The housing crisis and where we go from here

handlemaster

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/all-regions-of-state-bar-one-see-rise-in-child-homelessness-1.2311331

Its all to common we see these reports now in the papers. It used to be homeless figures and shortage of housing I think that shock factor wore off and now its the figures about homeless kids that gets thrown out. Is the tax payer responsible for the housing of families without end? When a person family etc need housing should there not be an end date put on it ? Is it fair that the tax payer pays for generations of families to free housing. What are the options to the current crises ? Perhaps if a house is available any where in the country and it is offered to a person on the housing list and if they refuse it then its back to the bottom of the list. Tax incentives for landlords to take welfare tenants !

NIMAN

handlemaster wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/all-regions-of-state-bar-one-see-rise-in-child-homelessness-1.2311331

Its all to common we see these reports now in the papers. It used to be homeless figures and shortage of housing I think that shock factor wore off and now its the figures about homeless kids that gets thrown out. Is the tax payer responsible for the housing of families without end? When a person family etc need housing should there not be an end date put on it ? Is it fair that the tax payer pays for generations of families to free housing. What are the options to the current crises ? Perhaps if a house is available any where in the country and it is offered to a person on the housing list and if they refuse it then its back to the bottom of the list. Tax incentives for landlords to take welfare tenants !

Lets be honest, that would never work and would be very harsh to implement. It would mean uprooting families, taking kids out of schools etc.

Having said that, the numbers are shocking. Especially when we hear how many kids are now homeless.

As to whether the taxpayer should be expected to house every single person looking for a home is a different argument.

c montgomery

NIMAN wrote: »

Lets be honest, that would never work and would be very harsh to implement. It would mean uprooting families, taking kids out of schools etc.

Having said that, the numbers are shocking. Especially when we hear how many kids are now homeless.

As to whether the taxpayer should be expected to house every single person looking for a home is a different argument.

I have a relative who got a very nice council house fir him and his family about 5 years ago. House came with a check for 5 k to fit out the house. 3 years later relationship broke up and now both of them have a council house, both kids living with the mother.
My relative now has a pretty good job earning about 40k per year and still living in his 3 bed council house alone!
These situations should be reviewed regularly

handlemaster

NIMAN wrote: »

Lets be honest, that would never work and would be very harsh to implement. It would mean uprooting families, taking kids out of schools etc.

Having said that, the numbers are shocking. Especially when we hear how many kids are now homeless.

As to whether the taxpayer should be expected to house every single person looking for a home is a different argument.

The working people of this country up root and move not just to another county but to other country in search of work . Why would it be harsh to expect someone to move to another area with a free house on offer ? Ireland is small as regards family visiting . I dont think that should be an issue

BoJack Horseman

The reasons for this crisis are many & long-standing.
Some pertain to money, some don't.

At its most fundamental you look at the relationship between benefits & democracies....
When a government, decades in the past promise 'X' for electoral gain, they care little for the snowballing of this demand decades in the future or its costs.

I actually do agree with the principle of state housing & I was very dismayed by the policy of depleting the nations stock of accommodation by allowing tenants to purchase said property.
This state asset was not only cash valuable but a critical social asset that was allowed be privatised, again for electoral gain with no replacement.

looking at the homeless situation specifically:
The government will spend about €15k this year on homeless person accommodation, charities will spend a lot on same also.
2015 will see a 22% increase in this government funding for temporary accomodation, but it seems it takes time to bear fruit.
So from that perspective, the money is there but seems to cost a lot more than it should.

So we know that a lot is already spent housing homeless people temporarily
We also know that the governments construction of social housing has been ignored for over 2 decades now, and that construction is much more expensive now. And we know that the existing social housing stock is poorly used.

Not easy to fix

Gatling

I think the way they do it in the UK is the way to go .
Local authorities find you a property could be 20 miles to several hundred miles way from where you want to live (want been a keyword ).
They give you bus or train tickets if you don't have your own transport.
Now your asked to take the property there and then if you refuse they discharge you from there care and taken off the housing list .
We've a massive social housing shortage but if people aren't willing to help themselves well then molly codling has to stop .
If you cant find a house in Dublin or other places you believe your entitled to live as long as someone else is paying for you .
Then you should be looking further afield .
I personally know 3 families currently in hotels who tuned down properties because they only want to live in nice council estates in one or two specific places.
I Came close to been homeless again after a another rent increase this year but under no circumstances will I allow my wife and kids be put into a hotel or b&b I'd rather move to the four corners of the country first

handlemaster

Some good comment s . Also it is important that homeless people take responsibility for their situation I. E. If you can work you should be actively looking for work not giving it lip service

