The great myths of housing

HBC08

hgfj wrote: »

https://outline.com

Works for most sites - but not all.

Wow,that's great! Will be using that a lot in the future,thanks!

bureau2009

Conor Skehan was Head of the Housing Agency at one stage.

I remember hearing him interviewed on radio during this time. According to Conor everything was going to be wonderful, houses would be brilliantly designed, plentiful etc etc. A lot of people raised eyebrows at the time.

So whatever he said in the Sindo I would take with a large pinch of salt. We need many different voices to speak on the housing crisis in Ireland. However, I'm far from convinced that Conor Skehan is a constructive voice on this issue.

Ray Palmer

Cal4567 wrote: »

We are also really behind the curve on being realistic. Many are very late coming to the party that Dublin, like any other capital city, is now very expensive to live in, whereas up until 2008, just about anyone on an average wage, or 2 of them combined, could have been able to buy something within the M50.

It was more exacerbated here because in the Celtic Tiger years banks gave mortgages to many who couldn’t in the end afford to make monthly payments.

It is this shock that is slowly registering with many. That they cannot afford where they want to be, even though there are 2 good jobs and they have deposits in place. That is a very common occurrence now across many cities in other countries.

If I was 40 years younger, I’d be getting a job elsewhere in the country or I’d be heading off to northern England or Scotland. Of course, it all depends what work you do. At the same time, the city needs new social and affordable housing. Key workers – nurses, teachers, shop workers, ambulance drivers, hospital porters, bin men. The list could go on and on.

This really is laughable. You are using 2008 when prices had crashed. The banks wouldn't lend money and people lost jobs. It was not affordable to buy a house for many people.

I was a first time buyer before this and house prices were going up 20% a year and more then. People were lying through their teeth to get mortgages. Fake payroll, saying they were going to rent a room, bonus pay claims etc...

You cannot ignore the public when it comes to the mess that is property market in Ireland. When a property shortage was warned the public were very vocal about the government making it up to help builder friends. So the government didn't invest in building and a hosuing shortage followed. The public insisted on this.

We do not have a lack of houses we have an occupancy issue. There is a ring of property around Dublin of retired people living on their own or a couple occupying large family homes. We are talking about 10-20% occupancy rates for many houses.

We should have places to downsize in these areas so people can stay local have better designed housing for their needs. Very unpopular as it isn't been sold as a real solution. People scream about people being kicked out of their houses ànd bedroom taxes.

So many people cannot discuss the topic of housing without some ideal fairyland solution that never address the money and how they will be built and who does it. It is all doomed to fail because they aren't looking at reality.

I have a place that could be made into a house. Nobody can tax me for a vacant site as it isn't. I won't develop it because landlord taxation and policies that favour the tenants. It just isn't worth it. Many people in a similar boat. Punatives taxes and legislation on small landlords is what a lot of the public want

Brian?

GreeBo wrote: »

How is it simply wrong?
in 2016 1.9% of households had an income in excess of 200K, I'll go out on a limb and say that has increased.

I find it bizarre that you disagree that there are loads of couples on 125K, yet you think "quite a lot" of people emigrate from Ireland to The Netherlands...

Ok I withdraw my "quite a lot statement", that's a fair point.

I would say 2% is rare, but it's subjective.

Cyrus

Brian? wrote: »

I would say 2% is rare, but it's subjective.

the context in which it was raised was in relation to million euro houses in expensive suburbs, in that context it isnt rare.

Ace2007

Ace2007 wrote: »

And we've come full circle, and what my original point was - if you can't afford, stop complaining and buy where you can. To many people today want the dream home from Day 1.

People want to live in the city they work in, you want them to live in Longford. Good luck.

Cyrus

fvp4 wrote: »

People want to live in the city they work in, you want them to live in Longford. Good luck.

i think the argument is if you are working somewhere and what you earn isnt enough to buy a property there and thats what you want, maybe looking at working some place else and living in that location may potentially make more sense?

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The biggest myth of all is that the Shinners will magic up cheap homes for all, using magically available new land and magically cheap labour and materials to build them.

Especially when Eoin O Brien celebrated the fact that Johnny Ronan didn't get to build a 1,000 homes in Docklands.

Where do the Shinners think the homes are going to come from if they go after the banks, the investment funds and the developers who actually build them.

Presumably a big state investment scheme. Like back in the day. Whether or not there’s the space is an issue.

jimmycrackcorm

fvp4 wrote: »

People want to live in the city they work in, you want them to live in Longford. Good luck.

This is the reality for many economically successful cities. People have to commute distances from their homes because high-demand city property is too expensive. Plenty of people commuting that distance into London and in San Franciso, it's not uncommon for high-paid IT workers to have to get up at 5 am to commute to work.

But we're not allowed to create higher-density housing in Dublin because of the views.

hometruths

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The biggest myth of all is that the Shinners will magic up cheap homes for all, using magically available new land and magically cheap labour and materials to build them.

