# Do children inherit their parent's social housing?



## Brendan Burgess

I am reading the Dublin City Council Housing Allocation Scheme and this astonishes me.


*"1.5  Succession to Tenancy*

Where death or departure of a tenant takes place, the tenancy will normally be given to a surviving spouse/partner, provided:

·  such spouse/partner has been resident in the dwelling for a continuous period of at least two years immediately prior to the death/departure of the tenant.

On the death or departure of both parents the tenancy will normally be given to a son or daughter, irrespective of number in the household, provided

·  he/she has been living in the dwelling for at least two years immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant



However, departure of the tenant by way of purchasing or providing own accommodation will, not be grounds for a child over 18 years to remain in the dwelling and apply for succession.



A person other than a spouse, partner, son or daughter who has resided in the dwelling for at least fiveyears immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant may be allowed to succeed where:

·  there is no spouse, partner, son or daughter eligible to succeed and

·  where the dwelling size is appropriate to his/her needs."


So a couple with three children get allocated a 3 bed house.
The children leave
The father dies
The mother gets to stay in a three bed house on her own.
One of the children moves back in.
The mother dies.
The child gets the house irrespective of their housing needs!!!

I had heard of a case recently in Ringsend where a single man with a very good salary had moved back in with his mother so that he would get the house. I had assumed it was just an urban myth.
*
*


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Cork City Council's Allocation Scheme seems more fit for purpose: 


9.3 In cases where all of the tenants of a dwelling provided by Cork City Council
have died or vacated the dwelling, Cork City Council shall consider an
application for a tenancy from the following:

(a) a person who has continued to reside in the dwelling throughout his
lifetime and who has been assessed for rent purposes, or,
(b) a person who having left the dwelling for a period, has resided in the
dwelling with the tenant with the permission of Cork City Council for
a period of at least 2 years prior to the death or departure of the tenant.

 Where there are two or more surviving persons who meet the criteria at (a) or
(b) above, a joint tenancy may be granted by Cork City Council.


----------



## niceoneted

Yes it happens Brendan. My sil got it when my mil passed away. I was shocked too by what happened.


----------



## Delboy

I'm shocked that your shocked by this Brendan!

Perhaps it's not so obvious in the city but in my part of rural Ireland I know of several instances of this happening.


----------



## Monbretia

As Delboy says not remotely uncommon in my part of rural Ireland either.

My MIL moved to nursing home and subsequently died after a few years, her sons automatically stayed on in property until one died and then the remaining one was there until his death.  Now that was a house that reared 5 children and in theory he could have been moved to a smaller property when on his own but there are no smaller council properties in rural Ireland, no apartment blocks with single occupancy or even double occupancy units.

That particular house has since been totally revamped by Council and still lies empty at least a year later, several offers have been made on it to people but today's expectations of suitable space are very different to my in laws days and those offered have declined it on the basis of being too small for a family.  No one these days is prepared to have a kitchen that is smaller than most utility rooms and just 2 bedrooms so the house lies empty. 

So while the ideal would be that there was other suitable housing stock of correct size available in the locality to move people too what are the chances of this!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Monbretia said:


> My MIL moved to nursing home and subsequently died after a few years, her sons automatically stayed on in property until one died and then the remaining one was there until his death.



After the tenant dies, the children or other residents should take their place on the housing list. 

In the particular case you describe, it would have made sense to leave the two adult sons there. There would have been little point in moving them out just to leave the house empty.

But three bed houses in the cities are in very short supply. And the children should not "inherit" them giving them priority over people who may have much greater housing needs. 

Brendan


----------



## Purple

Brendan Burgess said:


> After the tenant dies, the children or other residents should take their place on the housing list.
> 
> In the particular case you describe, it would have made sense to leave the two adult sons there. There would have been little point in moving them out just to leave the house empty.
> 
> But three bed houses in the cities are in very short supply. And the children should not "inherit" them giving them priority over people who may have much greater housing needs.
> 
> Brendan


The real kick is that it is not income related. You can be a single person earning €150,000 a year and have a 3 bedroom council house.

This is a great little country!


----------



## pudds

But isn't the rent determined by how much you can afford to pay, does that not act as a form of mean testing?


----------



## Tebbit

Surely a person earning 150,000 a year or indeed 80,000 a year wouldn't have a council house?????  I can't believe that.


----------



## Delboy

Tebbit said:


> Surely a person earning 150,000 a year or indeed 80,000 a year wouldn't have a council house?????  I can't believe that.


You donn't get kicked out so in theory, yes you could have grown up there and now be on a good salary and still have the council house.
I'd say it's rare down the country and slightly less rare in the cities. But it is possible


----------



## Protocol

There is a TD living in council social housing.

I think in Wicklow.


----------



## Kramer

Protocol said:


> There is a TD living in council social housing.
> 
> I think in Wicklow.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...brady-fights-eviction-in-high-court-1.2670717


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I am reading the Dublin City Council Housing Allocation Scheme and this astonishes me.
> 
> 
> *"1.5  Succession to Tenancy*
> 
> Where death or departure of a tenant takes place, the tenancy will normally be given to a surviving spouse/partner, provided:
> 
> ·  such spouse/partner has been resident in the dwelling for a continuous period of at least two years immediately prior to the death/departure of the tenant.
> 
> On the death or departure of both parents the tenancy will normally be given to a son or daughter, irrespective of number in the household, provided
> 
> ·  he/she has been living in the dwelling for at least two years immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant
> 
> 
> 
> However, departure of the tenant by way of purchasing or providing own accommodation will, not be grounds for a child over 18 years to remain in the dwelling and apply for succession.
> 
> 
> 
> A person other than a spouse, partner, son or daughter who has resided in the dwelling for at least fiveyears immediately prior to the death or departure of the tenant may be allowed to succeed where:
> 
> ·  there is no spouse, partner, son or daughter eligible to succeed and
> 
> ·  where the dwelling size is appropriate to his/her needs."
> 
> 
> So a couple with three children get allocated a 3 bed house.
> The children leave
> The father dies
> The mother gets to stay in a three bed house on her own.
> One of the children moves back in.
> The mother dies.
> *The child gets the house irrespective of their housing needs!!!*




