Pre Fabs to be used in Dublin as housing crises increases

handlemaster

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-coucil-to-build-400-prefabs-for-homeless-families-1.2251914


Good or bad idea ? I think short term solution with long term consequences. The pre Fabs will be used for a generation and cost more in the long term.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Ha short term my arse. People are going to be living in pre fab ghettos for the foreseeable future.

Gatling

Personally I think it's a great idea if it's done properly.
I'd rather be in a prefab house than a b&b if I had the choice or was in the situation the 450 families are currently in Dublin .

El_Duderino 09

If they meet the requirements and they are actually low cost, then go for it. Someone who can't afford a house is given a house for free. Sounds like a good story to me.

jayobray

160,000 prefabs were built in Britain after the second world war, due to last 10 years, and it got them through their housing crisis. Some are still lived in, but done right it can be a really good short term solution.

the_syco

http://www.donedeal.ie/holidayhomes-for-sale/irelands-first-off-the-shelf-tiny-micro-home/9602416

Prefabricated could be good, or it could be bad.

It was also decided at the time to prioritise tackling rough sleeping after the death of homeless man, Jonathan Corrie (43) outside Leinster House.

Cynicaly read as; It was also decided at the time to prioritise tackling rough sleeping after the death of homeless man, Jonathan Corrie (43) outside Leinster House, after he didn't like the free houses that his family had given him.

Although homeless is a very real problem, they shouldn't use someone as a poster boy that had being given houses in the past, but had chosen to not live in them.

Oh, and

This was after councillors rejected plans to refurbish 64 vacant flats in O’Devaney Gardens to accommodate homeless families at a cost of €5 million.

Where these the ones that had a bad address? The bad address that was a bad address as the empty units had drawn the bad people?

=-=

The crazy thing is; they can be put in a field nearby facilities. As opposed putting the families into a housing estate miles away from anywhere.

Idbatterim

why dont they review the bedsit ban as long as needs be? hey you cant live in a building, but you can live in a prefab, on the street, in a car etc :rolleyes:

Gatling

Idbatterim wrote: »

why dont they review the bedsit ban as long as needs be? hey you cant live in a building, but you can live in a prefab, on the street, in a car etc :rolleyes:

One of the big issues is family homelessness bedsits are no use to families currently stuck in b&b,hotels or hostels.
Where prefabricated houses could be ideal and built quickly and affordable

snubbleste

This is a good idea.

Mrs OBumble

It's just a slightly different-to-normal construction technique being used to build a lot of houses all at once.

Provided the surrounding work is done (adequate facilities in the area for the increased number of people living there), then it's no different to any other building approach.

If the neighbourhood facilities aren't there, then the problem will not lie with the construction method.

Riverireland

Idbatterim wrote: »

why dont they review the bedsit ban as long as needs be? hey you cant live in a building, but you can live in a prefab, on the street, in a car etc :rolleyes:

Totally agree. Banning bedsits was not a bad idea per say. But with the amount of homeless people the timing was totally wrong and they should be brought back under licence for 5 years. They shouldd also give rent supplement for house shares in the short term to enable people live somewhere.

Idbatterim

Totally agree. Banning bedsits was not a bad idea per say. But with the amount of homeless people the timing was totally wrong and they should be brought back under licence for 5 years. They should also give rent supplement for house shares in the short term to enable people live somewhere.

What I find ridiculous is that people are being made to suffer, from a government choice, i.e.. to get rid of the only option many could afford, due to a total lack of government commitment in getting the problem sorted in the first place...

RecordStraight

Idbatterim wrote: »

What I find ridiculous is that people are being made to suffer, from a government choice, i.e.. to get rid of the only option many could afford, due to a total lack of government commitment in getting the problem sorted in the first place...

The government didn't 'ban' bedsits, they made it legal that you shouldn't have to share scummy toilet facilities with a group of strangers, which seems a step in the right direction as far as in concerned.

snubbleste

The State should provide land and send out a EU wide tender to build tens of thousands of well-provided apartments all over the country where the social housing lists are most acute.
Emergency legislation can be passed to bypass local authority vested interests.

Idbatterim

The government didn't 'ban' bedsits, they made it legal that you shouldn't have to share scummy toilet facilities with a group of strangers, which seems a step in the right direction as far as in concerned.

I am assuming that those in bedsits, were there because that was all that they could afford. How great for them, they have either had to move somewhere else and maybe share instead of having their own little place, or are now homeless etc.

