Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FF/FG/Green Government - part 2
Options
Comments
-
Floppybits wrote: »Not when it was let get out of control. As I said in 2014 the homeless figure was 2500 and now it is 8656, I wouldn't really call that a success now would you especially when the same party has been in government for all of that period. They let it get out of control because they don't give a crap about the less well off. It is only that the issue go so bad that they were embarrassed into doing something about it and you claim success. Absolutely disgusting and embarrassing. I tell you what success is for starters it would be not letting the numbers get that bad and secondly it would be having less that 2500 people in homelessness that is success, not a drop of 2000 after years of growth.
What has caused homelessness? I don't want a mini rant about the government. Why do you think it was on the rise?0 -
Solutionking wrote: »What has caused homelessness? I don't want a mini rant about the government. Why do you think it was on the rise?
Increasing rents.0 -
Increasing rents.
Lack of affordable housing.
Lack of social housing.
Lack of bedsit style small affordable accommodation.
Lack of protection for tenants (and yes, in cases landlords meaning many leave the industry).
Govt policy to predominantly financially support the private rental market rather than L.A./housing association.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »Lack of affordable housing.
Lack of social housing.
Lack of bedsit style small affordable accommodation.
Lack of protection for tenants (and yes, in cases landlords meaning many leave the industry).
Govt policy to predominantly financially support the private rental market rather than L.A./housing association.
I don't agree on the lack of protection for tenants. The whole market is a mess because a tenant can do whatever the f**k they want and walk away, leaving a landlord to clean up the mess.
This has forced landlord out of market or have moved to short term letting companies.
You don't mention the millions county councils are owed by tenants, this is the biggest failing as this money could be invested back in. We even have a TD in Dail now who decided she didn't want to pay rent which could have been used for other families. Disgusting that anyone would do that.
The biggest issue is location, loads of houses rejected because they don't suit people on homeless list. They want a certain part in a certain neighbourhood.0 -
Solutionking wrote: »I don't agree on the lack of protection for tenants. The whole market is a mess because a tenant can do whatever the f**k they want and walk away, leaving a landlord to clean up the mess.
This has forced landlord out of market or have moved to short term letting companies.
You don't mention the millions county councils are owed by tenants, this is the biggest failing as this money could be invested back in. We even have a TD in Dail now who decided she didn't want to pay rent which could have been used for other families. Disgusting that anyone would do that.
The biggest issue is location, loads of houses rejected because they don't suit people on homeless list. They want a certain part in a certain neighbourhood.
I don't care if you agree or not - the difficulty in evicting bad tenants does not equal the protection of good tenants.
Less than 6 months in situ and the LL can end the tenancy for no reason whatsoever.
After 6 months "family member needs it", "it's being sold","significant refurbishment" are the often abused grounds. Legislation had to brought in to protect tenants from mass evictions in blocks bought by vulture funds.
Councils failing to collect rents is down to the Councils. It has nothing to do with why people are homeless. I think you will find it is not the homeless who owe the money due to them not being tenants.
No, the 'biggest' issue is not people refusing LA housing because they don't like it's location. The biggest issue is lack of affordable/secure housing.
All you have done is trot out the usual tropes which have been disproven time and time again, plus the normal blame the homeless for being at fault. I note you failed to comment on the millions paid via the HAP scheme to private landlords which is a direct govt subsidy of the private rental market.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bannasidhe wrote: »I don't care if you agree or not - the difficulty in evicting bad tenants does not equal the protection of good tenants.
Less than 6 months in situ and the LL can end the tenancy for no reason whatsoever.
After 6 months "family member needs it", "it's being sold","significant refurbishment" are the often abused grounds. Legislation had to brought in to protect tenants from mass evictions in blocks bought by vulture funds.
Councils failing to collect rents is down to the Councils. It has nothing to do with why people are homeless. I think you will find it is not the homeless who owe the money due to them not being tenants.