Villa05

handlemaster wrote:

Its all to common we see these reports now in the papers. It used to be homeless figures and shortage of housing I think that shock factor wore off and now its the figures about homeless kids that gets thrown out. Is the tax payer responsible for the housing of families without end? When a person family etc need housing should there not be an end date put on it ? Is it fair that the tax payer pays for generations of families to free housing. What are the options to the current crises ? Perhaps if a house is available any where in the country and it is offered to a person on the housing list and if they refuse it then its back to the bottom of the list. Tax incentives for landlords to take welfare tenants !

handlemaster wrote:

Is it fair that the tax payer pays for generations of families to free housing. What are the options to the current crises ? Tax incentives for landlords to take welfare tenants !

I wonder if the taxpayer was not spending huge amounts on propping up/increasing house prices. What would the overall effect be on affordability and homelessness.

Legislation that adds to the cost of development but does little or is ineffective for the quality of housing. Do we néed it?

Standard tax on rental income. Rent paid directly to the landlord not tennant. Repercussions for families that abuse properties and neighbourhoods.

Review of regeneration schemes, very often the cost of demolition would be sufficient to upgrade the property.

Villa05

Was watching Dail on the dole recently and hotel was charging the state e120 per night for a room. Family in room for 3 months.

Same hotel was selling rooms on Groupon for e59 with breakfast. Why is it that when spending state money there appears to be no attempt to get value.

Do we insist on the highest price when procuring products and services. I'm sure there is multiple other examples

riffmongous

Gatling wrote: »

I think the way they do it in the UK is the way to go .
Local authorities find you a property could be 20 miles to several hundred miles way from where you want to live (want been a keyword ).
They give you bus or train tickets if you don't have your own transport.
Now your asked to take the property there and then if you refuse they discharge you from there care and taken off the housing list .

And how does this actually work out in the end? What are the social effects? Building a few tower blocks sounded like a simple solution in the past too

NIMAN

Although the subject of moving a family to a different part of the country has been mentioned here, and some of us might understand how this could prove difficult, something that I do find annoying to hear is a recent interview with a housing officer on a Donegal radio station.

He said that people were turning down offers of houses in Letterkenny because they didn't want that area, and instead wanted to live in another part of Letterkenny. Now that for me takes the biscuit, as the offer is in the same town ffs. If homeless people are getting picky about being a few miles away from where they want to live, they definitely deserve to be taken off the list.

afaik, at present they can turn down 2 offers before any sanction is taken against them.

Things like this aren't helping the numbers waiting to be housed.

handlemaster

riffmongous wrote: »

And how does this actually work out in the end? What are the social effects? Building a few tower blocks sounded like a simple solution in the past too

Really the question is why not ? Just because you move from an area doesnt mean the new area is bad. Kids adapt get new friends etc its the parents that the problem rests with.

gaius c

handlemaster wrote: »

Really the question is why not ? Just because you move from an area doesnt mean the new area is bad. Kids adapt get new friends etc its the parents that the problem rests with.

The real issue is that in a country like the one we live in (a mildly corrupt one), good offers are only going to get made to second cousins of somebody who knows somebody signing the right forms.

Or when a "poor" offer is made, a local TD will be on the case immediately to ensure that round two goes a little better.

NIMAN

Do people honestly think it would be fair to say to a family in Donegal that there's a house free for them in Kerry, take it or leave it?

handlemaster

NIMAN wrote: »

Do people honestly think it would be fair to say to a family in Donegal that there's a house free for them in Kerry, take it or leave it?

is it fair that alot of people can only find jobs in Dublin ? Is it fair that some people get to live without ever working while another only gets to see their kids for one or two hours a day ?and whats wrong with kerry ;_)

NIMAN

Nothing wrong with Kerry, lovely spot! As is Donegal.

I appreciate the argument can be made about the working population having to be mobile, why can't the homeless be too? For example, say there was 100% mobility across the entire country for all people on the housing list, we haven't even got the houses to put them in. So mobility isn't an issue from what I can see. I am sure every single local authority has a positive number on their housing list.

