Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

This is a classic deflection tactic.

When a crisis is being discussed, wheel out the "name a better alternative govt" line.

How's about just demanding better from the govt already there?

Did I read somewhere that the state is currently throwing €2m a week to the hotel/b&b and private landlords to try and solve the problem? I'm no quantity surveyor, but that's surely better put towards constructing social housing, than enriching private individuals, No?

Trying to downplay and normailse a homeless epidemic is a new low for the state.

No, they are throwing €100m a year to the likes of the Peter McVerry Trust and the other homeless charities who then scream even louder to get more money.

end of the road

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Look your just trolling now frankly. If states can provide services cheaper wonder why Bus Eireann, Irish Rail and Aer Lingus struggled so badly under there management. Wonder why RTE is looking for more license money why the water system is crumbling, the list goes on..theres a common denominator there but sure theres no debate to be had.

the government didn't want to fund the water system. the private sector wouldn't have funded it either. they would have ramped up costs to the user and taken huge profits though.
RTE is expected to be all things to everyone, and bring in commercial income, rather then simply targeting minority and good quality programing. the private sector, well just look at tv3.
bus eireann and irish rail operate non-profitible but vital and necessary public transport services, which allow people to commute to work and education, in turn contributing to the economy.

Rick Shaw

Rick Shaw wrote: »

This is a classic deflection tactic.

When a crisis is being discussed, wheel out the "name a better alternative govt" line.

How's about just demanding better from the govt already there?

Did I read somewhere that the state is currently throwing €2m a week to the hotel/b&b and private landlords to try and solve the problem? I'm no quantity surveyor, but that's surely better put towards constructing social housing, than enriching private individuals, No?

Trying to downplay and normailse a homeless epidemic is a new low for the state.

Here's the thing

You gots to have some form of govt. There is literally no alternative other than "somebody runs things".

So no actually, in my opinion it's hacking at whomever is in power without any appreciation for the complexities of the issues or the mechanics and momentum of the inputs of governmental-scale activity that is the deflection tactic, because it is a fundamentally useless and childish approach to pretending to be interested in the solution to any given issue

Now, you reproach with an appeal towards the issue. Well then perhaps you and your identikit fellow poster there should do that without the infantile and repetitive attacks on Varadkar or FG.

Otherwise readers might think you had god forbid an agenda that wasn't it fact the issue at hand.

You didn't mention what party you advocated for yet, did you? Cards on the table etc.

blanch152

ZeroThreat wrote: »

If we say it does, then the usual neo liberal suspects start whinging about the 'nanny state'.

The state doesn't have a duty of care to these people, society does.

However, society doesn't want to perform its duty of care, so it hands it over to the state.

Imagine if society really performed its duty of care, and every household around the country took in a homeless person for three weeks every year. It wouldn't be long before the complaints would start. We all want someone else to care for the poor and we want someone else to pay for it. Just look at all the crying on this thread about the measly LPT.

If I was Varadkar, I would announce an increase in the LPT, with all of the money being spent on building social housing. The poverty industry would still be complaining.

FrancieBrady

There is definitely a multi pronged attack underway to try and change the narrative around the homeless crisis.
Guilt tripping those trying to help, dilution of the scale and sneering at agencies who actually care about people (the 'poverty industry'? Sounds like it came straight out of Leo's Straight Talking manual)

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is definitely a multi pronged attack underway to try and change the narrative around the homeless crisis.
Guilt tripping those trying to help, dilution of the scale and sneering at agencies who actually care about people (the 'poverty industry'? Sounds like it came straight out of Leo's Straight Talking manual)

Poverty Industry is an international term

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/poverty-industry/487958/

https://iea.org.uk/blog/what-is-the-poverty-industry

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6174/poverty_industry_wowsers_are_back


But hey, if you have a chance to just throw a republican barb at Leo Varadkar, why bother with the truth?

hatrickpatrick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Here's the thing

You gots to have some form of govt. There is literally no alternative other than "somebody runs things".

