Right to a house?

Gavin "shels"

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Mate Dublin 8 is an unemployment blackspot.

It's moving away from that rapidly tbh.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You clearly didn't read my post correctly. I would be relocating the intergenerationally unemployed / long term unemployed. The infrastructure would be created at the same time as the social housing, bringing supply and demand simultaneously.

So you mean you want to turn rural villages into projects (you know like Ballymun in Dublin and Knocknaheeny in Cork). Because projects have such a history of succeeding.

So these people have no jobs, so in the main have no transport. Are you going to buy them cars?
Their kids are now miles from any city facilities, are you going to build a pool, soccer pitches, rugby pitches?
How are they going to get to college? You've said that you will put jobs in the area (yet to be explained), what about education. I assume that your "Jobs" will not provide enough for student digs in Dublin/Cork?

Who is going to look after their elderly relatives, now that you have forced them out of easy reach?
Have you planned for the extra hospital/nursing beds or carers, which will now be required in the city?

How do you plan to integrate the city folk, who have no experience of living in the country, with the local residents?
Are you going to build cinemas, restaurants, supermarkets yourself or are you going to wait for the market to catch up? If yourself and you going to subsidise these businesses? For how much and how long?
Will the local residents be consulted before you drop several hundred people into their community?

What jobs are you putting there? They will have to be non-skilled as I assume that these people will have low levels of education. How many people are you planning on moving out there, given the level of population that you will need to man a facility (why are we not able to do this for the current rural population by the way).

What housing are you going to provide? Will this be free? Are you planning on forcing (cleansing) these people from their homes?

You are talking absolute complete fascist horsesh1t

LeinsterDub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

being unemployed is (sadly) not a crime.

Now here's a thought right out of 1984

Chips Lovell

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Mate Dublin 8 is an unemployment blackspot.

It isn't. There's 79 districts classed as unemployment blackspots. None are in Dublin 8.

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Now here's a thought right out of 1984

Bring back the workhouse

jobbridge4life

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

It isn't. There's 79 districts classed as unemployment blackspots. None are in Dublin 8.

Apologies. When I was unemployed I received a letter informing that I was being put on a some kind of enhanced/fasttracked intervention because Dublin 8 (where I live) was a long term unemployment area, they may not have used the exact term 'unemployment blackspot' and it was several years ago now.

jd

Owryan wrote: »

They have strong links to the Freeman movement and other far left leaning groups but hey if it means i get a house for free I'm all in.

OT, but the "freeman" movement would not be a leftist movement.

Harry Palmr

On this topic here;'s an interesting long article about a phenomena that I knew nothing of until today - bussing the homeless around the Unites States to massage official figures and "get rid" of a problem in a given area (by transporting to a different one)

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/dec/20/bussed-out-america-moves-homeless-people-country-study

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What are you blathering on about.
Social housing is not free FFS
It's linked to the income of the inhabitants (all, including any adult children in residence)

Does this linkage come close to market rates? Or likely mortgage repayment rates were the house purchased at market rates?

No council property should ever have been sold on to occupants.

What a huge kick in the balls for everyone else paying the taxes to fund such nonsense.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

So you mean you want to turn rural villages into projects (you know like Ballymun in Dublin and Knocknaheeny in Cork). Because projects have such a history of succeeding.

So these people have no jobs, so in the main have no transport. Are you going to buy them cars?
Their kids are now miles from any city facilities, are you going to build a pool, soccer pitches, rugby pitches?
How are they going to get to college? You've said that you will put jobs in the area (yet to be explained), what about education. I assume that your "Jobs" will not provide enough for student digs in Dublin/Cork?

Who is going to look after their elderly relatives, now that you have forced them out of easy reach?
Have you planned for the extra hospital/nursing beds or carers, which will now be required in the city?

How do you plan to integrate the city folk, who have no experience of living in the country, with the local residents?
Are you going to build cinemas, restaurants, supermarkets yourself or are you going to wait for the market to catch up? If yourself and you going to subsidise these businesses? For how much and how long?
Will the local residents be consulted before you drop several hundred people into their community?

What jobs are you putting there? They will have to be non-skilled as I assume that these people will have low levels of education. How many people are you planning on moving out there, given the level of population that you will need to man a facility (why are we not able to do this for the current rural population by the way).

What housing are you going to provide? Will this be free? Are you planning on forcing (cleansing) these people from their homes?

