages.

What are the government going to do when these people stop paying their mortgages?

230K price 10% down and a mortgage of 207k over 30 years at 1% interest fixed. The government can borrow it for less and provide the mortgage.

Remove the banks out of the equation completely.

No need for them in relation to social and affordable housing

Monthly repayment: €665.79
Mortgage amount: €207,000
Interest rate: 1%
Term: 30 years
Cost of Credit: €32,685.77

Compare the above with the HAP rates.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/renting_a_home/housing_assistance_payment.html#l4292e

Yurt2

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I've said this before but a scheme like this is only cost neutral if you assume everyone will actually pay back their mortgage. Considering that 60% of people in social housing in Dublin city are currently in arrears I think this extremely naive.

SF said specifically that this scheme would be aimed at households with incomes of 45k -75k. Since a household earning 45k can only get a mortgage for 157.5k under the CBs LTI rules there is simply no way they could get a mortgage from a bank to purchase a 230k property. The only way this scheme could work is if the government takes on the liability for the mortgage, either by acting a guarantor for the bank or by offering state mortgages.

What are the government going to do when these people stop paying their mortgages?

What happens when other people stop paying their mortgages? You're asking a far broader question than pertains to affordable housing.

And affordable housing is by and large financed by individuals via traditional mortgages from commercial banks.

You're promoting the fallacy that affordable housing equates to social housing (and that the 'class of people' accessing them will be one and the same). It simply doesn't.

Irish people really need to get their heads around that things can be done differently, and have been done differently and successfully in other jurisdictions.

There's a hostility to solutions or the suggestion of solutions that is simply inexplicable.

(Edit: there will also be affordable units at around the 160k-180k range, as pointed out in this thread and others)

Yellow_Fern

Yurt! wrote: »

This is ideological bunk, and supply supply supply zombies have been proven wrong in every major western property market.

I am all for alternative models. More the better but the fact that there is over 10,000 houses built last year by the for profit sector and only a hundred built by Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance indicates which model is easier to scale. I am all for social housing models that require my contribution for the home dweller. Far too much local authority resources are used on fixing leaky taps and patios in council houses but its not a magic built. Just a possible refinement.

Yurt2

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am all for alternative models. More the better but the fact that there is over 10,000 houses built last year by the for profit sector and only a hundred built by Ó Cualann Cohousing Alliance indicates which model is easier to scale. I am all for social housing models that require my contribution for the home dweller. Far too much local authority resources are used on fixing leaky taps and patios in council houses but its not a magic built. Just a possible refinement.

100 percent open market supply to the highest bidder in a low interest rate environment, no matter how many units are built means ballooning property prices. We see this everywhere from Australia to Hong Kong to the UK. Supply of land is inelastic and that model advantages those with assets to leverage and remortgage, and disadvantages first time buyers and those caught in the rental trap. It's not even a debate at this stage.

Countries like Austria and Singapore figured this out long ago and took measures to ensure affordable supply to their working populations.

As this thread is evidence of, we're still caught in the property yahoo line of thought, who think that simply building more units automatically equals moderating prices.

And too many people don't engage their brains because it's not in their interests to do so.

perfectkama

IAmTheReign wrote: »

What are the government going to do when these people stop paying their mortgages?

Off topic the system allows dysfunction linking provision of social housing to SW payments where the accessed rent or repayment is deducted at source especially when most recipients are on full support would also encourage some to get a job

IAmTheReign

Yurt! wrote: »

What happens when other people stop paying their mortgages? You're asking a far broader question than pertains to affordable housing.

And affordable housing is by and large financed by individuals via traditional mortgages from commercial banks.

You're promoting the fallacy that affordable housing equates to social housing (and that the 'class of people' accessing them will be one and the same). It simply doesn't.

Irish people really need to get their heads around that things can be done differently, and have been done differently and successfully in other jurisdictions.

There's a hostility to solutions or the suggestion of solutions that is simply inexplicable.

(Edit: there will also be affordable units at around the 160k-180k range, as pointed out in this thread and others)

In Ireland, what happens when other people stop paying their mortgage is that the bank, and ultimately their other paying customers, take the hit. This is why interest rates on Irish mortgages are so high compared to other countries. The whole reason the CB LTI caps exist is to reduce the likelihood that people won't be able to afford to pay back their mortgage.

SF themselves said a household with an income of 45k would be able to by a house for 230k. It is not hostility to question how this would be financed given that it is not possible under current private lending regulations.

I wasn't the one who compared the scheme to traditional social housing, you were, but the reality is that people who are on lower incomes and are heavily mortgaged are simply at a higher risk of running into financial difficulties. This is why the banks currently aren't allowed to give a 200k+ mortgage to someone earning 45k