So no actually, in my opinion it's hacking at whomever is in power without any appreciation for the complexities of the issues or the mechanics and momentum of the inputs of governmental-scale activity that is the deflection tactic, because it is a fundamentally useless and childish approach to pretending to be interested in the solution to any given issue

Now, you reproach with an appeal towards the issue. Well then perhaps you and your identikit fellow poster there should do that without the infantile and repetitive attacks on Varadkar or FG.

Otherwise readers might think you had god forbid an agenda that wasn't it fact the issue at hand.

You didn't mention what party you advocated for yet, did you? Cards on the table etc.

You're missing the point though. It doesn't matter who is in government, what matters is the policies they implement. I couldn't give a rat's ass who the Taoiseach is provided they are introducing the right policies for the country, and the FF/FG policy since the 1980s of relying on private ownership to provide social and affording housing simply doesn't work, end of story, the end. It's not about changing who's in the government, it's about somehow forcing the existing government to change its policy away from neoliberalism.

Sure, we could change the government in order to accomplish this, but that's missing the point of democracy in a way. In a democracy, the government should adapt its policies to suit the public's demands, not bludgeoningly persist with the policies it has previously decided upon regardless of their effect on society. In this particular case, leaving social housing to the private sector isn't working - ergo, whatever government is in power at this time (it's FG, but this criticism would apply to ANY government pursuing the current policy) should pursue a different policy.

That's the problem I have with the major parties in Ireland. They are extremely slow and reluctant to change course when their policies turn out to be a f*ck up, and it often takes an absolutely extraordinary amount of public outcry and electoral losses for them to do so. This isn't how a representative government should behave - it should be monitoring the situation day by day, and paying attention to the news, to public opinion, to the problems people are facing. It should then, as a result, be adapting its policy over time to suit the people's needs and demands.

So in this particular case, it's not about who to vote for instead. FG and FF, if they had the slightest amount of concern for the Irish people, would announce tomorrow an end to the policy of not directly contracting builders to build state owned public housing on existing and empty state owned land. It would announce tomorrow that it would immediately seek tenders for construction projects on each of the empty sites around Dublin where former estates were demolished, and it would announce a clear target time frame to have a clear, specified number of units built on those sites, with clear, specified proportions of social and market rate housing, and clear, specified targets for how this would reduce overall housing market pressure.

But it won't. Because its policy is neoliberalism. And it is bludgeoningly insisting on pursuing that policy, no matter what the consequences, as long as it is in government. No taking stock, no examining whether it's working, no thinking through the consequences - "this is our policy, and we will implement it. End of story."

This is only one policy example. Health would be another glaring one - when are we going to try something new now that we know our current policy doesn't work?

Now what do you do if the country's football team keeps losing under its current tactics? No, you don't fire the manager immediately - but you do expect, no demand that different tactics and managerial techniques are employed before the next round of games. And if the manager bludgeoningly insists on continuing the same tactics which have caused the team to lose the last ten matches, then you fire the manager and look for another.

But government should be reactive to what the public wants. Replacing the government shouldn't have to be the first port of call in order to change policy directions - the government should be doing this itself on an ongoing basis, in response to society's needs and public opinion.

Consonata

MayoSalmon wrote:

Can all be provided by private enterprise but to be honest not interesting in getting into that debate.

All roads and hospitals can be provided by the private sector?? What sort of anarcho capitalist society are you advocating for.

McMurphy

Rick Shaw wrote: »

This is a classic deflection tactic.

When a crisis is being discussed, wheel out the "name a better alternative govt" line.

How's about just demanding better from the govt already there?

Did I read somewhere that the state is currently throwing €2m a week to the hotel/b&b and private landlords to try and solve the problem? I'm no quantity surveyor, but that's surely better put towards constructing social housing, than enriching private individuals, No?

Trying to downplay and normailse a homeless epidemic is a new low for the state.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here's the thing

You gots to have some form of govt. There is literally no alternative other than "somebody runs things".

So no actually, in my opinion it's hacking at whomever is in power without any appreciation for the complexities of the issues or the mechanics and momentum of the inputs of governmental-scale activity that is the deflection tactic, because it is a fundamentally useless and childish approach to pretending to be interested in the solution to any given issue

Now, you reproach with an appeal towards the issue. Well then perhaps you and your identikit fellow poster there should do that without the infantile and repetitive attacks on Varadkar or FG.

