Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 1:02 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 9, 2014
Posts: 1787
Simple back of the envelope calculation can often cut through the bullshit from the left.

Circa 100k units are rented on the various rent allowance schemes at a annual cost of €500m. In simple terms this is €5k per unit per year. Does the left really expect us to believe the local councils or any other government body can finance, maintain and deliver housing units for less than €5k p.a.

Reality not idealogoly is important. The government needs to deliver thousands of social housing units but let's be honest about the costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 2:29 pm 
Offline
Single Home Owner

Joined: Oct 18, 2011
Posts: 145
Coles2 wrote:
kennypowers wrote:
The basis for the savings highlighted by the report/article are total nonsense. If you read the paper from Maynooth, the savings are based entirely upon a cost of direct provision of €800 per month -

https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/news- ... ity-report

What academic treatise/analysis does this figure come from? If you read the footnotes they sourced it from a news article by Mel Reynolds in The Village (which I am unable to locate online).

nonsense? bullshit? but can't find the report?

ffs.

http://www.bregsforum.com/wp-content/up ... -House.pdf


This doesn't seem to be the same source/analysis (it deals with building, not the ongoing cost of provision and the numbers are different) but whatever because this analysis is total BS also. If someone in the private sector produced a business case like this they'd get sacked.

(i) Why is VAT considered a cost to taxpayers in the case of a developer but not in the case of local authority one? If VAT goes back into the tax payer coffers it's the same in either case.

(ii) Why is there zero cost for the land in local authority provision? Do they own some kind of magic land that reproduces itself when they build on it? If the land is used for houses it can't be used for anything else and can't be sold to private developers... putting in a zero cost is idiotic. It's property of the state being used, no different from selling off forests or water companies.

(iii) Why are the admin and oversight costs removed? Do we believe that the unionised Local Authorities are going to take on all this extra work for free?

(iv) The developer profit is to cover the costs of financing the equity up front and extra admin and project management not captured in the costs (and by the way most of this is once again going back to the taxpayer in income tax). Paying for all this upfront means the government is borrowing more and taxing people more - every € of tax taken to pay for this has a cost to the economy by lost investment. There needs to be more than a 0% return on investment to compensate for that.

(iv) Why are the costs of labour the same in either case? It is simply not realistic given unionisation and inefficiency in the public sector.

This analysis is like a game if three card monty, the costs are the same it's just shuffling them around to where you can't see them anymore.

EDIT - just to elaborate on (iii) above in this post - the linked (and other) analysis suggests that in the event of direct housing provision there is no private sector developer therefore we can put a zero next to developer profit. To illustrate why this doesn't make sense, imagine the following options for buying a house
Option A: You pay 300k today for a house delivered in 3 years time and spend some evenings and weekends for those 3 years managing contractors. You also take all the risk on cost overturns or delays.
Option B: You pay 300k in 3 years time for a completed house with no risk on costs.

Ignoring the other input costs and just focusing on developer profit, the Reynolds analysis suggests that Option A is equivalent to Option B because they both have the same headline cost. Of course it ignores risks, project leadership and the time value of money. If you think they are the same then please PM me as I have some fantastic business opportunities for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Sun Jul 16, 2017 7:50 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1749
Coles2 wrote:
And in selecting a number as an average for constructing 100,000 units on green field locations it's ok to assume a price that represented constructing a half dozen units in a busy urban area?

Jesus christ almighty.


My bad. Greenfield locations would indeed cost more because of the cost of brand new transport infrastructure, electricity and gas connections, water and wastewater.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11181
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Skippy 3 wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
And in selecting a number as an average for constructing 100,000 units on green field locations it's ok to assume a price that represented constructing a half dozen units in a busy urban area?

Jesus christ almighty.


My bad. Greenfield locations would indeed cost more because of the cost of brand new transport infrastructure, electricity and gas connections, water and wastewater.
All included in the figures.

If you think it's cheaper to build 6 units on a brown field urban site than a green field site then you clearly don't know what you're talking about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:49 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11181
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Luan wrote:
Simple back of the envelope calculation can often cut through the bullshit from the left.

Circa 100k units are rented on the various rent allowance schemes at a annual cost of €500m. In simple terms this is €5k per unit per year. Does the left really expect us to believe the local councils or any other government body can finance, maintain and deliver housing units for less than €5k p.a.

Reality not idealogoly is important. The government needs to deliver thousands of social housing units but let's be honest about the costs.


So you think tenants that receive rent supplement, HAP, Council Housing etc, don't pay any rent? ffs. Your back of the envelope calculation is bullshit. For most rent supplement payments the tenant still has to pay 50-60% of the rent at the very least.

