Bed-sits to make a come back

handlemaster

Joan Burton has mentioned the government will revisit the use of bed sits . These bedsits were always popular in Dublin at the lower end of the market. Hopefully somthing will be done as alot of people cant afford the high rents been currently charged.

Michael D Not Higgins

This is unwelcome news. It is short sighted back pedalling from the government to address the supply issue while ignoring the reasons they got rid of them in the first place.

handlemaster

Heres the ref


http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/joan-burton-indicates-the-ban-on-providing-bedsit-accommodation-in-the-capital-may-be-lifted-to-tackle-homeless-crisis-30795027.html

handlemaster

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This is unwelcome news. It is short sighted back pedalling from the government to address the supply issue while ignoring the reasons they got rid of them in the first place.

Aggreed to an extent. But if y our homeless now today is what counts.

Michael D Not Higgins

handlemaster wrote: »

Aggreed to an extent. But if y our homeless now today is what counts.

It shows the government that they had the right idea to address the poor quality but never did anything to address the supply side.

To use a media phrase, there's a lack of joined-up thinking.

crusher000

Lived in them when I was a student many years ago. Where anything but luxurious but served there purpose and were affordable. Again regulation will have to come into it and this will add to their cost.

shruikan2553

The problem is balancing them between absolute ****holes vs cost. Need enough standards to make the livable but too many leads to rising prices.

Seeing the prices some really terrible places go for Im not expecting much.

Greenmachine

Joan Burton now in bed with slumlord millionaires(figuratively for the libel morons). Disgusting behaviour. At the very worst, they should review the inspection reports of the places they have shut down, apply CPO to the best of the bad bunch. Whatever is closest to code which can reasonably be brought to standard. I hope this does not pass, if it does, I expect labour will burn. You would be better in a homeless hostel than in some of the bedsits I have seen. The last thing we want to see again, is a free for all, from these vultures.

crusher000

Also if you can get 2000 a month for a house or go to the cost of fixing up all the rooms for a bedsit don't see this being an option for landlords. To much to invest and won't make back in the short term.

markmacken

I think this really has to happen. If this government is serious about the homeless problem in Ireland, then they have to allow people to take whatever option they can afford. Living somewhere small and pokey is better than living on the street.

CatFromHue

In my, uneducated, opinion the homeless issue has two sides.

One being the poor lad who passed away on the weekend but has been long term homeless and has other problems so may not actually want to move into a bedsit.

The other being people/families who've been made homeless as they can't keep up with the rent.

I'm not sure a bedsit will solve either problem tbh.

Michael D Not Higgins

This will likely not affect the homelessness problem at all anyway. There's more than one reason people are on the streets. It's more likely that the bedsits will be taken up at the lower end of the market, by those who can't afford the rising rent costs and those looking for places that take rent allowance.

L1011

At this time out from the ban, are there really that many empty bedsits still sitting there? Most will have at least started some modernisation work or have been sold to be single family residences.

the_syco

When they existed, the tenants seemed to have no rights, lived in shoddy conditions in apartments that didn't need to fulfil any sort of current conditions. I wonder if they were made legal again, would they need to have minimum conditions?

L1011

the_syco wrote: »

When they existed, the tenants seemed to have no rights, lived in shoddy conditions in apartments that didn't need to fulfil any sort of current conditions. I wonder if they were made legal again, would they need to have minimum conditions?

The only one they could even consider removing would be the requirement for a dedicated bathroom per unit - the rest aren't really even possible for consideration. You can't expect to put people from emergency accomodation in to somewhere with no or inappropriate cooking and clothes washing/drying kit.

the_syco

L1011 wrote: »

The only one they could even consider removing would be the requirement for a dedicated bathroom per unit

Consider removing? I meant under some bullpoop loophole, they didn't have to include a heap of items. Some 1973 thing, I think?