Otherwise readers might think you had god forbid an agenda that wasn't it fact the issue at hand.

You didn't mention what party you advocated for yet, did you? Cards on the table etc.

HP has already answered this post with much the same sentiments as I, therefore I see no sense in rehashing the same points.

Instead of agenda accusations, and curious notions over how I might fill in a ballot paper, I will simply repeat what I already posted.

We all realise and accept that someone needs to govern.

What is wrong with demanding better governance from the current one?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

The state doesn't have a duty of care to these people, society does.

However, society doesn't want to perform its duty of care, so it hands it over to the state.

Imagine if society really performed its duty of care, and every household around the country took in a homeless person for three weeks every year. It wouldn't be long before the complaints would start. We all want someone else to care for the poor and we want someone else to pay for it. Just look at all the crying on this thread about the measly LPT.

If I was Varadkar, I would announce an increase in the LPT, with all of the money being spent on building social housing. The poverty industry would still be complaining.

Who created 'the state', who funds it, who decides who runs it? The people, the people put their affairs in the hands of the state. The idea that the state is some 'semi-state' not responsible for the people, who should be looking after their own affairs that don't make profits for private elements, is a very Fine Gael/Thatcherite attitude.

blanch152 wrote: »

Poverty Industry is an international term

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/poverty-industry/487958/

https://iea.org.uk/blog/what-is-the-poverty-industry

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6174/poverty_industry_wowsers_are_back


But hey, if you have a chance to just throw a republican barb at Leo Varadkar, why bother with the truth?

Leo certainly has an aversion to it, similarly with his predecessor.
There's a vested interest group, who benefits from downplaying national crises, any guesses?

To reiterate the sentiment of a number of my learned colleagues, criticising bad government, does not a cry for revolution/anarchy or 'People before Profit' make, (although it's a nice effort at distraction to infer it does). As is Varadkar's modus operandi, using extreme analogies or fear mongering to justify poor governance wore thin under Ahern. Although it's very nostalgic to see Fine Gael and it's defenders bring it back in the Trump era, I would love Leo to do a good job. I would shake his hand and thank him.

Idbatterim

All of this " the private sector would rip us off" all I know EOTR is that anything here that is government run is **** value for money, **** service and run purely for the benefit of those working there. This private public service debate might be a lot tighter in terms of pros and cons in England or Germany or other properly run countries, this is Ireland though!

Wheeliebin30

Can someone please tell me where these bollions of euros are going to come from to build social housing?

Can they detail where funds will be directed from to build them please?

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me where these bollions of euros are going to come from to build social housing?

Can they detail where funds will be directed from to build them please?

We'd be able to chip in a few bob savings from the 39m for Emergency accommodation last year for Dublin alone.

Almost €39 million was spent accommodating homeless families in hotels and B&Bs in Dublin last year, more than double the amount spent in 2015, figures from the Dublin Homeless Regional Executive show.
With a monthly average of almost 700 families living in commercial hotels last year, the annual cost of accommodating one family in a hotel is more than €55,000, or almost €153 a room a night.
An average of just under 240 additional families were living in managed emergency accommodation where “keyworkers” or support staff are on site to assist families in moving on to more permanent accommodation.
This accommodation, which is rented from the private sector, cost €9.9 million last year, bringing the total cost of housing families in emergency accommodation to almost €50 million.
In relation to hotel accommodation, the homeless executive, predicting the need for rooms for homeless families, “block-booked” hotels in advance, to a total of €27.5 million.
However, a further €11.4 million was incurred through credit card bookings where the homeless family “self accommodates” by finding a hotel room the homeless executive then pays for by credit card.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/state-paid-39m-to-house-dublin-homeless-in-hotels-in-2016-1.2961272

The key thing to remember is, this is dead money. All out none in.
If you care about the tax payer you would build social housing, where even if the rent was a pittance, we'd recoup over time. Even if there was no rent, we'd have homes, we owned for the expense.
It's a matter of this: Do you want to use tax payer money to fill the pockets of private concerns, or do you want to invest in housing?

Now to clarify:

With a monthly average of almost 700 families living in commercial hotels last year, the annual cost of accommodating one family in a hotel is more than €55,000, or almost €153 a room a night.

