Social Housing

[Purple]

Has anyone seen any information on the relative cost of building social housing versus the state renting from the private sector?


If a build costs €200,000 net (VAT, Levied etc go back to the State whether it is publically or privately built) and the rent on a private home costs €1000 a month then there’s a 20 year pay back. Assuming upkeep and refurbishment costs etc are 25% of the rent cost then the return is 25 years.

Given that the landlord in the private home will be paying tax on that income the net cost goes down and the return is even longer.

We need social housing and the State has to pay for it but is what we are doing the most cost effective way of providing those houses? Could we be housing more people in similar accommodation with the same money?

 

[Firefly]

If a build costs €200,000 net (VAT, Levied etc go back to the State whether it is publically or privately built) and the rent on a private home costs €1000 a month then there’s a 20 year pay back. Assuming upkeep and refurbishment costs etc are 25% of the rent cost then the return is 25 years.

I would imagine the upkeep and refurbishment costs are higher for social housing in any case. Perhaps a public-private partnership model would be better suited where the private operator build and operate the houses and the state enter into long-term rental agreements?

 

[odyssey06]

I would imagine the upkeep and refurbishment costs are higher for social housing in any case.

I remember reading something from a few years back and Dublin City council cited this as a reason why they were reducing the social housing they provided. It wasn't the build cost, it was the cost and manpower involved in upkeep.

DCC clearly have the capital money when they are paying €2 million for 'emergency housing' for 13 units of glorified bedsits on one of the most expensive streets in the entire country.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/env...lontarf-properties-when-crisis-ends-1.3119302

 

[cremeegg]

Do I recollect correctly that DCC fail to collect more than 30% of all rent due on their properties.

 

[Leo]

Do I recollect correctly that DCC fail to collect more than 30% of all rent due on their properties.

23% in 2012 it seems, leading to arrears in excess of €20M. Full report.

 

[Delboy]

The LA's record at collecting mortgages from their customers is even worse

http://www.independent.ie/business/...il-mortgages-not-paid-in-a-year-34980636.html

New data from the Department of Housing shows that just over half of the 17,700 loans provided to borrowers are considered to be 'performing'. One in four is in arrears of more than 90 days. Almost 3,000 loans have not been serviced for more than a year.

I can only presume no safeguards or better procedures are being put in place by LA's to streamline rent/mortgage collections or to deal with arrears. And a major ramping up of social housing about to get underway.
I see a huge black hole ahead with no accountability....true Irish style

 

[cremeegg]

Great link Leo thanks.

I also found another nugget there.

The percentage yields from the main revenue collection accounts were as follows:

6.1 Rates

2012 2011
Rates 80% 80%
Housing Rents and Annuities 77% 79%
Housing Loans 68% 71%
Domestic Refuse 19% 58%
Commercial Water Charges 60% 57%

No wonder the rest of us have to pay 50% tax on the rent we collect

 

[The Horseman]

I am not so sure we are going to see a lot of new social housing owned directly by the State. We are seeing housing agencies like Cluid, Focus Ireland etc supplying properties for those on the housing list. The cost implications for the Local Authorities in maintenance, non payment of rent and the associated costs are prohibitive. The local authorities are actively trying to contract themselves out of the landlord/tenant relationship.

One of the main reasons the Rental Accommodation Scheme, the Rent Assistance scheme has been phased out and replaced by the Housing Assistance Payment is for the very reason of non payment of rent. What people fail to realize with HAP is the downside of a non paying tenant, it is the landlords problem not the local authorities.

 

[TheBigShort]

If a build costs €200,000 net (VAT, Levied etc go back to the State whether it is publically or privately built) and the rent on a private home costs €1000 a month then there’s a 20 year pay back

Could depend on market value of the property also. If build costs €200,000 and market value is €250,000, the State (Council) assets have increased by €50,000.

Paying a private landlord leaves the State vulnerable to extortionate rent increases courtesy of the 'free' market.

