Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:38 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Apr 4, 2010
Posts: 4297
metalmike wrote:
The old council house scheme was simple <snip> you raised the rent if their economic circumstances changed
<snip>
- if someone becomes very wealthy how do you move them out of their house?


You might just have answered your own question there. :wink:

You don't need to cut them off from their network, merely let them see that the private sector (buying or renting) is now locally cheaper for them.

_________________
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.


Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations
Book I, Chapter X, Part II,


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:02 am 
Offline
Homeless

Joined: May 20, 2015
Posts: 23
mr_anderson wrote:
If they built 'up' in the city centre, it would draw workers in from the outskirts, which would free up spaces in those areas for social housing.

The vast majority of single people working in town would much prefer to be able to walk to work rather than endure a 2+ hour daily commute.

So, in essence, concentrate on housing the workers rather than the socials, because by taking care of the former you'll automatically take care of the latter.

The old glass bottle site in Ringsend could house 10,000 people with the right density.
It would also be prime location with a sea view and sunny orientation.
Stretch the luas out to there and you'd have absolutely no problem filling it.

I'd like to repeat my stance that no social housing should be located in the city centre.


I don't like the term social housing. Better to call it what it is: affordable housing for people on low incomes.

The housing market does not ensure universal provisions so it is entirely necessary for the State and charities to step in.

I also disagree with your "no social housing in the city" stance, if only because long gone are the days when you concentrate social housing in one location.

These days its all about mixed tenure developments and thats the way it should be.

Ireland needs to get its shit together. The Brits are light years ahead on this stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:09 am 
Offline
Of Systemic Importance

Joined: Nov 4, 2011
Posts: 5079
Location: SthDub
Buster wrote:
Ireland needs to get its shit together. The Brits are light years ahead on this stuff.

I thought the Brits were relocating those on social housing lists to areas outside of London! That goes against what you said in the lines before the above quote


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: May 13, 2008
Posts: 10658
Location: Somewhere up in the hills
metalmike wrote:
Coles2 wrote:
mr_anderson wrote:
I'd like to repeat my stance that no social housing should be located in the city centre.
If you are trying to maximise the economic use of land perhaps it would be better to focus on building on public parks? No? But it's ok to force the elderly or ill out of their communities?

All communities need social housing and it serves it's purpose best when it's prevented form becoming marginalised ghettos. We know that.


It depends whether you think social housing should just be for people who can't/ won't work.

In my opinion social housing is not just for those who are out of the workforce.

At the very least social housing should also be provided when the private sector does not provide - that is the current issue. If the State is using bed and breakfasts and temporary accommodation then the private sector is not providing housing for these people. It is much more economic for the state to provide housing in this case. That's the easiest case to justify - it has a sound economic basis. We have been using this type of accommodation for a long time - we would have saved money by providing social housing.

Where housing is not affordable (either to rent or to buy) for the working poor the state also has an issue as we obviously have a shortage of housing. In this case social housing can act as a buffer for supply. The state also has an issue as it will not be able to attract key workers to work in areas of expensive housing without raising pay. The old council house scheme was simple - you built good quality houses and charged rent at a rate people could afford. You raised the rent if their economic circumstances changed and over the years you hoped that you would get back the initial capital cost from the rents received (I'd be interested in Dublin City Councils return on their initial capital outlay). There is an issue about this approach - if someone becomes very wealthy how do you move them out of their house and their community (kids schools etc)? This is why you try to spread social housing around the city. And you stick close to the city because most of the work is there and if you have a low income there's a good chance you can't afford to run a car and we all know about Dublin public transport. The justification of this case is partly a matter of political belief but perhaps people forget how social housing happened in the UK - after the war no business had sufficient capital to invest in the replacement of the housing that had been bombed - only the state had the means and it had the will as well as men had returned from the war with no jobs - social housing resolved this issue.

In the case of Ireland developers were restricted in access to capital after the crash so no building was done, we also had a surplus of construction labour and large landholdings in the hands of the state. There was a huge opportunity at this stage - missed partly because of a conflict of state interest (the state wanted the highest price for the land) and partly by a desire not to borrow. A few years later Europe began chucking money around but for some reason no one asked if we could have used it to build social housing - money pumped into the economy at this level would have had a multiplier effect - as we know house building can have an enormous economic stimulus - it is mainly spent locally, we would also have reduced unemployment. Instead the money fed yet another round of housing speculation. By having this pool of social housing we would have a buffer against wild fluctuations in the price of housing - instead we've gone back to boom and bust.

Great post.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 6:26 am 
Offline
Homeless

Joined: May 20, 2015
Posts: 23
FreeFallin wrote:
Buster wrote:
Ireland needs to get its shit together. The Brits are light years ahead on this stuff.

I thought the Brits were relocating those on social housing lists to areas outside of London! That goes against what you said in the lines before the above quote


I think you will find they are selling high value land and housing assets to get more bang for buck elsewhere.

But the new developments will still be mixed tenure rather than concentrations of social housing.

Of course, there are many, perhaps the majority, who resent social housing developments being anything other than sink holes.

