The Best of "Social Housing - Creating a monster"

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


This is the point the Govt does not want to provide social housing but is unwilling to actually come out and say it. Hence the reason for the Approved Housing Bodies etc, these are bodies funded by the State who can raise additional finance if they need.

The beauty of this from the Govt's perspective is that if a tenant needs to be evicted for any reason it is the Approved Housing Body doing it and not the State! so the politicians are not held responsible and they will no doubt fight for the tenant not to be evicted.

I think the old model of Social housing is gone and security of tenure in a specific house indefinitely will become a thing of the past within the near future.
 
Never mind the maintenance costs..


I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs. If you get a council house now even a second hand one they are brought up to current building reg's (including insulation etc) and most achieve high BER ratings while if you purchase a property privately and you want to meet current building regs you have to do everything yourself (which is extremely expensive).
 
Yes and I said,



So being well able to afford to buy a home does not guarantee that you will be able to buy a home. If your job is in Dublin, your wifes job in Dublin, your kids going to school in Dublin, your elderly parents that need looking after in Dublin, your sick brother or sister is in Dublin, your GAA club is in Dublin, your friends and associates are in Dublin, but the only affordable home available for you to buy is in Mullingar, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?
I make no distinction here, unlike you, between social housing tenants and non-social housing tenants. If either or both, can 'well afford to buy their own home', then both have a right to at least make the choice of where it is that they want to live (seeing as they are paying for it and all) dont you think? Or do you think that only social housing tenants who can 'well afford to buy a their own home' should be compelled to buy any home that they can afford, regardless of its suitability? Are you for real?
Where did I say they would have to move far away from where they currently live?
If someone in a social house in Crumlin can afford to buy or rent a private house in Crumlin but chooses not to I think that at the very least they should pay open market rent for the house they live in. That's all. That rent can then be used to provide more social housing to those who can't afford open market rates.
Do you think they should continue to enjoy subsidised (below market) rates of rent? If so why?
 
Im pretty sure you wouldnt expect a family on €20K a year to be paying €1000 pm if that what the prevailing market rate is?
Of course not. I've continuously said that rents should be ties to income but increase as income increases until it gets to the market rate.

as far as Im aware the Differential Rent Scheme applies a rent of one-sixth of income (subject to other considerations such as how many adults occupy the house, how many are at work, care for the elderly etc).
It varies from area to area (just another costly complexity) but one-sixth of income is way too low for higher earners. That means that someone with an income of €80,000 in a council house in Crumlin only pays a maximum of €1100 a month and probably far less while their lower income neighbour in private rental accommodation with the same family circumstances is paying well over €2000 a month.
I don't think that's fair.
 
So being well able to afford to buy a home does not guarantee that you will be able to buy a home. If your job is in Dublin, your wifes job in Dublin, your kids going to school in Dublin, your elderly parents that need looking after in Dublin, your sick brother or sister is in Dublin, your GAA club is in Dublin, your friends and associates are in Dublin, but the only affordable home available for you to buy is in Mullingar, do you not think that if someone is going to buy a home, that they at least have some right to choose where they want to buy?

What about all the people who have had to buy in Mullingar due to not being able to afford a place in Dublin, yet have all their ties in Dublin....what should happen for them???
 
When we bought a house, my wife and I worked in Dublin. We couldn't afford to buy in Dublin, so we bought where we could afford in the commuter belt. Social housing is not supposed to be there to provide your forever house and keep you living in luxury in your perfect world. Once someone is earning enough, they should move on. It's up to them to sort out where.
 
Here is a stat from CSO about LA household incomes

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hbs/hbs20152016/hinc/

Households rented from a local authority had the lowest average weekly gross household income at €495.57. State transfers were the main source of income in these households, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66.4%) of gross income. Less than 21% of persons in these households classified themselves as unemployed.

From that, it would appear, that we are a long way off tenants in LA housing ever being able to afford a place of their own, rental or ownership.
 
This thread really is going around in circles. From skimming over the pages it sounds to me like the ideal solution to all of this is to provide all social housing in Mullingar. Then once people in social housing earn enough money to pay for their own place they'll be only too happy to move out, leaving the house open for the next family on the list. Problem solved.
 