Especially when Eoin O Brien celebrated the fact that Johnny Ronan didn't get to build a 1,000 homes in Docklands.

Where do the Shinners think the homes are going to come from if they go after the banks, the investment funds and the developers who actually build them.

I actually think the Shinners plan of achieving affordable housing by building on state owned land in which the state retains the freehold interest in land is a good idea.

Certainly a lot better than anything any other party has come up with.

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

i think the argument is if you are working somewhere and what you earn isnt enough to buy a property there and thats what you want, maybe looking at working some place else and living in that location may potentially make more sense?

I think we all get the argument. That gardai and nurses and other workers are massively entitled to think they can live in the same city, county, or even a neighbouring county to where they work. And the solution is Longford and a 4-6 hour commute. Or don’t work in Dublin leaving Dublin with no nurses, gardai etc. Also, the argument seems to assume a vast reservoir of jobs down the country, despite people leaving those towns for cities.

I don’t think that’s a valid long term solution.

Ace2007

schmittel wrote: »

I actually think the Shinners plan of achieving affordable housing by building on state owned land in which the state retains the freehold interest in land is a good idea.

Certainly a lot better than anything any other party has come up with.

Where is this state owned land? Is it in the city center where people want to live?

Ace2007

fvp4 wrote: »

I think we all get the argument. That gardai and nurses and other workers are massively entitled to think they can live in the same city, county, or even a neighbouring county to where they work. And the solution is Longford and a 4-6 hour commute. Or don’t work in Dublin leaving Dublin with no nurses, gardai etc. Also, the argument seems to assume a vast reservoir of jobs down the country, despite people leaving those towns for cities.

I don’t think that’s a valid long term solution.

But the poster who originally brought up the point said that if things didn't change these people would be force to leave the country. Yet some of these people won't live on the north side of the city, and we are to believe they are going to leave the country and get a job in country where they don't have friends etc?

mariaalice

schmittel wrote: »

I actually think the Shinners plan of achieving affordable housing by building on state owned land in which the state retains the freehold interest in land is a good idea.

Certainly a lot better than anything any other party has come up with.

Yes a good idea, but there would be chaos at the first hurdle i.e defining affordable, I can imagine every talk piece on radio and television drooling over it.

Then who is actually going to construct the homes and at what price? are they going to direct the likes of the council not to take development levies from those developments to keep costs down.?

How would it be financed?

hometruths

Ace2007 wrote: »

Where is this state owned land? Is it in the city center where people want to live?

An online housing land map now features as a key part of the Rebuilding Ireland initiative. The interactive portal provides users with details of residentially zoned lands, local authority owned and land aggregation scheme sites, publicly owned sites with potential for housing development, and active private housing construction sites in the Dublin region.

The map is the result of the collation of data by the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government from local authorities, the Housing Agency, and other State and semi-State bodies.

The data sets available include details of over 700 local authority and Housing Agency owned sites totalling some 1,700 hectares, as well as 30 sites (200 hectares) owned by State or semi-State bodies, the latter in the Greater Dublin Area and other major urban centres.

https://rebuildingireland.ie/news/rebuilding-ireland-land-map/

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is the reality for many economically successful cities. People have to commute distances from their homes because high-demand city property is too expensive. Plenty of people commuting that distance into London and in San Franciso, it's not uncommon for high-paid IT workers to have to get up at 5 am to commute to work.

5am in the Bay Area would be unusual.

That other cities are a mess doesn’t mean that Dublin isn’t. At least with the US there are other large cities to escape to. Austin is an answer, Longford isn’t. And people are fleeing SF. Without another sizeable city here that solution isn’t available.

But we're not allowed to create higher-density housing in Dublin because of the views.

I agree with high rise buildings as one solution. Everybody going to Longford isn’t a solution.

hometruths

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes a good idea, but there would be chaos at the first hurdle i.e defining affordable, I can imagine every talk piece on radio and television drooling over it.

Then who is actually going to construct the homes and at what price? are they going to direct the likes of the council not to take development levies from those developments to keep costs down.?

How would it be financed?

230K

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/Delivering_Affordable_Homes.pdf

Ray Palmer

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Presumably a big state investment scheme. Like back in the day. Whether or not there’s the space is an issue.

It isn't an investment in public housing if you sell it to the occupiers. This is what happened to the social housing stock. We also have EU regulations to deal with now. The Jesjits actually provided a huge part of the funding not actual state money.

So the question is where will they get the money and land? What do you do in the future when all the social housing is privately owned? Do you think the next generations are not going to have a worse problem?

The housing is also very expensive for the councils to own and manage while not getting rents paid

timmyntc

Ace2007 wrote: »

But the poster who originally brought up the point said that if things didn't change these people would be force to leave the country. Yet some of these people won't live on the north side of the city, and we are to believe they are going to leave the country and get a job in country where they don't have friends etc?

Its almost as if there are a diverse range of people and wants rather than 1 hivemind. Plenty of people will and already have left this country - some returned to their original EU country, others emigrated from here for greener pastures.