But the fact remains that the market does not provide for everyone so it either gets built or you ignore the housing needs of low income earners.

Step over the homeless in the street or agree to pay for the necessary market intervention through your taxes.

That's the choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jul 26, 2009
Posts: 14708
Buster wrote:
Of course, there are many, perhaps the majority, who resent social housing developments being anything other than sink holes.


Has this not been borne out by experience across the country when done on a large scale in previous generations? Chief among them Government agencies moved people with no income into these areas who freed from market discipline proceeded to destroy the lives of their low income earning neighbours imposing higher costs on and them forcing them to move if they could, the government then followed up by moving more people with no income into these areas and led to the creation of high crime ghettos that were unpleasant places to live for low income earners who aspired to improve their lives. The areas got such a bad reputation that potential employers would not employ anyone who gave an address from there so low income earners got hit again. This cycle broke for the first time in decades during the boom and many people who grew up there seized their opportunity and escaped the trap.

I don't think there is much objection to providing social housing for low income earners among the population at large, the chief objection seems to be the carrying the costs imposed on them by those that are seen to abuse the system.


Buster wrote:
But the fact remains that the market does not provide for everyone so it either gets built or you ignore the housing needs of low income earners.


The property market is highly regulated by a several government agencies on behalf of several vested interest groups, notably since 1963. Want to build a house or apartment? you need a site with access to services (water, sewage, electricity, telecommunication) - there is an upfront cost to connect these services, You need planning permission (you cannot build the same house as your parents did many years ago, the specification inflation imposes higher upfront costs), the councils now impose several thousands in costs on developers to provide amenities beyond shelter on greenfield sites, this is a higher upfront cost to the end buyer. Even the costs of redeveloping brownfield sites in the city center is high and there are severe restrictions on height and orientation which means apartments sizes are smaller in order to recoup the cost and make a profit. Want to build near the Luas, that will cost you more. All of this regulation is a upfront cost to the buyer that exists even without government agencies interference, and it is much higher that it should be, because the organisations that regulate the market are free from market discipline.

During the boom there was a provision to provide for social housing and a provision for the developers to buy their way out of it, the councils used the proceeds to build shiny new offices and boost income for themselves. Now they have shiny offices, they would like to boost their incomes and cover the deficits, they will continue to offload the costs on to the buyer.

Another aspect to consider is that we importing low income workers, large scale migration must also be priced into subsidising the price of shelter. The mass migration of people into the European Union is causing political upheaval across the continent since the immigrants are direct competition for native populations low income earners. The scale of the migration is such that political calculations cannot be avoided in the provision of subsidised shelter.


Buster wrote:
Step over the homeless in the street or agree to pay for the necessary market intervention through your taxes.


Instead of stepping over them you might listen to them some time and you may learn the reason they are homeless is not lack of shelter. If you want to make a case for providing affordable accommodation for low income earners leave the homeless out of the discussion, heartless as this sounds their cases are not relevant to providing low income earners shelter.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 5:12 am 
Offline
Homeless

Joined: May 20, 2015
Posts: 23
BoyRacer wrote:
Buster wrote:
Of course, there are many, perhaps the majority, who resent social housing developments being anything other than sink holes.


Has this not been borne out by experience across the country when done on a large scale in previous generations? Chief among them Government agencies moved people with no income into these areas who freed from market discipline proceeded to destroy the lives of their low income earning neighbours imposing higher costs on and them forcing them to move if they could, the government then followed up by moving more people with no income into these areas and led to the creation of high crime ghettos that were unpleasant places to live for low income earners who aspired to improve their lives. The areas got such a bad reputation that potential employers would not employ anyone who gave an address from there so low income earners got hit again. This cycle broke for the first time in decades during the boom and many people who grew up there seized their opportunity and escaped the trap.

I don't think there is much objection to providing social housing for low income earners among the population at large, the chief objection seems to be the carrying the costs imposed on them by those that are seen to abuse the system.


Buster wrote:
But the fact remains that the market does not provide for everyone so it either gets built or you ignore the housing needs of low income earners.


The property market is highly regulated by a several government agencies on behalf of several vested interest groups, notably since 1963. Want to build a house or apartment? you need a site with access to services (water, sewage, electricity, telecommunication) - there is an upfront cost to connect these services, You need planning permission (you cannot build the same house as your parents did many years ago, the specification inflation imposes higher upfront costs), the councils now impose several thousands in costs on developers to provide amenities beyond shelter on greenfield sites, this is a higher upfront cost to the end buyer. Even the costs of redeveloping brownfield sites in the city center is high and there are severe restrictions on height and orientation which means apartments sizes are smaller in order to recoup the cost and make a profit. Want to build near the Luas, that will cost you more. All of this regulation is a upfront cost to the buyer that exists even without government agencies interference, and it is much higher that it should be, because the organisations that regulate the market are free from market discipline.

During the boom there was a provision to provide for social housing and a provision for the developers to buy their way out of it, the councils used the proceeds to build shiny new offices and boost income for themselves. Now they have shiny offices, they would like to boost their incomes and cover the deficits, they will continue to offload the costs on to the buyer.