Would you say, even paying the market rate, the state or an LA could buy a house with a mortgage of less than €55,000 a year? If we were to build, do you reckon it is a good idea to keep paying to these private homeless industry landlords/developer profiteers, or look to building social housing, we would own? Thoughts?

Idbatterim

I read this last year as a solution. Is what McWilliams here proposes actually feasible?

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/12/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all

Idbatterim

all of this talk saying emergency accomodation in b and b hotels is a waste! is a bit redundant! there is no alternative at the moment, until they actually start delivering units en masse!

end of the road

Idbatterim wrote: »

All of this " the private sector would rip us off" all I know EOTR is that anything here that is government run is **** value for money, **** service and run purely for the benefit of those working there. This private public service debate might be a lot tighter in terms of pros and cons in England or Germany or other properly run countries, this is Ireland though!

the fact our public service isn't as it should be is not proof it should be privatized. privatization of public services for the most part does not work and ultimately costs the tax payer more. we can prove this from britain which is culturaly similar to us and has similar mindsets. the reason it is mostly done is to remove accountability altogether, and ultimately regulation, in turn the operator gets the blame for any issues, hence the government escape any blaim.
now if you are happy to pay a premium to private industry for that nonsense, that's fine, that's your opinion. but the problem is, those of us who know the pitfalls and who don't wish to pay for it, end up having to do so as well.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read this last year as a solution. Is what McWilliams here proposes actually feasible?

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/12/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all

i would think it's quite feasible if the will is there to do it.

Idbatterim wrote: »

all of this talk saying emergency accomodation in b and b hotels is a waste! is a bit redundant! there is no alternative at the moment, until they actually start delivering units en masse!

i would agree it is the only option right now. but it never should have been that way, and it is an absolute waste and hugely unsustainible.

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read this last year as a solution. Is what McWilliams here proposes actually feasible?

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/12/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all

Not a chance, as with many McWilliams proposals, the assumptions he uses are fanciful and detract from his main point. Take this one:

"The implication is the rent that would be needed to be charged per unit per year to pay the cost of this build, funded by a Housing Executive Bond, is €1,740 per year. Let’s round this up to €2,000 per unit per year, to include maintenance."

€260 maintenance per year!!!!!! Who is he kidding?

"At a density of 60 units per hectare, this would mean about 833 hectares of development land, or about 2,000 acres, is needed."

No schools, no parks, no hospitals, no shops, no garda stations, no anything other than houses.

"The State could simply CPO this land at cost and be done with it"

Did McWilliams change the Constitution last week?

Red_Wake

Idbatterim wrote: »

I read this last year as a solution. Is what McWilliams here proposes actually feasible?

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2016/05/12/lets-join-the-21st-century-with-an-easy-fix-for-housing-crisis-once-and-for-all

It still ignores that many social houses are refused by prospective tenants on ridiculous grounds, and that many tenants don't pay their rent[65m worth of rent in arrears].

Idbatterim

Ill tell you what, if the constitution needs to be changed to allow it, it would be voted in favour of massively!

even if his figures are a little off. How much does a park cost on a green field site? How many units would you build in one development before building a hospital? several hundred thousand? what would a garda station cost? a pittance... shops, sure they pay for themselves...

agreed about schools in very large developments obviously...

"At a density of 60 units per hectare, this would mean about 833 hectares of development land, or about 2,000 acres, is needed."

whether its 2000, 4000 or whatever, I have read figures saying there are tens of thousands in the dublin area alone...

infrastructure is a reasonable sum obviously, the state can borrow for peanuts!

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

It still ignores that many social houses are refused by prospective tenants on ridiculous grounds, and that many tenants don't pay their rent[65m worth of rent in arrears].