There is a demand for low end housing in all major cities, it is satisfying a need. Hell most of the apartments buildings here even recent ones are appalling, from room sizes, to build quality, fire protection deficiencies. where do you draw the line on telling people where is and is not acceptable for them to live? Better let them have the choice...

Whatever about them getting rid of them, when there is a decent alternative in place, maybe... At the time being and even at the time it was madness, I have read enough about it, I am not going to change my mind...

The State should provide land and send out a EU wide tender to build tens of thousands of well-provided apartments all over the country where the social housing lists are most acute.
Emergency legislation can be passed to bypass local authority vested interests.

There is enough zoned land here, there are lots of ex construction workers unemployed, there is a massive demand for housing, which is creating a whole host of issues, socially and economically... Get nama and the ex developers involved, they can get the financing.

I just love the way the same stuff gets debated year in, year out. With politicians, councils just trotting out the same excuses year after year, you would swear they were on appalling pay and the country wasn't one that spends a fortune every year. "We are where we are" on every front here, economically, the bank debt, crap infrastructure, massive housing shortage, all of that was and is down to political decisions or lack there of, simple as... Lack of leadership, no one having responsibility or knowing who is ultimately responsible... We really are some half way house between the laughing stock that is Greece and the well run Germany, netherlands, nordic countries etc...

Zadkiel

the_syco wrote: »

http://www.donedeal.ie/holidayhomes-for-sale/irelands-first-off-the-shelf-tiny-micro-home/9602416

Prefabricated could be good, or it could be bad.



Cynicaly read as; It was also decided at the time to prioritise tackling rough sleeping after the death of homeless man, Jonathan Corrie (43) outside Leinster House, after he didn't like the free houses that his family had given him.

Although homeless is a very real problem, they shouldn't use someone as a poster boy that had being given houses in the past, but had chosen to not live in them.

Oh, and

Where these the ones that had a bad address? The bad address that was a bad address as the empty units had drawn the bad people?

=-=

The crazy thing is; they can be put in a field nearby facilities. As opposed putting the families into a housing estate miles away from anywhere.

Its nothing to do with the vacant units unfortunately. O'Devaney has always been like that. The bad people weren't drawn they were already there.

Gatling

snubbleste wrote: »

The State should provide land and send out a EU wide tender to build tens of thousands of well-provided apartments all over the country where the social housing lists are most acute.
Emergency legislation can be passed to bypass local authority vested interests.

There is a problem there alot of people on the housing lists don't want apartments .
They want houses and gardens so they have room for future additions to the family and room for the pets .

People will wait no matter how desperate there in need .

gerarda

http://www.homedit.com/22-most-beautiful-houses-made-from-shipping-containers/

snubbleste

Idbatterim

a 30 storey building LOL, Dublin might have one of these "mega rise" some time in 2050 - 2060... I THINK that some of the issue could be addressed here by having more than the 5/6 storey rubbish they are erecting in the docklands, its a fairly radical theory though... Higher density, where people want to live, in an area with good transport links. Don't want to go upsetting the poor old Georgian buildings now though do we...

RecordStraight

Idbatterim wrote: »

I am assuming that those in bedsits, were there because that was all that they could afford. How great for them, they have either had to move somewhere else and maybe share instead of having their own little place, or are now homeless etc.

You are not wrong, but it's the same conundrum as the minimum wage: if we scrapped the minimum wage, loads more people would have jobs, albeit poorly paid ones. By having a minimum wage, those jobs are uneconomical and disappear.

We choose to have a minimum wage to give a minimum standard of living to people. I don't see why there should be no similar minimum standards for where people actually have to live. I wouldn't want to share a bath and a toilet with a group of single men who each have no incentive to ever clean them.

Idbatterim

We choose to have a minimum wage to give a minimum standard of living to people. I don't see why there should be no similar minimum standards for where people actually have to live. I wouldn't want to share a bath and a toilet with a group of single men who each have no incentive to ever clean them.

yeah of course, but I don't have the conundrum, either do you probably, because we can afford a better standard than that, but what if you cant... People in bedsits were there by choice, if they felt that being homeless, moving somewhere else with cheaper rent or sharing with others was a better option, they could have done it at any time...

cerastes

Riverireland wrote: »

Totally agree. Banning bedsits was not a bad idea per say. But with the amount of homeless people the timing was totally wrong and they should be brought back under licence for 5 years. They shouldd also give rent supplement for house shares in the short term to enable people live somewhere.