No, the 'biggest' issue is not people refusing LA housing because they don't like it's location. The biggest issue is lack of affordable/secure housing.
All you have done is trot out the usual tropes which have been disproven time and time again, plus the normal blame the homeless for being at fault. I note you failed to comment on the millions paid via the HAP scheme to private landlords which is a direct govt subsidy of the private rental market.
The root cause of all the problems is down the laws pushing onto the rental market to "protect" the tenant. All of your causes all can be linked back to driving landlords out of the market because they have zero protection. Tenant stops paying rent, it is on the landlord to throw them out. Tenant destroys a property, tough luck.
HAP, vulture funds etc all came after the majority of landlords sold up and got out of it and all we hear about still is the poor old tenant.
You seem to keep forgetting about all the lovely tenants who still dont pay rent in social housing which is costing millions, money which could be used for building houses/HAP etc.
The laws should be changed to protect the landlord, the good tenants should be pushing for that as well, if that happens then rent will come down etc and people will go back into market. But sure why do any of them when we can protect the waster tenant0 -
Solutionking wrote: »The root cause of all the problems is down the laws pushing onto the rental market to "protect" the tenant. All of your causes all can be linked back to driving landlords out of the market because they have zero protection. Tenant stops paying rent, it is on the landlord to throw them out. Tenant destroys a property, tough luck.
HAP, vulture funds etc all came after the majority of landlords sold up and got out of it and all we hear about still is the poor old tenant.
You seem to keep forgetting about all the lovely tenants who still dont pay rent in social housing which is costing millions, money which could be used for building houses/HAP etc.
The laws should be changed to protect the landlord, the good tenants should be pushing for that as well, if that happens then rent will come down etc and people will go back into market. But sure why do any of them when we can protect the waster tenant
If a tenant stops paying rent, it can take between up to 18 months and 3 years to remove them legally. All the while the landlords mortgage payments (if any)could be missed. Its an absolute disaster.0 -
What would you class as an affordable house? 2/3/4 bedroom? what price?0
-
joeguevara wrote: »If a tenant stops paying rent, it can take between up to 18 months and 3 years to remove them legally. All the while the landlords mortgage payments (if any)could be missed. Its an absolute disaster.
Exactly, and by the time they have them removed them, they are probably looking at a full refit of house as tenant will destroy it. Already lost rent of thousands and then thousands to refit a house.
Yet we hear about the poor tenant. As I said the good tenants should be demanding protection for the landlords, what have they to worry about? then rents etc will come down.0 -
Solutionking wrote: »The root cause of all the problems is down the laws pushing onto the rental market to "protect" the tenant. All of your causes all can be linked back to driving landlords out of the market because they have zero protection. Tenant stops paying rent, it is on the landlord to throw them out. Tenant destroys a property, tough luck.
HAP, vulture funds etc all came after the majority of landlords sold up and got out of it and all we hear about still is the poor old tenant.
You seem to keep forgetting about all the lovely tenants who still dont pay rent in social housing which is costing millions, money which could be used for building houses/HAP etc.
The laws should be changed to protect the landlord, the good tenants should be pushing for that as well, if that happens then rent will come down etc and people will go back into market. But sure why do any of them when we can protect the waster tenant
If you make it more difficult to evict bad tenants, the net effect is to push up rent levels. If you increase minimum standards for apartments (removing bedsits) and prevent replacements (co-living) the net effect is to push up rent levels.
How do these measures result in increased rent levels? Two factors at play. First, landlords withdraw from the market and properties are sold for home ownership or repurposed for other reasons. Second, in anticipation of problems or costs, landlords put up rents to cover costs of eviction, costs of standards etc.
Once rents go up, homelessness increases. Minimum standards and greater tenant protection lead eventually to increased homelessness without other interventions.0 -
Advertisement
-
Solutionking wrote: »The root cause of all the problems is down the laws pushing onto the rental market to "protect" the tenant. All of your causes all can be linked back to driving landlords out of the market because they have zero protection. Tenant stops paying rent, it is on the landlord to throw them out. Tenant destroys a property, tough luck.
