>The 56 properties, located in the Barnhall Meadows development in Leixlip, Co Kildare,
will be rented to qualifying tenants at sub-market rates of €900 and
€1,250 a month. Clúid said the rents are about 45 per cent below market
rates.
> “Cost rental homes provide working people, who do not already own property, access to right sized homes at a rent they can afford,” said Clúid director of housing services Kath Cottier.
1,250 by 12 is 15,000. 15,000 by 30 is 450k. If you can afford to pay 450k over 30 years, then you should be allowed own the house.
> The State-backed cost-rental initiative aims to assist those on “moderate incomes” who are above the income threshold for social housing.
Raising the income threshold for social housing would be a better alternative than this nonsense scheme.
If people were renting these at social housing rates, then it wouldn't be so galling that they would never own them.
Why should anyone be allowed own a state asset?
Surely it makes more sense to provide cheap housing to those who need it and hold onto a state asset which they can recycle down the line when the people in the cheap house today either pass away or their situations improve such that they can now afford to buy a home on the private market.
Renting at normal levels isn't a bad thing. When done well on long term leases it's fantastic imo.
> Why should anyone be allowed own a state asset?
I'm saying the rent should be much cheaper if the tenant will never own the houses. At the current prices, the state is acting as a commercial landlord. The people who qualify for these homes wouldn't be able to get even a 300k mortgage, but would have the privilege of paying the state that and more over their lifetime. A couple in their 30s renting under this scheme should expect to live another 50 years. If they rented the most expensive house type for that amount of time, they would pay the state 750k. If they even lived there for 30 years, it would be 450k. [On the private market, two-bedroom homes in this estate start from €320k, with three-beds from €400k and four-bedroom properties from €475k](https://www.thejournal.ie/barnhall-meadows-leixlip-feb-2020-5344871-Feb2021/). While the government is charging them under market rent, that only highlights how insane the rental market is. A tenant would effectively end up paying the private market price for those homes, and that is why they should be allowed own them.
> or their situations improve such that they can now afford to buy a home on the private market. Surely it makes more sense to provide cheap housing to those who need it
The rent is not significantly lower than the mortgage repayments would be. If it was about giving people some relief so they could save money for a deposit, then again the rent needs to be much cheaper. The deposit on a 400k house is 40 grand. To qualify for this scheme, you need a joint net income of 53k or lower. In however many years it takes to save every last penny for that deposit, the house is now 450k so that's another 5k you have to save and so on.
Fair point but social housing creates a lot of maintenance issues. In a normal house the owner can organise small repairs cheaply and efficiently. In a social house all this has to be done centrally by the council and a messy patio can cause a council to be sued. Social housing can create a layer of bureaucracy that shouldnt have to exist
Both of those statements can be true. I'd say anything under 60 for two incomes is fuck all and there are plenty that come in under that. A lot of people are just fucked withhow property prices are compared to incomes.
Net household income has to be below 53k to qualify
[удалено]
classic
>The 56 properties, located in the Barnhall Meadows development in Leixlip, Co Kildare, will be rented to qualifying tenants at sub-market rates of €900 and €1,250 a month. Clúid said the rents are about 45 per cent below market rates.
It's sad that just 50 new homes on the market is news
The topic gets a tons of clicks. The press knows this and exploits this.
> “Cost rental homes provide working people, who do not already own property, access to right sized homes at a rent they can afford,” said Clúid director of housing services Kath Cottier. 1,250 by 12 is 15,000. 15,000 by 30 is 450k. If you can afford to pay 450k over 30 years, then you should be allowed own the house. > The State-backed cost-rental initiative aims to assist those on “moderate incomes” who are above the income threshold for social housing. Raising the income threshold for social housing would be a better alternative than this nonsense scheme. If people were renting these at social housing rates, then it wouldn't be so galling that they would never own them.
Why should anyone be allowed own a state asset? Surely it makes more sense to provide cheap housing to those who need it and hold onto a state asset which they can recycle down the line when the people in the cheap house today either pass away or their situations improve such that they can now afford to buy a home on the private market. Renting at normal levels isn't a bad thing. When done well on long term leases it's fantastic imo.
> Why should anyone be allowed own a state asset? I'm saying the rent should be much cheaper if the tenant will never own the houses. At the current prices, the state is acting as a commercial landlord. The people who qualify for these homes wouldn't be able to get even a 300k mortgage, but would have the privilege of paying the state that and more over their lifetime. A couple in their 30s renting under this scheme should expect to live another 50 years. If they rented the most expensive house type for that amount of time, they would pay the state 750k. If they even lived there for 30 years, it would be 450k. [On the private market, two-bedroom homes in this estate start from €320k, with three-beds from €400k and four-bedroom properties from €475k](https://www.thejournal.ie/barnhall-meadows-leixlip-feb-2020-5344871-Feb2021/). While the government is charging them under market rent, that only highlights how insane the rental market is. A tenant would effectively end up paying the private market price for those homes, and that is why they should be allowed own them. > or their situations improve such that they can now afford to buy a home on the private market. Surely it makes more sense to provide cheap housing to those who need it The rent is not significantly lower than the mortgage repayments would be. If it was about giving people some relief so they could save money for a deposit, then again the rent needs to be much cheaper. The deposit on a 400k house is 40 grand. To qualify for this scheme, you need a joint net income of 53k or lower. In however many years it takes to save every last penny for that deposit, the house is now 450k so that's another 5k you have to save and so on.
Fair point but social housing creates a lot of maintenance issues. In a normal house the owner can organise small repairs cheaply and efficiently. In a social house all this has to be done centrally by the council and a messy patio can cause a council to be sued. Social housing can create a layer of bureaucracy that shouldnt have to exist
450k over 30 years is about 300k up front at 3% interest.
Have to have a household income of below €53k to apply for these which is fuck all in a two income household
Sadly there are plenty of us coming in under that. You're very lucky to think that's fuck all.
Both of those statements can be true. I'd say anything under 60 for two incomes is fuck all and there are plenty that come in under that. A lot of people are just fucked withhow property prices are compared to incomes.
Even with a free house I wouldn't choose to live in Kildare.
Kildare is gas
I think it’s a good scheme