The Government sets maximum annual rental limits for families in private accommodation of €5-6k per year in almost half the country, so clearly it is possible for houses to be supplied to the market for that rent. Also are you aware of what maintenance the tenant is responsible for in a Council house? How does that impact on your back of the envelope bullshit calculation?

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-serv ... and-repair

Inflated rents are good for nobody.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:12 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11181
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
kennypowers wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
kennypowers wrote:
The basis for the savings highlighted by the report/article are total nonsense. If you read the paper from Maynooth, the savings are based entirely upon a cost of direct provision of €800 per month -

https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/news- ... ity-report

What academic treatise/analysis does this figure come from? If you read the footnotes they sourced it from a news article by Mel Reynolds in The Village (which I am unable to locate online).

nonsense? bullshit? but can't find the report?

ffs.

http://www.bregsforum.com/wp-content/up ... -House.pdf


This doesn't seem to be the same source/analysis (it deals with building, not the ongoing cost of provision and the numbers are different) but whatever because this analysis is total BS also. If someone in the private sector produced a business case like this they'd get sacked.

(i) Why is VAT considered a cost to taxpayers in the case of a developer but not in the case of local authority one? If VAT goes back into the tax payer coffers it's the same in either case.

Because the private sector will not build houses for people who can't afford to buy them. The VAT take on building no houses is zero.

(ii) Why is there zero cost for the land in local authority provision? Do they own some kind of magic land that reproduces itself when they build on it? If the land is used for houses it can't be used for anything else and can't be sold to private developers... putting in a zero cost is idiotic. It's property of the state being used, no different from selling off forests or water companies.

Those figures include site costs, but actually the State can zone land in whatever way it wants. It can create valuable zoned land by a 'kind of magic'. It happens at Council meetings regularly

(iii) Why are the admin and oversight costs removed? Do we believe that the unionised Local Authorities are going to take on all this extra work for free?

Professional fees included in the figures.

(iv) The developer profit is to cover the costs of financing the equity up front and extra admin and project management not captured in the costs (and by the way most of this is once again going back to the taxpayer in income tax). Paying for all this upfront means the government is borrowing more and taxing people more - every € of tax taken to pay for this has a cost to the economy by lost investment. There needs to be more than a 0% return on investment to compensate for that.

And you also need to consider the other costs that the State has to bare by having a Housing Crisis such as inflated rents, lost competitiveness, economic opportunity losses, social problems, crime, drug abuse, health problems, etc etc . Plenty of very cheap sources of finance at the moment.

(iv) Why are the costs of labour the same in either case? It is simply not realistic given unionisation and inefficiency in the public sector. (...more rightwing crap that isn't relevant...)

You seem to miss the point? It doesn't matter who builds the houses. They just need to be built.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 2:25 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 5835
Location: On the Road
conork wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
After paying €30-€50 Billion over 30 years to inflate private rents what will we have to show for it? All we will have done is transferred a lot of wealth from the taxpayers to the rent seeking scum who have this country ruined. Build affordable and social housing and it will lower the cost of living for everyone.


If you build a load of council houses you will transfer a massive amount of wealth from the tax payer to the house building "scum". What's the difference between that scum and rent seeking scum.


Personally, Id be in favour of nationalising the provision of shelter on the basis that the current method has quite clearly failed repeatedly and is in no way fit for purpose. At this stage, (IMO) the only arguments that can possibly be made in opposition are 1) ideological and 2) that to nationalise the process of shelter delivery would impact negatively on current property valuations/rents.

Given that we are currently entering into massive bubble territory a mere 8 years after the culmination of the largest property bubble in history (and bearing in mind the disastrous impact that previous event had on many peoples lives), I defy anyone to make a decent argument beyond either of the two Ive set out above.

In terms of the ideological basis for maintaining the current approach, given that repeating stupid actions again and again is generally deemed to be a sign of madness, its difficult to see how suggestions to move away from it and try something different may be rebutted succesfully. While the market mechanism works well across many industries, it quite clearly does not in the case of housing.

Re the argument related to the defence of current property valuations/rents, surely an information campaign explaining how the absence of massively inflated accomodation costs could result in many of the same property owners' children not having to emigrate might hit the mark.

It would be interesting to hear such a debate play itself out as its not clear on which side the numbers would fall (ie land/property owning versus non land/property owning). Emigration has probably put paid to such a process in the past but it could actually stave of the next wave in about 4 or 5 years time....if anybody actually cares that is....

A frank discussion around immigration would also need to be had, in particular with regard to the number of people entering the State annually with a view to engaging with the housing/rental market....not sure anybodys ready for that one.....

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:54 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 9, 2014
Posts: 1787
Coles2 wrote:
Luan wrote:
Simple back of the envelope calculation can often cut through the bullshit from the left.

