Should we have a referendum on housing in Ireland?

[Purple]

Should the answer be housing assistance or should we consider
1. A living wage, minimum to cover food housing transport etc. Insist employers pay staff sufficient for them to live in the area where they work

I'd like to see a taxation and social welfare system that takes the cost to the individual of housing provision into account. If you are paying rent or a mortgage you could have a significantly lower net income (net of that housing cost) than your neighbour who has a much lower income but owns their home.

I'm also of the opinion that there's no way of avoiding the fact that if we want to solve the housing crisis we need significantly higher property taxes. It would be interesting to see how that issue would be addressed in any constitutional amendment.

 

[joe sod]

I think its ironic that those types of houses you describe litter our country and were built by government/local authorities money in the 50s, 60s 70s and 80s and huge populations of people continue to live in them , but most are now privately owned.

We could build these homes when the economy was in its infancy and not very big, now we have an economy and general wealth and we cant get anything built.

And a referendum will not build more houses.

That's very true but that time the local authorities actually did employ construction guys themselves on their own payrolls to build those houses.

Working for the state back then was no cake walk either especially in those manual jobs ,you really had to work hard which meant they managed to build many houses.
There was no health and safety culture and associated bureaucracy therefore the cost of building houses was much less. There was also no compo culture. Therefore If you hurt or injured yourself on a building site you got little compensation.

The houses they built were very basic, there was no multinational sector or WFH culture therefore you had no choice but to work in those sort of construction jobs or emigrate. The state back then was basically employing cheap labour that's how they could build those houses back then

 

[jfrank]

The Housing Commission is having a consultation on this issue.

Public consultation on a Referendum on Housing in Ireland

www.gov.ie

My initial response is that we should not.

It will just lead to massive claims against the state when it's unable to provide everyone in the country with a house with 3 beds and gardens back and front in the area where they wish to live.

Brendan

Fully 150% agree. As it is everyone has the right to a property already, its just that they have to pay for it. Putting open-ended unaffordable commitments into the constitution is the Road to Perdition! Besides, with all the left-wing pols objecting all over the place it is an impossible position for any government to stand over such a constitutional provision

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

People keep making that point but they ignore the massive cost to the rest of the economy and society for that house building up to the 70's. They also ignore the housing shortages that we faced at the time, the impact those building programs had on our health and education budgets and the fact that this country got poorer in real terms every year for the first 40 years after independence. It was only when we shifted our expenditure away from built capital and into human capital that we became rich.
We didn't have a housing shortage in the 80's because our population wasn't growing by much. It wasn't growing because 50,000-60,000 people were leaving the country each year. We could certainly build more houses like we did in the 50's and 60's but at what cost and do we want to build more vast council estates?

I agree with the economic consequences however people needed housing then as they do now , doubt if we'd build huge estates away from services like we did then, but as you pointed out we now are rich, vastly more educated and surely there's a way of doing what's needed rather outsourcing the issue to 3rd parties.

While I'm against any type of Referndum I still think that the demand for affordable /social housing should dictate that something needs doing to solve it. And its not " free housing" I'm advocating.

We do have a lot of people working and they can't afford housing, and while many will say build more we tried that from 1990 to 2006 and nothing changed.

Going to work should allow someone to afford a home, the ERSI has another essay published today saying something like if people don't have a home by 35 they are probably not going to have one ever.....is that what we want for our children and grandchildren?

 

[Leo]

Some costings of past referenda here, the divorce referendum (albeit in 1996) seems like such a bargain now at £3.5M.

 

[Jim2007]

The Housing Commission is having a consultation on this issue.

Public consultation on a Referendum on Housing in Ireland

www.gov.ie

My initial response is that we should not.

It will just lead to massive claims against the state when it's unable to provide everyone in the country with a house with 3 beds and gardens back and front in the area where they wish to live.

Brendan

You already have a right to housing under the treaty of Lisbon!

A34.3 :In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

It should not go any further than this.

 

[DazedInPontoon]

If you eventually make enough people poor and disenfranchised you're going to get revolution of one form or another. It was Brexit, it was Trump, and I guess you're supposing it'll be Sinn Fein here.

 

[Purple]

If you eventually make enough people poor and disenfranchised you're going to get revolution of one form or another. It was Brexit, it was Trump, and I guess you're supposing it'll be Sinn Fein here.