So if a 3 bed house comes up in Kerry, I am sure there's plenty of Kerry folk to fill it before even considering the idea of offering it to some family in Donegal.

Gatling

NIMAN wrote: »

Do people honestly think it would be fair to say to a family in Donegal that there's a house free for them in Kerry, take it or leave it?

Yes it is .

I'm in that position with a wife and 2 kids what's better an actual house /apartment or a hotel room .

NIMAN

Gatling wrote: »

Yes it is .

I'm in that position with a wife and 2 kids what's better an actual house /apartment or a hotel room .

So distance is no object to you, honestly?

Gatling

NIMAN wrote: »

So distance is no object to you, honestly?

No its not .

My main concern is schools for my 2 kids .

NIMAN

Fair play, but not many like you.
When someone turns down a house in one part of town because they want to live in another part of the same town close to mammy, they should catch themselves on.

Maybe its time the local authorities grew a set and started to play hardball with immobile people?

Villa05

handlemaster wrote: »

is it fair that alot of people can only find jobs in Dublin ? Is it fair that some people get to live without ever working while another only gets to see their kids for one or two hours a day ?and whats wrong with kerry ;_)

We need to move from this thinking that because other negative or unfair scenarios are happening its OK for other negative or unfair scenarios to occur

I have outlined four possible solutions that can help alleviate homelessness, help make housing more affordable thereby allowing people live closer to work and allow them spend more quality time with there families

In addition and probably the most shocking point, The solutions are either cost neutral or revenue positive.
So we need to ask ourselves why the state is spending money to make life more difficult for its citizens?

Gatling

Another thing that had to be addressed is this 100,000 on the housing lists ,
They need to go through the lists and find out who's genuinely in need of social housing and those who are on it just to receive rent supplement.
If people are in a position where they can afford private rents or are living with families and aren't at risk of becoming homeless then remove them and set up a secondary housing list as not in need of urgent housing

ComfortKid

You can not apply for housing outside of your local councils area unless you can prove that you have family links in the area you wish to move to.You can only be on one councils list at a time. So donegal folk moving to kerry isn't going to happen.

johnnyskeleton

Social housing should meet an emergency need. If shouldnt be a long term solution and it shouldnt be in any way comparable to the property you get if yiu work and pay for it yourself.

When people who work canr afford rent, that is a more serious problem than housing the unemployed. So if long term unemployed people have to be housed in ghost estates in Leitrim, so be it.

PolaroidPizza

its amazing how many comments have failed to look at the underlying root of the problem.
People need to go on housing lists and because there isn't affordable housing in this country.

There are multiple reasons behind the high costs of property, and there isn't the political will or the desire from the electorate to tackle these.
affordable property would in turn result in affordable rents, but root and branch review and intervention in how the property industry operates would hit way too many people where it hurts, so instead we skirt around issues like decentralisation, homeless shelter provision, and housing lists.

El_Duderino 09

handlemaster wrote:

The working people of this country up root and move not just to another county but to other country in search of work . Why would it be harsh to expect someone to move to another area with a free house on offer ? Ireland is small as regards family visiting . I dont think that should be an issue

I initially disagreed with the idea of housing people far from their family and social support structures. I think you make a great point here though. People relocate for work all the time. I moved abroad for Uni and were still here for with jobs.

The difference is that you expect people who moved for jobs to be proactive about setting up a social support network. If working people can do it, so can those who are getting a free bloody house.

There is a cost benefit analysis to be done though. Moving away from family, friends and sports clubs etc isn't ideal but how much molly codling can the state afford?

slowjoe17

Villa05 wrote: »

Was watching Dail on the dole recently and hotel was charging the state e120 per night for a room. Family in room for 3 months.

Same hotel was selling rooms on Groupon for e59 with breakfast. Why is it that when spending state money there appears to be no attempt to get value.

Do we insist on the highest price when procuring products and services. I'm sure there is multiple other examples

If I owned a hotel, I would expect a premium to allow for potential anti-social behaviour and delayed payments from the government. e120 a night might well be a bargain for the state.

CatFromHue

Villa05 wrote: »

Was watching Dail on the dole recently and hotel was charging the state e120 per night for a room. Family in room for 3 months.

Same hotel was selling rooms on Groupon for e59 with breakfast. Why is it that when spending state money there appears to be no attempt to get value.