Circa 100k units are rented on the various rent allowance schemes at a annual cost of €500m. In simple terms this is €5k per unit per year. Does the left really expect us to believe the local councils or any other government body can finance, maintain and deliver housing units for less than €5k p.a.

Reality not idealogoly is important. The government needs to deliver thousands of social housing units but let's be honest about the costs.


So you think tenants that receive rent supplement, HAP, Council Housing etc, don't pay any rent? ffs. Your back of the envelope calculation is bullshit. For most rent supplement payments the tenant still has to pay 50-60% of the rent at the very least.

The Government sets maximum annual rental limits for families in private accommodation of €5-6k per year in almost half the country, so clearly it is possible for houses to be supplied to the market for that rent. Also are you aware of what maintenance the tenant is responsible for in a Council house? How does that impact on your back of the envelope bullshit calculation?

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-serv ... and-repair

Inflated rents are good for nobody.

For the avoidance of doubt the maximum contribution paid by tenant on rent allowance is made by a couple and it is €40 per week. This falls to €30 if it is a single person/lone parent. The contribution can be as low as €10/week for those on job seekers allowance and aged between 18 & 24. The above assumes no income in excess of SWAs and no saving/investments.

Please provide a source for your claim "for most rent supplement payments the tenant still has to pay 50-60% of the rent". My experience is in direct conflict with this statement but I am happy to be corrected.

As regards your question about my knowledge of the maintenance responsibilty of a local authority tenant. It is was limited until I ran a couple of google searches.

In summary the local authority is responsible for the following:
1) structural repairs
2) roof repairs and repairs to external walls and doors
3) electrical faults (excluding the tenants own electrical goods)
4) window repairs excluding glass
5) flooding
6) any other repairs due to normal wear and tear.

Now I have a question for you - how much does this maintenance cost the local authorities per unit? How much does the average refurb between local authority tenants costs?

A real discusssion of costs would be welecome and enlightening for all parties


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:19 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 9, 2014
Posts: 1787
In 2014 Dublin City maintenance costs were circa 86% of rent roll.

Nationally local authorities spent €220m on maintenance of 130k units or €1,680 per unit.

My experience as a private landlord would tally on per unit p.a. basis.

However they also spent €51m on 4437 units - "readying vacant units" or €11.5k per unit/per tenancy. This seems a lot given their annual maintenance costs.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:01 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11181
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Luan wrote:
In 2014 Dublin City maintenance costs were circa 86% of rent roll.
Do you think that might be because Dublin City Council rents are only 1/5th of the City average? Yes, 20%.

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:27 pm 
Offline
Nationalised

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 11181
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
Luan wrote:

In summary the local authority is responsible for the following:
1) structural repairs
2) roof repairs and repairs to external walls and doors
3) electrical faults (excluding the tenants own electrical goods)
4) window repairs excluding glass
5) flooding
6) any other repairs due to normal wear and tear.


And the tenant looks after the following list:

Repairs and Maintenance which are the Tenant's Responsibility in line with the Tenancy Agreement:

Internal Repairs
• Filling plaster cracks
• Repairing and replacing cupboards, wardrobes, kitchen units and their doors, hinges, handles, locks, catches and drawers.
• Repairing, replacing and fitting wall and floor tiles.
• Damages caused by the tenant, members of the household, or visitors.
• Carrying out repairs due to condensation.
• Floor and wall tiles and floor covering.
• All internal decoration.

Electrical Repair
• Repairing and replacing ceiling roses, lamp holders and plugs of any appliances.
• Replacing fuses, except for the mains fuse.

Doors and Windows
• Repairing window stays, catches and restrictors.
• Draught proofing doors and windows.
• Repairing and replacing external and internal locks and handles except for fair wear and tear.
• Replacing broken glass in houses.

External Repairs
• Keeping gardens and hedges tidy.
• Repairing or replacing fences, and garden boundary walls. whether erected by the tenant or the Council.
• Cleaning silt, leaves and other deposits from gutters and down pipes.
• External painting of houses.

Cooking & Heating Appliances and Showers
• Repairing or replacing all cooking, heating and shower appliances installed by the tenant.

Plumbing Repairs
• Repairing/replacing waste pipes inside home (Houses only)
• Cleaning gully traps.
• Clearing airlocks and obstructions in water pipes.
• Repairing/replacing taps on sink units or wash hand basins, including leaking or dripping taps.
• Repairing/replacing a toilet bowel, baths, sinks and wash hand basins except cracked or leaking due to fair wear and tear.
• Repairing/replacing a toilet cistern and cover, except if it is leaking due to to fair wear and tear.
• Repairing/replacing seats,chains,handles, washers and stoppers for toilets and sinks.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:30 pm 
Offline
Single Home Owner

Joined: Oct 18, 2011
Posts: 145
Coles2 wrote:


Because the private sector will not build houses for people who can't afford to buy them. The VAT take on building no houses is zero...

