No offense taken. The idea of posting this was the refine it and open discussion. I could remove the two part V paragraphs and I think it might still make sense. They were put in there to provide context about mixed income/mixed tenure developments that are then later referenced, which plays an important part of social housing provision.
Part V itself is not the main issue. The gist of the issue is that three different tenants (social rental, cost rental and private rental/mortgage) in the same house type, in the same location pay three very different % of net income on housing and how with the way the system is set up, many people are potentially better off going for the subsidised social house tenure than any other tenure. Ie. They may have more disposable income and better protections. Part V has played a role in creating this situation. But the issue is with the vast differences in what is considered affordable, between tenure types.
Yes of course cutting house prices is going to be an unpopular opinion with many and difficult and complicated to achieve. Which is why I suggested two other options, widening social housing or standardsing what is considered affordable. The idea was to spread awareness of the issue rather than claim I have all the answers because there is no simple solution.
Edit: I have shortened it by removing the two part V paragraphs and simply referencing part V later on. Hopefully this helps shorten it and still makes sense.
I think you've some good points here - but I wanted to jump in and explain the rationale for mixed tenureship (or part V in itself). There's a perception that its been done in some way to promote a right wing ideology around housing, but for decades there was a particular issue with large social housing schemes degrading very quickly into considerable levels of social deprivation with anti social behaviour, crime and lack of opportunity. Ballymun is the classic example (the location and collapse in Dublin city councils maintenance exacerbated that) but the better example is the largest scheme which finished in the late 1970s in Limerick with over 1200 homes. In 1982 then tv presenter Mary McAleese said it was a bomb waiting to go off and by 1992 local rep
Jim Kemmy was raising the issue of boarded up homes in the estate in the Dail:
Moyross is the largest housing estate in Limerick and is situated on the north side of the city. There are more than 1,200 houses in the estate. There are 294 houses in the Glenagross Park section of which 70 are boarded up. These houses were built approximately 15 years ago and they would cost between £35,000 to £40,000 each on the open market. This is an area of very high unemployment with about 80 per cent being unemployed and the percentage is even higher among early school leavers. Glue sniffing is rampant. The young boys who sniff glue have low self-esteem and little self-confidence. They also drink wine and cider in the area.
Approximately 70 houses have been vandalised in the area. Some have been burned out and it is like a sight from Beirut. The estate is situated in a lovely part of Limerick, in the shadow of the Clare hills, a very salubrious area bordering County Clare.
Academic studies in the late 90s started to point at monoculture tenures as being significant factor in the degradation of such estates (as well as their considerable size and often poor locations). So there was an increasing unease about a continued policy, especially once the local loan fund was abolished in 1987 during that years new government round of cuts, about building new large council estates. And of course, by 1987, the lending scheme vanished making social build entirely dependent on central government largesse.
Also in the late 90s there was a legitimate complaint that the state was not capturing any value from land value increases as a result of planning being granted and something was needed to give the state a stake.
That something became Part V - it was not designed, as the false narrative driven by some commentators like to insinuate, by ideology but by a desire to give the state a piece of the additional value.
Part V refers to Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2021. The purpose of Part V is for the State to capture a portion of the increase in land value resulting from the granting of planning permission for residential development. The current Part V legislation provides for local authorities to acquire 20% of this land at existing use value and to utilise this land to deliver homes to those households who qualify for social and affordable housing support. The use of the land for the delivery of social, affordable purchase and cost rental housing satisfies a policy objective of encouraging integrated development and reducing housing segregation.
It was
quite controversial at the time with even a suggestion that it might be unconstitutional
Part V, which is a significant and important part, has had some amendment in the Dáil. I echo Senator Coogan's point in that it would be a travesty if an appeal to the Supreme Court happened and the Bill was held up for years as a consequence. Indeed, it could even be a delaying tactic. Given that property rights are so strongly enshrined in the Constitution – we would all subscribe to that and would not look for any change – it is important that the Bill does not find itself held up for a number of years by court proceedings. I do not know what can be done to ensure that does not happen but the housing needs of the people are such that initiatives are urgently needed.