These are administrative issues, not any grounds to dismiss the idea. All of these concerns, as with the tenant purchase schemes, are open to change.
Tenants sign a tenancy agreement. People can be removed from the list or the property itself. Before we get into individual cases, it's a matter of €55,000 per year to house a family privately or supplying housing by building social housing were we get either a house or a house and an income for our money. The choice it that plain.

blanch152

Idbatterim wrote: »

Ill tell you what, if the constitution needs to be changed to allow it, it would be voted in favour of massively!

even if his figures are a little off. How much does a park cost on a green field site? How many units would you build in one development before building a hospital? several hundred thousand? what would a garda station cost? a pittance... shops, sure they pay for themselves...

agreed about schools in very large developments obviously...

whether its 2000, 4000 or whatever, I have read figures saying there are tens of thousands in the dublin area alone...

infrastructure is a reasonable sum obviously, the state can borrow for peanuts!

Not only the cost of building parks, schools, hospitals, etc. there is the space needed for them which he hasn't factored in. Neither has he factored in the cost of servicing land.

As for the constitutional change, if you change the constitution to allow for the CPO as he envisages, there would be nothing to stop the state CPO'ing your house at cost price just because. No way would such an amendment get through.

hatrickpatrick

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me where these bollions of euros are going to come from to build social housing?

Can they detail where funds will be directed from to build them please?

Before I answer this with my own suggestions, can I just ask where you imagine they came from in the 1920s and 30s when Ireland was piss poor following the wars (independence and civil) and had made the moronic decision to engage Britain in an economic war? Are you seriously telling me we're poorer today than we were back then?

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

"The State could simply CPO this land at cost and be done with it"

Did McWilliams change the Constitution last week?

If our constitution prohibits CPOs in the public interest, then how were the privately owned tenement buildings all over Dublin 1 bought by Dublin Corporation, demolished, and replaced with the flat complexes of the Gloucester Diamond - some of which are still standing today? Which particular bit of the constitution are you referring to, and did this not exist during the 20th century when Dublin Corporation routinely CPOd land for the purposes of building social housing?

EDIT: http://www.dublincity.ie/story/heart-dublin-gloucester-diamond?language=en

in 1941, Dublin Corporation bought Gloucester Place Upper and Lower, as well as surrounding tracts of land that included parts of Gardiner Street, Sean Macdermott Street and Summerhill, by means of Compulsory Purchase Order. This meant that the landowners did not reach an agreement with the Corporation, resulting in a forced sale. As part of this, existing tenement dwellings were reconditioned, while cottages and smaller dwellings at Gloucester Place Upper were gradually cleared to make way for Lourdes House, built c.1962. Throughout the sixties parts of Summerhill, Rutland Street Upper and Lower were bought by Compulsory Purchase Order for the purpose of erecting new blocks of flats, for example Matt Talbot Court on Rutland Street Upper /Great Charles Street North (1972) and Mountain View Court on Summerhill (1977).

Matt Talbot Court is still standing today and the last time I drove past, had no boarded up units and no apparent need for regeneration.

Red_Wake

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

It still ignores that many social houses are refused by prospective tenants on ridiculous grounds, and that many tenants don't pay their rent[65m worth of rent in arrears].

These are administrative issues, not any grounds to dismiss the idea. All of these concerns, as with the tenant purchase schemes, are open to change.
Tenants sign a tenancy agreement. People can be removed from the list or the property itself. Before we get into individual cases, it's a matter of €55,000 per year to house a family privately or supplying housing by building social housing were we get either a house or a house and an income for our money. The choice it that plain.

Those are both real issues, not to be dismissed lightly as "administrative". No amount of administrative skill could fix the issue of people waiting for a social house to come up in a relatively small region.

Removing problem tenants takes months, often over a year, and often the house itself needs significant work afterwards to fix any damage left by them. Plus there's the lost rent, which currently stands at 65 million euros with a relatively small[according to you] amount of social housing. Expanded social housing will only increase this figure.

Where are you getting this 55,000 euro figure for? The Independent had an article about average rents, with Dublin's being just under 1800 a month. This works out at less then 22,000 a year, which while still expensive, is less than half of the figure you've posted.

Why would these problems not be present in your proposed situation?

McMurphy

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Can someone please tell me where these bollions of euros are going to come from to build social housing?

Can they detail where funds will be directed from to build them please?

From the funds they're currently using to prop up the hotels, bed and breakfasts and private landlords with.

Been covered multiple times already.

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We'd be able to chip in a few bob savings from the 39m for Emergency accommodation last year for Dublin alone.