Another aspect to consider is that we importing low income workers, large scale migration must also be priced into subsidising the price of shelter. The mass migration of people into the European Union is causing political upheaval across the continent since the immigrants are direct competition for native populations low income earners. The scale of the migration is such that political calculations cannot be avoided in the provision of subsidised shelter.


Buster wrote:
Step over the homeless in the street or agree to pay for the necessary market intervention through your taxes.


Instead of stepping over them you might listen to them some time and you may learn the reason they are homeless is not lack of shelter. If you want to make a case for providing affordable accommodation for low income earners leave the homeless out of the discussion, heartless as this sounds their cases are not relevant to providing low income earners shelter.


Well the market rigging you describe may well be the problem but if it is its not unique to Ireland. I dont know of a single OECD country that doesn't have some form of social housing system.

Regarding homelessness, with the exception of certain rough sleepers its all about housing. Hence the success of "housing first" homelessness alleviation strategies.

All those families being put up in the hotels are homeless to and housing is what they need.

Believe me, I know plenty about homelessness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:23 am 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jul 26, 2009
Posts: 14708
Buster wrote:
Well the market rigging you describe may well be the problem but if it is its not unique to Ireland. I dont know of a single OECD country that doesn't have some form of social housing system.


Regarding the government agencies, their interventions in the market (bank bailout, NAMA, planning restrictions, tax incentives & subsidies, building and accommodation standards) have all had the net effect of driving up costs, so not even agencies like the councils can afford large scale social housing programs. The costs of maintaining large social housing estates got out of control for them, which is one of the reasons they are not anxious to repeat the experience and have decided on pushing the overhead of social housing as much as possible on the private sector to keep costs down. The councils are for the most part - broke, and their ability to fund even hotel accommodation will probably get much worse in the upcoming wave of sovereign defaults as Marios magic money machine gets turned off (i.e. cheap borrowing).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:50 pm 
Offline
Nationalised
User avatar

Joined: Jul 26, 2009
Posts: 14708
DANIEL MCCONNELL: Multimillion euro land purchase lying idle in Galway - -> https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoint ... 41342.html


Council turns down NAMA homes offer - -> http://www.independent.ie/regionals/sli ... 54095.html

Quote:
Cllr Bree said more than €1 billion had been cut from the housing budget since 2008. "The decision to slash funding for the construction of local authority housing has led to a major housing crisis. In addition it has led to the enrichment of private landlords and speculators by forcing more and more people into rent supplement arrangements.
"In 2014 when the Government reluctantly acknowledged there was a growing homelessness crisis and launched its so-called 'Social Housing Strategy' it set a target for the provision of only 101 housing units for Sligo between 2015 -2017.


there is more



Westport House sold to local family - -> http://www.mayonews.ie/news/29368-westp ... cal-family

Quote:
The purchase price was not revealed but it is believed to have been close to the €10 million guide price. In a somewhat complex transaction, Mayo County Council purchased the loans from NAMA, which they held over approximately 400 acres of the estate for around €5.2 million, before retaining 40 acres for future development and selling the remainder on in a deal with the Hughes family. Separately, the Hughes family purchased Westport House, its contents and around 50 acres of land immediately surrounding the house (which were not part of the assets controlled by the NAMA loans). The deals of this transaction were not disclosed and it was stated that non-disclosure agreements have been signed by all involved parties. A request to resepect the privacy around this was made. It was stated that while it will take many months to develop a full plan for the estate, a 1,000 seat conference centre and new visitor centre will be constructed on the estate, along with many new developments.




Council hits back at NAMA criticism - -> http://www.independent.ie/regionals/fin ... 74520.html

Quote:
Council chief executive, Paul Reid said the council was initially offered 279 units from NAMA but subsequently, '162 of those were withdrawn by NAMA for various reasons'. He said the council had expressed an interest in 158 of those originally offered properties and had since completed a process to close the deal on 105 of the remaining properties offered by NAMA. He said that in fact, the council had only turned down about a dozen properties that were in estates where management fees were considered too high by the local authority or were not vacant and the council did not want to find itself in the positin of 'evicting people who may be on a long-term rental' in order to house people on its social housing waiting list.

there is more



Councils rejected over 2,000 Nama homes for social housing - -> http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-a ... -1.2924785

Longford County Council rejects 31 NAMA homes for social housing - -> http://www.longfordleader.ie/news/home/ ... using.html

Council reject over 150 NAMA homes for social housing - -> http://clareherald.com/2017/01/council- ... ing-71199/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Over 80% of rents too expensive for people on social wel
PostPosted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 10:33 pm 
Offline
Planning Tribunal Attendee

Joined: May 12, 2012
Posts: 1366
Over the last several years I have yet to come across a local authority official or elected member who seriously wants to get back into the housing construction and management business.

They are lacking in some combination of skills and interest. No matter how much central government money is sprayed at them I doubt much will happen.

Housing is a national problem and needs a dedicate state agency with the legal remit and funding to make a dent in the problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Terra Incognita, Thargor, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 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: