# Irish Times, "Average Dublin rents rise to €2,258, up 14.3%, amid ‘extreme shortage"



## Purple (22 Nov 2022)

There is a headline in the Irish Time today which states that Average Dublin rents rise to €2,258, up 14.3%, amid ‘extreme shortage'. This is untrue and completely misleading. The vast majority of people renting in Dublin are paying far less than that. The €2,258 figure is for new tenancies only. While that is a problem it's not what the headline says.


----------



## Sarenco (22 Nov 2022)

The actual report includes an interesting survey of rents paid by sitting tenants, which are now approaching a 50% discount on market rents.

Rent controls have completely distorted the rental market and have made a bad situation far, far worse.






						Irish Rental Report Q3 2022 | Daft.ie
					






					ww1.daft.ie


----------



## Groucho (22 Nov 2022)

Sarenco said:


> The actual report includes an interesting survey of rents paid by sitting tenants, which are now approaching a 50% discount on market rents.
> 
> Rent controls have completely distorted the rental market and have made a bad situation far, far worse.
> 
> ...



What else could anyone expect in a situation where government policy is being formulated by kneejerk; driven mainly by whoever in the opposition, the media or the homelessness lobby can shout the loudest at a given time?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (22 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> There is a headline in the Irish Time today which states that Average Dublin rents rise to €2,258, up 14.3%, amid ‘extreme shortage'.



I contacted the Irish Times and they have corrected the headline. 

Average Dublin advertised rents rise to €2,258, up 14.3%, amid ‘extreme shortage’​


----------



## imalwayshappy (22 Nov 2022)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I contacted the Irish Times and they have corrected the headline.
> 
> Average Dublin advertised rents rise to €2,258, up 14.3%, amid ‘extreme shortage’​



Yawn. Can anyone actually be shocked at this? The fact that small landlords are fleeing the market in their droves and further compounding supply issues, I expect this amounts in the heading to probably double by this time next year.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (22 Nov 2022)

New landlords, however few they maybe, have one chance to set the rent before being limited to at best 2% increases thereafter for the foreseeable future.

The government has left them with no option but to charge the maximum amount possible. Tenants moving out year end, we will be leaving the property empty considering the regulation, anti landlord actions that have been brought in.


----------



## newirishman (23 Nov 2022)

Sarenco said:


> The actual report includes an interesting survey of rents paid by sitting tenants, which are now approaching a 50% discount on market rents.
> 
> Rent controls have completely distorted the rental market and have made a bad situation far, far worse.
> 
> ...



Ah come on, hyperbole.

Sitting tenants are not getting 50% discount on market rates.

The 'market' is trying to charge new tenants twice as much as they should be able to get away with.

The actual headline is:
"New tenants are not able to avoid getting ripped off as landlords are trying every trick in the book."


----------



## Leo (23 Nov 2022)

newirishman said:


> "New tenants are not able to avoid getting ripped off as landlords are trying every trick in the book."


What tricks? 

If we accept being a landlord is a business we should not be surprised when they act like a business and charge the price the market is willing to bear for their product. There are countless other businesses operating on much higher margins that don't attract a fraction of the rip-off hyperbole.


----------



## DannyBoyD (23 Nov 2022)

newirishman said:


> New tenants are not able to avoid getting ripped off as landlords are trying every trick in the book


And here we go again with the landlord bashing.

Are home owners who sell their home  to be condemed for seeking the best sale price?

Are guest house owners 'ripping off' their guests by charging the market rates for B&B?

There's no "trick" here - simply a shortage of supply along with the unintended consequences of government legislation.


----------



## Sarenco (23 Nov 2022)

newirishman said:


> Sitting tenants are not getting 50% discount on market rates.


From the daft.ie report:

“On average, rents for sitting tenants have increased 3.4% each year over the last decade, compared to 7.1% for market tenants during the same period”.

It’s not hyperbole to say that, on average, sitting tenants are paying around half the rent that could be achieved in the open market.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2022)

DannyBoyD said:


> And here we go again with the landlord bashing.
> 
> Are home owners who sell their home  to be condemed for seeking the best sale price?
> 
> ...


A very successful, productive and efficient export economy has resulted in large increase in population. The inefficient and under productive domestic construction sector has not been able to keep pace with that demand. That's the core of the problem; builders aren't very good at their job. The Government and State Sector have undoubtedly made things worse but that shouldn't be a surprise since governments and State sectors are inherently inefficient and wasteful but the construction sector being grossly inefficient is the core of the problem.

