# The Best of "Social Housing - Creating a monster"



## Sunny (17 Apr 2018)

These posts are copied from this very long thread: 
*Social Housing - Creating a monster*

I might as well state from the beginning that I believe that there is a need for social and affordable housing in every civil society and I hate seeing families living in the hotels or homelessness and I do want us to do something

BUT

Came across a situation recently in my local area in Dublin where two new blocks of apartments were being built adjacent to an existing development on a plot of land that was in NAMA but was then sold to a developer. The developer is in the process of building over 40 apartments and nobody batted an eyelid until it came to peoples notice that the entire two blocks of over 40 apartments has been sold to a housing agency for social housing. I just found this to be staggering for a couple of reasons:
- These apartments were sold off market to a housing agency. They were never made available to the public. There are plenty of first time buyers in my area crying out for houses/apartments that they can afford and these would have been in their budget but they were never even in a position to buy. A 3 bed house in the area will cost close to 400k so these apartments were affordable for many first time buyers. How is it fair that not only do they now have to compete against other buyers but now have to compete against housing agencies with millions of state funds to spend and buy entire blocks privately?
- Two entire blocks of social housing. I thought the idea was to integrate social, affordable and private housing. 100% of this development will be social. How is that best practice?
- Social housing is there to help people and rightly so but I am curious to know how many people in social housing ever leave social housing. Has anyone ever seen any figures? I would imagine the number is small so are we just spending another couple of billion on creating a system where thousands of people are dependent on welfare?
- What impact is all this provision of social housing having on the property market? These agencies have hundreds of millions of euro to spend. This must be distorting the private market with regard to prices.
- Do we actually get value for money for all this spending? The list just seems to be getting longer and longer no matter how much money we throw at it. Beginning to look like the health service with numerous so called voluntary housing agencies competing for State Funds to spend. An entire industry seems to have been created.


----------



## Purple (17 Apr 2018)

Brendan brought up many of these points in TV3 a while ago. The lady from one of the housing agencies (I think it was DePaul) just kept repeating something like"But we live in a social democracy!" as if that justified waste, gaming the system and perpetuating a welfare trap which damages everyone.


----------



## TheBigShort (18 Apr 2018)

Just an add-on to this. I do think it is highly peculiar for a social housing agency to 'bulk buy' property.
HAP is the biggest social housing support as far as I know, but they dont buy property. 

Perhaps the OP could provide more detail - location, agency involved etc, lest there be any doubt about the veracity of this thread?


----------



## Ceist Beag (18 Apr 2018)

How has it got to a point where people earning more than the national average wage qualify for social housing? This is indeed a monster. Surely what the state should be doing here is trying to ensure people can afford to buy their own houses, not providing them with a house for life.


----------



## Sunny (18 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Just an add-on to this. I do think it is highly peculiar for a social housing agency to 'bulk buy' property.
> HAP is the biggest social housing support as far as I know, but they dont buy property.



Oh and just so you know that it is not that peculiar and has been happening for a while now.........

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...ociation-buys-up-two-dublin-estates-1.2586164


----------



## KOW (18 Apr 2018)

In Gorey Wexford Planning permission was given for a large number of houses in a new development called Glen an Gairdin.
The new homes were slow to sell with only eleven selling over approx. 18 months. In one swoop Wexford County Council  purchase 22 houses.
When one checks the bulk buy against property price register the council payed full whack for all 22 units. The eleven private buyers are not happy bunnies.


----------



## KOW (18 Apr 2018)

Totally symptomatic. Policy thrown out the window. Integration of social/private housing etc all out the window. Three bed semi asking price in the estate were around 250k. Council members totally panicked and need to be seen to do something/anything.
Young couples who managed to play by the rules work/save hard to buy a starter home now find the value of thier purchase go through the floor.


----------



## Purple (18 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I merely pointing out that it appears that there are insufficient property developments to attract developers into the market.


A large proportion of the zoned development land is owned by a small number of companies, due to NAMA bundling it up and selling it off, so not it is more profitable to trade land than build houses. The doubling of the vacant site levy should help to rectify that.