Mrs OBumble

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This will likely not affect the homelessness problem at all anyway. There's more than one reason people are on the streets. It's more likely that the bedsits will be taken up at the lower end of the market, by those who can't afford the rising rent costs and those looking for places that take rent allowance.

Yup. And that will get some of those folks out of 1brms that they don't want to afford, so those 1brms will be available for people currently in 2brms that they don't want to afford etc.

Some will be taken by people who would like to move out of home, but currently cannot afford to. So a family that might want a 4brm might cope with a 3brm. Etc.


Every little helps.

murphaph

Yep. A little bit of nanny state control is to be rolled back in the face of common sense. Bedsits are and were better than a doorway in December. No matter how bad they were.

jd83

this won't solve anything l.There will just be a load of ridiculously priced dumpy crap holes on daft that like the apartments anyone who currently can't afford still won't be able too.

MagicMarker

Do the folks sleeping in doorways usually have 1 month up front and 1 month deposit in their pockets???

Don't see how this will help them tbh.

murphaph

Adding supply will obviously help in a housing crisis.

murphaph

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do the folks sleeping in doorways usually have 1 month up front and 1 month deposit in their pockets???

Don't see how this will help them tbh.

Bedsits never operated in the same way as normal rentals. LL's would often take a week's deposit and rent would be collected weekly.

Sala

The government can't push this issue onto private landlords and expect it to be magically fixed. Homelessness for many people is more than just not being able to afford rent... if the government wants to bring back bedsits they should create them themselves. There are plenty of old cheap houses in central places in town (in fact., I believe the council owns a number of derelict properties (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/sweaty-equity-earns-family-keys-to-their-new-dublin-home-1.2015805). They could easily create bedsit style accommodation i.e. small living quarters, but that are well kitted out. Instead of handing people money to hand over to private landlords, many of whom I'd would say, looking at the old bedsit style apartments, probably couldn't care less whether their tenants could heat their room adequately, or whether the place was a fire hazard. The state could easily provide bedsits that are safe and secure themselves, and provide better security of tenure for their tenants. But they won't. Like rent allowance, they want to shove social problems onto the private sector and hope it all somehow works itself out.

Greenmachine

murphaph wrote: »

Bedsits never operated in the same way as normal rentals. LL's would often take a week's deposit and rent would be collected weekly.

Anyone I know who was in a bedsit, never knew when the landlord would be around, sometimes every week, then they might not be seen for month and the tenant was supposed to keep the accrued rent for the landlord to help himself too when he felt like finally calling around.

Greenmachine

Sala wrote: »

The government can't push this issue onto private landlords and expect it to be magically fixed. Homelessness for many people is more than just not being able to afford rent... if the government wants to bring back bedsits they should create them themselves. There are plenty of old cheap houses in central places in town (in fact., I believe the council owns a number of derelict properties (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/sweaty-equity-earns-family-keys-to-their-new-dublin-home-1.2015805). They could easily create bedsit style accommodation i.e. small living quarters, but that are well kitted out. Instead of handing people money to hand over to private landlords, many of whom I'd would say, looking at the old bedsit style apartments, probably couldn't care less whether their tenants could heat their room adequately, or whether the place was a fire hazard. The state could easily provide bedsits that are safe and secure themselves, and provide better security of tenure for their tenants. But they won't. Like rent allowance, they want to shove social problems onto the private sector and hope it all somehow works itself out.

Dead link.

I think I might have been the only other person in this thread opposed to putting these landlords back in business.

handlemaster

Greenmachine wrote: »

Dead link.

I think I might have been the only other person in this thread opposed to putting these landlords back in business.

Because the public landlord left years ago.. you have no choice

endacl

Never imagined I'd have an opportunity to post this relatively obscure-ish, yet oddly appropriate little piece of the 80s ...

L1011

the_syco wrote: »

Consider removing? I meant under some bullpoop loophole, they didn't have to include a heap of items. Some 1973 thing, I think?

I meant from the current regulations. The Pre-63 rules allowed you to get away with murder, starting with no planning permission...

foggy_lad

handlemaster wrote: »

Joan Burton has mentioned the government will revisit the use of bed sits . These bedsits were always popular in Dublin at the lower end of the market. Hopefully somthing will be done as alot of people cant afford the high rents been currently charged.

Typical knee-jerk reaction from a lazy politician to the latest news of a homeless man who died within spitting distance of the dail.

This man was offered and brought to hostel accommodation on more than one occasion and refused it. There are many more people who are homeless because of their own actions, because they take drugs or are alcoholics or allow addicts and alcoholics use their flat or home as a flop-house or halfway house. No landlord whether they own a mansion or the worst of shoebox bedsits wants these people and a change back to the way it was will not help the "new" homeless who are homeless because of the banks.

Rowing back on the change in the law will only suit many wealthy owners of multiple units who are holding out on updating their properties hoping for just such a move by a lazy inept politician.

MarkAnthony

Ah Foggy - I was actually going to say something very similar but the kneejerk was banning them in the first place in fairness.

They should have been phased out by ever increasing rental standards, but the key here is proper enforcement. Irish standard policy seems to be so just keep legislating but do naff all in relation to enforcement.

Even a down and out should at least have a room to call home. Now I'd prefer it if these where of a decent standard but for now I think getting them off the street would be a plus. Not that we're talking massive numbers here as the media would have us believe but frankly one is one too many.

The whole accommodation situation in Ireland needs looking at. Supply in Dublin has to be resolved. Bedsits of a reasonable standard have a place in that process but so does change in regard to social housing and NAMA getting the apartments that have been sold on to investment companies rented out. They can easily put the impetus there by making it a condition of the sale.

Finally derelict houses and land - don't get me started here. Stop listing buildings that will never be renovated. Stoneybatter is not improved by rows of derelict houses that noone in their right mind is going to renovate to the standards required by virtue of their listed status.

Sorry that rambled off the point somewhat.

foggy_lad

murphaph wrote: »

Bedsits never operated in the same way as normal rentals. LL's would often take a week's deposit and rent would be collected weekly.

They would also regularly "clear house" by evicting everyone or selected tenants while they were out and putting their bags and belongings out onto the street! these people were the lowest sort of scum as far as oiir landlords went.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Do the folks sleeping in doorways usually have 1 month up front and 1 month deposit in their pockets???

Don't see how this will help them tbh.

Most of these sh1t holes were not and will never be eligible for any form or rent supplement and that means the LL charges loweer rent to get people in the doors who pay out of their dole or pension but the lower rent means even less or no maintenance or safety and fire protection at all!

The overall effect of betsits is that the poorest of society end up very largely worse off with no security of tenure in their accommodation.

foggy_lad

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Even a down and out should at least have a room to call home.

This is the problem and the actual issue in Ireland!

In many American states and other European countries once the temperature drops below certain levels all these down and outs are rounded up and forced into hostels and other secure accommodation for their own protection(from the elements).

These people are not suitable for housing in apartments houses or even bedsits because most have fairly serious mental health conditions and/or addiction and alcoholism issues. They will turn any accommodation into a flop-house within weeks of moving in and no landlord wants/will accept that crap on their doorstep!

The people who are most in need of housing are those who were up to recently working and living in their own home with a family and mortgage and are now homeless and living on the streets, trying not to get robbed(of their clothes and footwear as well as any other belongings) and beaten up on the streets by the scum of the city.

Those responsible people should be housed in army accommodation as an emergency measure until they are able to secure reasonable accommodation at least those who are still working will be able to keep working and supporting themselves.

zef

foggy_lad wrote: »

This is the problem and the actual issue in Ireland!

In many American states and other European countries once the temperature drops below certain levels all these down and outs are rounded up and forced into hostels and other secure accommodation for their own protection(from the elements).

