"Some sane ideas to fix this housing madness"

Agreed. But there is fault on both sides.

Tenders are unrealistic.

Examination of tenders has become a box ticking occupation devoid of knowledge or skill.

The Government treats the housing crises as a unwelcome irritation. Opposition parties treat it as a point scoring opportunity.

That is why we need a complete sea change. What is happening at the moment is unstainable.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
And at the same time, they stopped building social housing and told would be tenants to rent privately and the taxpayer would foot the bill.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Yes Brendan, they swallowed hook line and sinker the nonsense from theories David McWilliams and a few others that the overbuilding craze in the 2005-08 period had left us with an overhang of houses and apartments that would neither be needed nor occupied - even though a child could have told them at the time that the population was rising.
 
Sophrosyne said:
Agreed. But there is fault on both sides.

Tenders are unrealistic.

Examination of tenders has become a box ticking occupation devoid of knowledge or skill.
Click to expand...
The difference is that if a private developer gets their sums wrong, they go out of business and another developer ends up buying and completing the development. If the State as developer gets their sums wrong, the taxpayer underwrites the extra cost and the State completes the development on that basis. It's a recipe for perpetual cost increases.
 
Paul O Mahoney said:
The other point regarding public transportation and adequate community infrastructure, the past isn't kind to this been done adequately, we both could name areas where houses were built first and a generation later the necessary services followed.
Click to expand...
I would have assumed the other. There has been a shift away from the countryside over the past few decades and the rising values of city properties that are well serve by public transport and other services usually incentivises people to sell if they are no longer required, or renovate and rent given the escalation in rents in recent years.

With that it is the more remote properties with poor or no access to public services that are being left idle or used as holiday homes on occasion.
 
My main point is that in trying to save money, the State is throwing away money on ineffectual solutions.

In my view it is due to a combination of party politics, local authority ineptitude and a lack of expertise, ambition, and proper oversight.

This may be turned into the usual private v State contention but that gets us nowhere as both are necessary if this is to be solved.

Regardless of what happened in the past, we urgently need new thinking.

That is why I am suggesting that experts from all connected areas are brought in at the beginning.

Housing is not just about bricks and mortar.
 
T McGibney said:
The difference is that if a private developer gets their sums wrong, they go out of business and another developer ends up buying and completing the development. If the State as developer gets their sums wrong, the taxpayer underwrites the extra cost and the State completes the development on that basis. It's a recipe for perpetual cost increases.
Click to expand...
Developers are no angel's in this either when a requirement for 15% of developments were to be built for social housing they threw the teddy out of the pram and were allowed to buy out that requirement, don't know if that is still the case but every stakeholder in this mess have questions that need answers and need to be part of the solution.
 
Sophrosyne said:
My main point is that in trying to save money, the State is throwing away money on ineffectual solutions.

In my view it is due to a combination of party politics, local authority ineptitude and a lack of expertise, ambition, and proper oversight.

This may be turned into the usual private v State contention but that gets us nowhere as both are necessary if this is to be solved.

Regardless of what happened in the past, we urgently need new thinking.

That is why I am suggesting that experts from all connected areas are brought in at the beginning.

Housing is not just about bricks and mortar.
Click to expand...
"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. .." Bucky Fuller
 
Paul O Mahoney said:
Developers are no angel's in this either when a requirement for 15% of developments were to be built for social housing they threw the teddy out of the pram and were allowed to buy out that requirement, don't know if that is still the case but every stakeholder in this mess have questions that need answers and need to be part of the solution.
Click to expand...
That was no solution and in fact was a contributor to the negative equity mess that so many new homeowners found themselves in post-2008. The plan that these homeowners should pay an extra premium on the purchase of their home to finance cut-price homes for the State was always unsustainable.
 
