Social Housing - Creating a monster

[Firefly]

Of course you conveniently omit from that discussion that when it was asked of you where the working woman would live (in the context of there only being limited options to accommodate - a charateristic of a housing crisis) you answered, lamely, where she would not live!

Please stop trying (yet again) to deflect & drag the discussion off topic. I made reference to a viewpoint you have, which you denied, but which is true..

 

[Firefly]

So im asking, where is the incentive to progress a career if the reward for doing so means losing your home?

Perhaps eventually, as someone in favour of forced eviction for having the audacity for going to work, paying taxes, and contributing to society, you could answer this - where will the SH tenants go if forced to move out?

The incentive is that after having received a fantastically generous gift from their fellow tax payer, those receiving a social house would essentially have a choice (1) take their chances that at the end of 5 years they will have a greater need for social housing, compared to everyone else on the list or (2) plan to provide for themselves over those 5 years. If you think (2) is not possible for the vast majority of able people, then you have a very low opinion of human resilience. That's the incentive.

Where does the evicted family go?

You keep saying "evicted" but I don't agree. What I and others are proposing is that someone gets a social house for a period of time (e.g. 5 years) after which if they are no longer deemed by the authorities as most in need, they vacate the house for someone else.

 

[Purple]

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.

The solution to that has been around for over 50 years. We'd rather waste scarce public (and private) funds using Victorian construction methods to make our over-built and under-engineered houses.

 

[TheBigShort]

I said "people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel"

Yes and I said,

That is, they may well be able to afford in monetary terms to buy or rent a property, but because they have jobs in fixed locations, because they have children in schools, because they have childcare in place, because they have ties to their local community with a life outside of work, because they have elderly parents that they care for, …etc…etc... they cannot find anywhere suitable to buy or rent and end up living with mammy and daddy well into their thirties, or end up in a hostel, or a hotel.

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?

 

[Purple]

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?

 

[TheBigShort]

See you really aren't listening.

• You said that you think that rents should be tied to income, increasing as incomes go up.

I never said that. I said that there was scope to raise rents on social housing tenants where their financial situations improves. I then pointed out to you that councils do indeed having a policy of tying rents to income through the "Differential Rent Scheme". So its all ready in place.

• I asked you if there should be a cap on the rents or should they just continue to increase as the tenants income increases.

• You said they they should not be capped and asked me at when level they should be capped.

• I replied that they should be capped at market rates.

So my position is that rents should be tied to income, increasing as income increases until they get to the market rate. You think they should just keep increasing.

You are not paying attention

Ok so, cap it at open market rates

You cant even agree with me when I agree with you!

What I wanted to know is what good will this do (whether capped or not, but lets go with the cap for the moment) in resolving the problem of the shortage of housing? And I also wanted to know what 'mechanism' you would use to calculate the rent owed. 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?
To help you along, 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).

 

[Purple]

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.

 

[TheBigShort]

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.

Ok, great, we have a location. You have heard of the 'housing crisis' right?

So if we take a typical, not uncommon family size of two adults, two children living in a 2 bed social house. What would be a suitable type accommodation, if they were to buy, using their own income? I dont think a 2 bed apt is unreasonable. On daft.ie there are none available as of today (housing crisis and all that!). So I searched for a 2 bed house. There are a number of them ranging from €250,000 to €450,000.

But lets take the 2 bed at €250,000. Obviously we are talking about a couple being "well able to afford" to buy their own, so lets say they earn €90,000 a year. And lets say with a 10% deposit saved, they would need a a €225,000 mortgage over 30yrs equals roughly along €930 a month according to mortgage calculator.ie.
On the other hand, with the Differential Rent Scheme, paying at 1/6 of income, they would be forking out €1,250 - but you think it should be capped at €930? The market rate?
On yet another hand you reference €2,000 a month for private rented accommodation, so €2,000 would be the cap. (How did you decide to apply the rental market rate, instead of the mortgage rate when considering we were talking about those 'well able to buy...'?)