These people are not suitable for housing in apartments houses or even bedsits because most have fairly serious mental health conditions and/or addiction and alcoholism issues. They will turn any accommodation into a flop-house within weeks of moving in and no landlord wants/will accept that crap on their doorstep!

The people who are most in need of housing are those who were up to recently working and living in their own home with a family and mortgage and are now homeless and living on the streets, trying not to get robbed(of their clothes and footwear as well as any other belongings) and beaten up on the streets by the scum of the city.

Those responsible people should be housed in army accommodation as an emergency measure until they are able to secure reasonable accommodation at least those who are still working will be able to keep working and supporting themselves.

Ah yeah, the 'good homeless' and the 'baaad homeless'. Cheers for clarifying.

Thoie

A better idea than just unbanning the abysmal bedsits with shared bathrooms, no fire escapes, and little to no cooking facilities is to give landlords a grant to bring these up to "code". Make sure they're well ventilated, not a fire hazard, have a bathroom and cooking facilities.

In return for this grant, the landlord should then have to accept rent allowance, and must rent the units out for no more than the rent allowance cap, and must continue to do so for a prolonged period (20 years or more). If the building is sold/passed on, the requirement to keep renting it out for the rest of the 20 years goes with it (this would prevent landlords getting the grant, then transferring ownership to a partner, and charging more/not accepting rent allowance).

The grant should cover the basic costs of installing a bathroom and plumbing. Alternatively the government could arrange interest free loans for landlords to carry out the work, or some other solution I haven't thought of yet.

Markcheese

If you put more accommodation into the market quickly it'll take heat out of it - if you afford to have an apartment and don't want a bedsit -don't get a bedsit -
If you can't afford an apartment and there's no bedsits where do you go ?
Yes there should be standards (and possibly a form of rent control at their reintroduction)

By the way there's a homelessness crisis in cork (300% increase in last 4or 5 years) ... But not the housing crisis

hfallada

Some bedsits were fine. I seen some that were fine. Although there was a lot that were modern day slums. But if you are a LL and was unsure whether they were going to be banned, you obviously werent going to spend any money on them. House shares are a better option now. People are happy to share a bathroom and a kitchen.

There is a reassuring pattern happening in regulations in Ireland. Something is outlawed, than enforced strictly and then went most are compliant, the laws are relaxed again. This happen with dangerous breeds in DCC. DCC forced thousands of dogs owners have their dangerous dogs put down, than after most dogs were destroyed, they allowed owners with the existing dogs to keep them. But there was to be no more dangerous dogs after that

the_syco

L1011 wrote: »

I meant from the current regulations. The Pre-63 rules allowed you to get away with murder, starting with no planning permission...

But didn't current legislations not what caused them to close the effing bedsits in the first place? You either have the sh|tty little hovels, or you don't. There will "never be money" to update the hovels, as you can't make sace out of no space. You have to reduce the amount of rooms in the house, to give other rooms more than a bedsit, and this in turn drives up the price.

L1011

the_syco wrote: »

But didn't current legislations not what caused them to close the effing bedsits in the first place?

Yes... that's what my point was. The only concession they could conceivably make off current regulations would be over providing individual bathrooms. That'd still leave most hovels out of spec.

And anyway, its not as if those buildings are sitting empty anyway. Those that were upgradable generally have been upgraded and are tenanted as "studio apartments" now, those that weren't were sold and are being converted back to houses. The out-of-spec bedsits are permanently gone (or are still being rented illegally); not sitting empty waiting a change in regulations.

Thoie

hfallada wrote: »

Some bedsits were fine. I seen some that were fine. Although there was a lot that were modern day slums. But if you are a LL and was unsure whether they were going to be banned, you obviously werent going to spend any money on them.