I give up. We have one proposition that it doesn't matter how much you earn. The state has a responsibility to provide you with a house in your selected location, and you get to keep it and pass it on to the next generation indefinitely.

Or there's the real world where reasonable people consider that it's their own responsibility to provide a house for themselves once they can afford it. And that you don't get to cherry pick the conditions to suit you. You get what you can afford where you can afford.
 
So, unlike Purple, your issue isn't just with people who can "well afford to buy", your issue is with those who cannot afford a place of their own also? You think taking people out of social housing who can't afford to stay anywhere is a good idea so that people in emergency accommodation can be looked after? So the low paid workers who cannot afford anywhere else can presumably move into the emergency accommodation?



Yes, so what? I'm in my fifth home now, I intend to settle down now. I pay for it myself, but if it were social housing I don't think I could fathom many more changes.



Have you anything to back this up? Again, I ask you, Cork City has reported a 50% refusal rate in their offers of accommodation. I'm guessing suitability is a key factor here, particularly when it comes to employment opportunities.
I hate to put a pin in the bubble of your 5yr Plan - but a married couple, both working in low income employment, she a hairdresser, he a cleaner in a factory. They occupy a social house, earn €55k a year are in their mid 50's. They have two kids, 18yr old girl who has aspirations of being a model, 20 yr son apprentice mechanic. Both living at home in the social house all their lives. The son qualifies as a mechanic and now earning a wage decides with his girlfriend to move into together in private rental accommodation. They decide they want to stand on their own two feet, how good is that? The daughter, hired by a modelling agency gets a contract to work in England for six months.
Both kids have flown the nest.
You send your assessor around to the home as part of your State controlled 5yr plan. The assessor decides that this 3 bed terrace is not suitable anymore (too big) and that in the grip of a housing crisis others are more needy. The State assessor orders them to move to a more suitable 1 bed apartment, or buy a place of their own. Buying or renting in the private market is out of the question with today's prices and the banks won't give them a mortgage in their mid 50's on the incomes they have, or what mortgage they would give, wouldn't buy a garden shed in Killiney! The new apartment it's a little further away from where they work, but only two bus rides to and from new home to employment. The 3 bed is now occupied by a family with no income, two kids, but they are more needy!
Six months after the assessment circumstances have changed - the son has broken up with his girlfriend (not his fault, she dumped him) neither can afford the apartment on their own so they have to leave, the daughter discovered the modelling agency in the UK was not all that it was cracked up to be, broken dreams (stuff like this does happen).
Both the son and the daughter return home only to find that you, under your plan, have evicted their parents to a one bed apt. There is nowhere now for them to stay. The son is looking for alternative accommodation but by himself he is in the same boat as all the other first time buyers. The daughter has no income until offered a trainee hairdresser position for €8 ph. But as she has nowhere to stay, as her home has been taken, she and her brother qualify for social housing and in turn are placed in emergency accommodation.
The family that now occupy the house have no employment - why should they? They don't need to work, they have been gifted a free house by the taxpayer which they can stay in for the rest of their lives and the working family, the mother, father, son and daughter have all been rightly screwed. But what's worse is, the house next door to one they live in was also assessed. At the time of the assessment it was fully occupied, but six months on, the two children in that house flew the nest. It is now perfectly suitable for the working family to return home (albeit next door) and live together again. But as your plan is to assess the accommodation needs of each family every 5yrs, then this house won't be assessed for another 4.5 yrs - shame!





Great, I'm guessing you have another back of the envelope solution to the drug problem that has plagues Western societies for the last 50yrs or so. When you have all the drug dealers in prison come back and we can discuss how we can accommodate the homeless more.

You appear to believe that people should take no responsibility for the circumstances they find themselves in. If I can give a brief synopsis of the above to explain my position.

As part of the allocation of social housing people are advised that your housing needs are assessed every 5 yrs to consider both over and undercrowding. If the property is to big for you then you know when you got the property in first place that your situation will be assessed every 5 yrs and you could and would be moved if the property is no longer suitable.

I thought you example of the son breaking up with his girlfriend and the daughter wanting to be a model was comical to say the least. Life sucks, we all have problems, life never turns out the way we want.