----------



## Delboy (19 Apr 2018)

Sunny said:


> - Social housing is there to help people and rightly so but I am curious to know how many people in social housing ever leave social housing. Has anyone ever seen any figures? I would imagine the number is small so are we just spending another couple of billion on creating a system where thousands of people are dependent on welfare?


There was a lively (mostly talking over each other) debate on Radio 1, SO'R show just now, between Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy v's Eoin O'Broin, SF spokesman on the subject.
O'Broin started his piece by saying the Minister was not giving social housing tenants security by 'only' offering 25 year leases. According to O'Broin, social housing is indeed for life and should always be viewed through that prism. SW housing incumbents put their roots down, raise their families etc and to take them out of the house they were given is cruel and unfair.


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2018)

I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.

I rent in the private sector. I have a few months security for me and my children. 
There are tens of thousands of people like me. 
Why should the state use our money to provide better tenancies to other people?


----------



## Purple (20 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.


 My children consider our house their home. Both they and I know that we'll probably have to move out at some stage.


TheBigShort said:


> I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.


 Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens. I'm grateful when someone gives me a pint; I say "thank you" and look to return the favour. I'm sure I'd feel grateful if someone gave me a house.


----------



## The Horseman (20 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?



Renters would not be "getting screwed" if the tax take was not so high. I made a proposal to the govt via their public consultation process to extend the rent a room scheme to landlords. Set a fig of for example €12k that there was no tax payable any figure above that and the whole lot was taxed.

This would allow the tenant reduce there rent bill and not effect the landlord. It would be a win win, the landlord still takes the same net amount of income and the tenant saves the additional rent they were paying towards a deposit for a property they could purchase.

If the above happened you would have efficiency in the market. People would have finances to purchase properties, this would incentivize building of properties therefore supply would increase and prices would stabilize.

But the Govt wants to be seen to solve the housing crisis while at the same time disadvantaging the first time buyers. The HAP scheme is another reason tenants are being screwed. The Govt by introducing this scheme has set a floor on rents and it is negatively affecting others. I have personal expierence whereby a relative of mine and their partner both in full time jobs can't afford to purchase in their local area whereas a single mother on HAP can rent in the area no problem.

How exactly is that fair? What message does it convey? don't bother your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working when you can get housed where you want but if you try to get there on your own then you can't!


----------



## cremeegg (20 Apr 2018)

Social housing is provided by housing associations and similar bodies at below market rents, (that is high rents rather than very high rents) to people who meet certain criteria, the criteria vary by agency and even development. The criteria are usually designed to allow a broad mixture of people access social housing. This is a relatively new thing in Ireland.

Local Authority or Council housing is a different thing. This is the traditional form of housing outside the private sector. It is provided by LAs at very low rents, €35 per week for a 3 bedroom house is not uncommon. Again it is available to people who meet the criteria, generally poorer people, though the income limits are €35k AFTER TAX for a single person in many areas. There is also a waiting system heavily biased in favour of those whose application is on the books longest. The result of this is that LA housing goes *almost* exclusively to those whose parents put their name on the list the day they turn 18. In effect the children of parents who are themselves in LA housing, because they understand how the system works. this is the real reason LA housing is multigenerational. Its does not go to families who are poor across the generations, but to families who understand how the system works.

Put your kids name down for a LA house aged 18, in 10 years time they will probably be offered a house, so long as they are not earning more than the limit.


----------



## Sunny (20 Apr 2018)

You still don’t get it! Of course if someone from a disadvantaged area and living in social housing does well and starts earning the same as someone not from a disadvantaged area and looking to buy a private house, they should not be entitled to social housing. That’s not some right wing nazi thinking. It’s simply stating the simple fact that one person is not more derserving of help than someone else just because they might have needed help in the past. 

Just because there might be a shortage of houses to buy doesn’t mean that State should continue to provide benefits because you needed them at one stage of your life. It’s like telling someone from the same disadvantaged area that you can keep the dole even when you start working so you don’t feel disincentivised to make something of yourself. 