Blaming landlords for that is ridiculous.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2022)

newirishman said:


> Ah come on, hyperbole.
> 
> Sitting tenants are not getting 50% discount on market rates.


I am. 



newirishman said:


> The 'market' is trying to charge new tenants twice as much as they should be able to get away with.


Yes, just like every other market. 



newirishman said:


> The actual headline is:
> "New tenants are not able to avoid getting ripped off as landlords are trying every trick in the book."


Only if you're a politician with an understanding of the issue on par with an overgrown child who dresses like Trotsky, used to work for a homeless charity and probably still have a poster of Che Guevara on your bedroom wall.


----------



## Frank (23 Nov 2022)

Good old click bait article 

The point of kneejerk gov and 1 chance only to set rent is so true. 

Anyway Landlords bad, only small ones of course


----------



## jpd (23 Nov 2022)

Hope no small landlords were watching Question time in the Dail today - the only thing I took from it was, Get out while you still can


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (24 Nov 2022)

jpd said:


> Hope no small landlords were watching Question time in the Dail today - the only thing I took from it was, Get out while you still can


what happened? Or links to a discussion. Thanks.


----------



## Purple (25 Nov 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> what happened? Or links to a discussion. Thanks.


I'm sure you can imagine; the pseudo-left wing populist waves are crashing on the shores of the Government and causing an alarming amount of erosion.


----------



## Leo (25 Nov 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> what happened? Or links to a discussion. Thanks.


They're all published.


----------



## Delboy (25 Nov 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> . Tenants moving out year end, we will be leaving the property empty considering the regulation, anti landlord actions that have been brought in.


If you don't have your vacant property seized under emergency powers by the Govt? Its a real possibility IMO the way things are going and the noises coming from the NGO sector/extreme left Politicians


----------



## Silversurfer (25 Nov 2022)

Delboy said:


> If you don't have your vacant property seized under emergency powers by the Govt? Its a real possibility IMO the way things are going and the noises coming from the NGO sector/extreme left Politicians


Will this only apply to previous rentals or to the large number of homes built on family farms where the children are living abroad?


----------



## The Horseman (25 Nov 2022)

Delboy said:


> If you don't have your vacant property seized under emergency powers by the Govt? Its a real possibility IMO the way things are going and the noises coming from the NGO sector/extreme left Politicians


I am not sure that will happen personally. The State knows its sailing very close to the wind on the "constitutionality of housing". They know if they push this too hard eventually someone will take a class action on the constitutionality of the "seizure of vacant property by the state". Legislation already exists for CPO's 

Remember we still have a large % of home ownership and no matter what people say they will protect themselves at the cost of others. The objections to planning applications is a prime example. Everybody agrees we need more accommodation but we have the not in my back yard attitude. 

Ironically one of the reasons (not the only) which even Micheal Martin himself objected to student accommodation because of the risk of anti social behaviour. Why do people object to social housing? in the main because of the small number of anti social individuals that destroy areas.

Deal with anti social issues and you will go along way to reducing objections to planning applications. You will always have objections but the number will decrease in my opinion of the anti social issue as addressed.


----------



## Greenbook (25 Nov 2022)

Watch out though if the 'Right to Housing' referendum is passed and an article granting a right to housing is included in the constitution. That could allow seizure of vacant properties. The left and the NGOs are pushing heavily for it.


----------



## Leo (28 Nov 2022)

Greenbook said:


> That could allow seizure of vacant properties.


Only if they dilute the property rights language at the same time.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2022)

That is a reaction to our housing crisis... 
Does having 13,000 people out of a population of over 5 million constitute a crisis?
The language we use is important. We are now looking at the possibility that property owning rights which are fundamentally important for liberal democracy to function will be undermined. People who care about moderate centralist politics should all be very concerned.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> Does having 13,000 people out of a population of over 5 million constitute a crisis?


You mean the number of homeless?
Seems to be 10,500 this year according to this (which is also quoted extensively in the media).





						Homepage - Homelessness in Ireland
					

Homelessness in Ireland is an online, educational resource created and delivered by the national housing and homelessness charity, Peter McVerry Trust.




					homelessnessinireland.ie


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2022)

ClubMan said:


> You mean the number of homeless?
> Seems to be 10,500 this year according to this (which is also quoted extensively in the media).
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, the headline figure quoted on the wireless this morning was just over 13,000. That is moderate to low by OECD standards and our definition of homeless in broader than many.