It wasnt a bad idea, it was a terrible, ill conceived by possibly well intentioned but stupid people who knew no better.
Can you elaborate on how it was a good idea? Id seen some bedits and they were quite nice, everyone of them had toilets of their own.

But the ridiculous requirement to have a 4 ring hob, an oven I believe and a washing machine still existed, even though such accomodation would be better suited to using laundrette a 2 ring hob and not necessarily a fixed oven suited to a house.

RecordStraight wrote: »

The government didn't 'ban' bedsits, they made it legal that you shouldn't have to share scummy toilet facilities with a group of strangers, which seems a step in the right direction as far as in concerned.

It would have simply been better to enforce a standard of not having seperate units share toilet facilities, but effectively they closed the only accomodation route down for some people, who wants to share a toilet and have your own safe and secure palce when you can pi$$ and $hit on the street, that certainly sounds more hygenic to me.

RecordStraight

Idbatterim wrote: »

yeah of course, but I don't have the conundrum, either do you probably, because we can afford a better standard than that, but what if you cant... People in bedsits were there by choice, if they felt that being homeless, moving somewhere else with cheaper rent or sharing with others was a better option, they could have done it at any time...

Were they sharing a toilet with strangers by choice? Or were they sharing a toilet with strangers because that was all they could afford?

Idbatterim

Were they sharing a toilet with strangers by choice? Or were they sharing a toilet with strangers because that was all they could afford?

a mixture of both I assume, whats the alternative, either move to a different location, become homeless or move to somewhere else with more strangers most likely, where I doubt they will have an en suite at that end of the market & back to sharing a bathroom, albeit one only available to that unit or house etc...

It wasnt a bad idea, it was a terrible, ill conceived by possibly well intentioned but stupid people who knew no better.

totally agree, I am well removed from that end of the market, it doesn't stop me seeing the decisions for the total BS it is...

Mrs OBumble

RecordStraight wrote: »

Were they sharing a toilet with strangers by choice? Or were they sharing a toilet with strangers because that was all they could afford?

For some, it was what they chose to afford: some people aren't worried about shared toilet facilities.

The last bedsit block that I visited had three toilets for five bedsits, and they were cleaner than the toilet in my house it today.

Riverireland

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

For some, it was what they chose to afford: some people aren't worried about shared toilet facilities.

The last bedsit block that I visited had three toilets for five bedsits, and they were cleaner than the toilet in my house it today.

Unfortunately this is the case. No one worries about sharing showers and toilets in a gym. Not ideal but better than being homeless!

Idbatterim

<MOD SNIP>

its a totally different thing and I have read very convincing arguments for its abolition. One is about receiving minimum remuneration for services rendered, the other is simply having the choice to share a bathroom...

So if we start with the minimum wage, because this is when you start to scrutinise anything, that holes start to appear. It is meant to provide obviously a minimum wage, to afford a certain standard of living. FINE. So why if the cost of living in Dublin is so much higher than the rest of the country, is the minimum wage here the same, effectively the minimum wage in dublin is worth significantly less than the rest of the country*

assuming you are renting or sharing a property and in the vast majority of cases*

the_syco

Idbatterim wrote: »

There is enough zoned land here, there are lots of ex construction workers unemployed

Enough zoned land in the backarse of nowhere. Anywhere decent was bought at astronomical prices, and thus NAMA will want to make money on it when selling it off.

Zadkiel wrote: »

Its nothing to do with the vacant units unfortunately. O'Devaney has always been like that. The bad people weren't drawn they were already there.

Ireland; where beggers can be choosers.

snubbleste wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwvmru5JmXk

The Chinese. Lovely bunch of lads. H&S would have a field day there, I'd say! They have entire cities (built in the last decade) that have been empty since they were built.

cerastes wrote: »

Id seen some bedits and they were quite nice, everyone of them had toilets of their own.

Bedsits had no regulations. I think someone tried to input regulations, but I also think it was decided that no bedsits would be better than trying to police what is out there.

Idbatterim

Enough zoned land in the backarse of nowhere. Anywhere decent was bought at astronomical prices, and thus NAMA will want to make money on it when selling it off.

from august last year there was enough zoned land in dublin for 46,000 properties. Relocate Dublin Port and you could house tens if not hundreds of thousands in the former port, as was proposed by the Pd's years back and done in Helsinki years ago...