I have no idea how to sort out the mess of the property market. I do know that I have witnessed governments of all sides mess and intervene in the market for decades and every time, they have made the situation worse. Getting rid of bedsits, tax breaks, treatment of landlords, rent supplements, social housing policy, Nama, land hoarding, property tax, stamp duty etc etc etc. But none of that will solve the social housing list which is continuing to grow and grow. There are now over 200 housing associations in this country. Over 200. It is an industry in itself now.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?



Perhaps they should then pay market rent.


----------



## Tebbit (21 Apr 2018)

if social housing estates were built again - which is the only real answer to the problem of homelessness - - the couple with 70,000 would probably move on to another estate elsewhere. After all why should they with an income of 70000 be given social housing with nominal rent and someone next door with the same or slightly more/less be paying mortgage etc. There should be no social housing for life, no selling on cheaply social housing to occupiers in social housing estates. It should be kept as social housing stock. If your circumstances improve move on. I've seen social housing sold on by families who make a nice little profit, good luck tothem, but why should I subsidise this? If their circumstances improve move on and leave the house to some other family who needs it. 
I just don't think the public/private mix works at all. Social housing estates, properly managed is the only answer to the housing problem.


----------



## Purple (23 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I think you are starting to understand why any proposals to move people out of social housing by virtue of their improve circumstances - without taking into consideration where it is they are supposed to move to - is an absurd proposition.


Why do you think that one household should subsidise another when their circumstances are the same/
Why do you think that this is a good use of state resources?
Why is it selfish to ask why one family gets a home provided to them even though they can afford to provide their own while another family with a much lower income has to live in a hotel? 
How is it socially just not to ask the higher income family to pay a market rent and use that money to house the other family?
What's selfish about asking those questions?
I think it is you who is playing the man rather than the ball by implying that anyone who doesn't agree with your views is selfish or self centered.


----------



## dereko1969 (24 Apr 2018)

I'm not really sure where I stand on this topic but I'd like to share a story. Now I know bad examples make for bad law/policy.
I live in Dalkey in a former council home, estate features the most expensive former council house in the country and a mixture of current and former council tenants and private owners and renters. I purchased my home in 2010, having had to prove I had a housing need as I purchased from the estate of a former council tenant who had herself purchased from the council.
There was a knock on the door last year and a neighbour (who I didn't recognise as she's from the far end of the estate) had a petition she wanted me to sign, about how the daughter of another neighbour had moved home from the UK to help her sick mum and was now being threatened with being kicked out of the house after the mother dying. I think there was a match on so I signed without thinking and then she followed up with the kicker, apparently because the daughter has an apartment in Monkstown she wasn't entitled to "inherit" the house in Dalkey which was apparently an outrage!
I agree with social housing, I agree with not kicking people out if they have bettered themselves but have children in school in the locality - but I cannot agree with inter-generational transfer of a public asset.


----------



## Seagull (25 Apr 2018)

I find the idea that someone should be permanently entitled to social housing because it was needed at some stage completely incomprehensible. How does this differ from a suggestion that someone should keep the dole regardless of how much they earn? Social housing is supposed to be there for people who need it, not people who want it, or can't be bothered to pay for things they can afford


----------



## T McGibney (25 Apr 2018)

The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.

It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.


----------



## The Horseman (25 Apr 2018)

T McGibney said:


> The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.
> 
> It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.
> 
> 100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.




This is the point the Govt does not want to provide social housing but is unwilling to actually come out and say it. Hence the reason for the Approved Housing Bodies etc, these are bodies funded by the State who can raise additional finance if they need.

The beauty of this from the Govt's perspective is that if a tenant needs to be evicted for any reason it is the Approved Housing Body doing it and not the State! so the politicians are not held responsible and they will no doubt fight for the tenant not to be evicted.

I think the old model of Social housing is gone and security of tenure in a specific house indefinitely will become a thing of the past within the near future.


----------



## Firefly (25 Apr 2018)

T McGibney said:


> It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.



Never mind the maintenance costs..


----------



## The Horseman (25 Apr 2018)

Firefly said:


> Never mind the maintenance costs..




I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs. If you get a council house now even a second hand one they are brought up to current building reg's (including insulation etc) and most achieve high BER ratings while if you purchase a property privately and you want to meet current building regs you have to do everything yourself (which is extremely expensive).


----------



## Purple (25 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes and I said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where did I say they would have to move far away from where they currently live?
If someone in a social house in Crumlin can afford to buy or rent a private house in Crumlin but chooses not to I think that at the very least they should pay open market rent for the house they live in. That's all. That rent can then be used to provide more social housing to those who can't afford open market rates. 
Do you think they should continue to enjoy subsidised (below market) rates of rent? If so why?


----------



## Purple (25 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Im pretty sure you wouldnt expect a family on €20K a year to be paying €1000 pm if that what the prevailing market rate is?


Of course not. I've continuously said that rents should be ties to income but increase as income increases until it gets to the market rate.



TheBigShort said:


> as far as Im aware the Differential Rent Scheme applies a rent of one-sixth of income (subject to other considerations such as how many adults occupy the house, how many are at work, care for the elderly etc).


It varies from area to area (just another costly complexity) but one-sixth of income is way too low for higher earners. That means that someone with an income of €80,000 in a council house in Crumlin only pays a maximum of €1100 a month and probably far less while their lower income neighbour in private rental accommodation with the same family circumstances is paying well over €2000 a month.
I don't think that's fair.


----------



## Firefly (25 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So being well able to afford to buy a home does not guarantee that you will be able to buy a home. If your job is in Dublin, your wifes job in Dublin, your kids going to school in Dublin, your elderly parents that need looking after in Dublin, your sick brother or sister is in Dublin, your GAA club is in Dublin, your friends and associates are in Dublin, but the only affordable home available for you to buy is in Mullingar, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?



What about all the people who have had to buy in Mullingar due to not being able to afford a place in Dublin, yet have all their ties in Dublin....what should happen for them???


----------



## Seagull (25 Apr 2018)

When we bought a house, my wife and I worked in Dublin. We couldn't afford to buy in Dublin, so we bought where we could afford in the commuter belt. Social housing is not supposed to be there to provide your forever house and keep you living in luxury in your perfect world. Once someone is earning enough, they should move on. It's up to them to sort out where.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Apr 2018)

Here is a stat from CSO about LA household incomes

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_.

From that, it would appear, that we are a long way off tenants in LA housing ever being able to afford a place of their own, rental or ownership.


----------



## Ceist Beag (26 Apr 2018)

This thread really is going around in circles. From skimming over the pages it sounds to me like the ideal solution to all of this is to provide all social housing in Mullingar. Then once people in social housing earn enough money to pay for their own place they'll be only too happy to move out, leaving the house open for the next family on the list. Problem solved.


----------



## Seagull (26 Apr 2018)

I give up. We have one proposition that it doesn't matter how much you earn. The state has a responsibility to provide you with a house in your selected location, and you get to keep it and pass it on to the next generation indefinitely.

Or there's the real world where reasonable people consider that it's their own responsibility to provide a house for themselves once they can afford it. And that you don't get to cherry pick the conditions to suit you. You get what you can afford where you can afford.


----------



## The Horseman (27 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So, unlike Purple, your issue isn't just with people who can "well afford to buy", your issue is with those who cannot afford a place of their own also? You think taking people out of social housing who can't afford to stay anywhere is a good idea so that people in emergency accommodation can be looked after?  So the low paid workers who cannot afford anywhere else can presumably move into the emergency accommodation?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You appear to believe that people should take no responsibility for the circumstances they find themselves in. If I can give a brief synopsis of the above to explain my position.

As part of the allocation of social housing people are advised that your housing needs are assessed every 5 yrs to consider both over and undercrowding. If the property is to big for you then you know when you got the property in first place that your situation will be assessed every 5 yrs and you could and would be moved if the property is no longer suitable.

I thought you example of the son breaking up with his girlfriend and the daughter wanting to be a model was comical to say the least. Life sucks, we all have problems, life never turns out the way we want.

On a slightly separate all be it relevant topic the who concept of differential rent needs a serious overhaul. Why is the differential rate charged not tied in some way to the prevailing local rents and not just the income of the household. It is unfair to have two properties paying the same rent simply because of the income of the households are the same where one property is located in an area that has a lot of amenties and the other has none but both are charged the same rent simply because the household income is the same.

Also, there should be a min rent charged which relates to the property type and location. If the differential rate is the only method of charging rent and you have one person living in a three bed property and they are paying rent based on the differential model do you think this is fair on those looking for accommodation. After all we do have a housing shortage!


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2018)

I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect, the only problem is that there are too few social houses.
Eventually we'll all get a social house with the current model, which is of course sustainable and fair (just like our State pension system, Public sector pay and pensions and all other forms of welfare) and everything will be great.

The only problem is the private sector, which unlike the Public Sector, is dysfunctional and inefficient. The reason for that is that all rich people, and people who work in banks in particular (but aren't in Unions), are greedy and immoral.


The State controlling more and more of our economy is a good thing and addressing the symptoms of inequality through wealth transfers rather than addressing the root cause of that inequality is the way to go.


We don't have to change any systems.
We don't have to reform any structures.
There is no waste.
The solution to every problem is to just spend more money.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is greedy, selfish, ignorant, uneducated, right-wing and morally bankrupt.

The scales have fallen from my eyes; I am reborn, Comrades!


----------



## Firefly (27 Apr 2018)

Purple said:


> You keep fighting the good fight comrade!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcP7TRY178 turn it up!


----------



## The Horseman (27 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Well, in fairness to you, Horseman, you have at least moved somewhat insofar that you are proposing a scheme with 'choices'.  I do think there is an underlying assumption that most people in social are on the pigs back, free accommodation, don't work, or work very little, prime location in city centres etc....some people think its like winning the lottery, or its all one big gift courtesy of the taxpayer (blinded to the fact that working people in social housing are 'the taxpayer')
> 
> The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.
> 
> ...



Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.

All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.


----------



## Sunny (27 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing _"your taxes_".  After all, you did say;



The UK has the bedroom tax where benefits are cut for each under utilised bedroom. They even have the concept of mutual exchange that lets people swap houses.  France has rent reviews every two years on household income with supplements applying on everything over a certain level with no ceiling. I don't exactly see people being kicked to streets. Denmark and Sweden has seen huge amounts of social housing being bought out by tenants as their circumstances changed. Hardly earth shattering.....

Dublin City council has a waiting list for people looking to downsize from their existing social property so some people are actually not aghast at such an idea of trying to eliminate under utilisation of social housing stock. Maybe instead of your 'build it and they will come' philosophy, we should actually try to use our existing stock as efficiently as possible? I know it's a crazy idea. Why not add another 25% tax on people earning over 100k instead and build and build instead...Bloody rich people.....


----------



## Purple (27 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.
> 
> http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf


Your link supports many of the points made by the capitalists pigs here. The authors must also be capitalist pigs.


----------



## Firefly (27 Apr 2018)

Sunny said:


> Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....



Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.


----------



## seamless (27 Apr 2018)

This discussion has raised an interesting question (for me).

Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18 ?

Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?

I just had a look at some of the social housing properties available from DLR CC and some are in very nice locations indeed !

[broken link removed]


----------



## Purple (1 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Its not a handout, it’s a public service. No different to putting your kids through the state school system, regardless of your income. No different receiving healthcare through the public system, regardless of your income. No different to availing of subsidised public transport, regardless of your income. No different to availing of all other public services from museums and art galleries, public playing pitches for sports clubs, to the justice and law & order services, to the emergency services…housing is simply a public need for everybody.


I think that's the nub of it; I fundamentally disagree that giving an adult a house for life is the same thing as providing funding to keep a child in school or a to keep a museum open. 
In the same way I support subsidised public transport (within reason) but I don't think the State should give people cars.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Jul 2018)

I am trying to gather together all the ideas for tilting the balance back in favour of those who struggle to provide for themselves rather than to become dependent on themselves. 

This thread 
*Social Housing - Creating a monster*
is fascinating but there is a huge amount of off-topic stuff and repetition, so I have extracted the best bits into this thread. 

Brendan


----------