You think this isnt fair - you are correct, its extortionate. But your attitude is because the private rental market dictates that €2,000 is the market rate, then the social housing rate should be capped at that - even though you know that these rates are causing people to become homeless.
So why on earth, would the State impose extortionate rents on their citizens akin to the extortionate rates applied by private landlords whose sole motive is not to provide a social need but to make a profit (and Im not against them making a profit, Im simply distinguishing between the social need which is the governments objective and the profit motive).
If a social housing tenant is paying €930 a month, equal to a mortgage - will they ever get to own the property?

And of course the other problem here is that as social housing tenants are typically occupied by low and middle incomes. How many tenants are earning €80,000 or €90,000? How many are we talking about?

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.

On €80,000 a year paying €2,000 a month Im working it out at around 30% of income. So is 30% the mechanism you want to use for social housing rents? A social housing family with €21K is expected to hand over €7,000 of that back to the State? Bearing in mind that one of your qualifying conditions is that this 30% would apply to social housing tenants "who can well afford to buy their own home". So Im guessing now, that given the price of houses that the vast majority of social housing tenants are going to be excluded from your 'mechanism'. At €21K, or €40K or even €70K wont buy you much in Crumlin will it?

 

[Firefly]

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???

 

[TheBigShort]

Please stop trying (yet again) to deflect & drag the discussion off topic. I made reference to a viewpoint you have, which you denied, but which is true..

Firefly, you made reference to a viewpoint I have. I made reference to a viewpoint you have - from the very same discussion! But Im the one taking this 'off topic'? I merely pointed out that when it comes to making a decision in the context of that discussion you failed to answer.

What I and others are proposing is that someone gets a social house for a period of time (e.g. 5 years) after which if they are no longer deemed by the authorities as most in need, they vacate the house for someone else.

And...where...will...they...go...once...they...have....vacated...the...property...considering...there...is...a...housing...shortage...which...I...am...sure....you...have...heard...of?

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???

I dont know, what should happen to them? Do you think they should swap places with all the social housing tenants in Dublin?

 

[Firefly]

And...where...will...they...go...once...they...have....vacated...the...property...considering...there...is...a...housing...shortage...which...I...am...sure....you...have...heard...of?

Assuming they no longer qualify for social housing as there is someone in greater need they will have to provide for themselves like everyone else. At least they will have 5 years to plan for it!

 

[Firefly]

Firefly, you made reference to a viewpoint I have.

At least now you are admitting it rather than denying it...

 

[Firefly]

I dont know, what should happen to them? Do you think they should swap places with all the social housing tenants in Dublin?

I am not saying anything should be done for them, I am trying to make the point that why should someone lucky enough to win the council house lottery get to stay in Dublin as they have connections there when people who put a roof over their own heads have to move to where ever they can afford??

 

[TheBigShort]

Assuming they no longer qualify for social housing as there is someone in greater need they will have to provide for themselves like everyone else. At least they will have 5 years to plan for it!

Ok so the criteria is "they no longer qualify for social housing". So once someone, or a family, occupying a social house starts earning a relatively modest income at best they are given notice to vacate, is that it?

Where will they go? Mullingar? Perhaps. Or perhaps they will consider the onerous task of travelling from Dublin (say Crumlin, where they have a job as truck delivery driver) and Mullingar not really worth the money they are earning? Perhaps this could consider this to be a de-motivating factor for them? Perhaps, they will call in sick so often that their employer lets them go and now have no job. But now with no job, they once again qualify for social housing!
Or maybe the employer wants them in at 6am in the morning, mullinagar to crumlin on public transport just wont cut it.

At least now you are admitting it rather than denying it...

I never denied anything...I still stand over it. I would just appreciate it if you would considered the context upon which I made the comment rather than cherry-picking comments in classic tabloid form to suit your agenda (you a big fan of The Scum newspaper?).