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/enough-zoned-land-in-dublin-for-46-000-houses-1.1890766

CatFromHue

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Ha short term my arse. People are going to be living in pre fab ghettos for the foreseeable future.

Gatling wrote: »

Personally I think it's a great idea if it's done properly.
I'd rather be in a prefab house than a b&b if I had the choice or was in the situation the 450 families are currently in Dublin .

I'd agree with Donkey here, the people who this is being aimed at will be very wary about moving in to them as they'll be worried about getting stuck there.

I don't know if anyone saw the episode of Dail on The Dole in Limerick where Willie O'Dea was trying to help a 2 parent 2 child family who due to housing shortage where stuck in one hotel room for the lot of them. They were offered one place in the city but they deemed it unsituable, it could well have been too, but they were offered another place in Askeaton, which is 20 or 30 mins outside the city, but wouldn't move there as it was too far away. The show ended with them still in the hotel room and had been there for 4 or 5 months.

Gatling

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'd agree with Donkey here, the people who this is being aimed at will be very wary about moving in to them as they'll be worried about getting stuck there.

I don't know if anyone saw the episode of Dail on The Dole in Limerick where Willie O'Dea was trying to help a 2 parent 2 child family who due to housing shortage where stuck in one hotel room for the lot of them. They were offered one place in the city but they deemed it unsituable, it could well have been too, but they were offered another place in Askeaton, which is 20 or 30 mins outside the city, but wouldn't move there as it was too far away. The show ended with them still in the hotel room and had been there for 4 or 5 months.

But if there well built multiple rooms I wouldn't be to concerned living in one .
Most people will probably think prefab ohh not living in one of them there like caravans .
What I've been looking at since this the op posted are pretty nice modern homes .
As your post related to people won't move from the preferred choice oh it's too far ,hasn't got the right shops and so on .
There really shouldn't be a choice the local authority should find a property that meets standard's and then a take it nothing offer be made similar to what's happening in the uk .
Here's a property in this location here's the form are you taking it ,or if your not taking it we completely discharge you from our care and housing support and your on your own.

As harsh as it sounds it's only fair

murphaph

RecordStraight wrote: »

I wouldn't want to share a bath and a toilet with a group of single men who each have no incentive to ever clean them.

Lol. I'd say there's many a 3 bed semi house share in suburbia that fit that bill....but those are perfectly legal. Banning bedsits was monumentally stupid. They could have banned the creation of new ones perhaps, though this would still be denying that there exists a need for cheap housing. The need hasn't gone away with the legislation. The people who needed it now live in doorways and instead of sharing a dirty toilet they go to the toilet in back alleys. This is the reality.

athtrasna

Mod Note: We have a politics forum if people want to discuss minimum wage/government policy etc http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=99

RecordStraight

CatFromHue wrote: »

I'd agree with Donkey here, the people who this is being aimed at will be very wary about moving in to them as they'll be worried about getting stuck there.

I don't know if anyone saw the episode of Dail on The Dole in Limerick where Willie O'Dea was trying to help a 2 parent 2 child family who due to housing shortage where stuck in one hotel room for the lot of them. They were offered one place in the city but they deemed it unsituable, it could well have been too, but they were offered another place in Askeaton, which is 20 or 30 mins outside the city, but wouldn't move there as it was too far away. The show ended with them still in the hotel room and had been there for 4 or 5 months.

"I want a free house and I want it exactly where I want, exactly as I want". It's ironic that people dependent on the state can be so demanding, while those who are in the fortunate position of paying their own way will just take the best thing that they can afford, even if it isn't in the ideal place or hasn't the ideal number of rooms. Totally different attitudes in operation.

cerastes

the_syco wrote: »

Bedsits had no regulations. I think someone tried to input regulations, but I also think it was decided that no bedsits would be better than trying to police what is out there.

I dont see how not being able to regulate them and so create a blanket ban on them is any different to not being able to police places without toilets?

Im trying to think of an analogy, but its along the lines of cant fix the problem so lets get rid of everything regardless of how it affects anyone that avails of it, and the consequences have probably barely been seen. Id estimate the misery its caused cant be calculated, particularily because those making the decision arent affected themselves, cant see those affected, and have no knowledge (nor ever had any) of the situatio.

Del2005

<MOD SNIP, this is not the politics forum >

RecordStraight wrote: »

Were they sharing a toilet with strangers by choice? Or were they sharing a toilet with strangers because that was all they could afford?

