That's exactly the point I made.
Irish Times, "Average Dublin rents rise to €2,258, up 14.3%, amid ‘extreme shortage"
- Thread starter Purple
- Start date
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 688
Education is not the only way. Some people will never change with education so they need to be dealt with by other measures.
How many prisoners go on to re offend when released from prison. How many people are habitual criminals?
It is a mentality of some people that needs to change and no matter how much education you give them they will never change.
If you deal with the small minority (and it is a small minority) of those who cause most issues the young impressionable will not be influenced by these people and the mob/pack mentality wont happen.
The above while not directly relevant to the topic in hand does impact on the supply of housing and the objections made by people to new housing supply.
The thread is veering off the topic.
The problem isn't lack of police, there are some great members of the force in some of the real problem areas, but they are effectively operating with their hands behind their backs. For both the kids and the adults. It is common enough to see people commit multiple offences and be right back out.
Worse, when you get a "bad" family into an area, they can destroy the area and nothing can be done about it. In a previous apparent I lived in, a tenant decided it was easier just to throw their trash out the window than bring it down to the bins. It took nearly half a year before they were removed and the rubbish wasn't the worst part of having them there.
There needs to be real and swift consequences for dealing with these types of people. Right now they know they can destroy their accommodation and then get right into another place.
I'm not sure education could work either. There is a minority of people who know no different life and in complete fairness to some of them, their lives are much much much better off in the system than if they started working and trying to get ahead legit. If you "play" the system correctly, you can end up with a whole lot of cash every week.
While all this may seem off topic to the issue of rents, imo it isn't and is a direct influence. I know I completely excluded certain areas when house hunting, and multiple others I know did the same. The risk of getting stuck near a bad social tenant just wasn't worth it. This would keep the pool of buyers lower in those areas, likely reducing prices. Given the overall shortage, the impact is entirely debatable for sure.
We might perhaps explain that more clearly by suggesting that new landlords are pricing in several years of restricted rent rises at the beginning of the tenancy into the initial rent?
The consequence of RPZs is that we now have rent setting by speculation.
Complicated.
It is a crisis for that 13,000 people.
It is probably a crisis for most of the people who were or are facing evictions.
It might be (depending on income) a crisis for anybody starting a new tenancy on the highest possible rent to price in rent increases for 5 years from now, today.
It isn't a crisis if you own your own home, if you own additional homes or if you are a sitting tenant whose landlord is not selling (or indeed, cannot sell for a variety of reasons).
It might be a source of difficulty for anybody hiring who is limited to the tight local labour market.
It is certainly difficult for students from outside the area they study in.
Its an enormous concern for any older single person still renting, or middle-aged families with children who don't earn enough to buy, who also cannot access social housing or a limited pool of cost rentals.
But its a case of winners and losers. High rents are (as they did in 2004) drive up house prices, as FTBs lock in fixed rate mortgages for anything from 2 to 20 years. They will most certainly lead to a new wave in home price hikes in the new year as the eviction ban prevents new second hand ex rental stock from coming on the open market.
Its not a good situation, but its a crisis for some, while being a benefit to a rather large group.
The problem in those cases is that social housing access is so constrained, the level of social deprivation people would be in before they qualify would be extremely high, and then you concentrate that in an area with little mixture of tenure.
Which is why there was a desire to stop building monoculture areas of particular tenures and instead have a social mix of public, social and affordable housing all in a single development. But some didn't like the idea of "developers" profiting from that.
Your gentle reminder that during the "golden age" of public house building, children of those families were reared in institutions like Tuam, and reform schools like Artane, orphanages like Goldenbridge, and the mothers in Mother-and-Baby homes.
I struggle to see what exactly that bright red herring has to do with either Purple's comment or the topic of this thread.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,216
The point is that the widespread nostalgia for mid-20th century public housing projects may be a tad selective.
Yes, that’s the point I was making.
Exactly. We have a choice as to where we spend our money. If we build homes 1950’s style then we’ll have to have a 1950’s style health and education budget.
Only if you directly associate those 20th century public housing projects with the issues mentioned in the red herring comment. In which case the logical conclusion is that if those social housing projects hadn't existed, then the other things wouldn't have occurred!
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,216
Money and choices.
Why?
Some well meaning idiots and dishonest academics and dishonest populist left wing politicians who prey on the above mentioned well meaning idiots postulate that all we have to do is build houses like we did in the bygone age of yore and the government, for their own nefarious motives just won't do that.
That doesn't stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny. These jokers actually want the same people who planned and are building the National Children's Hospital to build masses of social housing.
You couldn't make it up.
And people are swallowing it. People who are allowed to vote, people who are able to cross the road and use cutlery and drive cars and are, for all intents and purposes, functioning adults actually think that the State is best placed to deliver housing. They believe that the State is the solution rather than the problem. I find that incredible.
What other things?
Those mentioned in the red herring comment.
And please quit that nonsense about the cost of the NCH. Leave that to the airheads who think that building a bespoke, state of the art hospital should be as straightforward as building a bicycle shed! It will cost what it costs, no more and no less.
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,216
The point is very simple - the investment back then in public housing infrastructure was at the cost of underinvestment in health and education.
A return to similar levels of investment in public housing infrastructure will inevitably entail opportunity costs elsewhere.
There is no magic money tree.
Okay, so nothing to do with me then.
I made the point that if we spend more on housing we'd have less to spend on health and welfare and education. That's blindingly obvious don't you think?
I'll add that since money is not the main constraint on supply increased in funding will mostly be swallowed up by the price inflation that the extra funding will create. Economic reality doesn't suit the dishonest populist left wing politician and it's not understood be the the well meaning idiots but it's real nonetheless.
What airheads think that? I've never heard anyone equate the two.
A hospital is not the same as a bicycle shed. I think we can all agree on that. It's harder to cost and there's scope creep if the people tasked with defining the scope aren't up to the job in the first place. A five fold increase in the cost in three years though... That takes a special kind of incompetence. That means they were five times less competent than they should have been. Okay, there's a war on and there's inflation and we had Covid. We'll call it three times less competent than they should have been.
Do you want those jokers delivering tens of thousands of houses all over the country? Really?
Please explain to be how that's a good idea.
As does everything. Most things don't cost 5 times more than expected. That's unusual.
But let them build the hospital. If they didn't spend the money on that they'd just waste it on pay increases for the self aggrandising whingers who'll work in it.
They shouldn't be building houses though.
So where did you pull that five-fold increase in 3 years from?
Surely the "costs" clock should start running from the date when the contract was signed? That was in mid-2017 when Simon Harris said that it would cost €1.07bn to build.