HAP, vulture funds etc all came after the majority of landlords sold up and got out of it and all we hear about still is the poor old tenant.
You seem to keep forgetting about all the lovely tenants who still dont pay rent in social housing which is costing millions, money which could be used for building houses/HAP etc.
The laws should be changed to protect the landlord, the good tenants should be pushing for that as well, if that happens then rent will come down etc and people will go back into market. But sure why do any of them when we can protect the waster tenant
That post is just a rehash of your previous post.
Once again - difficultly in evicting bad tenants is a completely separate thing to protection for good tenants.
The homeless are not the one mot paying rent to local authorities so that is a completely ridiculous point - now, if you want to comment on why some councils are failing to collect rents that might be worth discussing but I fail to see how that is the fault of the homeless.
Again you seem unable to grasp that housing policy should not be dependant on private landlords - many of whom are heavily subsidised by the State.
Rents will never come down in a private market while there is a demand, This is basic capitalism 101.
Provide secure low cost housing - both to rent and purchase - will reduce the strain on the private market and that will bring rents down.
The Irish State could do it in the 30s when collectively we hadn't a pot to urinate in yet here were are, apparently a first world economy, and all we can manage is to pay private landlords millions, and private developers billions.
In fact, reading your post it seems to me that all you are doing is repeating what you have read and know very little about the history of housing policy in this country (eg how rent allowance became HAP, that rents paid to Local Authorities could not be used to pay HAP, The sale of L.A. housing, who vulture funds bought block of apartments from... etc etc).
Tell me - why do you think the Austrian model would not work here?0 -
Bishop of hope wrote: »There's loads of criticisms, any govt will have criticisms because none is perfect or even half perhaps.
But lads like your good self never see anything else but the critical and that's not a good thing.
Just political boxing of everything that's wrong.
But the country goes on and the people in it are getting by because while you're busy being negative about everything, most ordinary people are going about their business and the govt is creating conditions that allow this to happen.
Do you ever have a happy thought or just spend a day where you say everything is good in my world, or is the weight of the oppressed world for ever on your mind?
Regarding LV leaking the confidential document to a pal, should we commend him on the effort he put in obtaining it and sneaking it behind the backs of his colleagues?
Maybe ask your betters to up their game?
How about you come on here and point out something to commend FF/FG/Green for? If people have issue they have issue.
All you and others are doing here is looking at those making the criticism rather than trying to discuss or defend it, which seems to be par for the course these days. And then have the gall to complain about the bad press and comment given after dodging the points being made. Not credible nor believable sentiment Bish. Just more dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge, with the added FG flavour of personalising it.0 -
That is your only comment ever.
FG something is bad (and Leo too).
Rinse and repeat.
As snoopsheep states, never any attempt to suggest a policy alternative. Your criticisms are personality and PR driven, criticising people and the way they present themselves, without any analysis of policy.
Blanch don't bother repeating your jaded dodge lines. You've been asked to back them up numerous times and moved on only to return to the same baseless accusations at a later time.
Often spoke on building more social and affordable, I repeated the all island idea to you only yesterday, so stop telling lies.
Again, anytime there's a news item politicians are mentioned and it's in that context they are mentioned on here. Quit the well worn playing the man not the ball party propaganda.0 -
https://www.focusireland.ie/resource-hub/latest-figures-homelessness-ireland/?ads_cmpid=1424195017&ads_adid=56260658552&ads_matchtype=b&ads_network=g&ads_creative=274049007096&utm_term=%2Bhow%20%2Bmany%20%2Bpeople%20%2Bare%20%2Bhomeless&ads_targetid=kwd-311389765417&utm_campaign=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&ttv=2&gclid=CjwKCAiAzNj9BRBDEiwAPsL0dytjLChjnm1kPjGnN-5pJ3Z-ZY5t8aTtYW-F8rLLQoOVOnHs2w3jzxoCv9sQAvD_BwE
Homelessness: Even the homelessness industry have admitted that the numbers are going down.