Hi Brendan, re underlined, BOLD (my emphasis)

Actually no, they don't. 
If you had cared to detail fully the provision for housing succession, you would have noted the following


_In all cases of claims for succession to tenancy it will be necessary that the applicant(s) have been included in the family household details for rent assessment purposes for the requisite period(s) as outlined above.  No application will be considered where this condition is not complied with.
_
*In all cases*_, there _*must be no alternative *_suitable accommodation available to the applicant(s) for succession of tenancy.
_
Had this provision been detailed it may have saved alot of time.
For instance, my near perpetual unanswered question of "where does the evicted tenant go?" 
As it transpires, succession of housing only occurs when there is no alternative suitable accommodation. This is typical in the midst of a housing crisis.


_
_


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> For instance, my near perpetual unanswered question of "where does the evicted tenant go?"



Where does anyone who doesn't have a home go? 

They rent elsewhere!
And if they are not working that should be elsewhere in the country.

But this would all be solved if all social housing leases were for 5 years only. The social housing would be a lotto win for the "tenants" at the expense of the taxpayer and those who pay for their own housing.

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Where does anyone who doesn't have a home go?
> 
> They rent elsewhere!
> And if they are not working that should be elsewhere in the country.



Great, so a 19yr old second yr student at Trinity college, whose mother (single) passed away, and who works part-time in a coffee house, serving you coffee some mornings on your way to work, can look forward to being evicted to god only knows where! 
- I suppose the studies can just take a back seat then?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Absolutely

What does any 19 year old who wants to study in Trinity do?  I am not up to date on Student Accommodation, but I presume that Dublin City Council does not provide them with a three bed house to live on their own. 

You might prefer to prioritise a 19 year old TCD student, but I would prefer to take a family out of a hotel and put them in the house instead. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I presume that Dublin City Council does not provide them with a three bed house to live on their own.



In the absence of alternative suitable accommodation, eh, yes they will. Probably something to do with prioritizing the person over accommodation, rather than the accommodation over the person.



Brendan Burgess said:


> You might prefer to prioritise a 19 year old TCD student, but I would prefer to take a family out of a hotel and put them in the house instead.



Of course, lets hope the homeless family are not one of those families who object to interior decoration however, right?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...gibility-due-to-mothers-choices-35279162.html

Otherwise we will end up with a homeless family and a homeless 19yr old - for no good reason other than the ability to count to one, two, three bedrooms!

Here is a US based article relating to resolving the homeless interior design issue.

http://www.upworthy.com/a-secret-weapon-in-fighting-homelessness-interior-designers-really


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> *In all cases*_, there _*must be no alternative *_suitable accommodation available to the applicant(s) for succession of tenancy._


Who decides what constitutes "suitable accommodation"?
"Possession is nine tenths of the law" and all that.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Who decides what constitutes "suitable accommodation"?
> "Possession is nine tenths of the law" and all that.



Exactly, think of the arguments, protests, appeals etc. A right sorry mess trying to move people around.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Exactly, think of the arguments, protests, appeals etc. A right sorry mess trying to move people around.


Indeed. We will have to change legislation before we can change policy but in the interests of a socially just society we should do so. It is damaging to the fabric of society to see people exploiting their fellow citizens like that.

I'm glad to see that you agree that the "In all cases there must be no suitable alternative accommodation available" clause is nonsense and, as Brendan and others have pointed out, it is the norm for people to inherit their parents social house.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> We will have to change legislation before we can change policy but in the interests of a socially just society we should do so.



Go ahead, as long as the legislation is 'socially just', no problem there.



Purple said:


> It is damaging to the fabric of society to see people exploiting their fellow citizens like that.



Who is exploiting who? If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, you can hardly expect someone to be moved to _unsuitable_ alternative accommodation? 



Purple said:


> I'm glad to see that you agree that the "In all cases there must be no suitable alternative accommodation available" clause is nonsense



I never agreed any such thing. 



Purple said:


> and, as Brendan and others have pointed out, it is the norm for people to inherit their parents social house.



I would say the norm is that people succeed tenancy of the property where there is no suitable alternative accommodation.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Who is exploiting who?


 The person living in a house that is bigger than they need, which is being provided by their fellow citizens, when they can afford to buy or rent their own home; that is the person doing the exploiting.



TheBigShort said:


> I never agreed any such thing.


 



TheBigShort said:


> I would say the norm is that people succeed tenancy of the property where there is no suitable alternative accommodation.


 Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.



TheBigShort said:


> If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, you can hardly expect someone to be moved to _unsuitable_ alternative accommodation?


Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.



TheBigShort said:


> Go ahead, as long as the legislation is 'socially just', no problem there.


Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The person living in a house that is bigger than they need, which is being provided by their fellow citizens, when they can afford to buy or rent their own home; that is the person doing the exploiting.



We are talking about tenants of LA housing, right? 
The tendency of which is that they come from and live in socially disadvantaged areas, low to average incomes (at best), lack of educational facilities and who are stuck in cyclical poverty traps reliant on welfare dependency? 