Others would want to remain closer to home. You present it as if its some kind of gotcha, when in reality you have just stumbled upon the fact that not everybody does the same thing.

mariaalice

schmittel wrote: »

230K

https://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2020/Delivering_Affordable_Homes.pdf

A single person on minimum wage or a couple on minimum wage would not get a mortgage for 230 nor would a single person or a couple on the living wage get a mortgage for 230.

Is SF going to direct the central bank to change the mortgage rules?

Cyrus

mariaalice wrote: »

A single person on minimum wage or a couple on minimum wage would not get a mortgage for 230 nor would a single person or a couple on the living wage get a mortgage for 230.

Is SF going to direct the central bank to change the mortgage rules?

they get the second prize of gteed affordable rent

Eoin O Broins smarmy face is enough to provoke anger in me and the 70s shop worker jacket.

but i can see how promises like that appeal to a cohort.

Ace2007

If you read the SF policies - they don't state anywhere about stopping investment funds from building/buying housing estates - which is somewhat surprising given how much they think the government have fallen behind on that front. Why not put in in their policies that they would ban investment funds full stop?

hometruths

mariaalice wrote: »

A single person on minimum wage or a couple on minimum wage would not get a mortgage for 230 nor would a single person or a couple on the living wage get a mortgage for 230.

Is SF going to direct the central bank to change the mortgage rules?

It’s ridiculous to suggest that we should be providing affordable housing targeted at single people on minimum wage. That’s what social housing is for.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It isn't an investment in public housing if you sell it to the occupiers. This is what happened to the social housing stock. We also have EU regulations to deal with now. The Jesjits actually provided a huge part of the funding not actual state money.

So the question is where will they get the money and land? What do you do in the future when all the social housing is privately owned? Do you think the next generations are not going to have a worse problem?

The housing is also very expensive for the councils to own and manage while not getting rents paid

I haven’t looked at the proposals. My preference is that they stayed in public ownership and rent was paid.

Cyrus

In fairness that brochure is a lesson in populist nonsense, look at this

Allocations will be made on the basis of a simple application process in which
applicants must demonstrate:
Ĵ They are first time buyers
Ĵ They are second time buyers who meet specific criteria inc (previously lost home
due to home repossession, relationship breakdown or are seeking to trade up due to
family size but are trapped in Celtic Tiger negative equity properties)

how would you even begin to administer that.

anyway we will all get a chance to see how it goes because the chances are they will be setting the agenda after the next election

timmyntc

mariaalice wrote: »

A single person on minimum wage or a couple on minimum wage would not get a mortgage for 230 nor would a single person or a couple on the living wage get a mortgage for 230.


Is SF going to direct the central bank to change the mortgage rules?

230k or less in Dublin.

Sounds like if you are eligible for affordable housing you wont borrow from a lender but from the state in some capacity. Like social housing but your rent goes towards cost of ownership.

We would deliver affordable leasehold homes at prices of €230,000 and less in Dublin
and major urban centres and lower elsewhere

...

Maintaining a permanent stock of affordable purchase accommodation requires the
units to be sold leasehold and under strict covenant that prohibits the sub letting or
open market sale of the property in the future. If an affordable purchase owner wants to
sell in the future they must in the first instance sell the property to another nominated
affordable purchaser at the affordable price indexed lined to inflation and property
improvements. Where there is no requirement for affordable purchase homes as
determined by the Local Authority the property may be sold into the private market but
with the full value uplift after inflation and property improvements being returned to the
Local Authorit

hometruths

Cyrus wrote: »

In fairness that brochure is a lesson in populist nonsense, look at this



how would you even begin to administer that.

That doesn’t sound wholly different to the eligibility criteria for FFGs shared equity scheme. “FTBs but not exclusively so”.

snow_bunny

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

This is the reality for many economically successful cities. People have to commute distances from their homes because high-demand city property is too expensive. Plenty of people commuting that distance into London and in San Franciso, it's not uncommon for high-paid IT workers to have to get up at 5 am to commute to work.

But we're not allowed to create higher-density housing in Dublin because of the views.

The fact that it's awful in other places seems to be a commonly trotted out excuse for the state of things here. Dublin ain't no London or San Fran, not even close.

We should be looking at what happened elsewhere only as a guide on what not to do. Do you all want to end up living in some **** dystopian future Ireland where everyone spends 3 hours a day commuting to Dublin and spends all their time working, away from family and paying rent with nothing to their names?

Cyrus

schmittel wrote: »

That doesn’t sound wholly different to the eligibility criteria for FFGs shared equity scheme. “FTBs but not exclusively so”.

once they start specifically referring to repossessions (which dont happen) and celtic tiger negative equity trap ill call them out on it too.

Cyrus

snow_bunny wrote: »

The fact that it's awful in other places seems to be a commonly trotted out excuse for the state of things here. Dublin ain't no London or San Fran, not even close.

it may not be but its the closest thing ireland has to them so the comparisons arent as far off the market as people like to think.