Do we insist on the highest price when procuring products and services. I'm sure there is multiple other examples

I think that was the same family where they were offered 2 places but turned them down. The first was in Limerick city and it could well have been not suitable, the second was out in Askeaton which is 20km outside the city but that was too far. The show ended with them still in the hotel and still in the hotel when the show was broadcast.

ComfortKid

CatFromHue wrote:

I think that was the same family where they were offered 2 places but turned them down. The first was in Limerick city and it could well have been not suitable, the second was out in Askeaton which is 20km outside the city but that was too far. The show ended with them still in the hotel and still in the hotel when the show was broadcast.

In fairness to them, I would not like to end up in a council house in moyross or Southill, I'd sooner move to the ghost estates in Leitrim.

Villa05

PolaroidPizza wrote:

There are multiple reasons behind the high costs of property, and there isn't the political will or the desire from the electorate to tackle these. affordable property would in turn result in affordable rents, but root and branch review and intervention in how the property industry operates would hit way too many people where it hurts, so instead we skirt around issues like decentralisation, homeless shelter provision, and housing lists.

100% agree. These debates always miss the real issues and become a outlet for vested interests to extract more money out of the system like increased rent allowance, subsidies for developers, or help to buy schemes all of which exacerbate the problem through higher rents/property prices

CatFromHue

ComfortKid wrote: »

In fairness to them, I would not like to end up in a council house in moyross or Southill, I'd sooner move to the ghost estates in Leitrim.

Yeah if they said it was unsuitable I'd take their word on it.

As for the place in Askeaton though..........

relax carry on

The housing issue is just one facet of the never ending problem in Ireland. That is what type of society do we want and how will we fund it.
We want to fix all our problems but balk at the prospect of paying the tax required to fund the solutions. Then depending on what solution we chose, we could end up paying the tax to cover it indefinitely.
Is there a limit to what should be expected of the state? Do we just keep throwing money at our problems for ever hoping that somehow it will all workout in the end?

Ray Palmer

There are a number of initiatives that could be tried to help and build more solid communities. If they tried them our communities got together. There are some houses with large enough plots to aid in building housing ideal for elderly people. This would allow certain elderly people to stay in the community and downsize. This would free up the large residential housing many elderly people live in and around major areas of employment and amenities. Tax breaks for pension funds could be used and incentives to sell to family could be added.

Not much cost and possibly actually save money in the long term keeping people happier in their old age and independent. Much better use of current housing stock.
It could be a touchy subject but can be handled in a constructive way.

slowjoe17

relax carry on wrote: »

The housing issue is just one facet of the never ending problem in Ireland. That is what type of society do we want and how will we fund it.
We want to fix all our problems but balk at the prospect of paying the tax required to fund the solutions. Then depending on what solution we chose, we could end up paying the tax to cover it indefinitely.
Is there a limit to what should be expected of the state? Do we just keep throwing money at our problems for ever hoping that somehow it will all workout in the end?

To be fair, the housing problem is NOT related to philosophical questions.

The housing problem is because, in areas where the population was growing at 10% per year, we were building 2% extra housing stock. The math isn't socialist or capitalist. 10% is bigger than 2% no matter the politics.

If we hadn't had a bubble, and didn't have ghost estates to release the pressure, there would be well paid working people living in tents or squatting derelict buildings.

What we need:
1. Streamlined planning permission. It costs about 60k per house in red tape to build.
2. Get builders building. This can be a bank guarantee from the government.
3. Fix the social rental market so landlords don't blacklist all social tenants:
3.1 Pay the benefit to the landlord. The cost of one dodgy tenants is keeping lls from dealing with any social tenant.
3.2 Make it easier to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour.
3.3 Remove the duty for the state to house repeat criminals or their families.
4. Attach housing and planning permission conditions to county council grants. If Wicklow doesn't want to allow any building that's fine. But I don't want a penny of Irish tax money spent in the Republic of Wicklow.

Ray Palmer

slowjoe17 wrote: »

The housing problem is because, in areas where the population was growing at 10% per year, we were building 2% extra housing stock. The math isn't socialist or capitalist. 10% is bigger than 2% no matter the politics.