Do we want to go back to the hard days of the 30's 40's, 50's and 60's when we built lots of small badly constructed houses in areas which became ghettos and invested very little in education and health? That resulted in a stagnant economy, high emigration and laid the ground for massive social problems.


----------



## ClubMan (28 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> Do we want to go back to the hard days of the 30's 40's, 50's and 60's when we built lots of small badly constructed houses in areas which became ghettos and invested very little in education and health? That resulted in a stagnant economy, high emigration and laid the ground for massive social problems.


I very much doubt that housing policy alone was responsible for those ills.


----------



## Groucho (28 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> Does having 13,000 people out of a population of over 5 million constitute a crisis?



It does when Sinn Fein and the media have nothing else to complain about!       But the Irish media has gone to the dogs in recent years.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2022)

ClubMan said:


> I very much doubt that housing policy alone was responsible for those ills.


We invested very little in human capital for the first 50 years we were independent and for most of that period we got poorer in real and relative terms. It was only when we started doing so that we started to thrive as a country.

It would require large reductions in spending on health, education and welfare for us to replicate the building we did in the 40's and 50's. Replicating it would also create the next generation of ghettos.


----------



## The Horseman (28 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> We invested very little in human capital for the first 50 years we were independent and for most of that period we got poorer in real and relative terms. It was only when we started doing so that we started to thrive as a country.
> 
> It would require large reductions in spending on health, education and welfare for us to replicate the building we did in the 40's and 50's. Replicating it would also create the next generation of ghettos.


The whole idea of ghettos has more to do with the mentality of those living there then the quality of the buildings etc. I still contend if we went some way to addressing these issues we would be in a better place. 

We have a fundamental issue with our society whereby we continually give to those who just take and don't give anything back. We have a young well educated workforce who are being fleeced via income and wealth taxes. Why bother working when you pay tax and have little or nothing to show for it at the end of the day. Be it a good standard of living or an asset that you worked for only to be taxed again and again and again on.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2022)

The Horseman said:


> The whole idea of ghettos has more to do with the mentality of those living there then the quality of the buildings etc. I still contend if we went some way to addressing these issues we would be in a better place.
> 
> We have a fundamental issue with our society whereby we continually give to those who just take and don't give anything back. We have a young well educated workforce who are being fleeced via income and wealth taxes. Why bother working when you pay tax and have little or nothing to show for it at the end of the day. Be it a good standard of living or an asset that you worked for only to be taxed again and again and again on.


 I agree. The idea is to mix those people in with the general population so that their children don't grow up to be lowlifes.


----------



## Silversurfer (28 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree. The idea is to mix those people in with the general population so that their children don't grow up to be lowlifes.


We are doing that already surely?


----------



## The Horseman (28 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree. The idea is to mix those people in with the general population so that their children don't grow up to be lowlifes.


I don't agree. There are no consequences for these people. If there were actual consequences their behaviour might change. Why destroy multiple areas. Why not deal with the cause rather than try mitigate the negatives of the outcomes.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2022)

Silversurfer said:


> We are doing that already surely?


Yes, that is what we are doing. It's not what we did during the "golden age" of public house building.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2022)

The Horseman said:


> I don't agree. There are no consequences for these people. If there were actual consequences their behaviour might change. Why destroy multiple areas. Why not deal with the cause rather than try mitigate the negatives of the outcomes.


The only way to address the root cause is through education. That is unless you are in favour of something like what the Romans did in Carthage.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> The only way to address the root cause is through education. That is unless you are in favour of something like what the Romans did in Carthage.


In the long run yes. The problem in the here and now with the adults can only be dealt with through enforcement.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> In the long run yes.





odyssey06 said:


> The problem in the here and now with the adults can only be dealt with through enforcement.


I agree, in fact many of the children can only be dealt with the same way.
We certainly need more police to enforce the law. 
So called Social Deprivation is mainly a symptom of a cultural attitude. In some communities people are shunned for breaking the law. In others they are shunned for talking to the police. 
In the former boys grow up to become men. In the latter boys never grow up and dress and talk and behave like children for their whole lives. They  talk about "respect" and "giving cheek" and have such fragile egos that they will get into fights with strangers in the way children do in school yards.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> I agree, in fact many of the children can only be dealt with the same way.
> We certainly need more police to enforce the law.
> So called Social Deprivation is mainly a symptom of a cultural attitude. In some communities people are shunned for breaking the law. In others they are shunned for talking to the police.
> In the former boys grow up to become men. In the latter boys never grow up and dress and talk and behave like children for their whole lives. They  talk about "respect" and "giving cheek" and have such fragile egos that they will get into fights with strangers in the way children do in school yards.


