Another good letter today
Very well stated. The insolvent are only a small proportion of households and expecting everybody else to pay more to keep them in houses they can’t afford is just plain greedy.
Its great to see this side of the debate getting some attention.
The letter is well written and avoids the use of words like repossession which people would react to like water into acid. Hopefully we see more of this side of the debate in future.
Yea what about them apples… 2007 we wondered in vain
So the Main Stream Media are about 6 years out of whack if you set you watches by PIN time!
Normal service resumed at the Irish Times
Usual where’s my Nama guff.
This whinging capitalist shite tends to grate after a while…
“In writing about the moral hazard of some potential resolutions one could equally highlight a point in our history when the residents of council estates were given the opportunity to purchase their homes at prices substantially below market levels, effectively being subsidised by the taxpayer.”
There’s a very easy checkmate response here. I’ll let someone else take it from me if they want (I prefer my anonymity )
I think Geoff Scargill inadvertently makes an excellent suggestion which should suit both sides of the argument. Those who can no longer afford their current home should be afforded the opportunity to buy a house in a council estate.
Faithfully yours, etc.
We have to recognise that in the midst of celtic tiger property hysteria some people saved their money not driven by greed or stupidity and certainly not out of a desire to provide long term housing solutions for other families
The prudent will soon realise that it is much more prudent to take on large debts and then stop paying the debts back!
It might actually be a good idea. Off the top of my head…
The State/NAMA appropriates much of the vacant housing stock in the interest of the “common good”.
The (state owned) banks then begin to repossess the houses of people who are no longer able to afford to pay their mortgages.
A scheme is put in place that such people can avoid bankruptcy/bad credit if they sign up to rent one of the (now State owned) vacant properties for a period of years equivalent to the standard bankruptcy period. If they stay in the State/NAMA appropriated property for that length of time, and have remained up to date on their rental payments, they are then offered the option of buying the property (presumably at a much more affordable price than their original mortgage would have been). Maybe the monies paid over during the rental period could, if they stay in the property, then be knocked off the principle as a gesture of goodwill (we’re all in this together etc) or simply as a means of providing an incentive to stay the distance during said rental period.
Hey presto, everyones a winner
Letter sent to Irish Times using a cut/paste of a few of the above. Hope that’s okay. Here’s a copy –
I have a question I’d like to put to Geoff Scargill who queries a lack of compassion in his response to a renter’s legitmate concerns in your letters page (25/2/13).
Where is the compassion for the people who did everything right and are now trying to ‘provide a long-term housing solution for themselves and their families’? The ones who are caught in a rental trap due to the refusal to free up property that others aren’t paying for?
Where is the compassion for those who will be on the wrong end of public sector cuts forced on us due to the small number of mortgage holders who continue to live beyong their means?
Mr. Scargill inadvertently makes an excellent suggestion which should suit both sides of the argument. Those who can no longer afford their current home should be afforded the opportunity to buy a house in a council estate.
link from OP does not work for me today. Here is another link to original article.
irishtimes.com/newspaper/let … 76727.html
Above letter printed in full today - guess that’s your anonymity gone but fair play.
Decent reply from original letter writer also printed today…
Sir, – “We have to recognise that in the midst of Celtic tiger property hysteria most buyers acted not of out greed or stupidity, but out of a desire to provide a long-term housing solution for themselves and their families” writes Geoff Scargill (February 26th) in reply to my earlier letter.
We also need to recognise the all-too-silent majority of taxpayers, who put the long-term financial security of their family ahead of equity release for that new jeep, the premium house or the leveraged property portfolio. When one tries to have a rational debate on housing (pre or post bubble) one is generally met with a wall of emotion or debate driven by delusions of enlightenment.
Debt forgiveness requires consequences. This is a matter of equity for those who sat out the bubble in council accommodation, emigrated or bought/rented within their means (possibly at the expense of a two-hour commute), are now told their path to better housing is blocked.
Not only is it blocked but prudent taxpayers, having bailed out the banks, are now paying to keep others in a standard of lifestyle they themselves cannot afford.
I am a compassionate man. I have supported efforts to allow time for people to get their affairs in order – five years now and running. However, enough – the needs of the many are being held back by an emotive debate on continued forbearance for the reckless or unfortunate few. – Yours, etc,
well done SamG/David
but I reckon you can expect to see a letter in response which will focus on 1 line of yours
‘Where is the compassion for those who will be on the wrong end of public sector cuts forced on us due to the small number of mortgage holders who continue to live beyond their means?’
You’ll be grilled over trying to ‘blame’ public sector cuts on people who are’nt paying their mortgages, at the expense of the substantive point you were trying to make…wait and see
Could someone paste in the text of Geoff Scargill’s letter, as I can’t find it on the Time site?
Good letter Sam
Great letter, well done.