More succinctly put.
More succinctly put.You can't successfully build a house by direct labour if you're a sucker. If you try, everyone you hire will rob you blind and cut corners so you're likely to be left with a defective money pit. The State has demonstrated time and again that it is the ultimate sucker.
It's a delicate balance, I agree.Why should we house social housing tenants in better locations than private buyers?
This is basically not done anywhere anymore in Europe for a few reasons:The only way for the state to fix the housing crisis is to build good old fashioned council estates and communities.
Yea, command economies don't work. Who knew...
- Government can't procure any better than anyone else, and in many cases overpays
- Local authorities are particularly bad at managing occupancy and renovation
To follow up on this point, every decade or so via special pleading and political lobbying local authorities get free capital from central government and build houses. They then do very little to manage that housing stock efficiently and just start the special pleading again once the housing list is high and/or the existing stock is run down. There is even a policy to sell it at below-market prices to occupants!
- Local authorities are particularly bad at managing occupancy and renovation
The only problem with that is the State is just as bad at regulating the provision of services (or anything else) as it is at delivering those services directly.To follow up on this point, every decade or so via special pleading and political lobbying local authorities get free capital from central government and build houses. They then do very little to manage that housing stock efficiently and just start the special pleading again once the housing list is high and/or the existing stock is run down. There is even a policy to sell it at below-market prices to occupants!
By contrast a fund with an actual cost of capital will work to minimise void periods whether it is dealing with private or HAP/RAS tenants. It doesn't care, it just wants to make money.
This model also de-risks the public sector to a large extent. Social housing demand (location and type of dwelling) isn't going to stay the same forever, and the government purchasing a service on an ongoing basis gives far more flexibility than than having a stock of buildings that aren't the right size or in the right place anymore.
That total and utter misunderstanding of the root cause of the housing affordability problem is at the heart of the lack of workable solutions.We've been dependent on the private sector to solve the housing issue for the last 20 years and it's failed.
I never said the private sector caused the housing problem. I said, having an almost total dependency on the private sector to fix the issue is where the failure has occured. That's a Govt strategic and political decision that has been shown to be a failure.That total and utter misunderstanding of the root cause of the housing affordability problem is at the heart of the lack of workable solutions.
The private sector didn't cause housing to become less affordable to working people.
The Irish government didn't cause it either.
There is a problem of affordability across much of the developed world. It's not just an Irish problem.
The government can seek to mitigate the symptoms of the problem and looking at our income to affordability ratios and homelessness levels it seems that they've done a reasonably good job of that, though they've wasted vast amounts of money in the process.
The government can't fix the problem. That's the unpalatable truth. They can only seek to reduce the impact of the problem. In that, given our resources, they have failed.I never said the private sector caused the housing problem. I said, having an almost total dependency on the private sector to fix the issue is where the failure has occured. That's a Govt strategic and political decision that has been shown to be a failure.
I agree. That's a problem, not a crisis.And yes, this is not just an Irish problem but we also need to bear in mind that it's not just the 11000 people who are formally listed as homeless that the issue is.
Yes, that's the real problem. That's the problem all over the developed world. It's a result of more than a decade of quantitative easing. Wages have stayed more of less static for over a decade but the amount of money in the world has more than doubled. That money has flooded into real estate. Income from labour is worth half what it was relative to capital. The result is that housing is twice as expensive relative to labour. In my opinion a tax on that capital is a big part of the solution. In the Irish context that means a significant increase in property tax. That's not populist so it won't happen. Wage inflation relative to capital over the next 10 to 15 years will probably solve.The real issue is that we have a generation growing up, especially in the Pale who may never be able to buy or even rent a long term home
Not sure about the "quickly" part - this was a problem in the tiger years, too much of a hurry, sacrificing quality.Sale & Leaseback to a pension fund to get the houses built quickly, to an agreed spec.
This isn't correct.So more than half the cost can be avoided if the State builds directly.
They can then charge an average rent for a scheme based on recovering the build cost, going up or down depending on the income of the tenants, and go again. If the tenant doesn't pay for 3 months give them 24 hours notice and evict them.
Would you rather be in a small apartment or a homeless hub?I'd consider 50 sqm small for a 1-bed apt. I suggest 60 sqm minimum.
Studios are 37 sqm minimum.
This is unjustified cynicism. While certainly the state has made a mess of many construction projects, there are far more examples of excellent state built construction projects. Most social housing for example is, from a construction pov a success.You can't successfully build a house by direct labour if you're a sucker. If you try, everyone you hire will rob you blind and cut corners so you're likely to be left with a defective money pit. The State has demonstrated time and again that it is the ultimate sucker.
Look at what they cost per unit, and weep.This is unjustified cynicism. While certainly the state has made a mess of many construction projects, there are far more examples of excellent state built construction projects. Most social housing for example is, from a construction pov a success.
Good points. I was pointing out what the State should be able to do. The problem is that the State is incompetent.This isn't correct.
The state has no 'free' land - all of the development land local authorities own was bought at market price, there is almost 3/4 of a billion in loans outstanding on this land and even if the land isn't encumbered with a loan there is an opportunity cost associated with using the land for housing.
When local authorities build on their own land the costs are far higher than when they buy from builders. This is because councillors insist on ridiculously Hugh standards. All one bed apartments built by Dublin City Council must be a minimum of 50 sq m for instance.
The idea of using direct labour to build a big standard bungalow in a field in the midlands is fine, but try using it to build an A BER rated apartment block in Dublin and see how far it gets you. Not very far is the answer.
It is almost impossible for local authorities to evict anyone for rent arrears. Remember they aren't subject to the Rtb they go directly to court and judges are generally very sympathetic to the tenants.
I can’t think of one.This is unjustified cynicism. While certainly the state has made a mess of many construction projects, there are far more examples of excellent state built construction projects.
Which social housing?Most social housing for example is, from a construction pov a success.
There's lots of people in wealthy first world countries happily living in 1 bed apartments of less than 50-60 square metres. They have a place in the housing mix.Ireland is a wealthy first world country.
On both points, this shouldn't influence Ireland.There is a tradeoff - even in the cities of wealthy first world countries - between apartment size and number of apartments built. Pretending otherwise doesn't change the reality.
There is also a shortage of housing in many of those cities.
I don't think aspirational-based has ever been much of an issue when it comes to housing - that happens more with vanity projects like the new hospital where money apparently is no object.At present in Ireland have standards (and other factors) which make the cost of building apartments prohibitive, whether by the state or private companies.
In the context of this thread, the state should be thoroughly re-examining apartment standards to enable it to build more apartments - apartments that are safe and livable but not aspirational based, and so that it can more efficiently use the land that it already has available to it.
Those standards should look at the stock that is available and look to improve on them in a realistic manner. Not standards that mean the apartments don't get built and ultimately have the effect of ensuring people's living standards are LESS than they could be.