Has anyone had any luck with politicans about housing crisis?

ELM327

fliball123 wrote: »

If I was this person (Person A) I would rent a house with 3/4 beds there are a few of them around in Dublin and I would rent out 1 or 2 rooms, you would then have a room for yourself and your kid and be able to earn 400 - 1000 depending on where you rented for the rent coming in and all tax free of course due to the rent a room allowance.

Yup, once you're under 14k income it's tax free under rent a room.
Not sure I'd do it with young children mind.

Mrs OBumble

slipperyox wrote: »

you mean a consortium?
Its irrelevant.

Limited ownership to two houses per person, and the middleman disappears

No.

Social housing companies which rent to people who will never afford to buy. They will never go away.

And while I think about it. What about housing for students and migrant workers who don't want to buy where they're living now.

spaceHopper

Shelga wrote: »

House would be a nice project! Lots of people seem to think so

What I'm looking for is a plan to help people get housing that isn't Help to Buy. For anyone looking in Dublin with a budget under €350k, this is useless, it may as well not exist.

What you need is for state stop interfering in the private market and to start building social housing with good services close by. That would take the heat out of the private market and help lower prices. (but not soon I want to switch to a 50% LTV mortgage but I do want my kids to be able to buy)

Every time the state interfered in the market they made thing worse.

In the 60's it was the " First time buyers grant" for house 97msq and over, mode semi d's in dublin are that and over night the prices rose by the amount of the FTB,

Then in the 2000's they abolished the grant and gave an exemption for stamp duty if you paid less then 317k houses in crumlin went form 240 to 317 in a matter of 6 months.

JimmyVik

The Student wrote: »

We have a finite amount of land in the cities to build on. Everybody says we should build up but no one wants anything high rise beside them.

Social tenants want to be housed in cities where they grew up yet those who needed to go into the cities to work can't afford to buy where they work because the limited accommodation is used to house some who have no need to be housed in cities other than wanting to be there rather than needing to be there (ie workers who work in the cities).

So how do you resolve this. Have a fairer way of deciding who is housed where? No politician will suggest the above as they want to be re elected? By contracting the housing situation to the private sector then the State can blame the private sector on everything.

We have a ridiculous Part V requirement in our planning laws that states 20% of all new housing developments should go to social housing. So we have some people (not all) not working living in apartments valued at over €500k with all of the amenities on site (gym & gated community) while we have people having to travel to work earning a wage who could never in their wildest dreams ever afford an apartment like this.

So yes the system is flawed but nobody is willing to call it out.

And the worst part is that its ordinary tax payers who are footing that 20%, plus they are paying to house those who do have the housing in the very city they have pay to commute to. They are being fleeced everywhere.

JimmyVik

fliball123 wrote: »

I put 1k down for this as part of their outgoings? Also there are government subsidies for childcare and at 5 they go to school so the cost of childcare gets less as the kid gets older

We have one kid in childcare and its €400PM.

fliball123

JimmyVik wrote: »

We have one kid in childcare and its €400PM.

Yeah I put a grand down to be overly generous.

Idbatterim

mariaalice wrote: »

It all well giving out but what is your solution to housing those on low income that does not cost anything to the taxpayer.

Two examples and you tell me the solution.

Person A has a child and works in a creche their income is 27k plus a small amount of maintenance they live in Dublin.

In fact, what are your solution for any modestly paid worker or for those with mental health issues or disabilities in Dublin?

Any nonsensical answers such as they need to get better jobs = a fail as every society need carers, childcare workers, retail, transport and myriad of other job that do no pay very well.

Where do I start!they a really pay a meaningful rent for a start , meaning others going fleeced, dont carry way more than their fair share. Implement a proper property tax. You think it's ok for someone to live in luxury accommodation in dundrum and its paid for by the worker, with an hour commute, because they cant afford to live there themselves, but are expected to pay for the lunacy?

The cost of council housing provision, is obscene, outrageous... rip off vulture fund deals etc, but that's where their hand washing has lead us, they would pay a million euro per partment, if it meant housing list figures didnt increase...