I think there is more to to it than that. The cultural attitude doesn't emerge out of nowhere, it is also a function of the police presence in the areas.

But to return to the main topic of the thread, I don't see it as having anything to do with the below:
_lots of small badly constructed houses in area_


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> I think there is more to to it than that. The cultural attitude doesn't emerge out of nowhere, it is also a function of the police presence in the areas.


It's a reflection of the culture and attitude of the parents. Theirs is a reflection of the culture and attitude of their parents, and so on. The only thing that breaks that cycle is killing the children or educating them. I'm in favour of the latter solution. 



odyssey06 said:


> But to return to the main topic of the thread, I don't see it as having anything to do with the below:
> _lots of small badly constructed houses in area_


Ghettos are created when large areas of social housing are created based on class/socio-economic group. That's settled fact, not opinion.


----------



## T McGibney (29 Nov 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> But to return to the main topic of the thread, I don't see it as having anything to do with the below:
> _lots of small badly constructed houses in area_


Well if people insist on the State (which has a generally abysmal record in infrastructural projects) building hundreds of thousands of cheap houses at a time of record materials cost inflation and abject shortages of skilled labour, of course they're going to be badly constructed.


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> It's a reflection of the culture and attitude of the parents. Theirs is a reflection of the culture and attitude of their parents, and so on. The only thing that breaks that cycle is killing the children or educating them. I'm in favour of the latter solution.
> 
> 
> Ghettos are created when large areas of social housing are created based on class/socio-economic group. That's settled fact, not opinion.


That wasn't the point you made originally though.

And there were large area of social housing created in the 1920s in Dublin that did not turn into ghettos.


----------



## Purple (29 Nov 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> That wasn't the point you made originally though.
> 
> And there were large area of social housing created in the 1920s in Dublin that did not turn into ghettos.


That's exactly the point I made.


----------



## DannyBoyD (29 Nov 2022)

Perhaps the sociologists might like to start their own thread.


----------



## The Horseman (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> The only way to address the root cause is through education. That is unless you are in favour of something like what the Romans did in Carthage.


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.


----------



## ryaner (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> We certainly need more police to enforce the law.


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.


The Horseman said:


> 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## lff12 (29 Nov 2022)

DannyBoyD said:


> And here we go again with the landlord bashing.
> 
> Are home owners who sell their home  to be condemed for seeking the best sale price?
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## lff12 (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> That is a reaction to our housing crisis...
> Does having 13,000 people out of a population of over 5 million constitute a crisis?
> The language we use is important. We are now looking at the possibility that property owning rights which are fundamentally important for liberal democracy to function will be undermined. People who care about moderate centralist politics should all be very concerned.


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.


----------



## lff12 (29 Nov 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> I think there is more to to it than that. The cultural attitude doesn't emerge out of nowhere, it is also a function of the police presence in the areas.
> 
> But to return to the main topic of the thread, I don't see it as having anything to do with the below:
> _lots of small badly constructed houses in area_


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.


----------



## lff12 (29 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> Yes, that is what we are doing. It's not what we did during the "golden age" of public house building.


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.


----------



## Groucho (29 Nov 2022)

lff12 said:


> 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 (30 Nov 2022)

Groucho said:


> I struggle to see what exactly that bright red herring has to do with either Purple's comment or the topic of this thread..



 The point is that the widespread nostalgia for mid-20th century public housing projects may be a tad selective.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2022)

lff12 said:


> 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.


Yes, that’s the point I was making.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The point is that the widespread nostalgia for mid-20th century public housing projects may be a tad selective.


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.


----------



## Groucho (30 Nov 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The point is that the widespread nostalgia for mid-20th century public housing projects may be a tad selective.



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 (30 Nov 2022)

Groucho said:


> 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!


Money and choices.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2022)

Groucho said:


> Only if you directly associate those 20th century public housing projects with the issues mentioned in the red herring comment.


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. 