Health: When the crunch of corona hit, we did better than the much vaulted (by some political parties) NHS
Housing: More being built despite Covid, and more on way.
That leaves you with one capital project for which there is a separate thread.
Okay. You suggest people won't discuss issues. You and I have discussed this three or four times and each time you were shown that Covid is the reason. The same went for A&E visits and haircuts. There's actually international concern on these issues as regards Covid and people endangering themselves, but very cynical to look at the lower figures and pat yourselves on the back.
So for you to post this as an example of things happening nobody is willing to discuss is highly dishonest and more so considering you know these are side affects of the global pandemic not FF/FG/Green policy.
Here are the full stories, again:Family homelessness quadrupled in space of six years as crisis in housing spiralled
For the past year, the total number of homeless adults and children in the country has hovered around 10,000, more than three times the figure when the Department of Housing began standardising data collection in 2014.“We know that there are many individuals and families who were on the brink of homelessness who have been supported to remain in their home due to the moratorium on evictions for the duration of the crisis. Once the health crisis eases, we need to ensure that there are preventative supports in place to help these families and individuals stay out of homeless emergency accommodation.”
Similarly, Focus Ireland chief executive Pat Dennigan said the fall in the number had been “widely predicted” not just because of the anti-eviction measures but also the number of Airbnb lettings coming back onto the rental market.
Covid.
Yes the NCH. Magic money tree? Maybe shake a few branches for social and affordable, (not passing private developments off as such).0 -
Blanch don't bother repeating your jaded dodge lines. You've been asked to back them up numerous times and moved on only to return to the same baseless accusations at a later time.
I repeated the all island idea to you only yesterday, so stop telling lies.
Again, anytime there's a news item politicians are mentioned and it's in that context they are mentioned on here. Quit the well worn playing the man not the ball party propaganda.
Matt, I am not playing the man at all. I made that clear in previous posts.
Here is another poster that puts the same point as mine forward.Deleted User wrote: »Ye
(Yes, "ye")
Have been invited to demonstrate where the shinners down south have provided anything other than the merest fig-leaf of rote criticism without even the semblance of offering understanding or alternative
The principle of opposition for opposition's sake has been critiqued and found wanting
It's been pointed out that they cannot even be bothered to pretend any issue they can find at all is less than a world-ending, govt-toppling crisis
So when this is pointed out and ye cannot even bear to pull out of the cycle to pretend to even acknowledge the points made, its rich indeed to hear ye lament that the response to lazy SF efforts here will be lazy slings about SF performance elsewhere
After all, wtf else have SF provided? Nothing of substance in opposition here, with the platform and resources available.
It's natural enough imo that Shinners throwing brickbats so lazily should have those efforts treated with likewise handwaving.
If ye want people to work harder engaging ye perhaps look upon your own tired efforts first.
The key point being made is that criticism for criticism's sake as practiced on here is empty, populist and lacking consistency, even hypocritical at times.
You mentioned an all-island approach, which is completely impractical, even more so when one political party is calling for different things depending on whether it is North or South.0 -
Solutionking wrote: »What has caused homelessness? I don't want a mini rant about the government. Why do you think it was on the rise?
Low income versus higher rents.
What do you think the cause is? And I don't want a mini rant about them that don't want to work.0 -
Okay. You suggest people won't discuss issues. You and I have discussed this three or four times and each time you were shown that Covid is the reason. The same went for A&E visits and haircuts. There's actually international concern on these issues as regards Covid and people endangering themselves, but very cynical to look at the lower figures and pat yourselves on the back.
So for you to post this as an example of things happening nobody is willing to discuss is highly dishonest and more so considering you know these are side affects of the global pandemic not FF/FG/Green policy.
Here are the full stories, again:
Covid.