Or are we talking about swatehes of well-educated, highly trained, high income earners who, as high paid professionals having broken through the cycle of poverty and disadvantage, deliberately choose to continue to occupy city centre flats that have crime and drug problems etc? 

How many are we actually talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law?



Enlighten me.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> How many are we actually talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?


I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that there only needs to be a small improvement in the utilisation of our current social housing stock to make big inroads into the homelessness problem. 
If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?
I used to live near Christchurch in Dublin. The Iveagh Buildings behind my apartment were far bigger and better than my home. If I lived there why would I ever move out? I work with lots of guys from Cabra. They generally stay in the area no matter what they earn. Why would they move out of their council houses? Greenhills is the same, as are many parts of Tallaght. I  can't speak for other areas but I'm sure they are not unique.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Enlighten me.


See here.


----------



## dub_nerd

Purple said:


> If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?.


I grew up in social housing in Dalkey. My parents were poor as church mice, and economic conditions were grim for much of my upbringing. However, all the children of the family were financially very successful (eventually). The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for _us_ , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances. Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money and make a massive difference between working to pay the rent and considerable financial comfort.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that there only needs to be a small improvement in the utilisation of our current social housing stock to make big inroads into the homelessness problem.



Yes, but the question was how many high income earners are occupying social housing are we talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?

Here is stat that was provide in another thread from CSO;

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hbs/hbs20152016/hinc/

_Households rented from a local authority had the lowest average weekly gross household income at €495.57. State transfers were the main source of income in these households, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66.4%) of gross income. Less than 21% of persons in these households classified themselves as unemployed_.

It indicates to me low-levels of income are broadly the norm. Im sure there are exceptions, but again, how many and what impact will shifting these people out have on the housing and homeless crisis?



Purple said:


> If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?



I don’t know, why on earth would you ever move out?



Purple said:


> I used to live near Christchurch in Dublin. The Iveagh Buildings behind my apartment were far bigger and better than my home. If I lived there why would I ever move out?



I don’t know? Why would you, or anybody ever move out of any place that they live?



Purple said:


> I work with lots of guys from Cabra. They generally stay in the area no matter what they earn. Why would they move out of their council houses?



I don’t know? Why does anybody ever move out of their homes?



Purple said:


> See here.



All very interesting, but how it relates to this discussion is wide open to interpretation.


----------



## TheBigShort

dub_nerd said:


> I grew up in social housing in Dalkey. My parents were poor as church mice, and economic conditions were grim for much of my upbringing. However, all the children of the family were financially very successful (eventually). The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for _us_ , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances. Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money and make a massive difference between working to pay the rent and considerable financial comfort.



I totally agree that housing that is provided for those less well-off should not be sold to private profiteers so that they can extract extortionate rents for ordinary working people who otherwise could have utilized the house and at least lived in relative financial comfort.
But it is interesting to note that even though you grew up in social housing, none of you 'inherited' the house for life. Instead, and I'm just assuming here, that upon your financial success that you left home and bought your own place.
I was under the impression that folk like you (as in tenants of poor economic background) stayed in the social housing for life, regardless of how much income you earned?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I totally agree that housing that is provided for those less well-off should not be sold to private profiteers so that they can extract extortionate rents for ordinary working people who otherwise could have utilized the house and at least lived in relative financial comfort.


So if the tenant buys the house and later buys another house to live in and rents out the old house is that former tenant no longer one the the "ordinary working people" but rather a "private profiteers" extracting "extortionate rents"?


TheBigShort said:


> But it is interesting to note that even though you grew up in social housing, none of you 'inherited' the house for life. Instead, and I'm just assuming here, that upon your financial success that you left home and bought your own place. I was under the impression that folk like you (as in tenants of poor economic background) stayed in the social housing for life, regardless of how much income you earned.


He pointed out that his father bought the house at a significant discount. That means that the asset is no longer in private ownership. Did you miss that bit?
Be careful dub_nerd, if you ever rent out your father's house you'll stop being an ordinary working person (I presume it's a good and virtuous thing to be part of that group) and become a private profiteer (they must be the bad guys).
Given you background you are already dangerously close to being part of the intelligentsia and so may already be a class trator (that's another word for someone who betters themself). When the revolution comes you may well be in the firing line.  

My landlord is in the same boat; humble background but he's done well for himself by careful saving and hard work. Both he and I thought he provided a social good by renting a house to me and providing a home for me and my children. I must let him know that he's a private profiteer and generally a bad sort.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So if the tenant buys the house and later buys another house to live in and rents out the old house is that former tenant no longer one the the "ordinary working people" but rather a "private profiteers" extracting "extortionate rents"?



No.



Purple said:


> He pointed out that his father bought the house at a significant discount. That means that the asset is no longer in private ownership. Did you miss that bit?



No, I got that bit. I was just linking his comment with the question in the title of thread. In his case, obviously not - did you miss that bit?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> No.



So what is he in your eyes?


----------



## dub_nerd

The Horseman said:


> So what is he in your eyes?



I shudder to think. Six of us now own nine houses between us, but only one of those is making filthy lucre from rental.


----------



## Purple

dub_nerd said:


> I shudder to think. Six of us now own nine houses between us, but only one of those is making filthy lucre from rental.


You may laugh now but when the revolution comes...
Just keep a red armband in your pocket at all times, that's my advice.


----------



## TheBigShort

Im not sure what the last few comments are about or why im being quoted? Just to re-cap on what was said previously.



dub_nerd said:


> The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for _us_ , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances.



Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took from the above comment that Dub_nerd considers, that while beneficial to his family, that social housing should not be sold to tenants at 'knock-down' prices only for the beneficiaries to profit later?
Instead social housing should remain in public ownership for the benefit of those who cannot afford to buy or rent in the private market?
Correct me if im wrong.



dub_nerd said:


> Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money



Again, just my interpretation, but 'stupid money' sounds like a euphemism for profiteering? And if my interpretation of the quote is correct, then the Dub_nerd is against the profiteering of social housing that were sold at 'knock-down' prices to tenants?

But hey, that is just my interpretation. 
But more interestingly, the Dub_nerds post points to a reality that where people who do occupy social housing and progress in their careers/lives to earn good incomes, that in general they do vacate social housing and do buy for themselves.
Not only that, they didnt 'inherit' the house, instead the house was bought and sold for profit (im assuming his father then had to buy/rent in the private market)?
Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?



You mean you need to ask why anyone would buy a house at a deep discount to market value as has happened in the past? You really need to ask that question??? Question you really need to ask is why people who can afford to buy the house even at a deep discount are in LA housing and not privately renting or buying like the majority of people......


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> You mean you need to ask why anyone would buy a house at a deep discount to market value as has happened in the past? You really need to ask that question???



No I don't need to ask it, its obvious. But I dont think others up above actually understand what it is they are saying sometimes.



Sunny said:


> Question you really need to ask is why people who can afford to buy the house even at a deep discount are in LA housing and not privately renting or buying like the majority of people......



Case in point .


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Im not sure what the last few comments are about or why im being quoted? Just to re-cap on what was said previously.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took from the above comment that Dub_nerd considers, that while beneficial to his family, that social housing should not be sold to tenants at 'knock-down' prices only for the beneficiaries to profit later?
> Instead social housing should remain in public ownership for the benefit of those who cannot afford to buy or rent in the private market?
> Correct me if im wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, just my interpretation, but 'stupid money' sounds like a euphemism for profiteering? And if my interpretation of the quote is correct, then the Dub_nerd is against the profiteering of social housing that were sold at 'knock-down' prices to tenants?
> 
> But hey, that is just my interpretation.
> But more interestingly, the Dub_nerds post points to a reality that where people who do occupy social housing and progress in their careers/lives to earn good incomes, that in general they do vacate social housing and do buy for themselves.
> Not only that, they didnt 'inherit' the house, instead the house was bought and sold for profit (im assuming his father then had to buy/rent in the private market)?
> Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?


Everyone posting, with the exception of you it seems, agreed with that summation ages ago. If you can't see why such a setup makes the homelessness problem worse then there's not much point in continuing to talk about it.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Everyone posting, with the exception of you it seems, agreed with that summation ages ago. If you can't see why such a setup makes the homelessness problem worse then there's not much point in continuing to talk about it.





 Your whole mantra is about getting those who occupy social housing but who can well afford to buy/rent their own housing that they should vacate the social housing. 
Ive been saying you cannot compel people to leave in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation.

High income earners do not occupy social housing. Im sure there are some exceptions, but how many are we actually talking about? And compelling them to move will have what impact?

Perhaps you might actually answer these questions directly?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Your whole mantra is about getting those who occupy social housing but who can well afford to buy/rent their own housing that they should vacate the social housing.


 Correct. Do you agree in principle that this should be so?



TheBigShort said:


> Ive been saying you cannot compel people to leave in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation.


 Does that mean nobody should ever leave a any house in the absence of suitable accommodation? If not then why should Social Housing Tenants be different? 



TheBigShort said:


> High income earners do not occupy social housing.


 Yes they do.



TheBigShort said:


> Im sure there are some exceptions,


 Exactly. 


TheBigShort said:


> but how many are we actually talking about?


I don't know but given that there are 150,000 social housing units in the country even if it's 2 in every 1000 tenants that would free up 300 houses, house 300 homeless families and save the State over a €100,000,000 in houses that they would not have to build. Think of all the pay rises they could give to Public Servants with that money!


TheBigShort said:


> And compelling them to move will have what impact?


 There will be the same amount of people in social housing but more people in social housing that actually need it. It would also make the system fairer and therefore more legitimate to the public at large. 



TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps you might actually answer these questions directly?


 Done. 

Now answer this; do you think it is fair that high earners should occupy social housing while poor families are homeless?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Do you agree in principle that this should be so?



 Realistically how do you evict them? 
Lets be real here, when talking about high-income, or "well able to afford to pay for their own private accommodation", how much are we talking about here? 
I think incomes of less than €35k for a single, €45k for a couple qualifies the income threshold in DCC, subject to the other criteria of not having anywhere else to live. 
Now if a couple occupies a LA and progresses their careers so that they now earn €55k are you seriously suggesting they be evicted without any other suitable alternative accommodation? 
Are you suggesting that they just rent or buy wherever they get? That no consideration is made for their employment prospects or educational opportunities? What about their kids at school? 
And lets be honest here, its not as if the housing crisis is a result of nowhere to live. It is a result of nowhere _suitable _to live.
I think there are some 100,000 vacant properties in the State. By your simplified logic then there should be no housing crisis.

On the other hand if a couple are earning €100k + it is my guess that generally they will willingly vacate LA housing and buy/rent for themselves. Why wouldn't they? 
As the Dub_nerd example testifies, when people get the opportunity to earn significant income or generate wealth they will take advantage of that. In turn they will willingly vacate social housing. 





Purple said:


> Does that mean nobody should ever leave a any house in the absence of suitable accommodation?



What do you think? Should they willingly vacate a property and become homeless? As in the absence of alternative ans suitable accommodation that is what you are suggesting.



Purple said:


> If not then why should Social Housing Tenants be different?



??