You are talking absolute complete fascist horsesh1t

I really don't know how country people manage to get an education, some even get to college, buy food, learn to swim or produce the best GAA players in the country. Even managed to produce the odd good soccer player like Shane Long, Kevin Doyle or Seamus Coleman.

lawred2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you mean you want to turn rural villages into projects (you know like Ballymun in Dublin and Knocknaheeny in Cork). Because projects have such a history of succeeding.

So these people have no jobs, so in the main have no transport. Are you going to buy them cars?
Their kids are now miles from any city facilities, are you going to build a pool, soccer pitches, rugby pitches?
How are they going to get to college? You've said that you will put jobs in the area (yet to be explained), what about education. I assume that your "Jobs" will not provide enough for student digs in Dublin/Cork?

Who is going to look after their elderly relatives, now that you have forced them out of easy reach?
Have you planned for the extra hospital/nursing beds or carers, which will now be required in the city?

How do you plan to integrate the city folk, who have no experience of living in the country, with the local residents?
Are you going to build cinemas, restaurants, supermarkets yourself or are you going to wait for the market to catch up? If yourself and you going to subsidise these businesses? For how much and how long?
Will the local residents be consulted before you drop several hundred people into their community?

What jobs are you putting there? They will have to be non-skilled as I assume that these people will have low levels of education. How many people are you planning on moving out there, given the level of population that you will need to man a facility (why are we not able to do this for the current rural population by the way).

What housing are you going to provide? Will this be free? Are you planning on forcing (cleansing) these people from their homes?

You are talking absolute complete fascist horsesh1t

?

Concentrations in cities has proven immensely successful hasn't it?

All these amenities on their doorsteps currently.. The upward mobility must be staggering..

You don't change mindsets with amenities.

jobbridge4life

lawred2 wrote: »

?

Concentrations in cities has proven immensely successful hasn't it?

Yes.

Idbatterim

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you blathering on about.
Social housing is not free FFS
It's linked to the income of the inhabitants (all, including any adult children in residence)

right, let me guess! its some pittance of their income they pay? not the 50% some are landing out to rent their own place or 25% to rent a room with in a house share with strangers?

lawred2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes.

Urm ok then jobbridge4life

jobbridge4life

lawred2 wrote: »

Urm ok then jobbridge4life

I like that you picked up on my name there lawred... interestingly because I lived in Dublin 8 I was able to secure a worthwhile JobBridge internship at a major organisation in Dublin 8, I was able to walk to my internship, I was able to walk to collect my dole plus the fifty euro bonus for participating in JobBridge, I managed to secure employment and have been promoted since. All thanks to city living. Kisses.

Fann Linn

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, let me guess! its some pittance of their income they pay? not the 50% some are landing out to rent their own place or 25% to rent a room with in a house share with strangers?

It's not really a social housing problem when people in private rented accommodation are paying 50% of their income on rent.
It's a private rental problem which the govt won't address.

Idbatterim

Deleted User wrote: »

Bring back the workhouse

you know what? i love this comment! hundreds of thousands brake their balls every day, not far from being in the work house, so the legions of wasters that Ireland tolerates can continue to complain how bad they have it, with their free travel , free gp visits etc! While irelands own wolf of wall streets on 30k or thereabouts in dublin, go without gp visists or fork out E60 a pop!

Many workers are majorly struggling thanks to the outrageous welfare state here!

lawred2

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I like that you picked up on my name there lawred... interestingly because I lived in Dublin 8 I was able to secure a worthwhile JobBridge internship at a major organisation in Dublin 8, I was able to walk to my internship, I was able to walk to collect my dole plus the fifty euro bonus for participating in JobBridge, I managed to secure employment and have been promoted since. All thanks to city living. Kisses.

Wouldn't it be great if your story was universal eh!?

Reality is is that it's not.

No amount of nearby amenities seems to be enough or will ever be enough for some people.

server down

Idbatterim wrote: »

you know what? i love this comment! hundreds of thousands break their balls every day, not far from being in the work house, so the legions of wasters that Ireland tolerates can continue to complain how bad they have it, with their free travel , free gp visits etc! Why irelands own wolf of wall streets on 30k or thereabouts in dublin, go without gp visists or fork out E60 a pop!

Many workers are majorly struggling thanks to the outrageous welfare state here!

How is the welfare state causing people to be poor? The taxes were raised to pay for the bank bailouts. Private sector rent is impoverishing people. Not social welfare.