What's the difference between this and an old 5 bed house with each room rented individually? Both are sharing the bathroom with strangers, yet one is now illegal

RecordStraight

Del2005 wrote: »

<MOD SNIP, this is not the politics forum >



What's the difference between this and an old 5 bed house with each room rented individually? Both are sharing the bathroom with strangers, yet one is now illegal

Mods, please delete this if it's deemed off topic...

The difference is that in a house-share, at least you know who you are moving in with, or who you are allowing to move in with you. When renting a 'self-contained unit' with a shared toilet, you have no control over either. I speak as someone who shared a house with 5 others...

the_syco

Del2005 wrote: »

What's the difference between this and an old 5 bed house with each room rented individually? Both are sharing the bathroom with strangers, yet one is now illegal

IIRC, a house share must have cooking facilities, toiletry, shower. A bedsit doesn't.

=-=

I'd like to say I was surprised it took the government took this long to come up with a solution to the homeless issue, but I'm not. One thing I will point out is that even when there was bedsits, there was still homelessness. Just now, the government has to provide decent accommodation that are not bedsits, which I'd say they would've done otherwise....!

ellejay

RecordStraight wrote: »

"I want a free house and I want it exactly where I want, exactly as I want". It's ironic that people dependent on the state can be so demanding, while those who are in the fortunate position of paying their own way will just take the best thing that they can afford, even if it isn't in the ideal place or hasn't the ideal number of rooms. Totally different attitudes in operation.

The populace that require a "free house" have to meet particular criteria.

A "free house" is not handed out liberally.
Speaking in general terms, the populace are unemployed or barely making minimum wage.

They want to stay close to their family and friends so because they cannot afford childcare, they've no access to bank loans and limited if any external social life.

So say you move them to an area where they know no-one? Who minds the kids? How to they afford childcare? Who do they borrow a tenner off?

RecordStraight

ellejay wrote: »

So say you move them to an area where they know no-one? Who minds the kids? How to they afford childcare? Who do they borrow a tenner off?

I've done it. You are just expected to cope - I didn't have anyone from the government coming around offering my wife and I cash or help.

The irony is that you have working parents paying for and living in their less than ideal houses in less than ideal areas, and their taxes being used to put up other people in houses that they are not paying for that must be where and how they like them. Surely you can see that?

ellejay

RecordStraight wrote: »

I've done it. You are just expected to cope - I didn't have anyone from the government coming around offering my wife and I cash or help.

The irony is that you have working parents paying for and living in their less than ideal houses in less than ideal areas, and their taxes being used to put up other people in houses that they are not paying for that must be where and how they like them. Surely you can see that?

It's not easy, fair play to you.

I do see that, but I'm guessing you can afford a car? You might struggle to tax and insure it, but you can do it. These groups of society can't.

Also, a lot of the people waiting to be homed, are single parent families. The fact you and your wife had each other would make things a little easier I'm guessing.

I think it's all relative.
So say the Jones from Dublin are "given" three bed semi in Cavan.
Mother and three kids move down.
- Now if the house was vacant in first place, no-one wanted to live there anyway.
- Developer has sold to council or nama has sold to council.

The locals are saying well for them being given a lovely 3 bed house.
The Jones are saying I can't believe we've to live out in the sticks, can't walk to the supermarket, no bus route, Mother can't get a part time job or improve standard of living because no-one to mind the kids, kids have to move school, new books, uniforms, nightmare.

RecordStraight

ellejay wrote: »

It's not easy, fair play to you.

I do see that, but I'm guessing you can afford a car? You might struggle to tax and insure it, but you can do it. These groups of society can't.

Actually, we don't have a car. We could afford it, but if we spent money on a car, we'd have less to spend on other stuff. So we use public transport.

ellejay wrote: »

Also, a lot of the people waiting to be homed, are single parent families. The fact you and your wife had each other would make things a little easier I'm guessing.

I think it's all relative.
So say the Jones from Dublin are "given" three bed semi in Cavan.
Mother and three kids move down.
- Now if the house was vacant in first place, no-one wanted to live there anyway.
- Developer has sold to council or nama has sold to council.

Nobody is seriously talking moving people from Dublin to Cavan. The example given was a family from Limerick City who declined a house in Limerick city because they (not the council, who know their requirements) deemed it unsuitable, and declined one in Askeaton (35-45 minutes away) as too far.