...You seem to miss the point? It doesn't matter who builds the houses. They just need to be built.
[/quote]

That might be your point, but it isn't mine. I posted about a linked article comparing that compared the cost of direct provision vs the cost of private sector provision. That analysis was BS.

You implied I was an idiot and posted a completely different analysis about the cost of direct build vs private build (rather than provision) which was also BS. I'm not arguing some moral position that the government shouldn't build houses, just that those pieces of analysis are BS. Clearly you have a bugbear and want to continue shouting at yourself in an echo chamber, but if you aren't going to respond to the posts as written why don't you just keep shouting to yourself at home rather than on here?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: May 18, 2007
Posts: 5835
Location: On the Road
Lack of housing??

Lets demolish existing housing stock and pay ourselves and our mates to build more....

Quote:
Thousands of council homes could be demolished as part of a multi-billion euro plan to regenerate Dublin's housing stock.

Dublin City Council (DCC) is open to using public/private partnerships to lure developers into the proposal, who would build bundles of between 800 and 1,000 apartments at a time.


DCC deputy chief executive Brendan Kenny said that the council has been improving the dated housing stock in recent years, but that more fundamental changes were now necessary.

He told the Sunday Business Post: "We believe that a more radical vision/approach is required, including the possibility of widespread demotion and new build to modern standards, gaining much great density on several strategic locations in the city."

Read more: Dublin City Council approves motion for 2,000 new homes in Ballymun

Kenny hopes to bring preliminary proposals to city councillors before the end of the year, while noting the plans would not be entirely social housing and could include commercial units, residential developments - all of which could quadruple density in some areas.

He also added that the council was open to considering other sources of finance due to the demands of the government's new home building programme.

"With the major emphasis in the coming years on new supply, it may be difficult to source direct government funding for large scale regeneration projects, therefore we will certainly consider other possible options including the private sector or through the European Investment Bank," he said.

Kenny added that any housing plan would be after "intensive consultation with residents", commenting "the only way such projects could work for residents would be the construction of a new dwellings nearly first and followed by a rolling programme of building, de-tenanting and demolition".


http://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-ne ... d-13339117

Decimate the inner cities, bring in the yuppies/hipsters/immigrants.....they've already unveiled their final solution for the Liberties....forget nationalisation, the only solution to scumbaggery of this magnitude is to start shooting people....

_________________
"It is difficult to be certain about anything except what you have seen with your own eyes, and consciously or unconsciously everyone writes as a partisan.”
― George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:50 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Apr 9, 2014
Posts: 1787
Coles2 wrote:
Luan wrote:
In 2014 Dublin City maintenance costs were circa 86% of rent roll.
Do you think that might be because Dublin City Council rents are only 1/5th of the City average? Yes, 20%.

:lol:

No.

Maintenance costs in Dublin are circa 20% higher than the national average of €1,680. Leitrim is another country where these costs are running at circa 86% of rent roll.

On a national basis maintenance costs account for circa 65% of the total LA rent roll.

Rather than derailing the thread by discussing maintenance cost like grass cutting or repairing tennats electrical goods. Let's keep it real and just accept LA spend on circa €1,700 p.a. on maintenance and a further €11.5k refurbing between tenancies.

In my experience these are broadly similar to expenditures incurred by private landlords.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Grappling with the housing crisis: Fresh approaches need
PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:08 pm 
Offline
Speculator

Joined: Apr 27, 2014
Posts: 431
Coles2 wrote:
Luan wrote:
In 2014 Dublin City maintenance costs were circa 86% of rent roll.
Do you think that might be because Dublin City Council rents are only 1/5th of the City average? Yes, 20%.

:lol:


http://www.dublincity.ie/sites/default/ ... nFixed.pdf

Page 13

2016 spending on Housing & Building

€275,486,058

https://www.dublincity.ie/councilmeetin ... px?ID=9001

Friday 10 February 2017

Report on reduction of Dublin City Council Housing Stock

Quote:
The level of Dublin City Council traditional Housing Stock has reduced over recent years for
example the figure in 2012 was 26,084 and this has reduced to 25,353 in 2016 (A reduction
of 731). The main reason for this is that there was very little new Housing Construction since
the Economic Crash in 2008/9 while at the same time the following was happening:


Simplistically, that is an average expenditure of €10,866 per local authority property.

Local authorities are grotesquely incompetent, overstaffed and overpaid. The average salary is around €70,000.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 593 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 36, 37, 38, 39, 40  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to: