At present people can qualify for Council housing if they are unemployed or under the income limit, which varies according to area and family size, but could allowing people of all incomes onto the Council housing list contribute to fixing the current housing crisis in Ireland? This would certainly lead to an explosion on the local housing lists, but it could lead to the creation of s sustainable public housing system over the medium to long term.
Under the current system it could take over a century before the cost of building a Council house is recuperated by the local authority. This is on the assumption that a €300,000 house is let to an unemployed family paying €40 p/w rent to the local authority, and doesn't include the large sums spent by the local authority on decorating, maintaining, and upgrading the house over the course of 100 years. What this means is that whenever a local authority builds a house, it will not see a return on it until a century later, if at all. Under the new rebuilding Ireland scheme, LA tenants can buy back their houses at a knock down price, placing the financial burden of the local authority, and takes houses out of the public system and into the private market.
The rent for LA houses is calculated on a family's or individual's income, which prevents local authorities from ever seeing a return on their investment, and costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money each year. But if the income limits were removed as a barrier to accessing LA housing, it could see people with higher incomes entering public housing, thus speeding up the amount of time it takes for the taxpayer to see a return on their investment.
While it would be unlikely that millionaires would choose to rent a LA home, if it did happen it would significantly improve the finances of local authorities. Even taking a family on €120,000 per year as a hypothetical circumstance, and let's say that they paid €500 p/w for the previously mentioned €300,000 Council house, then the taxpayer would see a return on the building of the house in less than 12 years. This money could then be re-invested in public housing and facilitate the building of more houses. In this circumstance 8 houses would be paid for by a wealthy family, by the time 1 house would be paid for by an unemployed family.
Both families would have equal rights as LA tenants, and incomes shouldn't come into the equation when it comes to how LA houses are allocated. It could also end the segregation of poor people from people on higher incomes. At present in Limerick City, people can only choose from a selection of socially disadvantaged areas for LA houses, because these are the only places where Councils are building public housing. Technically there are affluent areas on the list, but people are asked to give a reason as to why they want to move there from a disadvantaged area, and it is quite rare for houses to be allocated in these areas.
Locals usually oppose LA housing being built in an area because they support social segregation, they don't want poor people coming in wrecking their area and driving down house prices, this also includes working class areas where opposition can be fierce. Removing the income limit for access to LA housing would prevent people from opposing LA housing to keep social segregation in place, as people wouldn't know which social class will be living in the houses.
We don't know how many people able to afford private rental or private purchase would choose to rent their homes from the local authority, but it could be substantial. We are currently in a property boom, which will shortly be followed by a bust. We could see a repeat of the late 2000s when people were thrown out of their homes by the banks, prices hitting rock bottom, and families left homeless. I know that I would choose to pay my fair share of rent to a LA which they can invest in my local area, than to risk my financial stability and my family's home, by relying on some rich people in Wall Street to ensure that my best interest is looked after. After all, global financial institutions and Wall St investors don't exactly have a great track record for caring about ordinary people, do they?
Under the current system it could take over a century before the cost of building a Council house is recuperated by the local authority. This is on the assumption that a €300,000 house is let to an unemployed family paying €40 p/w rent to the local authority, and doesn't include the large sums spent by the local authority on decorating, maintaining, and upgrading the house over the course of 100 years. What this means is that whenever a local authority builds a house, it will not see a return on it until a century later, if at all. Under the new rebuilding Ireland scheme, LA tenants can buy back their houses at a knock down price, placing the financial burden of the local authority, and takes houses out of the public system and into the private market.
The rent for LA houses is calculated on a family's or individual's income, which prevents local authorities from ever seeing a return on their investment, and costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money each year. But if the income limits were removed as a barrier to accessing LA housing, it could see people with higher incomes entering public housing, thus speeding up the amount of time it takes for the taxpayer to see a return on their investment.
While it would be unlikely that millionaires would choose to rent a LA home, if it did happen it would significantly improve the finances of local authorities. Even taking a family on €120,000 per year as a hypothetical circumstance, and let's say that they paid €500 p/w for the previously mentioned €300,000 Council house, then the taxpayer would see a return on the building of the house in less than 12 years. This money could then be re-invested in public housing and facilitate the building of more houses. In this circumstance 8 houses would be paid for by a wealthy family, by the time 1 house would be paid for by an unemployed family.
Both families would have equal rights as LA tenants, and incomes shouldn't come into the equation when it comes to how LA houses are allocated. It could also end the segregation of poor people from people on higher incomes. At present in Limerick City, people can only choose from a selection of socially disadvantaged areas for LA houses, because these are the only places where Councils are building public housing. Technically there are affluent areas on the list, but people are asked to give a reason as to why they want to move there from a disadvantaged area, and it is quite rare for houses to be allocated in these areas.
Locals usually oppose LA housing being built in an area because they support social segregation, they don't want poor people coming in wrecking their area and driving down house prices, this also includes working class areas where opposition can be fierce. Removing the income limit for access to LA housing would prevent people from opposing LA housing to keep social segregation in place, as people wouldn't know which social class will be living in the houses.
We don't know how many people able to afford private rental or private purchase would choose to rent their homes from the local authority, but it could be substantial. We are currently in a property boom, which will shortly be followed by a bust. We could see a repeat of the late 2000s when people were thrown out of their homes by the banks, prices hitting rock bottom, and families left homeless. I know that I would choose to pay my fair share of rent to a LA which they can invest in my local area, than to risk my financial stability and my family's home, by relying on some rich people in Wall Street to ensure that my best interest is looked after. After all, global financial institutions and Wall St investors don't exactly have a great track record for caring about ordinary people, do they?
Comments
Post a Comment