Galwayguy35

I'm getting sick of seeing McVerry on the TV as well dismissing every strategy the Government bring in while offering no solutions himself.

Fann Linn

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm getting sick of seeing McVerry on the TV as well dismissing every strategy the Government bring in while offering no solutions himself.

As long as McVerry is on tv the less this govt can ignore this crisis.

Idbatterim

server down wrote: »

How is the welfare state causing people to be poor? The taxes were raised to pay for the bank bailouts. Private sector rent is impoverishing people. Not social welfare.

50% income tax over a paltry amount! you are right, the rents are killing people too! my opinion is the standard of living between many of those that work and those that dont, is the same, if not the standard of living of the work shy, might indeed be better than some workers, its a disgrace!

nama has made a profit! the welfare is a YEARLY EXPENSE of 23,000,000,000! also LOL at the likely repecussion if we reneged on the debt, I am not talking about the morality of it... The only people being bled dry to pay for all of it are the mid to high income workers in particular!

James Brown

Odd. The working poor should look to the even poorer for their troubles?

Part of the problem was during the boom. You had property worth a fortune, but many were looking at it logically, 'sure I can sell my house for 400+K but then where will I go? Down the country somewhere?' Sensible approach. The LA's, backed by government of course chose a different route. Now they pay our money to private landlords and Hotels.

NAMA is set to give developers loans at a more favourable rate than banks are willing to. So we're entering the building houses business, just not reaping any profit or having any state owned houses to show, so business as usual I suppose.

jimmycrackcorm

NIMAN wrote:

There is now a momentum among the people to continually talk about the homelessness crisis to use it as a stick to beat the authorities over. Every Tom Dick and Harry is telling us we should built a home for every single 'homeless' family.

I predict that we will get see Homelessness fatigue. It's being constantly brought up that at some point people will turn off it the more they start to delve in, and ask questions. E. G. From the programme, why did no one ask where the father of the woman's children was to contribute to their housing needs?

Eric Cartman wrote:

SOcial housing for low income workers (like I'm sure your D8 street is filled with) is fine, nobody including myself has taken issue with it. What I want to do is take all the permanently unemployed , the trouble makers, the smack heads etc… and spread them out all across the country. Give the current social housing stock in dublin to those with a need, who work.

We could kill two birds with one stone, build cheap social housing in dying rural villages and obviate the need to close their post offices, as they would then become very busy.

There's a pressing need to build affordable housing in the city for lower paid workers, but there is no need to provide very expensive housing in the city for long term social recipient's.

Galwayguy35

Fann Linn wrote: »

As long as McVerry is on tv the less this govt can ignore this crisis.

The Government aren't ignoring it.

James Brown

The poor aren't an ethnic group. You or I could find ourselves poor. Finances go up and down. Most of these Dickensian suggestions refer to a mythical class of people who don't and won't work. I'm sure they exist, but not in great enough numbers to cause any big problems. They should be rooted out by all means.
The welfare bill goes in part towards stuffing the pockets of Landlords/B&B's/hotels due to bad management of the state. The bill also goes towards supporting the sick and elderly. Hate to break it to people, but that's what civilized states do.
People should cop on to the fact that an economy is only as worthwhile as the quality of life it provides for the people. High numbers on a sheet of paper mean nothing if we've crises not being tackled, in some cases made worse.

jobbridge4life

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm getting sick of seeing McVerry on the TV as well dismissing every strategy the Government bring in while offering no solutions himself.

The Peter McVerry Trust is providing more and more accommodation. They are literally working harder than ever to help clean up the mess. Extremely unfair to suggest anything else.

Galwayguy35

I wonder is part of the reason the numbers in hotels aren't decreasing down to the fact that they all want to live in Dublin City Centre and refuse to accept anything on the outskirts of the city or in the surrounding counties?

Galwayguy35

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The Peter McVerry Trust is providing more and more accommodation. They are literally working harder than ever to help clean up the mess. Extremely unfair to suggest anything else.

I never said the organisation wasn't doing anything but in my own view he doesn't seem to want to give anything the Government comes up with a chance to work.

There's no quick fix solution despite what some might think.

James Brown

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder is part of the reason the numbers in hotels aren't decreasing down to the fact that they all want to live in Dublin City Centre and refuse to accept anything on the outskirts of the city or in the surrounding counties?

No. That's mostly mythical.

Where ever you reside or where you became homeless; that's the council you apply to. One council can't allocate homes from another.
Also to move down the country you need apply for special schemes, it's not an option on the table when you go on the housing list.
Also, if you are offered a home and turn it down because of location, you are penalised. It's not something that happens as often as apologists claim.

I would dearly love to see numbers on who won't work yet claims welfare and those who turn down homes because of location.

Fann Linn

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The Government aren't ignoring it.

I know. And some thanks must go to McVerry, Sr. Stan and others for that.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I really don't know how country people manage to get an education, some even get to college, buy food, learn to swim or produce the best GAA players in the country. Even managed to produce the odd good soccer player like Shane Long, Kevin Doyle or Seamus Coleman.

Most people in the country villages have cars, I asked if the poster was going to provide these free of charge?
Or provide money for city digs for the college age kids? Because he is still very light on the jobs part of his plan, other than "They will be there"

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

?


You don't change mindsets with amenities.

Actuallly when it comes to kids it does.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

right, let me guess! its some pittance of their income they pay? not the 50% some are landing out to rent their own place or 25% to rent a room with in a house share with strangers?

What a landlord gouges is not what a local authority should be aspiring to.
In fact if there WERE more social houses there would not be as much pressure on the private market (or there should be rent caps)

The provision of social housing is not driving rents up.

And, as I said, my parents were paying more monthly than the equivalent cost of a mortgage but they were too old to qualify for such.

Actually, with your ideals unless you earn more than me I demand more acess to "Stuff" because I pay more tax

Lu Tze

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Most people in the country villages have cars, I asked if the poster was going to provide these free of charge?
Or provide money for city digs for the college age kids? Because he is still very light on the jobs part of his plan, other than "They will be there"

Its amazing that the people who don't live in Dublin currently, manage to get by at all, or send their kids to college.

blanch152

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I wonder is part of the reason the numbers in hotels aren't decreasing down to the fact that they all want to live in Dublin City Centre and refuse to accept anything on the outskirts of the city or in the surrounding counties?

Yes, that certainly seems to be the case from looking at the figures. I haven't seen or heard an alternative credible explanation.

NIMAN

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The Government aren't ignoring it.

Totally correct, in fact they are spending an absolutely huge amount of money on it.

nlrkjos

Another problem as I see it is the amount of council houses occupied by just couples. Some 3 bedroom houses where I live have a middle age couple whose children have moved on..two I know of have just a single man living in a 3 bed house. I understand these have become "homes" rather than just a house but they are council owned and could be better utilized by moving the "empty nesters" and re-housing them in single bedroom accommodation releasing the house to a family. I'm sure this is the situation around the country. Two refusals to a house should also be the max people are allowed, after that take them down the list.

Lu Tze

Lu Tze wrote: »

Its amazing that the people who don't live in Dublin currently, manage to get by at all, or send their kids to college.

Because they have jobs and families already.

Dropping several hundred untrained and unemployed people into a village will work you think?

Seriously tell me, will that succeed?

Wheeliebin30

The state is there to give an education, keep hospitals open, install law and order etc.

Its not there to give people handouts from the cradle to the grave, its not sustainable in this day and age.

Everyone able bodied needs to contribute to the pot.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Because they have jobs and families already.

Dropping several hundred untrained and unemployed people into a village will work you think?

Seriously tell me, will that succeed?

You wouldn't drop several hundred untrained or unemployed people into the same village, mostly because there wouldn't be any accommodation for that number.

Ear to the Ground included a piece on some Cork village which was suffering badly from emigration where the local people themselves got together to do something about it. One of the things they did was build about 12 houses for old people who were living out in the country on their own (the money was borrowed and loan guaranteed by the local development organisation themselves), they bought a building which now has a restaurant/coffee shop with a local person who is a chef running it (they are booked out up to 14th Feb), and they also have a creche/playschool with about 25 kids in it.

As for the transport issue - more than likely there would be transport to any major town where there would be work. For example, there is a bus service that starts in Portumna at about 6am and heads to Dublin via town like Tullamore and ends up in UCD, Belfield every week day. There are several of those kinds of busses every day around the country. Most people do have cars down the country, but then its cheaper to live down there so they would be able to afford their own car.

Quin_Dub

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. That's mostly mythical.

