Conor Skehan "The homeless industry makes me so angry"

Super article by Conor Skehan, the former Chair of the Housing Agency


His father was a developer and lost everything including the family home.

Recently, he separated from his wife, and rented a house which was repossessed from the landlord by the bank.

... the homeless industry makes me so angry that I have to button down even more, so that I can function professionally. The threat, risk and finally the reality of homelessness have dogged me and my family for most of my adult life.

I’m told I can appear to lack empathy because I always try to examine housing on the basis of evidence, facts and the forces that drive markets — refusing to be drawn into the human tragedies that are often involved.

In reality it’s a desperate attempt to remain calm and objective in the face of waves of harm being caused by those who use the powerful emotions about housing to further their own agenda.

I liked this paragraph:

They often have to cope with a blizzard of the opinionated as well as the unelected — do-gooders who see themselves as some type of saviours. Most people in social housing just want to live in a house like everyone else. They certainly do not want or need to be saved.

Click to expand...

So the key sentence appears to be: "When I say [that] homelessness is normal, I never doubt its deep trauma."

I'm not clear about what his conclusion: "Solutions will only come from addressing the causes with cold, hard facts, however harsh that may sometimes sound." means in terms of the daily national political and media discourse.

If it means that he's utterly fed up of the interminable succession of sad cases that our politicians and media appear to exult in telling us about (best described as "homelessness porn"?) then I'm right with him. But the reality is that hard facts don't sell many newspapers, and being hard-hearted doesn't win many votes.

Shirazman said:

So the key sentence appears to be: "When I say [that] homelessness is normal, I never doubt its deep trauma."

I'm not clear about what his conclusion: "Solutions will only come from addressing the causes with cold, hard facts, however harsh that may sometimes sound." means in terms of the daily national political and media discourse.

If it means that he's utterly fed up of the interminable succession of sad cases that our politicians and media appear to exult in telling us about (best described as "homelessness porn"?) then I'm right with him. But the reality is that hard facts don't sell many newspapers, and being hard-hearted doesn't win many votes.

Click to expand...

The hard facts include the reality that housing being unaffordable means we need to reduce the value of houses. That means significantly higher property tax. We also need to significantly reduce the cost of building housing. That means reducing the State's cut of the price of a house, reducing land values by taxing them as well, and speeding up the planning process significantly. None of that is easy and none of it is painless.

Purple said:

The hard facts include the reality that housing being unaffordable means we need to reduce the value of houses. That means significantly higher property tax. We also need to significantly reduce the cost of building housing. That means reducing the State's cut of the price of a house, reducing land values by taxing them as well, and speeding up the planning process significantly. None of that is easy and none of it is painless.

Click to expand...

Building social housing is the only solution. Modular homes on state land. Include payments from tenants to pay property taxes. Currently there are 5,200 people who have been granted the right to live in Ireland. They cannot leave the Direct Provision system. The hard reality is that those on social welfare, those who are progressing through direct provision, refugees and others cannot currently afford to live in homes that are bought with mortgages. As time goes on perhaps they will.

Purple said:

The hard facts include the reality that housing being unaffordable means we need to reduce the value of houses. That means significantly higher property tax. We also need to significantly reduce the cost of building housing. That means reducing the State's cut of the price of a house, reducing land values by taxing them as well, and speeding up the planning process significantly. None of that is easy and none of it is painless.

Click to expand...

All of which may or may not be true. But none of which was mentioned in the article that this thread is about.

The article is behind a paywall. We are only getting what Brendan has quoted.

Silversurfer said:

Building social housing is the only solution. Modular homes on state land. Include payments from tenants to pay property taxes. Currently there are 5,200 people who have been granted the right to live in Ireland. They cannot leave the Direct Provision system. The hard reality is that those on social welfare, those who are progressing through direct provision, refugees and others cannot currently afford to live in homes that are bought with mortgages. As time goes on perhaps they will.

Click to expand...

Building more homes is the only solution. The question is how that is best done. At the moment the construction market is distorted so many potential private purchasers cannot afford to buy. That distortion has been caused by low interest rates and money printing by Central Banks at the behest of their respective governments. The solution is to fix the market so that housing can be produced at a cost which enables those people to buy. That frees up social housing for those on low incomes who would normally need it.
At the moment the actions of the State is pricing people out of the market, further increasing the need for Public Housing. (When did Public Housing become Social Housing?)

Democracy requires a property owning middle class. More people relying on the State for housing is a bad thing and undermines the values of a free society and the ideals of equality of opportunity and self determination.

Sophrosyne said:

The article is behind a paywall. We are only getting what Brendan has quoted.

Click to expand...

Understood, thanks.

As I have a sub, I could read the entire article. And, frankly, it left me rather puzzled as to what its objective was. Hence my earlier comment.

Shirazman said:

All of which may or may not be true. But none of which was mentioned in the article that this thread is about.

Click to expand...

I can only comment on what Brendan quoted. Skehan says that "I always try to examine housing on the basis of evidence, facts and the forces that drive markets"
That's what I'm trying to do. The Joe Duffy/ RTE human interest heart-string tugging tripe adds nothing to any discussion about solutions and root causes.
Articles like this actually discusses causes and cures.

Thanks for the link; it's always informative to see the wider European context.