On a slightly separate all be it relevant topic the who concept of differential rent needs a serious overhaul. Why is the differential rate charged not tied in some way to the prevailing local rents and not just the income of the household. It is unfair to have two properties paying the same rent simply because of the income of the households are the same where one property is located in an area that has a lot of amenties and the other has none but both are charged the same rent simply because the household income is the same.

Also, there should be a min rent charged which relates to the property type and location. If the differential rate is the only method of charging rent and you have one person living in a three bed property and they are paying rent based on the differential model do you think this is fair on those looking for accommodation. After all we do have a housing shortage!
 
I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect, the only problem is that there are too few social houses.
Eventually we'll all get a social house with the current model, which is of course sustainable and fair (just like our State pension system, Public sector pay and pensions and all other forms of welfare) and everything will be great.

The only problem is the private sector, which unlike the Public Sector, is dysfunctional and inefficient. The reason for that is that all rich people, and people who work in banks in particular (but aren't in Unions), are greedy and immoral.


The State controlling more and more of our economy is a good thing and addressing the symptoms of inequality through wealth transfers rather than addressing the root cause of that inequality is the way to go.


We don't have to change any systems.
We don't have to reform any structures.
There is no waste.
The solution to every problem is to just spend more money.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is greedy, selfish, ignorant, uneducated, right-wing and morally bankrupt.

The scales have fallen from my eyes; I am reborn, Comrades!
 
Well, in fairness to you, Horseman, you have at least moved somewhat insofar that you are proposing a scheme with 'choices'. I do think there is an underlying assumption that most people in social are on the pigs back, free accommodation, don't work, or work very little, prime location in city centres etc....some people think its like winning the lottery, or its all one big gift courtesy of the taxpayer (blinded to the fact that working people in social housing are 'the taxpayer')

The reality is of course far from that, it is a complex business which cannot be resolved on the pages of AAM.

http://files.nesc.ie/nesc_secretari...h_Social_and_Affordable_Housing_Provision.pdf

None of the proposals made so far will go anyway to resolving the current crisis in any reasonable time-frame. In fact I would argue that all of the proposals would get tied up in administrative and legal tangles that would in fact cost the taxpayer more, in other words - they are self-defeating proposals.

I was asked to suggest something constructive -

From page 3

Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.

All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.
 
You said it. You would rather people stopped working, stopped educating, lived at home with their mammies & daddies all their adult lives rather than see a spare room or two in a social house go unoccupied for all the social injustice this would cause (or rather how much it is costing "your taxes". After all, you did say;

The UK has the bedroom tax where benefits are cut for each under utilised bedroom. They even have the concept of mutual exchange that lets people swap houses. France has rent reviews every two years on household income with supplements applying on everything over a certain level with no ceiling. I don't exactly see people being kicked to streets. Denmark and Sweden has seen huge amounts of social housing being bought out by tenants as their circumstances changed. Hardly earth shattering.....

Dublin City council has a waiting list for people looking to downsize from their existing social property so some people are actually not aghast at such an idea of trying to eliminate under utilisation of social housing stock. Maybe instead of your 'build it and they will come' philosophy, we should actually try to use our existing stock as efficiently as possible? I know it's a crazy idea. Why not add another 25% tax on people earning over 100k instead and build and build instead...Bloody rich people.....
 
Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....

Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.
 
This discussion has raised an interesting question (for me).

Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18 ?

Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?

I just had a look at some of the social housing properties available from DLR CC and some are in very nice locations indeed !

[broken link removed]
 
Its not a handout, it’s a public service. No different to putting your kids through the state school system, regardless of your income. No different receiving healthcare through the public system, regardless of your income. No different to availing of subsidised public transport, regardless of your income. No different to availing of all other public services from museums and art galleries, public playing pitches for sports clubs, to the justice and law & order services, to the emergency services…housing is simply a public need for everybody.
I think that's the nub of it; I fundamentally disagree that giving an adult a house for life is the same thing as providing funding to keep a child in school or a to keep a museum open.
In the same way I support subsidised public transport (within reason) but I don't think the State should give people cars.
 
I am trying to gather together all the ideas for tilting the balance back in favour of those who struggle to provide for themselves rather than to become dependent on themselves.

This thread
Social Housing - Creating a monster
is fascinating but there is a huge amount of off-topic stuff and repetition, so I have extracted the best bits into this thread.

Brendan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top