I'm all for helping people out when they need it, but when you have people dictating exactly what type of free house they want in what kind of neighbourhood - choices that employed people who pay their own way DO NOT have - then I think things have gone too far.

ardmacha

ellejay wrote: »

The populace that require a "free house" have to meet particular criteria.

A "free house" is not handed out liberally.
Speaking in general terms, the populace are unemployed or barely making minimum wage.

They want to stay close to their family and friends so because they cannot afford childcare, they've no access to bank loans and limited if any external social life.

So say you move them to an area where they know no-one? Who minds the kids? How to they afford childcare? Who do they borrow a tenner off?

So tax or reduce services to other people with childcare needs, who themselves live in less convenient locations so others can have their choice of free house? They won't need to borrow tenner if they get a job.

billythefish99

ellejay wrote: »

The locals are saying well for them being given a lovely 3 bed house.
The Jones are saying I can't believe we've to live out in the sticks, can't walk to the supermarket, no bus route, Mother can't get a part time job or improve standard of living because no-one to mind the kids, kids have to move school, new books, uniforms, nightmare.

So they get a flat in York St 30 seconds from Stephens Green and the poor sap who works for a living has to move to Cavan because there is nowhere in Dublin to rent. As ever, everyone is looked after except the private renter, who is completely on his own, no bailouts or free houses for him.

ellejay

billythefish99 wrote: »

So they get a flat in York St 30 seconds from Stephens Green and the poor sap who works for a living has to move to Cavan because there is nowhere in Dublin to rent. As ever, everyone is looked after except the private renter, who is completely on his own, no bailouts or free houses for him.

Well, a lot needs to be done in private rental sector for sure.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do think that the families should be entitled to turn down a house. As things stand, I think they're allowed to turn down 2 housing offers, then they're struck off.

ellejay

RecordStraight wrote: »

Actually, we don't have a car. We could afford it, but if we spent money on a car, we'd have less to spend on other stuff. So we use public transport.

Nobody is seriously talking moving people from Dublin to Cavan. The example given was a family from Limerick City who declined a house in Limerick city because they (not the council, who know their requirements) deemed it unsuitable, and declined one in Askeaton (35-45 minutes away) as too far.

I'm all for helping people out when they need it, but when you have people dictating exactly what type of free house they want in what kind of neighbourhood - choices that employed people who pay their own way DO NOT have - then I think things have gone too far.

But maybe it was unsuitable?!
The council don't always make good choices.

In my own area, I'm aware of a family of seven being offered a two bed house.
Two parents and 5 kids.
Personally, I'd deem that unsuitable!!!

I know of another family, 1 single parent family, 1 kid, offered a house in an estate that is so bad the seagulls don't even fly over it.
The actual house she was offered was right beside a very troubled family.
Again, personally, I'd find that unsuitable.

And no, I'm not defining "bad" or "troubled" you can use your imagination.

ellejay

ardmacha wrote: »

So tax or reduce services to other people with childcare needs, who themselves live in less convenient locations so others can have their choice of free house? They won't need to borrow tenner if they get a job.

surely we have a duty of care to the more vulnerable in society?

how do they get to the job?
who minds the kids?

so what's the solution, low tax for everyone and let the more unfortunate live like rats and have no life?

billythefish99

ellejay wrote: »

surely we have a duty of care to the more vulnerable in society?

We dont have a duty to provide them with a better standard of living than those who work and rent or pay a mortgage. If you cant house yourself you should be housed, but not at the expense of those who can.

ardmacha

ellejay wrote: »

surely we have a duty of care to the more vulnerable in society?

how do they get to the job?
who minds the kids?

so what's the solution, low tax for everyone and let the more unfortunate live like rats and have no life?

I'm not proposing low taxes for everyone, quite the reverse. What I am saying is that use of that taxation has opportunity costs. There can be a profound inequity in hard working people being denied services in less convenient locations while others live in Dublin 1 at the expense of the State when there are hundreds of jobs within walking distance of their free house.

looksee

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.495824,-1.347628,3a,75y,84.45h,77.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6JzmguP93sqq9Xg2ZqKePA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Prefabricated houses were built in parts of England to ease the housing crisis after the Second World War. Some are still inhabited nearly 70 years later, though they are at the end of their lives at this stage. They were highly regarded at the time and many people have lived in them and regard them with great affection. I remember an aunt and uncle living in one and my memory is that they were comfortable little houses.