Media: Oireachtas Committee to debate calling a referendum on the right to housing

The_Conductor

Currently being reported by RTE - an Oireachtas Committee is considering calling for a referendum on people's right to housing.


Essentially- the Oireachtas Housing Committee is considering recommending holding a referendum to enshrine people's right to housing in the Irish constitution. They are also separately advocating additional rights for children of tenants in eviction cases.

Personally- it is my opinion that the proposals are unworkable unless the provision of housing to those unable to house themselves- is brought back into the public domain- however, it has to be spelt out to the public- that there is a cost associated with this- what precisely the cost is- and what will be foregone in lieu of this scheme (we don't have a magic money tree we can shake and pay for a new hospital, or 500 new Gardaí- along with a thousand homes for those who can't house themselves- etc etc)

While the Committee doubtless have the best of intentions- putting some of these proposals on a constitutional basis- is impossible in the current situation- without trampling on the rights of others (the right to own property etc).

El_Dangeroso

Jesus, talk about fiddling on the titanic..

Is a referendum going to magically build a load of houses? Nope, so it's literally just to look like something is being done while doing sod all.

Some real proposals that can be done now but won't be for god knows what reasons:

1. Stop selling council house stock
2. Start charging real rent on council houses to those who can afford it (I know a lad on 40K a year paying €300 a month for a three bed.)
3. Start taxing unused property and land
4. Diminish entitlement culture by phasing out benefits for able-bodied people over time, or a work for the dole scheme.

ongarite

Load of BS..
May as not pay rent if you have kids as you are eviction proof.
Landlords renting to single people only..

snubbleste

How does a 'right to housing' work in other countries?

The_Conductor

snubbleste wrote: »

How does a 'right to housing' work in other countries?

In other countries- it is 'accommodation' not 'housing'. This is liberally interpreted- depending on the country- but includes everything from tents, to mobile homes, to dormitory accommodation, to purpose built camps, to purpose built developments built in lower demand areas. I'm not aware of a single instance where it means a house where you want to live- other than in Ireland.

Switzerland and Finland feature a block grant towards housing- which you can use as you choose- aka- if you live in a rural area for a pittance- you have a useful lumpsum over- while if you insist on living in Helsinki or on the outskirts of Zurich- you have stories of prostitution and criminality- solely to afford housing- and these are the examples that are held up as 'gold-standard'.

The right to accommodation is a UN guaranteed right- it is not specific to any country in particular. It was part of the 1996 Istanbul accord- where the exact words are 'a right to adequate housing'. Of course- thats subjective as hell- adequate to you or me- could be luxurious to someone else- or considered a hovel by others. How long is a piece of string.

boundlessSea

I think everyone who should have access to accommodation to live in dignity that is safe, warm and clean, no should ever have to sleep rough, but no has the right to a home but instead a right to try and provide a home for themselves.

TheDoc

Appears to be added to the list along with the proposed "right to broadband". I don't know about anyone else, but I don't like how rights are being thrown around willy nilly.

I'm not old by any stretch, but maybe old fashioned. I always get skeptical about "rights" that are also a pathway to perpetuating social welfare scrounging. I personally don't believe anyone has a right to housing. You have a right to enjoy unbiased and equal opportunities in acquiring gainful employment, so that you can work your way towards buying a house.

Social housing is fine by me for a number of scenarios. And maybe I'm just annoyed with some first hand instances that I know happening. There are two charities who are starch lobbiests, advocating that those in emergency accommodation get put straight into the top of the social housing list. This includes people who have essentially made abhorant financial decisions in their lives and having advocacy for special treatment. It can be difficult to get unemotional debate and objectiveness in areas like these, as no-one wants to look like they are dissing a section of society.

But I've a real issue with lobbiests trying to push a segment of people to the top of a list, a list that has people patiently waiting for YEARS to obtain social housing. And just because they have a child living in a hotel, in some cases down to their moronic financial decisions, that it should trump someone with a disability or illness who will never be able to obtain gainful employment.

I don't know, it sounds like a lot of talking, talking and talking, with nothing actually happening.

How does a right to a house work? Is it really, you have a right to a house, as long as you don't earn X to actually afford one. I've no prospects of house ownership at this rate, for atleast a decade. If this passes can I just pony up to Leinster house and demand my right to a house?

Absolutely boils my piss how everyone is being wrapped up in cotton wool, and only going to get worse with a minority government who will need to lick arse in the time it actually remains in place.

Plenty of people in this country need a harsh truth told to them .

keane2097

TheDoc wrote: »

a list that has people patiently waiting for YEARS to obtain social housing.