Purple said:


> I don't know but given that there are 150,000 social housing units in the country even if it's 2 in every 1000 tenants that would free up 300 houses, house 300 homeless families and save the State over a €100,000,000 in houses that they would not have to build



Its so simple isnt it? 
There are 100,000+ vacant properties in the State, only 10,000 homeless.  So how is there a housing crisis at all? 

Is it because a lot of these vacant properties are _not suitable _to prospective tenants? Private or public? Even unsuitable for homeless?




Purple said:


> There will be the same amount of people in social housing but more people in social housing that actually need it. It would also make the system fairer and therefore more legitimate to the public at large.



In the ideal, simplistic world of Purple and co. 
But back in the real world, there are 100,000+ vacant properties in the State, but FTBs cannot get on the ladder.
There are 10,000 people in emergency accommodation. 
By your simple reasoning, there should be no crisis.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Realistically how do you evict them?
> Lets be real here, when talking about high-income, or "well able to afford to pay for their own private accommodation", how much are we talking about here?
> I think incomes of less than €35k for a single, €45k for a couple qualifies the income threshold in DCC, subject to the other criteria of not having anywhere else to live.
> Now if a couple occupies a LA and progresses their careers so that they now earn €55k are you seriously suggesting they be evicted without any other suitable alternative accommodation?
> Are you suggesting that they just rent or buy wherever they get? That no consideration is made for their employment prospects or educational opportunities? What about their kids at school?
> And lets be honest here, its not as if the housing crisis is a result of nowhere to live. It is a result of nowhere _suitable _to live.
> I think there are some 100,000 vacant properties in the State. By your simplified logic then there should be no housing crisis.
> 
> On the other hand if a couple are earning €100k + it is my guess that generally they will willingly vacate LA housing and buy/rent for themselves. Why wouldn't they?
> As the Dub_nerd example testifies, when people get the opportunity to earn significant income or generate wealth they will take advantage of that. In turn they will willingly vacate social housing.


That's a really long way of not answering the question.



TheBigShort said:


> What do you think? Should they willingly vacate a property and become homeless? As in the absence of alternative ans suitable accommodation that is what you are suggesting.


 That's a shorter way of not answering the question (well done).



TheBigShort said:


> ??


 ?? right back at ya.



TheBigShort said:


> Its so simple isnt it?
> There are 100,000+ vacant properties in the State, only 10,000 homeless. So how is there a housing crisis at all?
> 
> Is it because a lot of these vacant properties are _not suitable _to prospective tenants? Private or public? Even unsuitable for homeless?


That's a strawman argument.



TheBigShort said:


> In the ideal, simplistic world of Purple and co.
> But back in the real world, there are 100,000+ vacant properties in the State, but FTBs cannot get on the ladder.
> There are 10,000 people in emergency accommodation.
> By your simple reasoning, there should be no crisis.


That's another strawman argument.


I don't think you are trying.

Let's keep it simple. Can you answer the first question;
You said 


TheBigShort said:


> Your whole mantra is about getting those who occupy social housing but who can well afford to buy/rent their own housing that they should vacate the social housing.


and I replied with a question(in this context an aact or instance of asking) ;


Purple said:


> Correct. Do you agree in principle that this should be so?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> do you think it is fair that high earners should occupy social housing while poor families are homeless?



Not at all. Its totally unfair, I never suggested otherwise.
Im asking you what do you do to resolve the issue?
My view is that a policy of eviction is futile.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Not at all. Its totally unfair, I never suggested otherwise.
> Im asking you what do you do to resolve the issue?
> My view is that a policy of eviction is futile.



So we don't evict and we incentivize people to vacate properties and they don't take the incentive. What then? Remember we have a finite amount of land to build on. So if we can't evict and people don't take the incentives and people still need to be housed how do you suggest we "square this circle"?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> So we don't evict and we incentivize people to vacate properties and they don't take the incentive. What then? Remember we have a finite amount of land to build on. So if we can't evict and people don't take the incentives and people still need to be housed how do you suggest we "square this circle"?



The proposal to incentive downsizing is only a sticking plaster. It could be introduced quickly. According to CSO 40% of private owned housing is under occupied. That is about 800,000. If only 2% of that is incentivised then that will bring some mobility into the market. 
My other, primary proposal, is to build more houses. 
Notwithstanding is your point that we only have a finite amount of land to build on, you can rest assure that while this is true, we are nowhere near, not even close, to actually running out of available space.

Depending on who you talk to around here, the cost build of a three bed terrace (?) is anywhere between €150k and €300k. Taking the top figure, LA are currently getting €3,500 per annum. Thats less than €300 a month.
 If new housing is provided for working people, typically FTB who cannot get on the property ladder then a private property company can manage the property, investing in quality furnishings (if desirable) and providing affordable rents while making a profit.
The State can deliver the housing. And as it has no intenrions of ever retiring, the cost build can be re-couped over 100yrs, 150yrs + 

Professional landlords can now manage the property by providing quality accommodation at affordable prices (relative to mortgages) therefore providing a real alternative to the house ownership model.
Tenants can now get on with their education and careers building an attractive workforce for future investment. They can also aspire to own their own properties one day if they want. Or they can rent at affordable prices for their whole lives if it suits. 
The housing market could be mobile and competitive, not like the failure it is today causing hardship and resentment.