Yes the NCH. Magic money tree? Maybe shake a few branches for social and affordable, (not passing private developments off as such).
You haven't provided links to full articles, just made selected and selective quotes from unknown sources.
Covid may well have played a part. Some of those playing the housing list by becoming homeless will have been discouraged by the risks of emergency accommodation and stayed where they are. That is one strong possibility.
However, what you are missing is that the numbers were going down last December, and even when there was a rise in January, the numbers were below last October. So, Covid is not the full story.0 -
You haven't provided links to full articles, just made selected and selective quotes from unknown sources.
Covid may well have played a part. Some of those playing the housing list by becoming homeless will have been discouraged by the risks of emergency accommodation and stayed where they are. That is one strong possibility.
However, what you are missing is that the numbers were going down last December, and even when there was a rise in January, the numbers were below last October. So, Covid is not the full story.
Blanch, you've seen these quotes and links over four times so don't try pretend they are new to you. The links are contained within the quotes. So you concede I put forward alternatives in housing and now covid. Please quit spinning yarns.
Covid played a major part as agreed by everyone in every government in every country the world over.
We've had record breaking numbers year on year for several years and you want me to believe the 9th or 10th year was the magic number and the tide is turning despite the same policies in place? Where's your link backing that up Blanch?0 -
Blanch, you've seen these quotes and links over four times so don't try pretend they are new to you. The links are contained within the quotes. So you concede I put forward alternatives in housing and now covid. Please quit spinning yarns.
Covid played a major part as agreed by everyone in every government in every country the world over.
We've had record breaking numbers year on year for several years and you want me to believe the 9th or 10th year was the magic number and the tide is turning despite the same policies in place? Where's your link backing that up Blanch?
The figures in the document from Focus show the numbers falling at the turn of the year, before Covid was an issue.https://www.focusireland.ie/resource-hub/latest-figures-homelessness-ireland/?ads_cmpid=1424195017&ads_adid=56260658552&ads_matchtype=b&ads_network=g&ads_creative=274049007096&utm_term=%2Bhow%20%2Bmany%20%2Bpeople%20%2Bare%20%2Bhomeless&ads_targetid=kwd-311389765417&utm_campaign=&utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=ppc&ttv=2&gclid=CjwKCAiAzNj9BRBDEiwAPsL0dytjLChjnm1kPjGnN-5pJ3Z-ZY5t8aTtYW-F8rLLQoOVOnHs2w3jzxoCv9sQAvD_BwE
It is Focus Ireland who are reporting the figures!!!!
Their interest is in increasing homelessness to maintain their financing, and even they are reporting a downward trend!!!0 -
I heard sleepy Eamo of the Greens suggest some people should be allowed come home for christmas citing students abroad while colleges close. How does this sit with LV's suggestion based on watching 'Reeling in the Years' that November is too early to buy tickets and maybe people should stay away? Is there a solid official government stance?0
-
Advertisement
-
The figures in the document from Focus show the numbers falling at the turn of the year, before Covid was an issue.
I was surprised you took any info as gospel from the 'charity industry', but sure enough, it's a government chart they posted with the text:From March 2018 (highlighted in red), the Department of Housing, Planning & Local Government changed how data on homelessness is recorded, excluding those in 'own door' accommodation.0 -
Homelessness has numerous causes
Depending on how we define what it is to be homeless, and bear that in mind along with all of our other sociocultural factors when making comparisons, you can take out mental health, addiction as factors and remove them from the property market conversation, to isolate the type of homelessness that relates to the provision of social housing.
In that element alone there's numerous inputs. Including the process and thresholds and supports available, which in themselves separate to supply/demand and tenant/landlord rights can be complex.
FG bear heavy responsibility for many of them, there's no getting away from that at all. Not just for the fact of being in govt so long (too easy and broad a criticism for me tbh) but in the way they have pushed certain interests- they are desperate to ensure that the value of property stays high to keep our book value as a country at its current inflated level (individuals, investment firms, banks, capital base for taxation- the lot, micro and macro). HAP was a decent idea when FF launched it as RAS, but it's a beast of a falling property market, and it now adds significantly to the pressures of the rental market as a plaster over not building social housing, which FG have utterly failed to do.