The thing is there is a massive absence from the figures you are using. Under utilized housing. If you accept housing is getting smaller than older houses are big enough for two modern houses. There are large estates of housing where the vast majority of the housing is lived in by no more than 2 people when capable of housing 4-5. In Dublin that must account for over 10% of the houses within easy commute of the city.
People talk of increased density by building up but the easier cheaper solution is to reuse. Where I grew up the vast majority of the original residents are living there after their kids left. They built extensions for their large families and now live rattling around them. We literally don't need more housing we need to rework the housing we have. With some choice decisions we could build a beautiful community with regenerative use. Good mix and flow of property building trade wouldn't lose out as their would be much more remodeling work. Houses would still be built but could consider the same future for the developments.

athtrasna

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The thing is there is a massive absence from the figures you are using. Under utilized housing. If you accept housing is getting smaller than older houses are big enough for two modern houses. There are large estates of housing where the vast majority of the housing is lived in by no more than 2 people when capable of housing 4-5. In Dublin that must account for over 10% of the houses within easy commute of the city.
People talk of increased density by building up but the easier cheaper solution is to reuse. Where I grew up the vast majority of the original residents are living there after their kids left. They built extensions for their large families and now live rattling around them. We literally don't need more housing we need to rework the housing we have. With some choice decisions we could build a beautiful community with regenerative use. Good mix and flow of property building trade wouldn't lose out as their would be much more remodeling work. Houses would still be built but could consider the same future for the developments.

Good point, two non related adults in my place, capacity for 5 adults or more if mixed adults and kids. BTW private housing, just a total under utilisation of bed spaces. (And I like it that way lol)

Gatling

athtrasna wrote: »

Good point, two non related adults in my place, capacity for 5 adults or more if mixed adults and kids.

I remember living in North Wales a few years back one of the systems they put in place was taking 4 bed house and divided it in two so for one property they could house 2 families with their own front doors and a shared front and back gardens.
Here in tallaght I know tons of 4 beds been occupied by one or at most 2 adults that needs to be looked it for a start .
In social housing your housed on needs but here local authorities can't seem to review housing needs every few years especially if kids and growing up and moving out ,but you stay in a property 3/4 + rooms

rawn

Gatling wrote: »

Another thing that had to be addressed is this 100,000 on the housing lists ,
They need to go through the lists and find out who's genuinely in need of social housing and those who are on it just to receive rent supplement.
If people are in a position where they can afford private rents or are living with families and aren't at risk of becoming homeless then remove them and set up a secondary housing list as not in need of urgent housing

This. My sister-in-law lives with her parents with my young nephew. She is still with the father (my brother). He lives with my mother. He works full time and she works 8 hours per week. She refuses to move in with him because she wants to wait for the social welfare to give her a house, even though it will be over 8 years. She does not NEED this house, but she will get it... eventually. They can afford a house now, she could get more hours... but there's nothing in place to check this... how many others have free houses that don't need them?

gosplan

slowjoe17 wrote: »

To be fair, the housing problem is NOT related to philosophical questions.

The housing problem is because, in areas where the population was growing at 10% per year, we were building 2% extra housing stock. The math isn't socialist or capitalist. 10% is bigger than 2% no matter the politics.

If we hadn't had a bubble, and didn't have ghost estates to release the pressure, there would be well paid working people living in tents or squatting derelict buildings.

What we need:
1. Streamlined planning permission. It costs about 60k per house in red tape to build.
2. Get builders building. This can be a bank guarantee from the government.
3. Fix the social rental market so landlords don't blacklist all social tenants:
3.1 Pay the benefit to the landlord. The cost of one dodgy tenants is keeping lls from dealing with any social tenant.
3.2 Make it easier to evict tenants for anti-social behaviour.
3.3 Remove the duty for the state to house repeat criminals or their families.
4. Attach housing and planning permission conditions to county council grants. If Wicklow doesn't want to allow any building that's fine. But I don't want a penny of Irish tax money spent in the Republic of Wicklow.

3.3 so if you committ two crimes, you and your family are made homeless till you have deposit money. Yes, that should help criminals rehabilitate.

Gatling

gosplan wrote: »

3.3 so if you committ two crimes, you and your family are made homeless till you have deposit money. Yes, that should help criminals rehabilitate.

