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

PadKiss said:
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
Click to expand...
How did we get to a place where treating the symptom, the increased gap between earnings and and cost of property, was seen as a cure? The problem isn't lack of social housing. The problem is the cost of housing. The root cause of that is the cost of building housing and the under taxation of the existing housing stock. That's the conversation we should be having. That's what young people should be angry about.

The State should never, and I mean never, buy an existing privately owned property to use as social housing. The fact that they do is tantamount to surrendering. Any and all resources available should be used to provide new built housing. When the State buys a house, directly or through a housing body, it is reducing the stock available in the private market to young people and further pricing them out of the market. We are in the ridiculous situation where a young couple can't afford a house so the State uses their taxes to buy it and rent it to them. That's crazy.
 

In Cherry Orchard, a vacant council home is being used for a stables - Dublin Inquirer

The council should provide stables for horses and fix up the house, says People Before Profit Councillor Hazel de Nortúin.
dublininquirer.com

Not sure where to start with this. Ignoring the stables piece, there's a disconnect somewhere within our councils.

Would expect that the council bring these types of houses back into play before buying luxury apartments to be used as Council properties.

I wonder how many of these are sitting idle for want of renovation? There's 35 in Cherry Orchard alone (according to the article)
 

Who wants to live in Cherry Orchard? There are people who get a nose bleed if they move north of the Liffey. My take on this is if you are not working in the city you do not need housing in the area.
 
We have a societal issue that no one wants to address. When you get a council house or as its referred to my "forever home" the incentive is gone to better yourself. This extends to social welfare payments in general but that is a different topic.

How many people in their late 20's with a couple of kids get their "forever home"? These people in the main would have been on the housing list anywhere from 8 to 13 yrs which appears to be the waiting time. What happened to social housing support as a last resort after you have tried and failed to house yourself rather than the first option?

People who wish to purchase a property can only purchase in an area they can afford. People on the housing list can choose where they want to live and can wait until a property in that area comes up while at the same time being supported by the state in the area they want to live in.

A "bad apple" will turn other apples bad. If you remove the bad apple the other apples wont go bad (or certainly are less likely to). There is a stigma with council areas (for the record I come from one and the vast majority of people are decent people).

The issue with council properties is not their construction etc its those in them. If you don't feel safe in your property be it social or private you are less likely to take care of it. People don't want to better their locality if damage is done to their hard work.
 
Or, to summarise, poverty is a symptom of a social problem but we treat that symptom as the root cause and so it can never be cured.
 
The real elephant in the room is when young people are buying their home. They buy off plans. No information is given as to which houses are being allocated to social housing. The only time this will be become apparent is when in the future the houses are not taken care of and resale value is minimal on the private purchases. This social experiment is not working.
 
Purple said:
Or, to summarise, poverty is a symptom of a social problem but we treat that symptom as the root cause and so it can never be cured.
Click to expand...
Poverty is relative. Most real poverty is hidden. Because someone gets social housing it is not indicative of their annual income. I am from Dublin and know it well. The Gloucester Diamond area has had money pumped into it since the tenements were demolished. Community projects, training courses and beautiful homes. At least five generations have been helped to little or no avail.
 
Purple said:
Or, to summarise, poverty is a symptom of a social problem but we treat that symptom as the root cause and so it can never be cured.
Click to expand...
On the contrary Ireland in the past was a very poor country right up to the 1990's. We had a work ethic and valued that which was given to us. Poverty was not a social problem as it was widespread and in order to get out of it or at least improve ones place in life people tried to improve themselves.

Rather than encourage this type of thinking we are discouraging it. Where is the reward for working when people can get housed in areas those who are working in high paid stressful jobs could never afford to live in?

People have to take some responsibility for where they are in life and not expect the State to complete responsibility for them.
 
I agree but its was never a social experiment it was pure selfishness on behalf of the State. It always makes me laugh when other countries are used as an example as how something should be done. Our culture is completely different to others and "cherry picking" situations from other countries and saying if we do this we will get the same outcome is either stupidity or just being naive.

It is my view that we as a State got money easy and just wasted it (and continue to do so). Logic would say if there are no negative consequences for doing something wrong and it makes your life easier some people would just continue to do it. Funny Ireland has become a "Me Me Me" country when in the past we were a "We We We" country because we worked for anything we had or we did not have it.
 
mairin2024 said:
What is the annoyance .. if council are taking a 10 year lease ?
Click to expand...
The fact that they are willing to pay out approx 240k in rental payments over the next 10yrs and still not own the place.
They could buy it now for 300k.
 
Well lots of people here who can explain the funding model - outright purchase versus lease.

Also be mindful of government borrowing rules.

The supply of housing is ultimately increased by this quasi private sector input with leased housing options
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register