FF also have zero credibility in commenting on the issue, given their decade long experiment in boom construction corruption. But at least they built houses and people had the opportunity to own- obviously rent and prices both flew up, and the consequences of the crash has a direct input into how hogtied successive govts have been since in extricating "housing" from "banking" - not in any way to remove any responsibility from FG here though, as I say they have been shamefully reluctant to address the need to build public housing and they have blatantly protected propertied interests above all else (their natural core vote).
And all that said- the system we have where the expectation of home ownership (or permanent housing in a house of your choice) is promoted has in itself significant flaws that contribute to the problem above and beyond the lack of supply. Social housing, and I say this after years of working front line here and the majority of our tenants were a credit in terms of how they went about their business, shouldn't be provided out of exchequer funding *to the detriment of * those seeking to purchase their own home, and we're set up to do that at present.
That's more than anything else down to not building significant amounts of social housing though- there is no other root cause that the others don't spring from.
The Viennese model is certainly something worth looking at and O'Broin is an example of someone making good, clear and worthy arguments from both the left and in opposition.
On a wider scale than one model, the general design and planning of housing in economies/societies that have a much more desirable income-to-property (or income-to-rent) ratio across the board than we do shows a few things that are worth noting (and again this isn't to say FG in particular don't deserve heavy criticism here after a decade of non-action) in who gets to register for social housing and under what conditions, what the housing mix is generally, the wider social setup of expectation of ownership vs tenancy, tenants rights, ability to foreclose/evict non paying homeowners or non compliant tenants, all that
I don't think there has been a really great, comprehensive analysis of housing in this country because we are, to nail it down, weird about property on account of what the Brits done on us (probably) and then because of what we did to ourselves in tying our economy to construction to such an outrageous degree (FF corruption at fault here) and then refusing to consider untying it since when the opportunity was there (FG clientelism at fault here) and the continuous focus on unrealistic expectations, hard-luck cases and encouragement on falling on an overburdened state to provide all the while clamouring for this complex issue to be solved for my! group! now! (which SF, PBP and the charity sector are guilty of, but is not at all a crime to the same order of the above)
Building lots of dedicated social housing is required. Everything else is a secondary step.
Taxation of non-primary residences is required- in particular when property is owned for letting on a commercial scale.
The policy that social housing tenants (in particular those seeking rent support) must register as having a long term housing need needs examining.
The policy that social housing (purpose built or HAP) should be competing with private/first time buyers needs examining.
The expectation that social housing is more than "your current housing needs met, and this may change as your needs do" (ie no "house for life" as a social tenant, and no expectation that you will be purchasing at a discount in future) has to be pushed.
The societal expectation that you have to own your home needs addressing- this is a historical hangover but we can improve attitudes here by improving long term tenant rights and breaking the link we insist upon between the home and a retirement investment.
Tenant rights can be improved while the ability of landlords to quickly and painlessly remove non-paying or otherwise problem tenants get addressed. The balance is totally wrong at present and the PRTB is little use to anyone.
Of all the worries I'd have about SF in govt, and for all that FF utterly screwed the pooch in their boom years, I'd have to say that while the rest of our economy/society is still totally reliant on the way property and banking is set up, they are the two parties that would imo take the necessary steps to break the toxic links that FG simply refuse to examine because of their cosy reliance on property owners (tho SF/FF would very likely discover new problems as they went- hey that's progress for you)0 -
^^^
So FG are out now so all are sorted.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Homelessness has numerous causes
Depending on how we define what it is to be homeless, and bear that in mind along with all of our other sociocultural factors when making comparisons, you can take out mental health, addiction as factors and remove them from the property market conversation, to isolate the type of homelessness that relates to the provision of social housing.
