Social Housing - Creating a monster

Sunny said:
They might be under pressure but the taxpayer is still entitled to not have their money thrown at developers.
Click to expand...

I think you are making two separate points really: (1) taxpayer's money is being wasted by have two housing agencies competing with each other and (2) by bulk buying developments, it reduces supply to those in the market to buy a home (presumably at the lower end).

I think both points are valid. Regarding the bulk buying of developments by housing agencies, I suspect they have been told to buy what they can to get the number of social housing up, as that's where the government are feeling the pressure. Those adversely affected (those who would have bought these houses privately) don't have much of a voice unfortunately.....
 
Were they really "competing" with each other? Both housing agencies were presumably serving different "markets" and I presume it was a closed bidding process, should agencies be obliged to inform the Department of Housing which properties they're bidding on?
 
Sunny said:
They are not the developers. They are the buyers
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. I was looking at their website and it suggests that they do develop accommodation for people with specific needs, like the elderly.
In this case however they have simply entered the private market and bought in bulk.
I don't disagree that having social housing agencies competing against each other is a bad thing. And, rather than dismiss the sense of desperation, I think it is a good thing to know how bad it is for anybody trying to find a home.


I agree with this. But the problem is that current housing policy is to allow the market determine the supply and the demand of housing quantity and price. The government is only to intervene where specific categories of people, namely elderly, disabled, disadvantaged etc, have no reasonable outlook of ever owning a homing of their own, or obtaining suitable accommodation.
Everyone else is to the mercy of the market and the banking system, which has failed dismisally in providing a sustainable, affordable, housing market. This is the system we have chosen.
Unfortunately, the model of free market housing has turned housing into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than to be factored as a social necessity. Low and middle income earners, trying to get a foothold are typically being caught in the middle as this example shows.
 

What's the alternative?
 
Should be have soviet style housing where the state builds "units" and allocates them to the citizenry?

What I see here is not only a waste of public money but a major buyer (the State) pushing up prices by competing with private buyers. The more the State pushes up prices the more people will need a home provided by the State. The result of that cycle is self apparent.

The State owns half the residential development land in Dublin; no state agency should ever buy a home on the open market, rather the State should build public housing and it should be allocated by local authorities. There should be no State funding of any private bodies, charities or otherwise, seeking to provide housing for any vulnerable group. Instead the State and its employees should do their job properly. What is happening now is just a waste of money through duplication of process in order to hide chronic structural incompetence within the State bodies and government departments who should be dealing with this issue. (Note that structural incompetence does not mean that the people involved are incompetent or aren't working hard.)
 
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.
 

But isn't this symptomatic of the dysfunction in the housing market? Why were the homes slow to sell at a time of an apparent housing shortage? Is it because that house prices are still too expensive, or that banks are still reluctant to lend, or both?
 
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.
 

But it's not allowing the market to determine the supply and demand of housing quantity and prices. That's the problem! The Government through it's tax, social, planning strategies are manipulating the market. They are giving first time buyers a tax break on one hand and on the other hand they are giving millions to voluntary organisations to compete against the same first time buyers for property. The government are only impacting the demand side of the equation. They claim they are supplying all these new social houses but it is at the cost of ordinary people looking for property. The idea of social housing is to integrate it into the community with affordable and private housing but now we are seeing whole blocks and estates being 100% social housing. That is not fair to anyone including the people moving in. I have also seen developments being built at the moment where all the first phases are private housing and the social housing aspect is left until the end and at the very back of the estate clustered together. That's not right too.

I know I am off topic but we are spending billions on social housing and other housing inititives under various development plans and all I can see is ever increasing lists for social housing and a large number of competing vested interests. And people seem to be afraid of questioning it..
 
DCD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why has the value gone through the floor? If the houses were slow to sell, it indicates that they are over valued in the first place. Or if banks were reluctant to lend is it because they believed they weren't worth it either?
 

What does it matter if the Government is going to come in and buy them anyway? How are the prices ever going to find an affordable level for first time buyers especially? It's market manipulation and developers are now looking to do this more and more because these agencies are paying full whack rather than trying to sell them one by one.
 
I wonder what the C&AG Seamus McCarthy would make of that!
 

I'm not disagreeing with you. I merely pointing out that it appears that there are insufficient property developments to attract developers into the market. Government policy over the last number of decades has been to allow the development of property to be (almost) the sole preserve of the private market. This is fine when there is a functioning market (where working people can afford a home) and developers can profit. But there appears to be either a shortage of developers, and/or a reluctance on their part to start building again for fear of another property crash. That is, the risk/reward is too low to enter the market.
As a consequence, the government is now competing in the private market with private buyers to provide social housing. I think this is wrong.
Im not 100% sure what the policy is, but it appears to be to drive up prices back to the glory days, to bring more developers back into the market long-term. Thus hoping the 'free' market will bring all the 'efficiencies' to the housing market, as it says it will in the economic textbooks.
 
TheBigShort said:
I merely pointing out that it appears that there are insufficient property developments to attract developers into the market.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Delboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this. Social housing cannot be viewed through the narrow prism of providing a roof over a persons, or familys head.
People rear families, go to schools, work in areas, contribute to building communities and relationships over many, many years.
It makes no sense to me not to offer security of tenure. Where would social housing tenants go if after 25yrs they were told to move without the means to buy privately? To other social housing perhaps? So what would be the point other than to disrupt?
 

Nobody is talking about taking away their security of tenure. Not like they will be kicked out after 25 years to be put back on the housing list again. There is no reason they can't buy their social house unit if their circumstances change is there? But how many times does something like that happen? How many times does someone in social housing because they lost their job actually find a job and move off social housing? I am just genuinely curious to know.

Also if a couple raise their 4 kids in a 4 bed social house and eventually the kids move out, are we really saying that we can't expect that couple to move to a smaller property (social again if needed) and allow another family take the larger property. Is that so unreasonable after 25 years of subsidised living?
 
Yes, that's exactly what the policy is and what the actors within the homelessness industry are agitating to keep. Not only can those people stay there but if they have one son who never bothers to get a job he will inherit the house (tenancy) when the parents pop their clogs. If he them has one child with his partner and that child grows up, never gets a job etc then that child will inherit the house. By that stage of course the house will need to be refurbished. You'll be paying for that too.

Sure it's a great little country really!
 
Sunny said:
There is no reason they can't buy their social house unit if their circumstances change is there?
Click to expand...

Two reasons - 1) even if circumstances change, they may still not be able to afford it 2) the council may not be prepared to sell it.

Sunny said:
But how many times does something like that happen?
Click to expand...

I dont know.

Sunny said:
How many times does someone in social housing because they lost their job actually find a job and move off social housing? I am just genuinely curious to know.
Click to expand...

I dont know.


No, I dont think so. But I do think it is not unreasonable for the tenants to at least have a standard of accommodation that they are used to and that the accommodation is in an area where they feel comfortable. There is a lot to be said for the well being of people if they feel part of the community and are not faced with leaving their friends and neighbours.

Sunny said:
Is that so unreasonable after 25 years of subsidised living?
Click to expand...

I never said it was, but there are other factors outside of how many bedrooms there are in a house. People are not cattle, to be herded around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register