There is a strong provision in the Bill with an emphasis on social housing and it will benefit the many people who find themselves on the margins, whether they are local authority applicants or have the possibility to aspire to home ownership of which we have a very proud record. It is important this section is implemented sooner rather than later. I hope some mechanism will be found to ensure there is not an undue delay in regard to it.
Of course, we do know that later in the tiger era, there were cases of councils allowing developers to "buy out" the council's part V commitment or relocating their part V obligations to a different development (as happened in Malahide where the part V obligations were delivered at the other end of the county in Balbriggan). The general purpose however, was NOT to displace council building, but to give social benefit back through the development process.
This is a good thing - but mixed tenureship was long prior to that pushed by research that suggested that the social and economic issues resulting from very large public builds could be avoided by mixing social builds into mixed tenure areas where there would be "eyes on the street" as such, and social pressure from better off residents to reduce anti social behaviour, and access to resources needed to get on in life.
So I think mixed tenure in general is good - from what I observe, how different councils do this can vary widely - some might randomly mix in the part V units with other units while others may pick a particular type of unit (for example 1 bed apartments, which are an area of particular shortage for social homes) and concentrate (eg have heard of apartment developments where the social was all in a particular block, for example).
But in general it gets away from the bad old days where students in schools in some areas applied for jobs using their teachers addresses so they wouldn't be ignored because they came from a particular area. (I kid you not, I worked with a teacher who used to do this for her students in Ballymun).
Because the celtic tiger building boom was so pervasive in the wake of part V, the unintended consequences was that councils, getting a bonanza of social homes built for them, reduced their own housing development. This was not, and never was the purpose of Part V!
Similarly, as
@Ajax123 has correctly pointed out, this results in new build developments having very considerable differences in housing costs between social/purchase/affordable/cost-rental.
I think part of our problem at the moment is that targeted measures such as cost rental are "targetted" at a vague segment of the population and so the overall design has unintended consequences of considering inappropriate methods of calculating "affordability" designed for mortgage applications, not rents.
No landlord is going to ask you "can you afford it" when they put up your rent.
Bear in mind also that these are new builds, in areas of considerable demand, and are almost certainly considerably higher standard - think A1 ratings, heat pumps and solar panels.
But crucially, "cost rental" is designed as an alternative to open market rentals for a large segment of people who generally cannot buy because their ability to save has been drained clean through years of market rents. It is priced on the basis of a 40 year term and bear in mind also that these are usually high end market homes that would otherwise sell at higher prices because they are a premium product.
Again - the disappearance of the so-called "starter home" is itself the unintended consequence of a housing policy that wants to mitigate against climate change AND the impact of "cowboy building" leading to defects at the same time - there is no such thing as a free lunch there - if you want defect free, carbon neutral homes, then making it as standard effectively makes the building of "starter homes" unviable. My parents were able to buy a brand new build with no central heating system whatsoever and no fixed heating methods in any room other than the sitting and living rooms which had open fires in 1968 - you cannot do that now! In 1994 the house I bought decades later was built with storage heaters downstairs - even then highly unusual for a new build which at that time usually had oil fired central heating unless you were one of the lucky few in an area already piped with gas.
We are trying to do too much and at the same time live with the consequences of a significant downturn which eviscerated out banking sector and reduced lending to individual home buyers to a fraction of what was even normal in the 1980s. (For example, bridging loans, common at the time, have vanished).
With regard to cost rental - I would say that the oversubscription of every single scheme would suggest that there is considerable demand, but I would agree that eligibility should be based on what applicants currently pay on rent and household needs rather than a mortgage application like system which excludes many.
That said - you have to compare apples with apples and if you look at the same areas, you'll see similar rents for what frankly, are often poorly maintained older properties, which is why these schemes are being oversubscribed. And in the long term, the cost rental system will prove itself - as long as we don't fall into the trap of offering intergenerational tenancies to the adult children of current tenants in 20 or 30 years.
www.independent.ie