3.3. antisocial behaviour families can and do get evicted from social housing due to one or more of the family been involved in recorded anti social behaviour

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The thing is there is a massive absence from the figures you are using. Under utilized housing. If you accept housing is getting smaller than older houses are big enough for two modern houses. There are large estates of housing where the vast majority of the housing is lived in by no more than 2 people when capable of housing 4-5. In Dublin that must account for over 10% of the houses within easy commute of the city.
People talk of increased density by building up but the easier cheaper solution is to reuse. Where I grew up the vast majority of the original residents are living there after their kids left. They built extensions for their large families and now live rattling around them. We literally don't need more housing we need to rework the housing we have. With some choice decisions we could build a beautiful community with regenerative use. Good mix and flow of property building trade wouldn't lose out as their would be much more remodeling work. Houses would still be built but could consider the same future for the developments.

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).


Also even if only two people are living in the house full time their children most likely visit regularly, possibly staying over if living further away and then they may have their own kids in toe also so big houses are very much utalised.

Gatling

Tanner Old Claw wrote: »

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).


Also even if only two people are living in the house full time their children most likely visit regularly, possibly staying over if living further away and then they may have their own kids in toe also so big houses are very much utalised.

Not in social housing there not though .
Which is why your housed on your need 2,3,4 kids .
But these kids grow up and move out then a lot of times properties with 3-4 + beds are occupied with 1-2 adults at most .
While family's desperately in need of housing are left waiting till one or both pass away or move themselves

gosplan

Gatling wrote: »

3.3. antisocial behaviour families can and do get evicted from social housing due to one or more of the family been involved in recorded anti social behaviour

Which is a bit different to be honest.

I get where it's coming from. I just think that striking the families of criminals off the social housing register is a bit cold and fairly short-sighted in terms of being beneficial.

Gatling

Gatling wrote: »

Not in social housing there not though .
Which is why your housed on your need 2,3,4 kids .
But these kids grow up and move out then a lot of times properties with 3-4 + beds are occupied with 1-2 adults at most .
While family's desperately in need of housing are left waiting till one or both pass away or move themselves

I agree on social housing, you are being handed a house so if you are no longer in need of a house of that size then people should be moved on.

I was talking about people who own their homes, these I would not in anyway expect to move on regardless of house size and number of people living there.

Villa05

Fianna Fail Senator Daragh O Brien said the country is facing a national crisis and Minister Kelly must return from holidays and face up to what is his ultimate reposnibility.

Looks like the problem is going to get worse as the politicians are getting involved.

This country is like a reality Monty python Movie some times

handlemaster

Villa05 wrote: »

Looks like the problem is going to get worse as the politicians are getting involved.

This country is like a reality Monty python Movie some times

Some TD always comes out with this ... come back early because theres à pressing issue. . Nothing more than wanting to get their name in the papers.. lots more of this BS coming up before the election

handlemaster

http://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rent-out-spare-bedrooms-to-students-says-osullivan-31448198.html

With the rent à room scheme landlords get the first 12k free of tax. Why not apply the same to landlords who take social welfare tenants.

gaius c

So we need individual charity to fix a failure of government policy...
Words fail me re the disconnected reality she lives in.

Ray Palmer

Tanner Old Claw wrote: »

You can't expect people to move out of their family homes as very few want to. They have bought their houses and have worked on them over the years to the standard they want and are settled in them for life (and will most likely want to leave the house to one of their children).


Also even if only two people are living in the house full time their children most likely visit regularly, possibly staying over if living further away and then they may have their own kids in toe also so big houses are very much utalised.

I don't expect everybody to want to do it just some. The fact is some people do it as is and you could make it more appealing. I would expect some people would do it with their children so they would be close to parents. That is part of why it would be good for social elements. Not everybody needs to bump up their pension. It isn't about forcing people just increasing options.

We have a pension issue which will grow, we have a housing issue which will grow, we have a school problem here is a solution that should improve social cohesion. There are more problems that this would reduce. It isn't a perfect solution by any means certain older people would feel pressured to move from family for example. That is why it needs to be done delicately and probably some form of opinion gauging. I don't think you realise the isolation many older people feel as a community changes and neighbours die. Having children and families about especially descendants of friends/neighbours. It is kind of how society should be.

waxon-waxoff

Thats a good point about reviewing social housing after a few years to see if the occupant still needs a house when they are a widow or their family have moved out etc. A smaller apartment would be more suitable. Some will argue that they dont want to move as they know the area and their friends are there, but thats a luxury the councils cant afford.

On a related point, perhaps the councils should stop selling houses to tenants at prices below the market rate. This reduces the supply of houses available for future use.

handlemaster

http://m.rte.ie/news/2015/0814/721142-homeless-dublin/
focus ireland say rent supplement not been raised is the problem