Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,643
Ah now come on, management fees are not €45k a year.And as said earlier - the management fees for these 11 in D4 will be the price of at least one new house per year ...
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,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.
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.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,
I think you actually answered your own question with the bit I highlighted.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.
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.so much so that they invariably find it cheaper to throw away the properties to the tenants at a knockdown price,
Giving people 500k homes, first to occupy for free or at peppercorn rents and then to purchase at a fraction of market value, will certainly achieve that.Or you help disadvantaged people to accumulate wealth.
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.I'm sorry, but this is absolutely crazy.
Most working people, whose taxes pay for these apartments, could never afford to live there themselves.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.It is not right to expect working people to pay for this.
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.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
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 levelsI'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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?