At all stages of this discussion, I have criticised your idea, in line with the posting guidelines.
I have not sought at any stage to impugn or criticise you.
Asking me if I can read. That is not personal jibe? Implying that my views are absent of conmon sense. That is not personal? Ordering me to 'go off and study basics....' is not an attempt to try and demean my intelligence?
Im quite happy to accept fundamental reasons as to why my ideas or suggestions wont or cannot work, but simply labelling them as 'harebrained' is not a sound reason, and yes it acts as a personal jibe.
From the outset I stated my idea was a concept. From the outset I stated that there would be thousands of ifs and buts and I suggested that it would be impossible to detail all within the pages of AAM.
There are, as I see it, 4 layers of accommodation in the State.
1) LA housing for people, for one reason or another, are unable or incapable of ever supporting themselves.
2) Social and affordable housing for people who work but whose incomes are too low to afford private rents or ownership.
3) Private rental sector, for people whose incomes are too high for social supports and for people who choose not to buy.
4) Private sector ownership.
Its 3) im interested in finding solutions. Not for those who are comfortable with their arrangements, but those who go to work, pay the rent, pay the bills and have little left over. They cant save, they are continuously being pushed further out from where they work, they are delaying families, they receive no social supports etc
Figures of €10bn, 100,000 houses have been bandied about. So to advance the idea further, it would be a scheme only operable in certain designated areas. Lucky for me the DofHousing has already identified RPZ's.
Along with the State building program of LA and Social and affordable housing for people with incomes that fall below certain thresholds, the State could embark on house building in RPZ's for people whose incomes
exceed certain thresholds.
The State takes on the cost of capital, as it already does for LA and Social housing.
However it then outsources the management of these properties to the private sector.
This is where you, Bronte, Gekko et all come in. Given your experience of managing properties as landlords, the State will offer you (or anybody else who is interested and who can meet the terms of the tender) the opportunity to manage a property, for profit, but without the cost of taking on a mortgage. The property manager (PM) will be the one who offers to let the property for the
lowest rent.
Some conditions for prospective tenants.
1) The must have a verifiable track record of paying rent in private sector for 12 months or more.
2) The are not, or have not been receiving State supports for that accommodation eg HAP
The prospective tenants with the highest income/rent ratio will be prioritized as prospective tenants.
PM's can refuse a tenancy but must have bona fide reasons for doing so - in general, we are talking about working people who pay rent, who now have an opportunity to significantly reduce that rent - all good indicators for a good relationship?
The cost to the State.
This will be minimal long-term. As demonstrated in Singapore, the State offers 99yr lease holds to prospective tenants.
If we take simply one €250,000 as an example.
The State borrows €250,000 over 10,20 or 30yrs to pay for the build of the unit. The State receives €2,500 a year back each year. The State then simply rolls over the remaining portion of debt when repayment is due, spreading the debt over 100yrs. Something a private landlord with a 30ur mortgage cannot do.
On the flipside. Each year economic activity to the value of €7,200 (State fee to PM, profit, fixtures fittings, furnishings etc) is generated.
In 34yrs, all things remaining equal, the €250,000 capital cost to the State will have generated €250,000 of economic activity.
All that has occurred is that the State has taken the capital cost of a mortgage out of the equation. In return, it retains ownership of the property.
The landlord, or rather PM, competes for profits in the private rental sector but on the basis of offering competitive rents. All in market that is high demand.
Tenants, who work, who contribute to the economy, avail of a real alternative to the current private rental sector and private ownership sector.
Tell me where I am going wrong.