Of course that is just an outline, im happy to accept that it is not viable if fundamental factors are outlined. 
But the difference between what im proposing and what anybody else is proposing is that im targeting solutions for FTB's, families who wish to trade up and the homeless. All to be done with causing the inevitable conflict that proposals of eviction would ignite.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> The proposal to incentive downsizing is only a sticking plaster. It could be introduced quickly. According to CSO 40% of private owned housing is under occupied. That is about 800,000. If only 2% of that is incentivised then that will bring some mobility into the market.
> My other, primary proposal, is to build more houses.
> Notwithstanding is your point that we only have a finite amount of land to build on, you can rest assure that while this is true, we are nowhere near, not even close, to actually running out of available space.
> 
> Depending on who you talk to around here, the cost build of a three bed terrace (?) is anywhere between €150k and €300k. Taking the top figure, LA are currently getting €3,500 per annum. Thats less than €300 a month.
> If new housing is provided for working people, typically FTB who cannot get on the property ladder then a private property company can manage the property, investing in quality furnishings (if desirable) and providing affordable rents while making a profit.
> The State can deliver the housing. And as it has no intenrions of ever retiring, the cost build can be re-couped over 100yrs, 150yrs +
> 
> Professional landlords can now manage the property by providing quality accommodation at affordable prices (relative to mortgages) therefore providing a real alternative to the house ownership model.
> Tenants can now get on with their education and careers building an attractive workforce for future investment. They can also aspire to own their own properties one day if they want. Or they can rent at affordable prices for their whole lives if it suits.
> The housing market could be mobile and competitive, not like the failure it is today causing hardship and resentment.
> 
> Of course that is just an outline, im happy to accept that it is not viable if fundamental factors are outlined.
> But the difference between what im proposing and what anybody else is proposing is that im targeting solutions for FTB's, families who wish to trade up and the homeless. All to be done with causing the inevitable conflict that proposals of eviction would ignite.




What if nobody takes the incentive. People can already choose to downsize if they wish so why are they not doing so?

You seem to be missing the point of a private company, its purpose is to maximize profits? why will it take a business risk if it cant benefit from the positives but must take all the negatives. With the current anti landlord stance and Focus Ireland's latest report you wonder why the rental market is shrinking and more people are becoming homeless.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> What if nobody takes the incentive. People can already choose to downsize if they wish so why are they not doing so?



They do downsize actually.

http://www.thejournal.ie/downsizing-social-housing-3456397-Jun2017/

http://www.thejournal.ie/downsizing-housing-3337119-Apr2017/

Unfortunately, due to lack of mobility in the market children are staying at home longer. Children staying at home is preventing downsizing. House building could alleviate that.

In addition to the numbers already downsizing, I would imagine financial incentives such payment of solicitors fees, stamp duty write-down, property tax deferrals and funds to cover removal costs could reverse the declining trend. Not only that, but if it works it has potential to become a social norm. Meaning that just as lots of us grow up, buy a home, start families, move to another home etc that when we retire and kids have flown nest we can think of where we want to live when we downsize (if applicable).




The Horseman said:


> You seem to be missing the point of a private company, its purpose is to maximize profits?



Im not sure what your understanding of a private company is. The last time I suggested for profit company this is what you said



The Horseman said:


> I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost.



So just to elaborate. 
The State can deliver housing and re-coup the build cost over 150yrs+, unlike alot of private landlords who aim to have mortgage repaid by retirement age. This creates the anomoly where tenants are paying high rents and unable to save to buy their own, thus disqualifying them from getting a mortgage. 

The State however has a poor record in managing properties. So what I propose is that the State builds the housing. It can then lease the property to a private, for profit company, who manage the property. 
So if the State charges the company €250 per month. The landlord can let out the property for a rent higher than that (for arguments sake lets say €500pm). This is considerably lower than current market rates, dont you think? 
If there are enough houses built, then the house that provides the best furnishings, location etc can charge a bit more. It will be market driven. But ultimately, prospective tenants and buyers will have a real alternative to choose from. 
If I wanted to live in a two bed Dublin City apartment, I would take time to consider between 30yr mortgage at €2,000 pm or renting out for €500,600 a month with the option of saving and having a better quality of life.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> They do downsize actually.
> 
> http://www.thejournal.ie/downsizing-social-housing-3456397-Jun2017/
> 
> http://www.thejournal.ie/downsizing-housing-3337119-Apr2017/
> 
> Unfortunately, due to lack of mobility in the market children are staying at home longer. Children staying at home is preventing downsizing. House building could alleviate that.
> 
> In addition to the numbers already downsizing, I would imagine financial incentives such payment of solicitors fees, stamp duty write-down, property tax deferrals and funds to cover removal costs could reverse the declining trend. Not only that, but if it works it has potential to become a social norm. Meaning that just as lots of us grow up, buy a home, start families, move to another home etc that when we retire and kids have flown nest we can think of where we want to live when we downsize (if applicable).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im not sure what your understanding of a private company is. The last time I suggested for profit company this is what you said
> 
> 
> 
> So just to elaborate.
> The State can deliver housing and re-coup the build cost over 150yrs+, unlike alot of private landlords who aim to have mortgage repaid by retirement age. This creates the anomoly where tenants are paying high rents and unable to save to buy their own, thus disqualifying them from getting a mortgage.
> 
> The State however has a poor record in managing properties. So what I propose is that the State builds the housing. It can then lease the property to a private, for profit company, who manage the property.
> So if the State charges the company €250 per month. The landlord can let out the property for a rent higher than that (for arguments sake lets say €500pm). This is considerably lower than current market rates, dont you think?
> If there are enough houses built, then the house that provides the best furnishings, location etc can charge a bit more. It will be market driven. But ultimately, prospective tenants and buyers will have a real alternative to choose from.
> If I wanted to live in a two bed Dublin City apartment, I would take time to consider between 30yr mortgage at €2,000 pm or renting out for €500,600 a month with the option of saving and having a better quality of life.




Sorry it was you who referenced "professional landlords" last time I looked anybody who is described as a "professional landlord" is one who is in it to make money or do you know something I don't.