In that element alone there's numerous inputs. Including the process and thresholds and supports available, which in themselves separate to supply/demand and tenant/landlord rights can be complex.
FG bear heavy responsibility for many of them, there's no getting away from that at all. Not just for the fact of being in govt so long (too easy and broad a criticism for me tbh) but in the way they have pushed certain interests- they are desperate to ensure that the value of property stays high to keep our book value as a country at its current inflated level (individuals, investment firms, banks, capital base for taxation- the lot, micro and macro). HAP was a decent idea when FF launched it as RAS, but it's a beast of a falling property market, and it now adds significantly to the pressures of the rental market as a plaster over not building social housing, which FG have utterly failed to do.
FF also have zero credibility in commenting on the issue, given their decade long experiment in boom construction corruption. But at least they built houses and people had the opportunity to own- obviously rent and prices both flew up, and the consequences of the crash has a direct input into how hogtied successive govts have been since in extricating "housing" from "banking" - not in any way to remove any responsibility from FG here though, as I say they have been shamefully reluctant to address the need to build public housing and they have blatantly protected propertied interests above all else (their natural core vote).
And all that said- the system we have where the expectation of home ownership (or permanent housing in a house of your choice) is promoted has in itself significant flaws that contribute to the problem above and beyond the lack of supply. Social housing, and I say this after years of working front line here and the majority of our tenants were a credit in terms of how they went about their business, shouldn't be provided out of exchequer funding *to the detriment of * those seeking to purchase their own home, and we're set up to do that at present.
That's more than anything else down to not building significant amounts of social housing though- there is no other root cause that the others don't spring from.
The Viennese model is certainly something worth looking at and O'Broin is an example of someone making good, clear and worthy arguments from both the left and in opposition.
On a wider scale than one model, the general design and planning of housing in economies/societies that have a much more desirable income-to-property (or income-to-rent) ratio across the board than we do shows a few things that are worth noting (and again this isn't to say FG in particular don't deserve heavy criticism here after a decade of non-action) in who gets to register for social housing and under what conditions, what the housing mix is generally, the wider social setup of expectation of ownership vs tenancy, tenants rights, ability to foreclose/evict non paying homeowners or non compliant tenants, all that
I don't think there has been a really great, comprehensive analysis of housing in this country because we are, to nail it down, weird about property on account of what the Brits done on us (probably) and then because of what we did to ourselves in tying our economy to construction to such an outrageous degree (FF corruption at fault here) and then refusing to consider untying it since when the opportunity was there (FG clientelism at fault here) and the continuous focus on unrealistic expectations, hard-luck cases and encouragement on falling on an overburdened state to provide all the while clamouring for this complex issue to be solved for my! group! now! (which SF, PBP and the charity sector are guilty of, but is not at all a crime to the same order of the above)
Building lots of dedicated social housing is required. Everything else is a secondary step.
Taxation of non-primary residences is required- in particular when property is owned for letting on a commercial scale.
The policy that social housing tenants (in particular those seeking rent support) must register as having a long term housing need needs examining.
The policy that social housing (purpose built or HAP) should be competing with private/first time buyers needs examining.
The expectation that social housing is more than "your current housing needs met, and this may change as your needs do" (ie no "house for life" as a social tenant, and no expectation that you will be purchasing at a discount in future) has to be pushed.
The societal expectation that you have to own your home needs addressing- this is a historical hangover but we can improve attitudes here by improving long term tenant rights and breaking the link we insist upon between the home and a retirement investment.
Tenant rights can be improved while the ability of landlords to quickly and painlessly remove non-paying or otherwise problem tenants get addressed. The balance is totally wrong at present and the PRTB is little use to anyone.