 

[Tebbit]

I can never understand this I read here on AAM that some huge amount was owing on LA rents! I can't see why this was ever tolerated. Money should be automatically taken frrom income then people would know they were not going to get away with it. If they knew this was going to happen they wouldn't stop paying.

 

[TheBigShort]

It may have something to do with the fact LA's house people who have lost jobs and have no incomes. You can't take blood out of a stone.
What would you do, evict them? Who would house these people then?, oh wait, LA's.

 

[cremeegg]

It may have something to do with the fact LA's house people who have lost jobs and have no incomes. You can't take blood out of a stone.
What would you do, evict them? Who would house these people then?, oh wait, LA's.

I don't think that this is the reason.

LA rents are assessed based on means. If a tenants loses their job, their rent is adjusted to reflect their income from social welfare.

 

[Purple]

I don't think that this is the reason.

LA rents are assessed based on means. If a tenants loses their job, their rent is adjusted to reflect their income from social welfare.

Now now, stop letting reality get in the way of a socialist agenda.

 

[Purple]

Could depend on market value of the property also. If build costs €200,000 and market value is €250,000, the State (Council) assets have increased by €50,000.

Paying a private landlord leaves the State vulnerable to extortionate rent increases courtesy of the 'free' market.

That can be overcome with long term contracts with large scale landlords. Large companies who specialise in the area could build and run the units.

 

[Firefly]

As a short-term measure, why not allow bedsits again for say a 3-5 year period?

 

[TheBigShort]

That can be overcome with long term contracts with large scale landlords. Large companies who specialise in the area could build and run the units.

Sounds appalling to me, but I accept you haven't actually provided much detail.
Images of an Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, Apple, Sky etc type landlord comes to mind. Where nobody actually owns anything anymore (save the giant landlord) and the citizenry, or consumer, or (most likely) peasantry, provide continuous stream of rental, or subscription based fee for the services provided.
Fine for the latest movie or album, but for a home? No thanks.
All somewhat apoplectic I admit, but perhaps you would care to expand your idea?

 

[TheBigShort]

As a short-term measure, why not allow bedsits again for say a 3-5 year period?

Because in a modern civilised society, with a system of governance and wealth creating enterprise, that - despite our failings - has brought about a minimum standard of living, we should resist all policies and ideas that support a return to lower standards, and in turn, less wealth and poor governance.

 

[odyssey06]

Because in a modern civilised society, with a system of governance and wealth creating enterprise, that - despite our failings - has brought about a minimum standard of living, we should resist all policies and ideas that support a return to lower standards, and in turn, less wealth and poor governance.

Are bedsits lower standards than B&Bs? Hotel rooms?
The glorified bedsits DCC are putting into former B&Bs?
Is a bedsit better than a shop doorway?
Were the people living in bedsits unhappy with them if they were clean and in convenient locations and they could afford the rent?
Banning bedsits without adequate supply to replace them was poor governance.

 

[TheBigShort]

Are bedsits lower standards than B&Bs? Hotel rooms?

Not necessarily

Is a bedsit better than a shop doorway?

Yes.

Were the people living in bedsits unhappy with them if they were clean and in convenient locations and they could afford the rent?

Subjective, why were they banned?

Banning bedsits without adequate supply to replace them was poor governance.

Agreed.

 

[Firefly]

Are bedsits lower standards than B&Bs? Hotel rooms?
The glorified bedsits DCC are putting into former B&Bs?
Is a bedsit better than a shop doorway?
Were the people living in bedsits unhappy with them if they were clean and in convenient locations and they could afford the rent?
Banning bedsits without adequate supply to replace them was poor governance.

Thanks for saving me the trouble. We would all love to live in a utopia where the best of everything is provided to all. Sadly, the reality is quite different. We have a homeless crisis and I think bedsits should be brought back in as a short term measure. As you said, a lot better than a doorway!