Before the thread jumps straight to blaming the rapidly, consistently falling numbers of people on the dole for everything again, I just want to highlight that the snippet above is the actual problem.

The_Conductor

Just a friendly warning to posters- do not turn this into a social welfare bashing thread.

snubbleste

I don't think it's a bad idea.
I assume it just means that the State needs to tailor its policies to citizens needs regarding a basic good - housing. There is no onus or obligation on the State currently to respond to citizen needs regarding accommodation, in fact accommodation is regarded as a commercial enterprise almost exclusively.

4ensic15

There is a right to free primary education in the constitution and has been sice the beginning. Has it resulted in any single individual getting any education out of it?
Fluting around with the constitution is nonsense. It is a waste of energy and money.

jd

El_Dangeroso wrote:

1. Stop selling council house stock 2. Start charging real rent on council houses to those who can afford it (I know a lad on 40K a year paying €300 a month for a three bed.) 3. Start taxing unused property and land 4. Diminish entitlement culture by phasing out benefits for able-bodied people over time, or a work for the dole scheme.

I don't have a problem with selling housing stock to occupants, as long as it is not heavily discounted, and the proceeds are invested in more public housing. If all the people who manage to get decent jobs feel they should move out, you may end up with a perpetually deprived estate.

JustTheOne

So what if everyone just doesn't bother working anymore and demands a free house as it's in the constitution?

What about people working to pay crippling mortgages? Can they just give back the keys and get a free house?

Nonsense.

The_Conductor

JustTheOne wrote: »

So what if everyone just doesn't bother working anymore and demands a free house as it's in the constitution?

What about people working to pay crippling mortgages? Can they just give back the keys and get a free house?

Nonsense.

No-one has said that the housing has to be in Dublin/Cork/Waterford/Galway/Limerick- and indeed- nor should it be. If there is LA housing procured or built in these areas- I would argue that it should be ring fenced for front line public sector workers- Gardai, Firemen, Ambulance staff, nurses, teachers etc etc. I don't see how or why people should imagine they have a right to be kept in their comfort zones- because they have a family network or whatever in a particular area.

I also don't see why anyone should be kept on housing lists- if they turn down perfectly good accommodation- aka we saw the bizarre and bewildering list of reasons that lovely homes were turned down earlier this year- a large family home with a garden by the sea was turned down- because the prospective recipient thought they might get sea sick looking out at the sea- wtf?

A right to accommodation- is not a right to a house, first of all- and secondly- it is not a right to a home in a particular area- period.

I wish someone would offer me that 4 bed family home with a large garden by the sea- it would be my dreams come true.........

newacc2015

Honestly TD's need an induction week at the start of every year. Most of them don't seem to understand what the constitution is. Every few months there is a ridiculous suggestions for what 'needs' to be in the constitution. One TD was recently on a mission to get the sale of the ESB prohibited under. What other country in the developed world would have a member of the Government suggest such a ridiculous thing? The constitution should be as small as possible and be a guide for the laws of the country. It shouldn't include everything including the kitchen sink.

Obviously none of the TD's have learned putting populist BS in the constitution creates massive issues in the future ie all the references to the God and women. We have an extremely outdated constitution as it was written to please opinions at the time. It looks like we will creating the same issues again in a few years

TD's are basically admitting when they suggesting putting IW or the ESB in the constitution, that we aren't capable of managing our finances and need them protected from a firesale if the TRIOKA is here again. When TD's suggest putting housing in the constitution, they are admitting they dont know themselves and future Governments can't provide enough social housing

But we have learnt anything from the constitution, it is just a piece of paper. TD's will happily ignore it and there is very little repercussions ie limited abortion is allowed under the constitution but you actually cant get one as no Government has really legalised for it. We can throw the right to housing on the constitution, but I imagine it will be ignored.

yqtwqxqm

Maybe im thicker than your average politician, but i can see anything coming from this apart from landlords not being able to rent to people with children anymore now too.

Tilikum

I thought it was a right to shelter, not a right to housing.

El_Dangeroso

jd wrote: »

I don't have a problem with selling housing stock to occupants, as long as it is not heavily discounted, and the proceeds are invested in more public housing. If all the people who manage to get decent jobs feel they should move out, you may end up with a perpetually deprived estate.

You make a fair point, it would interfere with gentrification, but don't we already have perpetually deprived estates in certain locations?

Trailer parks in areas where land is cheap would fulfill such a resolution. Pointless exercise anyway.