The cost of construction here is also too high, apartments primarily... dual aspect increases cost substantially and results In inefficient use of space. But hey , let's provide only the best for a minority, instead of providing still very high quality accommodation, for far more people...

There is a huge labour shortage in Dublin, I would have several greenfield sites around the city, on good transport links, on edge of m50 or thereabouts. Build large shower blocks, common rooms and cooking facilities, workers could house themselves in campers mobile homes , caravans, or anything that can be put up very quickly. Many small modular structures, can be thrown up in a single day now, the frame at least... the money they would earn here is huge compared to at home, they would have their own, dirt cheap space... most of them send the money back home...

There are so many possibilities, they have been implemented in other countries, but nothing will change here, except more waffle from the idiors we elect and a worsening situation for many. But not for the decision makers and hundreds of thousands of property owners who lust after rip off prices..

Shelga

Why can't we ban buy-to-let investors and companies from buying properties, or at least legislate to ensure FTBs get first dibs?

There are people and companies who own 5/10+ properties, taking in thousands in rent, greedily gobbling up more and more and more. It has to stop. At this stage I don't care if that makes me a communist!

And no, buying isn't everything to me, or at least it wouldn't be, if rent didn't cost 50% of my take home pay.

Dav010

Shelga wrote: »

Why can't we ban buy-to-let investors and companies from buying properties, or at least legislate to ensure FTBs get first dibs?

There are people and companies who own 5/10+ properties, taking in thousands in rent, greedily gobbling up more and more and more. It has to stop. At this stage I don't care if that makes me a communist!

And no, buying isn't everything to me, or at least it wouldn't be, if rent didn't cost 50% of my take home pay.

A significant number of people are not able, and do not want to buy property for a variety of reasons, where should they live?

Shelga

Dav010 wrote: »

A significant number of people are not able, and do not want to buy property for a variety of reasons, where should they live?

Local authorities could be included in the pool with the FTBs and rent out properties at a reasonable rate? Rather than the €1600 minimum a month that people have to pay? It's win win!

I realise I'm massively over-simplifying here, and the state getting involved seems to make a lot of stuff worse, but leaving it all to the private sector at the moment is bad for most people, whether they're renting or buying.

Dav010

Shelga wrote: »

Local authorities could be included in the pool with the FTBs and rent out properties at a reasonable rate? Rather than the €1600 minimum a month that people have to pay? It's win win!

I realise I'm massively over-simplifying here, and the state getting involved seems to make a lot of stuff worse, but leaving it all to the private sector at the moment is bad for most people, whether they're renting or buying.

There are hundreds of thousands of students, single people, twenty-somethings, foreigners etc who need rented accommodation, and you want the State to become their LL? I think over-simplifying is not doing you justice.

Caranica

The development at Shanganagh I keep referencing is a mixture of social housing, cost rental and affordable purchase. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown county council, in conjunction with the Land Development Agency are building it.

Idbatterim

Shelga wrote: »

Local authorities could be included in the pool with the FTBs and rent out properties at a reasonable rate? Rather than the €1600 minimum a month that people have to pay? It's win win!

I realise I'm massively over-simplifying here, and the state getting involved seems to make a lot of stuff worse, but leaving it all to the private sector at the moment is bad for most people, whether they're renting or buying.

Shelga, the private sector motive is profit maximization, they are ruthless and brilliant at it. Its totally at odds however with societal needs and the most basic human requirement, shelter. Its a total and utter disgraceful, immoral government that had created this situation nobody else, remember that...

FileNotFound

Long term affordable rental.

Solution for those that cannot afford to buy.


Land plus cost of building = more than the OP can likely pay.

Taxpayers are not going to subsidies peoples house purchases.

Builders won't build for no profit and landowners won't sell for no reason.

Any silly pipe dream of 1 change solving this problem is just that and anyone with that mentality needs a rethink.

Maybe if we start now we can solve the problem in 30 odd years. Maybe

jimmycrackcorm

Idbatterim wrote:

Shelga, the private sector motive is profit maximization, they are ruthless and brilliant at it. Its totally at odds however with societal needs and the most basic human requirement, shelter. Its a total and utter disgraceful, immoral government that had created this situation nobody else, remember that...