Groucho said:


> In which case the logical conclusion is that if those social housing projects hadn't existed, then the other things wouldn't have occurred!


What other things?


----------



## Groucho (30 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> 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 (30 Nov 2022)

Groucho said:


> In which case the logical conclusion is that if those social housing projects hadn't existed, then the other things wouldn't have occurred!


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.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2022)

Groucho said:


> Those mentioned in the red herring comment.


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. 


Groucho said:


> 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!


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. 



Groucho said:


> It will cost what it costs, no more and no less.


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.


----------



## Purple (30 Nov 2022)

T McGibney said:


> There is no magic money tree.


WHAT!!!!


----------



## Groucho (30 Nov 2022)

Purple said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## Groucho (30 Nov 2022)

T McGibney said:


> 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.



That point is so unarguable that you merely insult my intelligence by falsely implying that I was arguing to the contrary.


----------



## Purple (1 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> 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.


The original cost, based on the design that was signed off on, was €650 million.


----------



## T McGibney (1 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> That point is so unarguable that you merely insult my intelligence by falsely implying that I was arguing to the contrary.


I in no way insulted your intelligence. The fact that you perhaps didn't express yourself clearly enough is no judgement on your level of intelligence.


----------



## Groucho (2 Dec 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I in no way insulted your intelligence. The fact that you perhaps didn't express yourself clearly enough is no judgement on your level of intelligence.



Hilarious!    I correctly stated that a particular comment was a red herring to the topic of this thread.    That you were incapable of understanding that isn't a reflection on your intelligence either!


----------



## T McGibney (2 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> Hilarious!    I correctly stated that a particular comment was a red herring to the topic of this thread.    That you were incapable of understanding that isn't a reflection on your intelligence either!


I'm lost. Sorry.


----------



## Groucho (2 Dec 2022)

Accepted.


----------



## Purple (2 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> I correctly stated that a particular comment was a red herring to the topic of this thread.


What comment was that?


----------



## lff12 (5 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> 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!


No, my point was to illustrate exactly that the "golden age" was highly selective about "who" was accommodated and who was excluded. And the children (& at least one parent) of "undesirable" families were fenced off from participation in society as a whole (including housing). Which means yes - nostalgia for that golden age doesn't consider that allocation of the housing that was produced was not only selective, but exclusionary. We had a policy that largely preferred large traditional nuclear families and housed them to the exclusion of everyone else. It was then no surprise that housing allocation itself became highly politicised in later generations (to this day I still hear stories of "X got us our house" from friends). We ended up with a scenario where social housing became political currency to be spent for the benefit of council and Dail election candidates.


----------



## lff12 (5 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> That point is so unarguable that you merely insult my intelligence by falsely implying that I was arguing to the contrary.


And yet it is exactly what Prof Michelle Norris, in her many papers on the "golden age" of social housing has repeatedly pointed out: social housing was allocated in lieu of european style social welfare (start here https://people.ucd.ie/michelle.norris/publications, in particular this paper https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201901.pdf)


----------



## lff12 (5 Dec 2022)

T McGibney said:


> The point is that the widespread nostalgia for mid-20th century public housing projects may be a tad selective.


Bingo!


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2022)

lff12 said:


> And yet it is exactly what Prof Michelle Norris, in her many papers on the "golden age" of social housing has repeatedly pointed out: social housing was allocated in lieu of european style social welfare (start here https://people.ucd.ie/michelle.norris/publications, in particular this paper https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201901.pdf)


I listened to a lecture she gave a few years ago. She's very good.


----------



## lff12 (5 Dec 2022)

Purple said:


> I listened to a lecture she gave a few years ago. She's very good.


She is THE QUEEN


----------



## Groucho (5 Dec 2022)

lff12 said:


> We had a policy that largely preferred large traditional nuclear families and housed them to the exclusion of everyone else.



And was this social policy in any way controversial at the time?     (And, as we appear to be revelling in a bout of revisionist whataboutery on this thread - which, for those with short memories, is about Dublin rent costs and the shortage of rental properties - let's not forget, for example of what happened to Noel Browne's Mother and Child proposals during that era.)


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Dec 2022)

lff12 said:


> And yet it is exactly what Prof Michelle Norris, in her many papers on the "golden age" of social housing has repeatedly pointed out: social housing was allocated in lieu of european style social welfare (start here https://people.ucd.ie/michelle.norris/publications, in particular this paper https://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/workingpapers/gearywp201901.pdf)


Maybe we should revisit that approach and re-allocate budget accordingly ... social housing is social welfare...