The key thing to remember is, this is dead money. All out none in.
If you care about the tax payer you would build social housing, where even if the rent was a pittance, we'd recoup over time. Even if there was no rent, we'd have homes, we owned for the expense.
It's a matter of this: Do you want to use tax payer money to fill the pockets of private concerns, or do you want to invest in housing?

Now to clarify:



Would you say, even paying the market rate, the state or an LA could buy a house with a mortgage of less than €55,000 a year? If we were to build, do you reckon it is a good idea to keep paying to these private homeless industry landlords/developer profiteers, or look to building social housing, we would own? Thoughts?

So how many homes could we build with 39 million then?

Probably about 120.

Yeah that's really gonna solve the "homeless" crisis.

Wheeliebin30

Rick Shaw wrote: »

From the funds they're currently using to prop up the hotels, bed and breakfasts and private landlords with.

Been covered multiple times already.

How many houses could we build?

Give me some figures seems you're so sure of this.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So how many homes could we build with 39 million then?

Probably about 120.

Yeah that's really gonna solve the "homeless" crisis.

Surly it's a start at least as opposed not bothering doing anything?

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

Surly it's a start at least as opposed not bothering doing anything?

Are you saying there is no social housing been delivered anymore?

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Are you saying there is no social housing been delivered anymore?

No (how you drew that conclusion is confusing)


Yous are only person arguing for a laissez-faire attitude to homelessness....which has landed us into a situation where we have more homeless now than at any time since the famine

hatrickpatrick

It's also not just homelessness that's the problem here. The ridiculous proportion of income people in urban areas are being asked to fork over for rent each month has now also reached crisis levels, and this could also be impacted if the state took action to deflate that market by building affordable rental units.

Don't even get me started on the antics of NAMA...

Rick Shaw

Rick Shaw wrote: »

From the funds they're currently using to prop up the hotels, bed and breakfasts and private landlords with.

Been covered multiple times already.

Where will the money come for those people be housed while waiting for their forever homes?
Where will the land come from to build said homes?

Even the lefties on councils are objecting to proposed developments because they're not big enough!

tayto lover

The big landlords should be hit with a "maximum rent" rule as they're fleecing the working class with their rents. The Govt were quick enough to consider the " Minimum price" laws for alcohol. So now let them go another step and protect the same people.

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Those are both real issues, not to be dismissed lightly as "administrative". No amount of administrative skill could fix the issue of people waiting for a social house to come up in a relatively small region.

Removing problem tenants takes months, often over a year, and often the house itself needs significant work afterwards to fix any damage left by them. Plus there's the lost rent, which currently stands at 65 million euros with a relatively small[according to you] amount of social housing. Expanded social housing will only increase this figure.

Where are you getting this 55,000 euro figure for? The Independent had an article about average rents, with Dublin's being just under 1800 a month. This works out at less then 22,000 a year, which while still expensive, is less than half of the figure you've posted.

Why would these problems not be present in your proposed situation?

You don't seem to grasp the concept of administration. It's not dismissing. It's pointing out that rules can be followed through in a more efficient manner, if they aren't up to scratch. There are clear rules regarding anti-social behaviour. The go to of opening up rabbit holes is a tiresome deflectionary tactic. Yes, some tenant might wreck the home, some homeless are a lost cause, some on welfare don't want a job and so on and so on. It's pretty boring at this point in the debate.
Even the worst case scenario of the anecdotal evidence you supplied, we are wasting money throwing it down the big dark hole of the homeless industries landlords and hoteliers If we built social housing we would not be. Social housing is better value for money. That's it really.

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

No (how you drew that conclusion is confusing)


Yous are only person arguing for a laissez-faire attitude to homelessness....which has landed us into a situation where we have more homeless now than at any time since the famine

Eh because you said surely its better to build 120 social housing as opppsed to doing nothing.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So how many homes could we build with 39 million then?

Probably about 120.

Yeah that's really gonna solve the "homeless" crisis.

Do you believe spending dead money, putting it in the pockets of private business is a better deal financially, than investing in social housing?

