Modular Housing: A temporary solution doomed to be permanent?

It is essential to note that it has taken the deaths of multiple homeless people on the streets of Dublin for the government to even consider addressing this urgent issue. For years they have happily ignored it while implementing policies which served to increase the amount of people without a home to call their own. Thousands of people across the country live in hotels and bed and breakfasts as there is inadequate access to affordable housing. Hundreds more live in homeless shelters or on the streets. The solution to this issue is apparently "Modular housing".

"Modular housing" basically means glorified prefabs. Recently a number of examples were exhibited to the Dublin local authorities. Six companies (including Ronakabin, a subsidiary company of Denis O'Brien's Siteserv) showed off their wares. The proposal to house homeless families in up to 250 of these two bedroom units seems to be gathering pace with DCC signing off on the plan and the Peter McVerry trust expressing support. At around €100,000 a go these temporary units are not cheap, there will also be a number of ancillary costs such as sourcing land and ensuring the connection to and provision of basic amenities like water, electricity and sewage. The sites themselves will have to be developed. There are also concerns about the safety of these units, highlighted this week by the tragedy in Carrickmines where ten people died when a fire engulfed their prefabricated housing.

On the other hand the average cost of constructing a social housing unit (an actual bricks and mortar house) is €185,000 according to the Irish Times. In the grand scheme of things €85,000 extra for a permanent, secure house is very little. While the interiors of these modular housing units are undoubtedly impressive we need to ask ourselves if the millions apparently destined for these units would not be better spent on actual houses? There is also the possibility that the government may look at leasing these units from the private companies rather than outright purchasing them, enriching private business interests rather than investing in social assets. (which brings us back to Denis O'Brien) If something is worth doing, is it not worth doing right?

The homelessness crisis undoubtedly needs to be addressed urgently. With rents spiraling out of control and the banks more aggressively pursuing repossessions it will only get worse unless urgent action is taken. The immediate priority needs to be to get people off the streets, out of hotels, hostels and B&B's and into appropriate housing. Modular housing can play a small role in this but the only long term solution is the construction of more social housing and the imposition of strict rent controls on the private market. (Unfortunately there was no sign of any of this in the government's budget for 2016)

We have been reassured that modular housing units will represent a temporary part of the solution. But how long is temporary? One year? Five? Ten?

Minster for the Environment Alan Kelly's comments at a recent Labour party think-in in Wicklow give us an idea;

“Obviously we’re only going to put people in here for a certain period of time. We want more permanent solutions, but the lifespan of some of these units is 60 to 70 years.” 

Sixty to seventy years? That is stretching any definition of "temporary".  

It is easy for those of us not huddled in doorways or trying to live out of a hotel room with our families to "turn up our nose" at modular housing. It is absolutely correct to say that in a crisis like this any action is preferable to none and that modular housing would help people and perhaps even save lives in the short term. But even in times of emergency it is necessary to apply some critical thought to any proposals and to ask if the proposed steps will deliver a solution, if the facts and figures stack up and if the idea makes practical sense.

While any efforts to address the crisis are to be applauded there is a need to be realistic about things. The past is the greatest indicator we have as to what form tomorrow will take. There is a great deal to indicate that once the homelessness crisis is out of sight it will once again be out of mind for the government and people will be left to languish in these modular housing units for decades to come.

UPDATE 28/11/15

When I initially wrote this blog post I was working with provisional sums when discussing the costs of modular housing units versus that of conventional social housing. It turns out that these figures were grossly incorrect. It has now emerged that the cost of constructing a modular housing unit is in fact far higher than the €100,000 figure I quoted. Almost double in fact, each unit will cost €191,000. This is more than it costs to construct an actual house. 

As predicted this enterprise is shaping up to be an ineffectual waste of money. 

"Recovery"? I hate the word. Give us an alternative!

Thumbs up for Recovery at Davos.

 With the general election seemingly destined to take place in late November of this year the narrative of the campaign will be dominated by one word; "Recovery".

Labour and Fine Gael will trumpet that they are delivering a recovery, pointing to unemployment figures, increases in GDP and other economic indicators. They will also brandish their bag of goodies in the form of the recently announced €27bn capital investment plan.

The opposition will maintain that all is not as it seems with the economic figures, that they do not tell the whole story, pointing out that many have not seen any improvement, that the "recovery" has not filtered down to much of the middle and working classes. That many of the new jobs are of poor quality, low paid and insecure with low hour contracts. They will also rightly point out that schemes like jobsbridge as well as continued emigration mask the true reality. It will also be hammered home that the policies of Fine Gael and Labour have favored the wealthy and left behind the majority, that inequality has increased  and that the most vulnerable in society, the very young, the sick, the disabled, the old, have been the harshest hit by austerity and that this has been by design. 

They will, as Sinn Féin for instance have stated, argue for a "Fair Recovery" or as Paul Murphy of the SP/AAA puts it; a "Real Recovery".

All of this is fair, true and laudable enough but we need to ask what is meant by "recovery"? 

To take it at its meaning it suggests a return to normality or to how things were before, to the state of affairs prior to the great calamity of austerity. But do we really want to go back? Do we want a "recovery", or to build something new?

This is not to suggest that Sinn Féin or any other party on the left are in favour of "going back" but my point is that the "recovery" narrative of the establishment parties needs to be challenged in it's entirety. The Celtic Tiger of boom and bust is not something we should wish to return to. This cycle is something which is systemic in the capitalistic system, so in that sense it is "normal". Do we want to "recover" this normality? A "recovery" in the meaning of the establishment parties is not something which is desirable and this point needs to be made, any "buying in" to the recovery narrative suggests, subliminally at least, that things are heading somewhat in the right direction.

We need to examine in greater detail the facts and figures behind the Celtic Tiger. The economic growth was almost solely based around the construction/property bubble and the resultant financialization of the economy with ancillary employment in that area. In terms of fundamental growth in the economy there was very little, it was all about the bubble and it was always destined to burst. 

Far from ordinary people getting rich, they got poorer. Wage levels in recent decades have largely stagnated but instead growth has been fueled by more readily available credit. We can see from the table below how debt rocketed thoughout the "good years".

Despite the on-going "recovery" Irish households are the third most indebted in Europe. The Irish government, and its people in general have been lucky that interest rates have remained extremely low, it is this which has facilitated the "recovery" more so than any policy over which the Irish state has direct control or influence over. Given the debt levels and openness of the Irish economy we are extremely vulnerable to any international "shocks" even those as straightforward as small interest rate increases. 

We are at the mercy of the international finance system. Given the small size of the Irish economy perhaps this is inevitable but our over-reliance on FDI to provide jobs and industry is something which is self inflicted. 

To get back to the point of this article, we should not look for a "recovery", we should look for an alternative. To those with original ideas and those who seek to build a sustainable alternative, one which puts as much control as possible in the hands of the Irish people and not that of international bodies, markets or oligarchs. 

We need to get out and support those on the left in arguing for systemic changes, not mere tinkering around the edges,  otherwise we will find ourselves going down the same road again.

We need an alternative to what went before, not a "recovery".