The private sector is not to blame, nor the government. It's the people who object to every housing development. Even when DCC came up with the plan to trial modular prefabricated housing there were locals out protesting and blocking.

People blocked the development of the privately owned part connected to St Anne's park.
The same people vote for the councilors that are doing the objections including Sinn Feins housing spokesperson Eoin O'Broin. So the private sector can hardly be blamed for that.

Ironically the private sector seeks to maximize profits by building the maximum number of units in a development, however those same councillors don't want that many. Sounds to me like they are more concerned about getting votes than providing for societal needs.

Dav010

Idbatterim wrote: »

Shelga, the private sector motive is profit maximization, they are ruthless and brilliant at it. Its totally at odds however with societal needs and the most basic human requirement, shelter. Its a total and utter disgraceful, immoral government that had created this situation nobody else, remember that...

The Government did not create this situation, it has been this way since time began. Idbatterim, the aim of most if not all private private enterprises is to make profits. Shelter may be a requirement, owning it where you want for as much as you want is not though.

Melanchthon

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The private sector is not to blame, nor the government. It's the people who object to every housing development. Even when DCC came up with the plan to trial modular prefabricated housing there were locals out protesting and blocking.

People blocked the development of the privately owned part connected to St Anne's park.
The same people vote for the councilors that are doing the objections including Sinn Feins housing spokesperson Eoin O'Broin. So the private sector can hardly be blamed for that.

Ironically the private sector seeks to maximize profits by building the maximum number of units in a development, however those same councillors don't want that many. Sounds to me like they are more concerned about getting votes than providing for societal needs.

That's not true , saw a massive greenfields development area recently and the cheapest unit 2 bed is going to be 400 grand. There could have easily been a requirement with planning that it was going to be mainly even mildly affordable housing rather than expensive units that will mainly be sold to RIETs

Wanderer78

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The private sector is not to blame, nor the government. It's the people who object to every housing development. Even when DCC came up with the plan to trial modular prefabricated housing there were locals out protesting and blocking.

People blocked the development of the privately owned part connected to St Anne's park.
The same people vote for the councilors that are doing the objections including Sinn Feins housing spokesperson Eoin O'Broin. So the private sector can hardly be blamed for that.

Ironically the private sector seeks to maximize profits by building the maximum number of units in a development, however those same councillors don't want that many. Sounds to me like they are more concerned about getting votes than providing for societal needs.

by god is the private sector and our governments to blame for our current train wreck, the fire sectors in particular (finance, insurance, and real estate)

FileNotFound

Melanchthon wrote: »

That's not true , saw a massive greenfields development area recently and the cheapest unit 2 bed is going to be 400 grand. There could have easily been a requirement with planning that it was going to be mainly even mildly affordable housing rather than expensive units that will mainly be sold to RIETs

What was the cost per unit after land purchase, building costs and all associated planning and legal fees?

Then how do we fairly make a building firm sell at low to no profit?

Do we enforce lower wages on trades people, lower land sales prices on peoples private property, no to low profit for builders?

Higher density is probably the most straightforward way to reduce costs - but then this is where planning becomes a challenge.

The Student

Melanchthon wrote: »

That's not true , saw a massive greenfields development area recently and the cheapest unit 2 bed is going to be 400 grand. There could have easily been a requirement with planning that it was going to be mainly even mildly affordable housing rather than expensive units that will mainly be sold to RIETs

So land was purchased privately for the purpose of making a profit. So now you want the purchaser along with all workers involved in the building of the properties to take a loss/lower wages just to build affordable houses?

Why?

FileNotFound

The Student wrote: »

So land was purchased privately for the purpose of making a profit. So now you want the purchaser along with all workers involved in the building of the properties to take a loss/lower wages just to build affordable houses?

Why?

Because people are gone a bit daft with self serving attitudes.

Ironically those wanting super cheap houses don't realise they are the same as developers, looking for others to benefit them financially.

Affordable housing is a great line, but really means nothing.

At cost housing in many parts of Dublin would most likely not be affordable for many.. Harsh and tough to swallow but it's blunt reality.