In the last decade we've reduced poverty and inequality in this country. In the last 5 decades we have become one of the richest and most equal countries in the world. That's been done by attracting foreign capital and placing very high marginal rates of tax on middle to high earners while placing very low rates of tax on low earners while creating an extremely generous welfare system. We are one of the most socialist countries in the world. The Shinners aren't socialist, they are just populist. In that they are like Trump and Boris; they have no morals or ethics and will do whatever they need to and say whatever they need to in order to gain power.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

In the last decade we've reduced poverty and inequality in this country. In the last 5 decades we have become on of the richest and most equal countries in the world. That's been done by attracting foreign capital and placing very high marginal rates of tax on middle to high earners while placing very low rates of tax on low earners while creating an extremely generous welfare system. We are one of the most socialist countries in the world. The Shinners aren't socialist, they are just populist. In that they are like Trump and Boris; they have no morals or ethics and will do whatever they need to and say whatever they need to in order to gain power.

Fully agree, but now that we have all this surely its time to solve the issues such as housing in a proper way.

Yesterday the Revenue said that there are over 50,000 habitable houses that could attract a " vacancy tax" of course the definition of both habitable and vacant will have to be teased out.

My research indicates that there are 110,000 vacant houses and the CSO says 160,000.

Taking Revenues figure as it seems to be the most reliable taxing these properties isn't going to solve the issue, but its populist, if however those owners were incentivised to invest and either sell or rent those properties would take a lot of pressure out of the market almost immediately.

If the other say 60,000 houses that aren't deemed habitable were also renovated and either sold or rented we would probably see general rents reducing and more people buying houses.

50,000 per house would cost €5.5bn we already spend 1bn on HAP etc, with billions more been/already given to " charities " and Housing Associations.

The housing budget is 4bn a year in two years we could have 110,000 units available but tax seems to be the only gig in town.

If a referendum was to say something like " Government and its agencies would be permitted to purchase vacant properties in order to house those in need of housing it should be allowed to occur, with the properties remaining in the ownership of the state" that might work?

I've been saying that the housing issue isn't a crisis and there are plenty of ways to solve this but it takes political will and societal change, neither of which is plentiful.

 

[Purple]

Fully agree, but now that we have all this surely its time to solve the issues such as housing in a proper way.

Most of the developed world is struggling with this issue. It's been caused by over a decade of QE.

Yesterday the Revenue said that there are over 50,000 habitable houses that could attract a " vacancy tax" of course the definition of both habitable and vacant will have to be teased out.

My research indicates that there are 110,000 vacant houses and the CSO says 160,000.

Taking Revenues figure as it seems to be the most reliable taxing these properties isn't going to solve the issue, but its populist, if however those owners were incentivised to invest and either sell or rent those properties would take a lot of pressure out of the market almost immediately.

If the other say 60,000 houses that aren't deemed habitable were also renovated and either sold or rented we would probably see general rents reducing and more people buying houses.

50,000 per house would cost €5.5bn we already spend 1bn on HAP etc, with billions more been/already given to " charities " and Housing Associations.

The housing budget is 4bn a year in two years we could have 110,000 units available but tax seems to be the only gig in town.

If a referendum was to say something like " Government and its agencies would be permitted to purchase vacant properties in order to house those in need of housing it should be allowed to occur, with the properties remaining in the ownership of the state" that might work?

I've been saying that the housing issue isn't a crisis and there are plenty of ways to solve this but it takes political will and societal change, neither of which is plentiful.

Refurbishing propertied is labour intensive and labour is where we have our biggest shortage though I do like to idea of bringing properties back into the housing stock that don't need too much work.

I property tax on all housing, including the PPR is absolutely necessary. Match that with tax breaks to get dilapidated building back onto the market and we'd probably get some real movement.

The problem is that everyone wants the problem solved as long as they don't have to help pay for it.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Most of the developed world is struggling with this issue. It's been caused by over a decade of QE.

Refurbishing propertied is labour intensive and labour is where we have our biggest shortage though I do like to idea of bringing properties back into the housing stock that don't need too much work.

I property tax on all housing, including the PPR is absolutely necessary. Match that with tax breaks to get dilapidated building back onto the market and we'd probably get some real movement.

The problem is that everyone wants the problem solved as long as they don't have to help pay for it.

Absolutely but the present system is a mess and "tinkering " with tax, isn't going to solve it.

Labour can be found if the project is run properly, Europe for example has carpenters, sparks, plasterers etc, and my experience of using these people has been a much more pleasant experience that some locals.

Obviously my view hasn't been teased out with legalities and a host of other hidden constraints that no doubt exist or will be invented.

 

[lff12]

I don't think it would make any great difference, so no.

 

[bipped]

Yesterday the Revenue said that there are over 50,000 habitable houses that could attract a " vacancy tax" of course the definition of both habitable and vacant will have to be teased out.

Does that figure include homes of older people in nursing homes / fair deal?

If it does, would that mean those homes would be liable to a vacancy tax as they are considered habitable?

 

[bipped]

We could certainly build more houses like we did in the 50's and 60's but at what cost and do we want to build more vast council estates?