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> Maybe we should revisit that approach and re-allocate budget accordingly ... social housing is social welfare...


So cut Job Seekers, Pensions and carers allowances etc. We'd also have to cut our health budget significantly. The up side is that we'd wreck the economy and have mass emigration again so that would lead to a big reduction in housing costs.

I was born in the 1970's. Does anyone remember what an utterly poxy country this place was back then? By any reasonable metric it was worse in the 50's. 
It takes a special kind of selectivist wilful delusion to pluck one aspect of social policy from the past and hold it up as something we should emulate while totally ignoring the appalling opportunity cost of such a policy. The very last thing we should do is readopt the public housing policies of the 1930's to the 1950's.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2022)

Groucho said:


> And was this social policy in any way controversial at the time?     (And, as we appear to be revelling in a bout of revisionist whataboutery on this thread - which, for those with short memories, is about Dublin rent costs and the shortage of rental properties - let's not forget, for example of what happened to Noel Browne's Mother and Child proposals during that era.)


Where's the revisionist whataboutery?


----------



## odyssey06 (5 Dec 2022)

Purple said:


> So cut Job Seekers, Pensions and carers allowances etc. We'd also have to cut our health budget significantly. The up side is that we'd wreck the economy and have mass emigration again so that would lead to a big reduction in housing costs.
> 
> I was born in the 1970's. Does anyone remember what an utterly poxy country this place was back then? By any reasonable metric it was worse in the 50's.
> It takes a special kind of selectivist wilful delusion to pluck one aspect of social policy from the past and hold it up as something we should emulate while totally ignoring the appalling opportunity cost of such a policy. The very last thing we should do is readopt the public housing policies of the 1930's to the 1950's.


There are a lot of threads of this site about how generous our welfare rates are v our peers and spending per capita on health. I reject the premise a rebalancing of spending would mean a time machine to the 70s. The only delusion I see is you arguing with an idea no one has said, making all kinds of assumptions without foundation about what necessarily follows from the course of action.

Why would the economy be wrecked?
Why would there be mass migration?

At the moment the government is spending more and more money on HAP... is that really housing spending or welfare spending? Is it sustainable? As more people reach retirement age still dependent on it?


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2022)

odyssey06 said:


> There are a lot of threads of this site about how generous our welfare rates are v our peers and spending per capita on health. I reject the premise a rebalancing of spending would mean a time machine to the 70s. The only delusion I see is you arguing with an idea no one has said, making all kinds of assumptions without foundation about what necessarily follows from the course of action.
> 
> Why would the economy be wrecked?
> Why would there be mass migration?
> ...


What we spend on HAPS would build around 1500 houses a year. We'd need to spend well in excess of €7.5 billion a year to get to the stage where 50% of our houses were delivered by the State. We currently have a short term bonanza of taxes from MNC's. That won't last. Where to you suggest we find the money?
"Dole" or unemployment benefits only account for 14% of Welfare spending. 70% goes on sickness, old age and disability payments. I think old people get way too many benefits in this country (the rich ones, not the poor ones) but I can't see them being cut as old people vote and they are selfish and entitled. 

I don't think there's scope to cut teachers pay since there is a shortage of teachers who are willing to work (there's no shortage of teachers, we've loads of them). We could reduce the provision of special needs assistants etc but that would be a kind of nasty thing to do. 

Where would you cut?


----------



## Purple (6 Dec 2022)

The Horseman said:


> Our welfare system is too generous. I too grew up in the 80's and my family did not have a pot to p*ss in. You did not get any welfare until you actually worked and earned your "stamps".
> 
> As a country we had nothing and anything we did have we worked for. We did not have a culture of "I'm entitled to this or that".
> 
> ...


I agree that many people in arrears could pay their rent and don't. I'd make those people homeless, as in out on the street. If they have children then take them into care. Then give the house that the State is providing to someone who will pay their rent. 


The Horseman said:


> Growing up in the 80's you learned how to cope.



Yea, same for any time anyone were born. 



The Horseman said:


> Interest rates were high, inflation was high.



Yes, that made it much easier to buy a house if you were an average person. I bought in the mid 90's when it was still easy, but not as easy as in the 80's when inflation massively reduced the real cost of your mortgage over a few years. It's much harder now and has been for the last 20 years.


----------