Matt Barrett

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't seem to grasp the concept of administration. It's not dismissing. It's pointing out that rules can be followed through in a more efficient manner, if they aren't up to scratch. There are clear rules regarding anti-social behaviour. The go to of opening up rabbit holes is a tiresome deflectionary tactic. Yes, some tenant might wreck the home, some homeless are a lost cause, some on welfare don't want a job and so on and so on. It's pretty boring at this point in the debate.
Even the worst case scenario of the anecdotal evidence you supplied, we are wasting money throwing it down the big dark hole of the homeless industries landlords and hoteliers If we built social housing we would not be. Social housing is better value for money. That's it really.

We all agree with this. However, the practicalities are not so simple. We don't have the land, money or in many cases, the goodwill to build.

tomwaterford

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe spending dead money, putting it in the pockets of private business is a better deal financially, than investing in social housing?

This lad/wan deosnt think homelessness exists

Sees nothing wrong with adults having to share rooms renting


Thinks poverty is a myth



Denying these things exist enables irish politians to avoid engaging them and doing something to improve the country....country Is fcuked if we don't hold those in power to account

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Poverty Industry is an international term

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/poverty-industry/487958/

https://iea.org.uk/blog/what-is-the-poverty-industry

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6174/poverty_industry_wowsers_are_back


But hey, if you have a chance to just throw a republican barb at Leo Varadkar, why bother with the truth?

I know it's a term...what I said was: 'it sounds like came from Leo's Straight Talking' manual.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know it's a term...what I said was: 'it sounds like came from Leo's Straight Talking' manual.

The funny thing is Fine Gael encourage private investing in the 'homeless industry' by using tax money to directly aid and encourage gouging and profiteering by landlords and developers.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe spending dead money, putting it in the pockets of private business is a better deal financially, than investing in social housing?

Just so I'm clear: you're advocating that the government should immediately stop paying for emergency accommodation and invest the savings in building social housing?

James Brown

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so I'm clear: you're advocating that the government should immediately stop paying for emergency accommodation and invest the savings in building social housing?

No. I'm stating money on emergency accommodation is lost once spent.
Social housing is a recoup-able investment. Worst case, we've houses at the end of the spend.
Obviously there would need be a cross over period now that we are so reliant on it.

Social housing is a better deal financially.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If our constitution prohibits CPOs in the public interest, then how were the privately owned tenement buildings all over Dublin 1 bought by Dublin Corporation, demolished, and replaced with the flat complexes of the Gloucester Diamond - some of which are still standing today? Which particular bit of the constitution are you referring to, and did this not exist during the 20th century when Dublin Corporation routinely CPOd land for the purposes of building social housing?

EDIT: http://www.dublincity.ie/story/heart-dublin-gloucester-diamond?language=en

in 1941, Dublin Corporation bought Gloucester Place Upper and Lower, as well as surrounding tracts of land that included parts of Gardiner Street, Sean Macdermott Street and Summerhill, by means of Compulsory Purchase Order. This meant that the landowners did not reach an agreement with the Corporation, resulting in a forced sale. As part of this, existing tenement dwellings were reconditioned, while cottages and smaller dwellings at Gloucester Place Upper were gradually cleared to make way for Lourdes House, built c.1962. Throughout the sixties parts of Summerhill, Rutland Street Upper and Lower were bought by Compulsory Purchase Order for the purpose of erecting new blocks of flats, for example Matt Talbot Court on Rutland Street Upper /Great Charles Street North (1972) and Mountain View Court on Summerhill (1977).

Matt Talbot Court is still standing today and the last time I drove past, had no boarded up units and no apparent need for regeneration.

McWilliams was proposing to purchase land at cost, not at full market value. That is what was unconstitutional about his proposal. It was also what made it financially viable.

Essentially by pretending a legal block didn't exist, allowing a minimal amount for maintenance, and not providing for any facilities, green space, offices or retail, McWilliams was artificially making his figures look good.

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

This lad/wan deosnt think homelessness exists

Sees nothing wrong with adults having to share rooms renting


Thinks poverty is a myth



Denying these things exist enables irish politians to avoid engaging them and doing something to improve the country....country Is fcuked if we don't hold those in power to account

From various articles and even listening to the radio today im not the only one who thinks it.