I've mentioned this before, but I really think a large, sale-and-leaseback scheme for housing should be considered. The state would agree to pay a rent for say 1,000 new houses
 
Firefly said:
I've mentioned this before, but I really think a large, sale-and-leaseback scheme for housing should be considered. The state would agree to pay a rent for say 1,000 new houses
Click to expand...
There are 66000 on HAP already which hasn't changed much.
 
T McGibney said:
That was no solution and in fact was a contributor to the negative equity mess that so many new homeowners found themselves in post-2008. The plan that these homeowners should pay an extra premium on the purchase of their home to finance cut-price homes for the State was always unsustainable.
Click to expand...
The negative equity was caused by banks over lending to both developers and house buyers creating a bubble which eventually burst, since very few if any developers allowed the 15% anyway it certainly wasn't the cause of negative equity
 
Paul O Mahoney said:
The negative equity was caused by banks over lending to both developers and house buyers creating a bubble which eventually burst, since very few if any developers allowed the 15% anyway it certainly wasn't the cause of negative equity
Click to expand...
Anything that caused new buyers to pay more than the economic cost of their purchases added to the bubble and this scheme certainly did that anywhere it was implemented.
 
noproblem said:
Why are 66,000 people on HAP, and thousands more on other rent allowances, plus thousands and thousands that won't pay their share? Poor ould worker paying for them as well as their own
Click to expand...
Absolutely does anyone know what the total figure is for housing interventions HAP alone was almost €500m in 2020, latest report I could find.

Surely all that money could be better used ?
 
T McGibney said:
Anything that caused new buyers to pay more than the economic cost of their purchases added to the bubble and this scheme certainly did that anywhere it was implemented.
Click to expand...
But it wasn't the cause of the negative equity the entire country suffered post 2008 as a percentage it would have been minuscule by comparison to the economic devastation foisted on ordinary people the by the actions of banks, developers and government policies.
 
Paul O Mahoney said:
But it wasn't the cause of the negative equity the entire country suffered post 2008 as a percentage it would have been minuscule by comparison to the economic devastation foisted on ordinary people the by the actions of banks, developers and government policies.
Click to expand...
That's beside the point. You touted it as a solution to the current crisis when in fact it was a contributor to the last one, being an apt example of something that was "foisted on ordinary people by the actions of banks, developers and government policies". The extent of that contribution relative to others is neither here nor there.
 
T McGibney said:
That's beside the point. You touted it as a solution to the current crisis when in fact it was a contributor to the last one, being an apt example of something that was "foisted on ordinary people by the actions of banks, developers and government policies". The extent of that contribution relative to others is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...
I never touted anything I just mentioned that when an attempt to find a way of getting people into home the building industry and its cohorts were 100% against it.
It was never going to be a total solution but it was rejected and Government policy allowed the building industry an out.

And let's be clear here , you were the one who said that it was the cause of negative equity. Which most would strongly disagree with as do I.
 
Paul O Mahoney said:
I never touted anything I just mentioned that when an attempt to find a way of getting people into home the building industry and its cohorts were 100% against it.
It was never going to be a total solution but it was rejected and Government policy allowed the building industry an out.
Click to expand...
It was never going to be even a partial solution to any situation of scarcity. How can something that artificially hikes prices for one subset of homebuyers ever be?
Paul O Mahoney said:
And let's be clear here , you were the one who said that it was the cause of negative equity.
Click to expand...
I most certainly didn't say that. You know well what the word "contributor" means. If you're going to put words into my mouth, at least be accurate.
 
ashambles said:
I meant both when I said "vacant or just mostly vacant". A tax (extra on top of LPT) second and third homes will automatically bring vacant properties into the equation. Owning a holiday home is a luxury - and should be taxed liked one. At the moment the problem isn't just eating into the supply of houses, it's also tying up labour as many holiday home owners can afford to overpay to get work done.
Click to expand...
It is taxed like a luxury.

The person makes €X, only gets to keep 45-48% of X, and then uses that to buy a property.

People with assets aren’t the issue. It’s inefficiency, incompetence, and general madness in government and the State sector.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top