Absolutely - I lived in what I'd call a bedsit that had its own bathroom, and it was grand. It would probably be called a studio apartment now, though that makes it sound far grander than what it was. When searching for that place I saw some truly horrific sights. This was before the shared bathroom places were banned. Some of those places I wouldn't have kept a rat in, though it appeared that many other people did.

hfallada wrote: »

House shares are a better option now. People are happy to share a bathroom and a kitchen.

House shares are fine at a certain stage in life, and certainly of my age group most people lived in a houseshare after leaving home, then progressed to a bedsit, and from there to a house/apartment whether alone or with a partner. I couldn't really imagine being in a house share much past the age of 30 (unless you've been sharing with friends long term).

hfallada

Thoie wrote: »

House shares are fine at a certain stage in life, and certainly of my age group most people lived in a houseshare after leaving home, then progressed to a bedsit, and from there to a house/apartment whether alone or with a partner. I couldn't really imagine being in a house share much past the age of 30 (unless you've been sharing with friends long term).

Its the norm in places like Germany. I lived there my friends who were 35 and over seen nothing wrong with it. They got to live in excellent locations, in decent apartments in a way that was far more affordable than a 1bed apartment.

I cant understand the Irish mindset, that house shares are for only twenty-somethings. But its perfectly fine for someone to blow most their income on a one bed apartment instead of getting a cheaper houseshare. Most Irish people dont get on in house shares, because a lot of Irish people are pigs to live with (ask any air steward and they will tell you Irish are some of the dirtiest passengers on a plane). Irish people also will generally not work out with any nationality other than Irish. My parents are LLs and most Irish people cant live with another nationality.

Houseshares are going to become more common whether people like it or not. There cant be enough one bed apartments for every single person in the city. Even the new apartments in the Bolands development are all 3 Bed apartments. In that area, they are going to be let to professionals and not families. Apartments are only going to get bigger and people are going to have to share, if they want affordable housing.

MagicMarker

hfallada wrote: »

Its the norm in places like Germany. I lived there my friends who were 35 and over seen nothing wrong with it. They got to live in excellent locations, in decent apartments in a way that was far more affordable than a 1bed apartment.

I cant understand the Irish mindset, that house shares are for only twenty-somethings. But its perfectly fine for someone to blow most their income on a one bed apartment instead of getting a cheaper houseshare. Most Irish people dont get on in house shares, because a lot of Irish people are pigs to live with (ask any air steward and they will tell you Irish are some of the dirtiest passengers on a plane). Irish people also will generally not work out with any nationality other than Irish. My parents are LLs and most Irish people cant live with another nationality.

Houseshares are going to become more common whether people like it or not. There cant be enough one bed apartments for every single person in the city. Even the new apartments in the Bolands development are all 3 Bed apartments. In that area, they are going to be let to professionals and not families. Apartments are only going to get bigger and people are going to have to share, if they want affordable housing.

Do you know all Irish people? Have your parents rented to the majority of Irish people? No. So stop talking such utter bollocks.

The_Morrigan

Folks, please stop all the generalisations and name calling - I do not want to see anyone referring to anyone as scum, or making slating remarks based on some sweeping statements.

If you can't debate without it boiling down to insults and bad language being thrown about, then please don't post.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Thoie wrote: »

Absolutely - I lived in what I'd call a bedsit that had its own bathroom, and it was grand. It would probably be called a studio apartment now, though that makes it sound far grander than what it was. When searching for that place I saw some truly horrific sights. This was before the shared bathroom places were banned. Some of those places I wouldn't have kept a rat in, though it appeared that many other people did.


House shares are fine at a certain stage in life, and certainly of my age group most people lived in a houseshare after leaving home, then progressed to a bedsit, and from there to a house/apartment whether alone or with a partner. I couldn't really imagine being in a house share much past the age of 30 (unless you've been sharing with friends long term).

I would have to disagree. In my experience most well paid professionals (€60k+) will continue to houseshare until they move in with a partner or while saving up to buy. Unfortunately These days renting on your own doesn't leave you much scope for saving.