You brought up my comment from that discussion but you still wont answer where the working woman, who raised a family, who you want to evict, will live? Why is that? As far as I recall, in the scenario outlined, if you move the family of four (who turned down gainful employment) into her home, the only place available for the taxpaying working woman was in the hostel? Is this how we treat our citizens who go out to work and pay taxes and raise families? Evict them out of their homes and put them in hostels so other families, who wont take up gainful employment, get to enjoy the "national lottery win gifted to them" by the taxes of the working woman?

I am not saying anything should be done for them, I am trying to make the point that why should someone lucky enough to win the council house lottery get to stay in Dublin as they have connections there when people who put a roof over their own heads have to move to where ever they can afford??

So you havent read any of the points made in the last 9 pages or from the previous discussion "Low income earners should be prioritized for social housing"?

 

[Seagull]

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.

 

[Purple]

On the other hand, with the Differential Rent Scheme, paying at 1/6 of income, they would be forking out €1,250 - but you think it should be capped at €930? The market rate?
On yet another hand you reference €2,000 a month for private rented accommodation, so €2,000 would be the cap. (How did you decide to apply the rental market rate, instead of the mortgage rate when considering we were talking about those 'well able to buy...'?)

Yes, I'd cap it at €2000 in the above example. I picket the market rate for rent as they are renting. Why would you cap the market rate for renting at the market rate for mortgages?
That would mean it would be cheaper for them to buy so there would be an economic imperative for them to move out, buy in the area, and thus make a social house available for one of the families living in a hotel. That would be socially just.

even though you know that these rates are causing people to become homeless.

If people who can afford to provide for themselves did so it would mean resourced could be used to provide for those who can't.
If people who can afford to pay market rents did so there would be more money to build social housing which would mean more resourced could be used to provide for those who can't.

A social housing family with €21K is expected to hand over €7,000 of that back to the State?

As incomes increase the amount required for basics such as food and clothing remain about the same and so more income is available for other expenditure. I don't think anyone expects a family with a household income of €21K to hand over €7K on rent though they would be left with €277 a week in net income. I don't have much more than that myself and I've 4 kids to look after.

 

[Purple]

Believe me, you don't have to travel too far around here to get a sense of entitlement.

I agree!

For the record, this is my position;

Council tenants should pay rents in line with their income, increasing as their income increases until it reaches the open market rent.

Can you state your please?

Can you answer this please?

Do you think the State should provide subsidised housing for everyone who can't afford a home where they grew up and have family connections? What about all the people who grow up in Dalkey, Killiney, Foxrock and Mallahide? If they have family connections there, get married and start a family and move in with a one set of parents and have their kids in school should the State provide them with a home in those areas?

I would suggest that far fewer people born in Killiney and Mallahide end up living in Killiney and Mallahide than people born in Crumlin or Killinarden.
Should the State provide social housing for those people who can't afford to live in Dakley if their job is in Dalkey, their wifes job in Dalkey, their kids going to school in Dalkey, their elderly parents that need looking after in Dalkey, their sick brother or sister is in Dalkey, their GAA club is in Dalkey, their friends and associates are in Dalkey, but the only affordable home available for them to buy is in Lucan, 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?

 

[TheBigShort]

so we bought where we could afford in the commuter belt.

Were you compelled to so by anyone? Or did you enter freely into the transaction?

Social housing is not supposed to be there to provide your forever house and keep you living in luxury in your perfect world.

I never said it was. But you are missing the point that the vast majority of people who occupy social housing are low-average income households (at best) who never have the opportunity to 'move on' because they cannot afford to.

Once someone is earning enough, they should move on. It's up to them to sort out where.

And there you have the crux of the issue - firstly, they need to be earning enough. I dont think its unreasonable to assume that a family of two adults two children, living in Crumlin, would need to be earning minimum €70K before they consider moving on? If you consider their employment, their kids schooling, day care etc.
Secondly, once they are 'earning enough', then in your words - its up to them to sort out where. Exactly, in other words there is no compulsion on anyone to move anywhere unless they are willing to move to another location, to rent privately or to buy on their own accord.
The reasons for this are many, from Universal Declarations of Human Rights (Article 12 - No one shall be subject to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.....) to the simple practicalities that compelling someone to enter the private market is the exact opposite to 'its up to them to sort out where'.