You either have professional landlords or you have the State you can't have both!


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Sorry it was you who referenced "professional landlords" last time I looked anybody who is described as a "professional landlord" is one who is in it to make money or do you know something I don't.
> 
> You either have professional landlords or you have the State you can't have both!



Yeh, ok. Good point, lets call them professional property managers then. Or alternatively, if they buy the property from the State as a private management company, they can repay the build cost at over 150, 200yrs +. 
When the landlord/property management company owner is ready to retire, he sells his share of the company which will consist of a valuable property for rental use. 

Im sure my proposal would need a lot of fine tuning, and require legal statuses and responsibilities etc to be outlined in detail. 
But I dont think quibbling over the titles such as 'landlord' or 'property management' would be a fundamental reason not to, at a minimum, explore this concept.


----------



## PMU

TheBigShort said:


> The proposal to incentive downsizing is only a sticking plaster. It could be introduced quickly. According to CSO 40% of private owned housing is under occupied. That is about 800,000. If only 2% of that is incentivised then that will bring some mobility into the market.


This is just market churning, I.e. generating market activity that benefits other market players but not the holder of an asset. Irish insurance companies in the recent past have had to pay compensation to their policy holders for encouraging it. If it is in someone's interest to sell an asset such as a property they will do it. If they don't it because (a) they see no need to or (b) the price being offered isn't sufficient to make them sell. So why should they sell? If you encourage someone to sell a property and they find themselves worse off, will you compensate them? While property prices do fluctuate they should over time increase. Buying a property, holding it, and leaving it as a bequest to your children is one of the best investment decision you can make. By and large it doesn't make sense to downsize. Buy and hold, pass it on, and you have a cascade of wealth passing down through the generations. It's sound inter-generational financial planning.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, ok. Good point, lets call them professional property managers then. Or alternatively, if they buy the property from the State as a private management company, they can repay the build cost at over 150, 200yrs +.
> When the landlord/property management company owner is ready to retire, he sells his share of the company which will consist of a valuable property for rental use.
> 
> Im sure my proposal would need a lot of fine tuning, and require legal statuses and responsibilities etc to be outlined in detail.
> But I dont think quibbling over the titles such as 'landlord' or 'property management' would be a fundamental reason not to, at a minimum, explore this concept.




You already have them they are called REIT's why should they buy from the State when they already have the funds available?


----------



## TheBigShort

PMU said:


> If it is in someone's interest to sell an asset such as a property they will do it. If they don't it because (a) they see no need to or (b) the price being offered isn't sufficient to make them sell. So why should they sell?



If its in their interest to so. There will be no compulsion to do so. 
But just as some people like to leave family home to next generation, some could choose to sell to fund their retirement. 
My parents could sell their home for €450k and rent a spacious two-bed ground apt locally for €1200pm. All things remaining equal they could fund their rental for next 30yrs. They are in their 80s.
Each to their own, there are many options.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> You already have them they are called REIT's why should they buy from the State when they already have the funds available?



Yes, but the difference here would be that as the State is only charging the build cost (stretched over 150yrs +) then the property manager will be limited as to how much it can charge from tenants.
Similar price regulation limitations exist in energy and transport. 

But hey, perhaps we are onto something here? Affordable accommodation, quality accommodation, private enterprise and entrepreneurship, competitive rental market, alternatives to home ownership, incentives to downsize and increased mobility...all goes towards a healthy housing sector for the population.
And not an eviction in sight, protest, or costly legal battle.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, but the difference here would be that as the State is only charging the build cost (stretched over 150yrs +) then the property manager will be limited as to how much it can charge from tenants.
> Similar price regulation limitations exist in energy and transport.
> 
> But hey, perhaps we are onto something here? Affordable accommodation, quality accommodation, private enterprise and entrepreneurship, competitive rental market, alternatives to home ownership, incentives to downsize and increased mobility...all goes towards a healthy housing sector for the population.
> And not an eviction in sight, protest, or costly legal battle.



You want to put a "limit" on what the property manager should charge the tenants. Who decides what that limit should be? Price limitations do not exist in the energy and transport market. We do have regulators but they don't really regulate the market competition does.

You seem to think that business (in whatever form you want to call it not for profit/for profit) is supposed to be dictated to by the State and meet the needs of housing people and it takes all the risk. So the State dictates rents but the shareholders in the property management company don't get any say in the running of the business because the State has dictated what can and can't be charged.

Good business plan I can see loads of investors lining up for that one alright.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Price limitations do not exist in the energy and transport market. We do have regulators but they don't really regulate the market competition does.



Hmm...a fundamental flaw in my thinking, fair enough. So how to get around this?

The State builds a property complex of 50 units of two and three beds, to be designated as rental properties. 
The State requests tenders for the property management of the State. Using set criteria for minimum standards of accommodation, set rent reviews, increases etc the State licenses the property management to the most competitive tender that also meets the required standards. 
Unlike REITs who I assume are buying properties at market rates only to let out properties at market rates, these houses will be leased to the most competitive tender which will be able to be priced below current market prices and still profit. 
See, its not State setting the price now, but the investor themselves. That wasnt hard to solve, was it?


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Hmm...a fundamental flaw in my thinking, fair enough. So how to get around this?
> 
> The State builds a property complex of 50 units of two and three beds, to be designated as rental properties.
> The State requests tenders for the property management of the State. Using set criteria for minimum standards of accommodation, set rent reviews, increases etc the State licenses the property management to the most competitive tender that also meets the required standards.
> Unlike REITs who I assume are buying properties at market rates only to let out properties at market rates, these houses will be leased to the most competitive tender which will be able to be priced below current market prices and still profit.
> See, its not State setting the price now, but the investor themselves. That wasnt hard to solve, was it?