What's wrong with council built estates anyway? Maybe we should build them again. It seems like a better solution than the situation we are in now. Council houses are well built solid properties that were bought by many of the occupants and are also snapped up now by private buyers because they are usually well located close to transport, education and other amenities. I don't understand why people think they are 'less desirable' or that they are dumps full of anti-social behaviour and other social problems. Hundreds of thousands of our citizens grew up, were well educated, had jobs and careers, and raised families while living in council homes all over the country without any issues. As has been said numerous times on various forums, the vast vast majority of people living in council homes are employed and pay rent. If there are problems with ASB, that should be managed better by the gardai, and the same goes for rent arrears - the local councils should control their rent-rolls, or pass the collection to another state agency who are experienced with money management. IMO, it's not the estate or the majority of the residents that's the problem, the finger should be pointed elsewhere.

It's ludicrous to think that billions of tax-payers money has been handed over to private interests because some politicians pushed the idea that providing homes for people who could not afford to buy privately was segregation, and that private estates were preferable. It's a snobby stuck-up attitude and an insult to people living in council developments. Somehow, if they are living in a private development, that's better for them and their children as they would be integrated and this will show them how to live and behave 'properly'. Disgraceful attitude that is still being promoted. Not sure how a referendum on the right to housing will change things.

 

[Purple]

I don't understand why people think they are 'less desirable' or that they are dumps full of anti-social behaviour and other social problems.

Such problems are far more common in them. My mother was born in a council house. My father became homeless as a child and had to go to England to live with relatives. I was born in a “socially deprived area”. I work in one of the roughest areas of Dublin. In my experience the problem is a significant minority of the people who live there. That’s why they are regarded as dumps, it’s because of those people who turn them into dumps.

Hundreds of thousands of our citizens grew up, were well educated, had jobs and careers, and raised families while living in council homes all over the country without any issues.

True, but they are far more likely to have to deal with the lowlifes who poison their own communities.

As has been said numerous times on various forums, the vast vast majority of people living in council homes are employed and pay rent.

Massively subsided rent and far more likely to receive welfare, even if they do work.

If there are problems with ASB, that should be managed better by the gardai, and the same goes for rent arrears - the local councils should control their rent-rolls, or pass the collection to another state agency who are experienced with money management. IMO, it's not the estate or the majority of the residents that's the problem, the finger should be pointed elsewhere.

The “I’m not a rat” mentality is very common in the council estates I know. It is impossible for the Police to police without the cooperation of the public.

It's ludicrous to think that billions of tax-payers money has been handed over to private interests because some politicians pushed the idea that providing homes for people who could not afford to buy privately was segregation, and that private estates were preferable.

Providing those homes directly would cost more and a significant proportion of those council tenants just refuse to pay their rent, even though they can afford to do so.

It's a snobby stuck-up attitude and an insult to people living in council developments. Somehow, if they are living in a private development, that's better for them and their children as they would be integrated and this will show them how to live and behave 'properly'.

No, that’s the truth. Children of the rural poor are far more likely to go to college than children of the urban poor because they see no better growing up.

Disgraceful attitude that is still being promoted. Not sure how a referendum on the right to housing will change things.

No laws with change the “Working class pride” attitude of “my parents had nothing and lived off other people, I have nothing and live off other people and my children will have nothing and live off other people and I’m proud of that.”
Oh, and anyone who derives most of their income from their labour is working class. That means plumbers, judges, Architects, doctors, accountants, politicians etc are working class but people who get most of their income from social transfers (handouts) aren’t. In other words most people who consider themselves to be working class aren’t.

 

[lff12]

Does that figure include homes of older people in nursing homes / fair deal?

If it does, would that mean those homes would be liable to a vacancy tax as they are considered habitable?

Yes, and surprised none of the media discussions take this into account. We have a few cases locally of elderly who are gone into homes, & their houses are empty. Their families all lives somewhere else & you can't really rent out in this circumstances as you don't know how long it will last.

For example, a good friend put his father into a home just a few months ago, and the father died at the weekend.

 

[Paul O Mahoney]

Yes, and surprised none of the media discussions take this into account. We have a few cases locally of elderly who are gone into homes, & their houses are empty. Their families all lives somewhere else & you can't really rent out in this circumstances as you don't know how long it will last.

For example, a good friend put his father into a home just a few months ago, and the father died at the weekend.

I doubt the Revenue figure includes them as they spent months checking the background, according to Donoghue, the other 2 figures I would say probably yes.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

They advertised the referendum in yesterday's Irish Times so they do want people to respond.

There is a danger that the people who want a referendum will all make submissions and then the Council can claim "90% of people want a referendum".

It's not hard to make a submission. Just email your thoughts to [email protected]

 

[Mocame]

Programme for Government commits the government to having a referendum on housing and the Housing Commission is responsible for coming up with a wording for the proposed constitutional amendment. So there will definitely be a referendum, unless the government falls.