The Best of "Social Housing - Creating a monster"

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sunny

Registered User
Messages
4,555
These posts are copied from this very long thread:
Social Housing - Creating a monster

I might as well state from the beginning that I believe that there is a need for social and affordable housing in every civil society and I hate seeing families living in the hotels or homelessness and I do want us to do something

BUT

Came across a situation recently in my local area in Dublin where two new blocks of apartments were being built adjacent to an existing development on a plot of land that was in NAMA but was then sold to a developer. The developer is in the process of building over 40 apartments and nobody batted an eyelid until it came to peoples notice that the entire two blocks of over 40 apartments has been sold to a housing agency for social housing. I just found this to be staggering for a couple of reasons:
- These apartments were sold off market to a housing agency. They were never made available to the public. There are plenty of first time buyers in my area crying out for houses/apartments that they can afford and these would have been in their budget but they were never even in a position to buy. A 3 bed house in the area will cost close to 400k so these apartments were affordable for many first time buyers. How is it fair that not only do they now have to compete against other buyers but now have to compete against housing agencies with millions of state funds to spend and buy entire blocks privately?
- Two entire blocks of social housing. I thought the idea was to integrate social, affordable and private housing. 100% of this development will be social. How is that best practice?
- Social housing is there to help people and rightly so but I am curious to know how many people in social housing ever leave social housing. Has anyone ever seen any figures? I would imagine the number is small so are we just spending another couple of billion on creating a system where thousands of people are dependent on welfare?
- What impact is all this provision of social housing having on the property market? These agencies have hundreds of millions of euro to spend. This must be distorting the private market with regard to prices.
- Do we actually get value for money for all this spending? The list just seems to be getting longer and longer no matter how much money we throw at it. Beginning to look like the health service with numerous so called voluntary housing agencies competing for State Funds to spend. An entire industry seems to have been created.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brendan brought up many of these points in TV3 a while ago. The lady from one of the housing agencies (I think it was DePaul) just kept repeating something like"But we live in a social democracy!" as if that justified waste, gaming the system and perpetuating a welfare trap which damages everyone.
 
Just an add-on to this. I do think it is highly peculiar for a social housing agency to 'bulk buy' property.
HAP is the biggest social housing support as far as I know, but they dont buy property.

Perhaps the OP could provide more detail - location, agency involved etc, lest there be any doubt about the veracity of this thread?
 
How has it got to a point where people earning more than the national average wage qualify for social housing? This is indeed a monster. Surely what the state should be doing here is trying to ensure people can afford to buy their own houses, not providing them with a house for life.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Sunny said:
- Social housing is there to help people and rightly so but I am curious to know how many people in social housing ever leave social housing. Has anyone ever seen any figures? I would imagine the number is small so are we just spending another couple of billion on creating a system where thousands of people are dependent on welfare?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.

I rent in the private sector. I have a few months security for me and my children.
There are tens of thousands of people like me.
Why should the state use our money to provide better tenancies to other people?
 
TheBigShort said:
But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.
Click to expand...
My children consider our house their home. Both they and I know that we'll probably have to move out at some stage.
TheBigShort said:
I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.
Click to expand...
Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens. I'm grateful when someone gives me a pint; I say "thank you" and look to return the favour. I'm sure I'd feel grateful if someone gave me a house.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, and first-time buyers, and rental occupiers are being screwed. But thats the efficieny of the market for you, isnt it?
Click to expand...

Renters would not be "getting screwed" if the tax take was not so high. I made a proposal to the govt via their public consultation process to extend the rent a room scheme to landlords. Set a fig of for example €12k that there was no tax payable any figure above that and the whole lot was taxed.

This would allow the tenant reduce there rent bill and not effect the landlord. It would be a win win, the landlord still takes the same net amount of income and the tenant saves the additional rent they were paying towards a deposit for a property they could purchase.

If the above happened you would have efficiency in the market. People would have finances to purchase properties, this would incentivize building of properties therefore supply would increase and prices would stabilize.

But the Govt wants to be seen to solve the housing crisis while at the same time disadvantaging the first time buyers. The HAP scheme is another reason tenants are being screwed. The Govt by introducing this scheme has set a floor on rents and it is negatively affecting others. I have personal expierence whereby a relative of mine and their partner both in full time jobs can't afford to purchase in their local area whereas a single mother on HAP can rent in the area no problem.

How exactly is that fair? What message does it convey? don't bother your This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language working when you can get housed where you want but if you try to get there on your own then you can't!
 