 

[TheBigShort]

Why would you cap the market rate for renting at the market rate for mortgages?

I wasnt sure which cap you were applying...you mentioned people who can "well afford to buy", so I assumed mortgage amounts were an option. You have clarified it that it is market rents, so we will go with that.

That would mean it would be cheaper for them to buy so there would be an economic imperative for them to move out, buy in the area, and thus make a social house available for one of the families living in a hotel. That would be socially just.

You see this is where it gets confusing. I have asked you what your mechanism is for calculating appropriate rents to social housing tenants to be. We have somewhat established that a 30% is applicable to earnings of €80K. But thats about it. But it is not clear what it would be for €70, 60, 50, 40K etc.

If people who can afford to provide for themselves did so it would mean resourced could be used to provide for those who can't.

Yes, I agree, if it were all so simple.

But here is the crux, as long as there is insufficient houses available, then if people "who can afford to buy" join the first time buyers market, it further squeezes that cohort of working people out of the FTB housing market, who never qualified for social housing by virtue of their incomes. They may well be able to afford to buy, they may well be able to rent, but as it is there money, they do have some entitlement to decide what is and what is not suitable for their needs and wants. Ditto, the social housing tenants who are also working, earning their own money. They may well be able to afford to buy, they may well be able to rent, but as it is their money, they do have some entitlement to decide what is and what is not suitable for their needs and wants - no different. They cannot be compelled to buy or rent a property that they think is unsuitable for their needs especially if it is their own earned money that they will be using to pay the rent or mortgage.

I have rented houses in the past, and I have bought two houses. So I know exactly what it is like to look for suitable accommodation. By myself, I was never fussy. But with a wife and children it is a whole different ball game. Anything from the neighbours next door, the size of the back or front garden, is there a garden shed, a reasonably sized bathroom, living room, south-facing, north-facing, proximity to public transport, proximity to local amenities, schools, jobs, etc...etc...the list goes on.
As someone who is a tenant in a social house, who can well afford to buy or rent their own property, are they not entitled to consider these factors if they are actually going to spend their own income on a property? Do they not have a say? Or are you proposing that a State agency either evicts them onto the street, effectively compelling them to buy somewhere that is not suitable? And considering they already do pay a rent that is tied to income under the Differential Rent Scheme.

In the meantime the house they vacated is now occupied by a family in need. This family, like the family before them now have an opportunity for a stable platform, to educate and train, to pursue a better living for themselves and one day, just like the previous occupants, earn enough to buy or rent themselves. Except, they know how precarious the private rental market is, they know how hard it is to find somewhere more suitable to buy - so they renege on social justice. They only work intermittently, earning more than the minimum wage but never enough to ever be considered as "well able to buy or rent" their own private dwelling. Thus ensuring perpetuity in the property, not contributing in any meaningful way to the cost of providing the social house.
Back into the house where our previous tenants have been compelled to buy, who do go out and earn and pay taxes and educate themselves and pursue better careers, one of the earners has lost their job, the company he worked for went bust. They are now behind in arrears, under severe pressure (like thousands others)
They are now wondering to themselves - why did they ever bother to try lift themselves out of poverty and welfare dependence? Facing repossession of their home, or eviction if they chose to rent, they now join the list of 'more needy'.

This is just one example of a tiny amount of the complexities that will arise if people are compelled to leave their homes - we could spend the rest of the year talking about all the other obstacles the proposals to move people on would cause, tying the whole system up in knots.

Saying that they "should" leave for notions of social justice is fine. A bit like me saying Apple "should" just pay the €15bn tax for notions of social justice, but will it make a difference? Social justice can only ever be administered by the law. It is futile to except each and every individual to act in accordance to social justice at all times, each one of us acts in our own self-interest, or perceived self-interest, isnt that right?

 

[TheBigShort]

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.