Of all the worries I'd have about SF in govt, and for all that FF utterly screwed the pooch in their boom years, I'd have to say that while the rest of our economy/society is still totally reliant on the way property and banking is set up, they are the two parties that would imo take the necessary steps to break the toxic links that FG simply refuse to examine because of their cosy reliance on property owners (tho SF/FF would very likely discover new problems as they went- hey that's progress for you)
TBF, it's more to do with breaking records in all areas during their tenure, year on year, not simply them having been in government.
What we do does not seem to be working. I think that should be universally accepted. To continue in the same manner is foolishness IMO.
Many working people cannot afford rent or to purchase and need avail of state aid. From a taxpayer perspective assisting private concerns to build so we can later rent off them or subsidise others to rent off them is very expensive and we should be looking at changing tack.
My belief is that the cheaper option of the state paying developers/contractors to build housing the state will own for selling off or renting to working people on lower incomes, (which needs to be set) is the most fiscally astute way to go.
These privately owned build to rent properties are helping drive people out of the market in some areas.0 -
Heh I'm either a FG shill or a "FG out!" poster depending on my post, it seems.
Depending on the priority of issues facing the country at any one period FG can be, with their core values that aren't going to change, a good or bad party to have in govt, depending on the numbers and makeup of that govt.
Covid/Brexit/Housing are the three biggies for me right now, imo not many parties would do much different on covid, give or take, I think FG are in credit on their handling of Brexit and I think they've not even tried to solve housing in any serious way since the opportunity was there to do so (from maybe 2017-odd onwards).0 -
TBF, it's more to do with breaking records in all areas during their tenure, year on year, not simply them having been in government.
What we do does not seem to be working. I think that should be universally accepted. To continue in the same manner is foolishness IMO.
Many working people cannot afford rent or to purchase and need avail of state aid. From a taxpayer perspective assisting private concerns to build so we can later rent off them or subsidise others to rent off them is very expensive and we should be looking at changing tack.
My belief is that the cheaper option of the state paying developers/contractors to build housing the state will own for selling off or renting to working people on lower incomes, (which needs to be set) is the most fiscally astute way to go.
These privately owned build to rent properties are helping drive people out of the market in some areas.
Leaving aside how much of the problem/reported problem can be assigned, I'd broadly agree with the rest.
The govt needs to build good quality, well-services, well-planned developments in big numbers (but not massive sinkholes either)
How covid/wfh all that effects things is a new input, could be used for good or we could see a rush back to the way things were (under FG I suspect the latter if they were let).
The rental market and FTB market would soon be eased if the above took place
Now it must be said- the part of the local councils in finding reasons to turn down permission for new estates is also a majotlr problem here- all parties guilty here.
The only other thing badly wanted is an actual fair audit of housing available, the fitness and occupancy thereof, and an actual scrutiny of housing need in the country- the housing list is not that.0 -
I was surprised you took any info as gospel from the 'charity industry', but sure enough, it's a government chart they posted with the text:
I was surprised that he thought a 2000 drop in numbers was success, considering that homeless numbers have increased each year since 2014 with FG in government. Its a low bar that FG supporters have.0 -
-
Changing measurement in March 2018 has nothing to do with the changed numbers decreasing in December 2019, before Covid.
In your opinion.
Focus Ireland felt it needed to be added with the graph or are they bias again?
Why do you think Murphy cooked the books in such a manner the time he did if not to change the numbers? Numbers which began to rise soon after his changes took effect.
Any road, it's highly unlikely that after year on year of the same policies exacerbating the problem, after several the tide would begin turning, even in a minuscule manner and far too late for many.
We've a major reversal needed.0 -
Advertisement
-
Well focus Ireland are undoubtedly biased
As are govt
As are FG within govt, with FF another way, as are greens
As are opposition
As are lobbyists for investment funds
And those looking for a HAP gaff, and those looking for a forever home, and those looking to buy their first home, those looking to trade, landlords, banks, pension funds etc
Property is a snarl that goes right to the heart of the entire system, which a govt should be looking to fix
The sooner housing as a service/need met is separate to property as an investment/nest egg the better
FG are the last party that are going to do that imo0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement