22 luxury apartments bought for €11m in Dublin 4 for social housing

Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
53,643
www.irishtimes.com

Twenty-two apartments in ‘luxury’ D4 development secured for social housing

Co-operative Housing Ireland ‘delighted to deliver 22 much-needed social-rental homes’ to families and individuals at Elmpark Green
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com

Figures published on the Residential Property Price Register show CHI purchases include six apartments bought for €611,000 each with a further eight purchased for €499,000 each.

“Nominations for the homes at Elmpark were provided by Dublin City Council and have been fully allocated to CHI’s new member tenants. We are hopeful that families will begin moving in over the coming weeks.”

The bulk purchase by CHI was carried out in co-operation with Dublin City Council but at no cost to the local authority.

The council is allocating the apartments to people on its housing list. On Friday, a spokeswoman said that having assessed the developer’s costs, it considered the acquisition price, which was passed on to CHI, “as good value for money”.
 
Hard to call this one ...

What should the council or approved housing body do ..when looking at any area in Dublin ...

If they had power to buy an average 3 bed in towns within Kildare , Carlow , Laois , Meath , Wicklow , etc - they could have bought at least 45 properties and helped many more homeless households ...

And as said earlier - the management fees for these 11 in D4 will be the price of at least one new house per year ...
 
I used to think that the state should provide social housing supports as cheaply as possible, namely very far away from Dublin.

But I’ve changed my mind totally on this issue since I became a parent. I’m far from poor and where I live is genuinely mixed from with council flats and Victorian mansions not far from each other. As a result my kids mix with kids whose parents range from professional to manual workers.

The other thing is that big cities need low-skilled workers as well as laptop people like me, and these people need to live somewhere too.
 
Harsh and cold reality is that if Dubliners on the Southside want people working in their shops and emptying their bins or whatever other minimum wage or near minimum wage jobs need to be done as part of life, then the people doing those jobs need a place to live in Dublin and that is going to be very expensive to provide. Dumping these people into Carlow is all well and good, but who will stock the shelves in Dunnes in Cornelscourt or Tescos in Dundrum as a result?

Alternatively, we get the Dunnes Stores of this world to double or treble their staff wages in Dublin so staff have a chance to buy a place of their own. But then that will get passed on to the shoppers in Dunnes in terms of increased prices

Agree it sounds madness to pay €600k+ for appartments, but what is the alternative?
 
Last edited:
There is loads of research out there (and lets be honest it's just common sense) that growing up in concentrated low-income/disadvantaged areas is associated with worse outcomes in life like lower educational attainment, poorer health, higher rates of unemployment and increased likelihood of engaging in criminal activity. Notable about all of those outcomes is that they are extremely expensive for a country in-terms of productivity or expenditure.

As well as giving a family the opportunity of a happier life, spending on what may feel like expensive housing to create mixed developments is likely much cheaper in the long run.
 
Zenith63 said:
As well as giving a family the opportunity of a happier life, spending on what may feel like expensive housing to create mixed developments is likely much cheaper in the long run.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, social housing in Ireland has long proven a money pit, so much so that they invariably find it cheaper to throw away the properties to the tenants at a knockdown price,
 
T McGibney said:
On the contrary, social housing in Ireland has long proven a money pit, so much so that they invariably find it cheaper to throw away the properties to the tenants at a knockdown price,
Click to expand...
You have misunderstood my point. I'm not a fan of social housing, in-spite of the mess we've found ourselves in here I still think the best outcome is to let the market sort it out, with the right pokes and prods from government (and less is more on this front!). However I think it is inevitable that a small amount of social housing will be required, and my point is that it is penny-wise-pound-foolish to save a few quid now by concentrating all of these in cheaper areas then incurring decades of lost productivity and expenditure dealing with the outcomes.
 
Zenith63 said:
You have misunderstood my point. I'm not a fan of social housing, in-spite of the mess we've found ourselves in here I still think the best outcome is to let the market sort it out, with the right pokes and prods from government (and less is more on this front!). However I think it is inevitable that a small amount of social housing will be required, and my point is that it is penny-wise-pound-foolish to save a few quid now by concentrating all of these in cheaper areas then incurring decades of lost productivity and expenditure dealing with the outcomes.
Click to expand...
I think you actually answered your own question with the bit I highlighted.

If planning rules are blocking the construction of the modern equivalent of artisan cottages, then it's time to amend them and let the market do its work.
 
I'm not a fan of social housing but I really don't like rich socialists who, from the comfort of their economic apartheid, pontificate on how people in Coolock and Tallaght etc should welcome migrants and social housing etc. Put the social housing and migrant centres and needle exchanges in Malahide and Rathgar and Dalkey etc. and then see if they think it's a good idea. For clarity I live in the leafy South Dublin suburbs and I wouldn't object to the above.
 