Must sell my shares in the REIT so since their end is nigh.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> Must sell my shares in the REIT so since their end is nigh.



Unfortunately I fear the political will is not there. There are too many people with vested interests in keeping the property sector as a profit maximizing sector. 
They have little understanding of the nature and purpose of housing other than as something to profit from, regardless if it means putting people out on the streets. 

Its clear now where your interests lie.


----------



## Sunny

TheBigShort said:


> Hmm...a fundamental flaw in my thinking, fair enough. So how to get around this?
> 
> The State builds a property complex of 50 units of two and three beds, to be designated as rental properties.
> The State requests tenders for the property management of the State. Using set criteria for minimum standards of accommodation, set rent reviews, increases etc the State licenses the property management to the most competitive tender that also meets the required standards.
> Unlike REITs who I assume are buying properties at market rates only to let out properties at market rates, these houses will be leased to the most competitive tender which will be able to be priced below current market prices and still profit.
> See, its not State setting the price now, but the investor themselves. That wasnt hard to solve, was it?



I don't get it. State builds 50 houses for €10m which is purely the build cost instead of the usual €13m cost that it would cost a private developer. Are you saying that some company then comes along, buys the apartments for €10m and rents them out below market rates to make their money back over 100-150 years???


----------



## TheBigShort

Sunny said:


> I don't get it. State builds 50 houses for €10m which is purely the build cost instead of the usual €13m cost that it would cost a private developer. Are you saying that some company then comes along, buys the apartments for €10m and rents them out below market rates to make their money back over 100-150 years???



No.

The State delivers the build of 50 units for €10m. It then leases the properties to a property management company. Because the State is not in the business of profiteering from its citizens, it only needs the return of the build cost. And because the State is not in the business of planning for retirement, the return of the build cost can be stretched out over 100,150,200 yrs plus.
So using your figures over 150yrs the State licenses the property management to a private company for a charge equal to the build cost €10m divided by say, 150(yrs) for 50units.
It works out at €111 pm. Round it up to €150 and the State will guarantee the cost of structural defects over the period.

The State could simply let out the properties to low-income tenants but its track record of managing properties is questionable at times.

So a private management companies enter a tendering process where they compete on the quality of furnishings, rent reviews, rent increases etc. Providing a minimum standard of accommodation for all lettings.

Seeing as the license fee is €150pm for each unit (compare this to a private landlord charging rent based on a 30yr mortgage of €1000pm) the scope to provide quality accommodation at affordable prices, whilst making a profit is now a real option.
The most competitive tender, based on a number factors but not least competitive rents to be charged to tenants wins.
FTB's who cannot get on the property ladder, workers who are mobile and dont require ownership, workers who are paying extortionate rents will now have a real option as where to live.


----------



## T McGibney

TheBigShort said:


> And because the State is not in the business of planning for retirement, the return of the build cost can be stretched out over 100,150,200 yrs plus.



What discount factor do you suggest should be applied respectively to cashflows receivable in 100, 150 and 200 years?  (assuming the invested properties are still standing at each respective point.)


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Hmm...a fundamental flaw in my thinking, fair enough. So how to get around this?
> 
> The State builds a property complex of 50 units of two and three beds, to be designated as rental properties.
> The State requests tenders for the property management of the State. Using set criteria for minimum standards of accommodation, set rent reviews, increases etc the State licenses the property management to the most competitive tender that also meets the required standards.
> Unlike REITs who I assume are buying properties at market rates only to let out properties at market rates, these houses will be leased to the most competitive tender which will be able to be priced below current market prices and still profit.
> See, its not State setting the price now, but the investor themselves. That wasnt hard to solve, was it?


I would support anything which allows houses to be built while discouraging private investment in property development (or, in reality, property speculation). WE should be encouraging investment in enterprises which product internationally traded goods and services as these are the only areas which generate real wealth for the nation. 
So I like the idea, but I don't think it would work.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The State delivers the build of 50 units for €10m. It then leases the properties to a property management company. Because the State is not in the business of profiteering from its citizens, it only needs the return of the build cost. And because the State is not in the business of planning for retirement, the return of the build cost can be stretched out over 100,150,200 yrs plus.
> So using your figures over 150yrs the State licenses the property management to a private company for a charge equal to the build cost €10m divided by say, 150(yrs) for 50units.
> It works out at €111 pm. Round it up to €150 and the State will guarantee the cost of structural defects over the period.
> 
> The State could simply let out the properties to low-income tenants but its track record of managing properties is questionable at times.
> 
> So a private management companies enter a tendering process where they compete on the quality of furnishings, rent reviews, rent increases etc. Providing a minimum standard of accommodation for all lettings.
> 
> Seeing as the license fee is €150pm for each unit (compare this to a private landlord charging rent based on a 30yr mortgage of €1000pm) the scope to provide quality accommodation at affordable prices, whilst making a profit is now a real option.
> The most competitive tender, based on a number factors but not least competitive rents to be charged to tenants wins.
> FTB's who cannot get on the property ladder, workers who are mobile and dont require ownership, workers who are paying extortionate rents will now have a real option as where to live.



I never thought I say it, especially where the economy is concerned, but I think this could be a brilliant idea.

A caveat would be that after 20 or 30 years most houses would need substantial improvements. The costs associated would have to be bourne by either the State (ie taxpayer) or the tenant. 

On a related note...with people living for longer and with (presumably) a lot of equity tied up in their PPP and probably lower pensions, I could foresee sale-and-leaseback options being available where you get something like 50% of the house value and get to live there till you kick your clogs and the other party gets the ownership.


----------