Shirazman said:

Understood, thanks.

As I have a sub, I could read the entire article. And, frankly, it left me rather puzzled as to what its objective was. Hence my earlier comment.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

If he hasn't made his objective is clear, then there is little merit to the article other than to bemoan the moaners.

Shirazman said:

Thanks for the link; it's always informative to see the wider European context.

Click to expand...

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/file:///C%3A/Users/wag/Downloads/wpiea2023001-print-pdf.pdf (This Paper) from the IMF discussed the impact of interest rates and monetary easing on house prices. Lower interest rates drive price increases. QE also drives price increases. That increase means that the wealth gap between existing property owners and first times buyers increases. As most first time buyers are a minority of the market increases in income and loan to income borrowing rules are not the main drivers of price.
Since construction takes years or decades to get up to speed the supply side of the market can't keep pace with the demand side. Even if it could in aa low interest rate environment institutional money will always keep prices high.

There's no easy fix and there's certainly no local Irish fix. This is a global problem and populists and opportunists who say that it's the fault of the Irish government are either wilfully delusional, utterly stupid and just plain lying.

Sophrosyne said:

Agreed.

If he hasn't made his objective is clear, then there is little merit to the article other than to bemoan the moaners.

Click to expand...

That in itself is a worthwhile endeavour.

I read the article to try and find out what was meant by"homeless industry". Was none the wiser at the end of it.

Shirazman said:

If it means that he's utterly fed up of the interminable succession of sad cases that our politicians and media appear to exult in telling us about (best described as "homelessness porn"?) then I'm right with him.

Click to expand...

I'd agree. "Homelessness porn" as you say, would be much clearer if that's what was meant.

"Homeless industry" muddies the waters. It implies that homeless themselves are involved in some kind of racket (I hadn't heard the term before, but that was my immediate thought).

Purple said:

Since construction takes years or decades to get up to speed the supply side of the market can't keep pace with the demand side. Even if it could in a low interest rate environment institutional money will always keep prices high.

Click to expand...

Yet from 1997 onwards throughout all or most of the last boom, the prices of new builds typically lagged those of comparable secondhand properties. Basically if you wanted to avoid the hassle, work and uncertainties inherent in fitting out a new build, you bought secondhand, but at a premium.

And while high secondhand prices undoubtedly influenced asking prices for new builds, the latter were constrained by both competition and affordability amongst mortgagee buyers.

The recent spikes in building materials costs and the earlier cost increases arising from higher building regulation specs have smashed that model.

I know of a couple who recently purchased a home for considerably less than €250k as they calculated it would cost them north of €450k to build an equivalent home.

Purple said:

There's no easy fix and there's certainly no local Irish fix. This is a global problem and populists and opportunists who say that it's the fault of the Irish government are either wilfully delusional, utterly stupid and just plain lying.

Click to expand...

The Irish government may not be totally to blame but they're certainly the chief culprit.

Nobody for example forced them to ban bedsits. Nor did anyone force them to essentially ban new housing investment at a time when building and restoration costs were on the floor. Nobody forced them to maintain today a real and spiralling CGT rate of at least 43% once inflation is added. And nobody forced them to contrive to make it more attractive for prospective landlords to instead leave their properties empty.

The reversal of these mistakes won't cure every ill but would greatly alleviate the problem.

Shirazman said:

All of which may or may not be true. But none of which was mentioned in the article that this

Click to expand...

Purple said:

Building more homes is the only solution. The question is how that is best done. At the moment the construction market is distorted so many potential private purchasers cannot afford to buy. That distortion has been caused by low interest rates and money printing by Central Banks at the behest of their respective governments. The solution is to fix the market so that housing can be produced at a cost which enables those people to buy. That frees up social housing for those on low incomes who would normally need it.
At the moment the actions of the State is pricing people out of the market, further increasing the need for Public Housing. (When did Public Housing become Social Housing?)

Democracy requires a property owning middle class. More people relying on the State for housing is a bad thing and undermines the values of a free society and the ideals of equality of opportunity and self determination.

Click to expand...

Yes I do agree that the distinction between Public and Social housing has been blurred. Public housing is for poor people. Whatever form that takes. Social housing is for those who do not earn enough or are too old to get a mortgage. Again depending on their circumstances. Cost rental is a good option for those who earn enough. Middle class? I have no idea what wage/assets that would include currently. The article does lean towards poverty and the lack of options available to the authors family.

wondering said:

I read the article to try and find out what was meant by"homeless industry".

Click to expand...

What he means is that:

1. An the supply side are several NGOs with a hotline to various RTÉ producers;
2. On the demand side the media loves stories of woe.

There are >2m households in Ireland. There are always going to be lots of individual sad cases, but they may not be a good basis for making policy on.

wondering said:

"Homeless industry" muddies the waters. It implies that homeless themselves are involved in some kind of racket

Click to expand...

The term is widely used and connotes the large number of people making a living from dealing with and purportedly trying to fix the homelessness crisis, and who would be out of work if they succeeded in that.

wondering said:

"Homeless industry" muddies the waters. It implies that homeless themselves are involved in some kind of racket (I hadn't heard the term before, but that was my immediate thought).

Click to expand...

I didn't read the article but from quotes interpreted the industry as the people highlighting it, threshold etc. and possibly even some politicians