1 in 2 people turning down social housing and erica Fleming turning down various offers of accommodation thus keeping herself homeless until she finds her forever home would make one very suspicious indeed.

jimmycrackcorm

Matt Barrett wrote:

No. I'm stating money on emergency accommodation is lost once spent. Social housing is a recoup-able investment. Worst case, we've houses at the end of the spend. Obviously there would need be a cross over period now that we are so reliant on it.

Your advocating the equivalent argument about rent being dead money when it is actually spending money on a service, I.e emergency accommodation provides a roof over heads.

Social housing is not recoupable in Ireland as in practice it just gets passed down to the children of the people who are allocated the houses, regardless if they actually could provide a home themselves. They don't call them forever homes for nothing.

jimmycrackcorm

Matt Barrett wrote:

The funny thing is Fine Gael encourage private investing in the 'homeless industry' by using tax money to directly aid and encourage gouging and profiteering by landlords and developers.

Your economics is off. A lack of supply causes the gouging and profiteering.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

From various articles and even listening to the radio today im not the only one who thinks it.

1 in 2 people turning down social housing and erica Fleming turning down various offers of accommodation thus keeping herself homeless until she finds her forever home would make one very suspicious indeed.

Theres a phrase for this....positive confirmation....literally as always looking for an echo chamber for your taughts



As it stands,there's more people homeless than at any time since the famine

There's approx a dozen soup runs In dublin everyday,


But none of these people matter as they are either poor or unlikely to vote FF/FG??


Yous are from waterford iirc,walk down through red square in an hours time and try tell me theres no homeless,

Ive a friend,she runs a business with circa 10 years in the city centre and is out every night between now and feb/March on soup/food runs....don't yous come on here and try outright lie that there's not homeless about



Yous are taking a handful of extreme examples to justify keeping thousands of kids homeless and more or damning them to a life of poverty and hardship....just to pure and utter avoid critisem of the government....noone anywhere should be above critism

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

Theres a phrase for this....positive confirmation....literally as always looking for an echo chamber for your taughts



As it stands,there's more people homeless than at any time since the famine

There's approx a dozen soup runs In dublin everyday,


But none of these people matter as they are either poor or unlikely to vote FF/FG??


Yous are from waterford iirc,walk down through red square in an hours time and try tell me theres no homeless,

Ive a friend,she runs a business with circa 10 years in the city centre and is out every night between now and feb/March on soup/food runs....don't yous come on here and try outright lie that there's not homeless about



Yous are taking a handful of extreme examples to justify keeping thousands of kids homeless and more or damning them to a life of poverty and hardship....just to pure and utter avoid critisem of the government....noone anywhere should be above critism

Then you’ve the likes of Alice Leahy on the radio today giving out about do gooders. She says that people who choose to sleep rough will never be hungry. She gave an example of one guy who had to be told to clean up his pitch. To take some responsibility for himself. He was getting fed every night but just tossing the packages where they fell.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. I'm stating money on emergency accommodation is lost once spent.

Right, but you said:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We'd be able to chip in a few bob savings from the 39m for Emergency accommodation last year for Dublin alone.

You can't chip in that money unless you're not spending it. If you're not advocating not spending it, then the original question stands: where will the money come from to build social housing?

To fend off the inevitable deflection, I'm not arguing against building social housing. I'm just pointing out that you deflected the question about how to pay for it with something that you didn't actually believe. So: how should we pay for it?

James Brown

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your advocating the equivalent argument about rent being dead money when it is actually spending money on a service, I.e emergency accommodation provides a roof over heads.

We are paying for a service, yes.
It would be cheaper, long-term, to build social housing. We would be left with housing and and construction loans at a lower rate than 55,00 per home per year I would imagine.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Social housing is not recoupable in Ireland as in practice it just gets passed down to the children of the people who are allocated the houses, regardless if they actually could provide a home themselves. They don't call them forever homes for nothing.

Tenants are charged rent. Even if they pass down to their children, the children pay rent. Allocation is based on you situation. Rent is based on your income. If this is not being enforced, that's for the LA's to do their job. It does not take away from the fact that we are getting absolutely no return from emergency accommodation.
It's simple; you pay for a build, you own it, you rent it.
Or
You continue to pay for a service to the private market.