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely crazy.

Most working people, whose taxes pay for these apartments, could never afford to live there themselves.

My own apartment block is private, but not in a salubrious area, and has a number of social tenants.

Probably these apartments were purchased under Part V legislation.

I worked hard to save a deposit, get a mortgage etc. which I will have to pay off for the next 20 years.

Meanwhile social tenants live in the same place but don't contribute to the upkeep of the building or have any maintenance costs.

Some, if not all, don't work. And some engage in anti-social behaviour such as drug use etc. which I have seen myself on the street and in communal areas.

Don't get me wrong, we need social housing, and more of it, in all neighbourhoods.

But it should not be "luxury" or integrated into private developments.

It is not right to expect working people to pay for this.
 
T McGibney said:
so much so that they invariably find it cheaper to throw away the properties to the tenants at a knockdown price,
Click to expand...
Or you help disadvantaged people to accumulate wealth. Also it's well known that people who have a stake in their own homes have a greater interest in the community and this has positive benefits for everyone.
 
Offered 3 bed 2 bath apartment to SDCC in Palmerstown Dublin 20. Value 310k. Currently rented out to council on long term rental scheme . One year left on lease. Not interested
 
Calico said:
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely crazy.

Most working people, whose taxes pay for these apartments, could never afford to live there themselves.
Click to expand...
Taxes from the Multinationals pay for most things in this country. If you are an average income earner and you have children then you are a net recipient; you get more than you give.
Calico said:
My own apartment block is private, but not in a salubrious area, and has a number of social tenants.

Probably these apartments were purchased under Part V legislation.

I worked hard to save a deposit, get a mortgage etc. which I will have to pay off for the next 20 years.

Meanwhile social tenants live in the same place but don't contribute to the upkeep of the building or have any maintenance costs.
Click to expand...
Rents for social housing should be linked to income but increase up to the market rate. There should be no lifetime tenancies. Social housing should be seen as a stopgap while people get their affairs in order and source their own housing. Any able bodied person living on welfare, and that includes social housing/HAP etc, should feel a sense of shame.

Calico said:
Some, if not all, don't work. And some engage in anti-social behaviour such as drug use etc. which I have seen myself on the street and in communal areas.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of social housing. I think that the need for social housing is a societal failure. Working people should be able to afford a home. People who are able to work but choose not to should get nothing. Literally, nothing. If a social housing tenant engages in antisocial behaviour they should be evicted. If they end up ion the street that's their problem. If they have children then take them into care.

Calico said:
Don't get me wrong, we need social housing, and more of it, in all neighbourhoods.

But it should not be "luxury" or integrated into private developments.
Click to expand...
The actions of the State in providing social housing is the main driver of the need for social housing. The State drives up rent with HAP and drives up the price of housing by buying existing private houses and turning them into social housing. The last thing we need is lots more social housing.

Calico said:
It is not right to expect working people to pay for this.
Click to expand...
Taxes from the Multinationals pay for most things in this country. If you are an average income earner and you have children then you are a net recipient; you get more than you give. Only the top 20% or so of earners are net contributors.
 
KOW said:
Offered 3 bed 2 bath apartment to SDCC in Palmerstown Dublin 20. Value 310k. Currently rented out to council on long term rental scheme . One year left on lease. Not interested
Click to expand...
Just to add to my post and add annoyance. Council said they would be interested in taking up another 10yr long term lease next year.
 
Calico said:
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely crazy.

Most working people, whose taxes pay for these apartments, could never afford to live there themselves.

My own apartment block is private, but not in a salubrious area, and has a number of social tenants.

Probably these apartments were purchased under Part V legislation.

I worked hard to save a deposit, get a mortgage etc. which I will have to pay off for the next 20 years.

Meanwhile social tenants live in the same place but don't contribute to the upkeep of the building or have any maintenance costs.

Some, if not all, don't work. And some engage in anti-social behaviour such as drug use etc. which I have seen myself on the street and in communal areas.

Don't get me wrong, we need social housing, and more of it, in all neighbourhoods.

But it should not be "luxury" or integrated into private developments.

It is not right to expect working people to pay for this.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more the new waiting list is full of young workers earning good incomes who can’t afford to buy while renting at the current levels
A bit of balance is required otherwise the current generation will eventually leave or go on a housing list and wait
Home ownership is unique in some ways in Ireland but it makes no sense that workers are travelling 2 hours plus (a nurse I know ) while driving past places with people in places costing a fraction of the home 2 hours away
I am doing a piece on this as it’s utterly frustrating for the young workers who are in limbo
They see more attraction with the plane away from here than hoping while funding this Pádraic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top