My own tenants are professionals in their late 30s

markmacken

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

This will likely not affect the homelessness problem at all anyway. There's more than one reason people are on the streets. It's more likely that the bedsits will be taken up at the lower end of the market, by those who can't afford the rising rent costs and those looking for places that take rent allowance.

Hopefully the re-introduction of bedsits would help homelessness to some extent. But even if it doesn't, it would at least be good if it took some heat out of the rental market. It's ridiculous out there at the moment for people trying to find a place to rent.

Pat Mustard

Bedsits are low-cost, low-quality accommodation primarily chosen by people on low incomes. These people may not wish to rent apartments due to the expense, and the consequent dent it would make in their incomes.

A very good point was made earlier on in this thread that a previous government attempted to tackle the problem of standards in accommodation by attempting to get rid of bedsits, but failed to deal with the consequent issue of lack of supply of low-cost accommodation. That government proposed to get rid of bedsits but didn't provide anywhere for those bedsit dwellers to stay. In other words, the government didn't think it through.

Even tax breaks for landlords who upgraded their premises would have been something.

kandoola

I reckon the plan is that the government want to only have to build the cheapest accommodation they can get away with - Bedsits.

Hundreds of bedsits in a building. More bang for the buck. Government sponsored bedsit ghettos are coming to a town near you.
Just so the government can stuff as many homeless people as possible into the one building and say "oh look at us, arent we great, we've solved the problem". Sounds very like the "Oh look at us we've solved the unemployment problem by getting the unemployed to work for nothing instead of being unemployed". Oh its the same person on the end of both schemes.

They are only changing this to suit their own agenda.

handlemaster

Kandoola if your sleeping on the street does it really matter how big your free accomodation is. After all it should be a stepping stone to getting a job, getting you life back on track. I don't think the tax payers of Ireland would like to see homeless people living it up in big appartments

murphaph

kandoola wrote: »

I reckon the plan is that the government want to only have to build the cheapest accommodation they can get away with - Bedsits.

Hundreds of bedsits in a building. More bang for the buck. Government sponsored bedsit ghettos are coming to a town near you.
Just so the government can stuff as many homeless people as possible into the one building and say "oh look at us, arent we great, we've solved the problem". Sounds very like the "Oh look at us we've solved the unemployment problem by getting the unemployed to work for nothing instead of being unemployed". Oh its the same person on the end of both schemes.

They are only changing this to suit their own agenda.

Small room with shared bathroom or doorway in the middle of winter. You choose.

Mrs OBumble

kandoola wrote: »

I reckon the plan is that the government want to only have to build the cheapest accommodation they can get away with - Bedsits.

Hundreds of bedsits in a building. More bang for the buck. Government sponsored bedsit ghettos are coming to a town near you.
....

They are only changing this to suit their own agenda.

They could already build studio apartments, quite legally. Notice that they don't, because most of the people on the housing lists are families who need more space than that. (Except of course if they're asylum seekers who do just fine with one bedroom for the whole family, but that's another story).

There have already been plenty of government sponsored ghettos all over the country. Some have been or are being removed (Ballymun flats, Rahoon flats, Moyross are well-known examples). Other less notorious ones have been re-generated rather more quietly, while others still persist today: as housing officials have learned more, they know that putting a few owner-occupied houses into some mainly-social-housing estates is more likely to make a community that lasts, even if it does need 24x7 guarda presence.

And of course they're changing to suit their own agenda. That's how democracy works: people elect governments who do what they want, and politicians do the things that they think will maximise their chances of getting re-elected.

As a tax-payer, I want the supply in the lower end of the housing market increased so that low-paid workers aren't forced into emergency accommodation. I'd be well in support of outlawing bedsits - if there were adequate alternatives. Their 'aint, so this isn't the time to do it.

Saipanne

If they were done properly, it would be a great idea for young professionals.

stateofflux

A simple solution to a complex problem....that won't work