Social housing is provided by housing associations and similar bodies at below market rents, (that is high rents rather than very high rents) to people who meet certain criteria, the criteria vary by agency and even development. The criteria are usually designed to allow a broad mixture of people access social housing. This is a relatively new thing in Ireland.

Local Authority or Council housing is a different thing. This is the traditional form of housing outside the private sector. It is provided by LAs at very low rents, €35 per week for a 3 bedroom house is not uncommon. Again it is available to people who meet the criteria, generally poorer people, though the income limits are €35k AFTER TAX for a single person in many areas. There is also a waiting system heavily biased in favour of those whose application is on the books longest. The result of this is that LA housing goes almost exclusively to those whose parents put their name on the list the day they turn 18. In effect the children of parents who are themselves in LA housing, because they understand how the system works. this is the real reason LA housing is multigenerational. Its does not go to families who are poor across the generations, but to families who understand how the system works.

Put your kids name down for a LA house aged 18, in 10 years time they will probably be offered a house, so long as they are not earning more than the limit.
 
You still don’t get it! Of course if someone from a disadvantaged area and living in social housing does well and starts earning the same as someone not from a disadvantaged area and looking to buy a private house, they should not be entitled to social housing. That’s not some right wing nazi thinking. It’s simply stating the simple fact that one person is not more derserving of help than someone else just because they might have needed help in the past.

Just because there might be a shortage of houses to buy doesn’t mean that State should continue to provide benefits because you needed them at one stage of your life. It’s like telling someone from the same disadvantaged area that you can keep the dole even when you start working so you don’t feel disincentivised to make something of yourself.

I have no idea how to sort out the mess of the property market. I do know that I have witnessed governments of all sides mess and intervene in the market for decades and every time, they have made the situation worse. Getting rid of bedsits, tax breaks, treatment of landlords, rent supplements, social housing policy, Nama, land hoarding, property tax, stamp duty etc etc etc. But none of that will solve the social housing list which is continuing to grow and grow. There are now over 200 housing associations in this country. Over 200. It is an industry in itself now.
 
TheBigShort said:
Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they should then pay market rent.
 
if social housing estates were built again - which is the only real answer to the problem of homelessness - - the couple with 70,000 would probably move on to another estate elsewhere. After all why should they with an income of 70000 be given social housing with nominal rent and someone next door with the same or slightly more/less be paying mortgage etc. There should be no social housing for life, no selling on cheaply social housing to occupiers in social housing estates. It should be kept as social housing stock. If your circumstances improve move on. I've seen social housing sold on by families who make a nice little profit, good luck tothem, but why should I subsidise this? If their circumstances improve move on and leave the house to some other family who needs it.
I just don't think the public/private mix works at all. Social housing estates, properly managed is the only answer to the housing problem.
 
TheBigShort said:
I think you are starting to understand why any proposals to move people out of social housing by virtue of their improve circumstances - without taking into consideration where it is they are supposed to move to - is an absurd proposition.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that one household should subsidise another when their circumstances are the same/
Why do you think that this is a good use of state resources?
Why is it selfish to ask why one family gets a home provided to them even though they can afford to provide their own while another family with a much lower income has to live in a hotel?
How is it socially just not to ask the higher income family to pay a market rent and use that money to house the other family?
What's selfish about asking those questions?
I think it is you who is playing the man rather than the ball by implying that anyone who doesn't agree with your views is selfish or self centered.
 
I'm not really sure where I stand on this topic but I'd like to share a story. Now I know bad examples make for bad law/policy.
I live in Dalkey in a former council home, estate features the most expensive former council house in the country and a mixture of current and former council tenants and private owners and renters. I purchased my home in 2010, having had to prove I had a housing need as I purchased from the estate of a former council tenant who had herself purchased from the council.
There was a knock on the door last year and a neighbour (who I didn't recognise as she's from the far end of the estate) had a petition she wanted me to sign, about how the daughter of another neighbour had moved home from the UK to help her sick mum and was now being threatened with being kicked out of the house after the mother dying. I think there was a match on so I signed without thinking and then she followed up with the kicker, apparently because the daughter has an apartment in Monkstown she wasn't entitled to "inherit" the house in Dalkey which was apparently an outrage!
I agree with social housing, I agree with not kicking people out if they have bettered themselves but have children in school in the locality - but I cannot agree with inter-generational transfer of a public asset.
 
I find the idea that someone should be permanently entitled to social housing because it was needed at some stage completely incomprehensible. How does this differ from a suggestion that someone should keep the dole regardless of how much they earn? Social housing is supposed to be there for people who need it, not people who want it, or can't be bothered to pay for things they can afford
 
The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.

It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top