Melanchthon

The Student wrote: »

So land was purchased privately for the purpose of making a profit. So now you want the purchaser along with all workers involved in the building of the properties to take a loss/lower wages just to build affordable houses?

Why?

Where am I talking about reducing wage that are governed by JLC's s anyway am talking about planning permissions? Developers can build and sell 3/4 bed houses for less in other locations. If the planning requirements I am talking about were put in place then land wouldn't be massively over valued when the developer buys it.

We already have a massive amount of interference in relation to what can be done with or built on private land why is my proposal an issue?

If you want proper libertarianism that's fine, it would also reduce the demand as farmers would probably turn into developers themselves and half the gardens in Dublin would have a "log cabin" in them

Dav010

Melanchthon wrote: »

Where am I talking about reducing wage that are governed by JLC's s anyway am talking about planning permissions? Developers can build and sell 3/4 bed houses for less in other locations. If the planning requirements I am talking about were put in place then land wouldn't be massively over valued when the developer buys it.

We already have a massive amount of interference in relation to what can be done with or built on private land why is my proposal an issue?

If you want proper libertarianism that's fine, it would also reduce the demand as farmers would probably turn into developers themselves and half the gardens in Dublin would have a "log cabin" in them

The point being made by another poster is a fair one, even if residential units were sold at build cost, they would still be out of reach of many. How then can costs be reduced? Cheaper labour, cheaper materials, not going to happen.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Yup, once you're under 14k income it's tax free under rent a room.

Can someone rent a house from a private landlord and then rent out extra rooms under the rent-a-room scheme in a house they don't own?

Is that allowed under the terms of the scheme?

hi!

An absolute disgrace- 80% of new build estates being bought by foreign investors

Caranica

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can someone rent a house from a private landlord and then rent out extra rooms under the rent-a-room scheme in a house they don't own?

Is that allowed?

Yes

Dav010

hi! wrote: »

An absolute disgrace- 80% of new build estates being bought by foreign investors

But for years on Boards people have been calling for professional Landlords to replace the “amateurs” and for more rental accommodation to be made available, that is exactly what is happening in that estate. There will now be a lot more properties hitting the rental market, and the professional LL will increase rent yearly on the dot.

You cannot blame a property developer if a buyer comes in and takes 80% of the properties off their hands in one go, any more than you would pity a developer if they couldn’t sell all their houses and ended up losing money.

The Student

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can someone rent a house from a private landlord and then rent out extra rooms under the rent-a-room scheme in a house they don't own?

Is that allowed under the terms of the scheme?

Not without the landlords permission.

Melanchthon

Dav010 wrote: »

The point being made by another poster is a fair one, even if residential units were sold at build cost, they would still be out of reach of many. How then can costs be reduced? Cheaper labour, cheaper materials, not going to happen.

I am not even saying at cost, I am saying that developers return profits on homes under the 400,000 mark if land prices are not colossally inflated.
Linking planning permission to affordable home provision would reduce the value of the land (it would still be considerably higher than pasture land though).

And in fairness even if it's out of reach of the lowest say 25% of earners it would reduce demand from higher earners so they wouldn't be bidding up houses in traditionally working class areas.

The Student

Melanchthon wrote: »

I am not even saying at cost, I am saying that developers return profits on homes under the 400,000 mark if land prices are not colossally inflated.
Linking planning permission to affordable home provision would reduce the value of the land (it would still be considerably higher than pasture land though).

And in fairness even if it's out of reach of the lowest say 25% of earners it would reduce demand from higher earners so they wouldn't be bidding up houses in traditionally working class areas.

Land prices are dictated in large by the amenities that are close by and the type of housing estates that are close by.

Planning permission is already associated to social housing under part 5 planning. Who do you think pays for the subsidised cost of the part 5 planning. Its the other 80% of those purchasing the properties.

We introduce rules and regs which increase the build cost but don't want to be pay for them.

Remember land cost outside of the major cities is a fraction of what it is in the cities. Why not ease the demand for property in the cities by housing those who don't need to be in the city where land is cheaper and the prices would be affordable in the cities.