TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
You haven't presented any reasoned argument.
Then you will understand that the cost build of a house in the 1960 will have been paid back in full plus extra, wont you.
When you are presented with reasoned arguments
I can assure you I am well capable of understanding business and events that happen in peoples lives,
I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.
I disagree.You haven't presented any reasoned argument.
An asset is an asset and it has a value. In the case of social housing it has a commercial value and a social value. If the State provides rental accomodation to people at a rate which they can afford which is less than the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State; it is not getting the market rate for the asset and so income is not being generated which the State could use to provide more social housing. Therefore that opportunity cost is both economic and social.Then you will understand that the cost build of a house in the 1960 will have been paid back in full plus extra, wont you.
The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs.
I did, I quoted his post. It's not all about you you know.
I expect this was a major reason behind the outsourcing to the private sector. The cost and also the hassle....Actually Horseman, just to expand on that, the average cost per unit of one of the larger social housing developments in Dublin in recent times was €330k per unit. Half the units in that development were 1-bed apartments, the larger 3-bed duplexes accounted for 20% of the units. That 330k figure didn't include the cost of the land involved, or the ongoing maintenance costs which are borne by the Council.
An asset is an asset and it has a value. In the case of social housing it has a commercial value and a social value. If the State provides rental accomodation to people at a rate which they can afford which is less than the market rate then there is an opportunity cost to the State; it is not getting the market rate for the asset and so income is not being generated which the State could use to provide more social housing. Therefore that opportunity cost is both economic and social.
In that context talking about rents being set based on the build cost of the property as if that justifies the social cost is just nonsense.
Perhaps if the State treated housing as a business whereby the income covered the costs then we would not be in this situation.
I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost.
I am well aware of the requirements of setting up an running a company. A company is there to make profit, why do you think it will provide quality accommodation at affordable prices.
I expect this was a major reason behind the outsourcing to the private sector. The cost and also the hassle....
You can use all the little faces you like
It doesn't change the fact that you spend your time coming up with simple cases that you then complicate and you then complicate even more.
What alternative do you propose? Should the State provide housing for everyone?
You are. I'm not suggesting they should be allowed to buy the council house. My comment about "buying there" was in reference to the area, not the particular property. I'm suggesting that they should be moving out of the council house once they can afford to.Im getting mixed messages from posters above.
One the one hand, selling off social housing to tenants is a bad thing.
But you appear to advocate that if they can afford it?
Perhaps im misinterpreting?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?