Where ever you reside or where you became homeless; that's the council you apply to. One council can't allocate homes from another.
Also to move down the country you need apply for special schemes, it's not an option on the table when you go on the housing list.
Also, if you are offered a home and turn it down because of location, you are penalised. It's not something that happens as often as apologists claim.

I would dearly love to see numbers on who won't work yet claims welfare and those who turn down homes because of location.

This is something that absolutely should change..

Absolutely no reason why someone shouldn't be able to be offered a home within a reasonable commuting distance from their desired location - That's what people buying their own homes have to do..

What's wrong with somebody applying to Fingal Council and being offered a place just over the border in Meath or from Limerick being offered housing in North Tipp or Clare for example??

Anything up to ~1hr away in all directions should be perfectly legitimate.. And to be honest, they should have to provide fairly strong reasons why they want to stay in a particular place too.

People move house all the time and their kids change schools etc. , that shouldn't be any different for someone looking for state funded accommodation.

MayoSalmon

Morally, you have no right to demand housing off me and likewise I have no right to demand housing of you.

Now I may recognise your necessity and provide charity

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

You wouldn't drop several hundred untrained or unemployed people into the same village, mostly because there wouldn't be any accommodation for that number.

Ear to the Ground included a piece on some Cork village which was suffering badly from emigration where the local people themselves got together to do something about it. One of the things they did was build about 12 houses for old people who were living out in the country on their own (the money was borrowed and loan guaranteed by the local development organisation themselves), they bought a building which now has a restaurant/coffee shop with a local person who is a chef running it (they are booked out up to 14th Feb), and they also have a creche/playschool with about 25 kids in it.

As for the transport issue - more than likely there would be transport to any major town where there would be work. For example, there is a bus service that starts in Portumna at about 6am and heads to Dublin via town like Tullamore and ends up in UCD, Belfield every week day. There are several of those kinds of busses every day around the country. Most people do have cars down the country, but then its cheaper to live down there so they would be able to afford their own car.

Well no sh1t sherlock but that is what Eric WAS suggesting, so maybe read the comments previously rather than jumping right in

MayoSalmon

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Morally, you have no right to demand housing off me and likewise I have no right to demand housing of you.

Now I may recognise your necessity and provide charity

You have no right to demand a primary/secondary/third level education off of me.

Or roads, ambulance, policing, Max €100 medicines, children's allowance, college grant, public healthcare, consular assistance etc etc etc

It's called society and we (generally) live in a society who looks after the more vulnerable.

As for your charity, aren't you great, think of that the next time you send your kid to school for free (even private schools have state paid teachers), or drive anywhere, it's society.


I got to laugh; based on both average and median salaries I would earn more than most people posting here and I can tell you right now I could easily afford to be hit with more taxes, to fund a social housing programme. Because an investment in a countries citizens is never a waste.

More social housing built means more general housing stock and higher disposable income for those in these houses.
More housing stock means less pressure on the private rental market, meaning lower rents for all you poor renters complaining that "they are getting houses for free". Having them as your competition with Rent Allowance is causing a false floor in the cost of rents, as well as just more people to bid against.

Lower private rents also mean less one off landlords and more houses back into the market for purchase.

The lack of social housing is the KEY reason for the rental crisis we are seeing and in the long term (over 70 or so years) social housing does pay for itself per unit.

Right now we are losing out to other countries in Europe as there is no way of attracting people to work here because there is no where for them to live.

How is extra housing a bad thing I might ask? "But they get it for less than me" boo hoo.
The cost of social housing is absolutely nothing compared to what we are going to have to pay in terms of compensation for the Tracker Mortgage crimes, or the general bank bail out.

Target your ire where it should be, at the upper levels of business and wealth. We pay taxes to service the debt landed on us, how many houses would have been built with 10% of the bail out of unsecured bonds?
They are talking €1,000,000,000 for the tracker fund, where will that come from? How many houses is that?


But no, you keep targetting a tiny percentage of that cost in social builds, and a further tiny percentage of that defrauding the system.


And if your private rent is too high, take it up with your gouging landlord.
Mortgage rate too high? Take it up with your 2% rate adding bank (Vs European rates)

Wheeliebin30

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have no right to demand a primary/secondary/third level education off of me.

Or roads, ambulance, policing, Max €100 medicines, children's allowance, college grant, public healthcare, consular assistance etc etc etc

It's called society and we (generally) live in a society who looks after the more vulnerable.

As for your charity, aren't you great, think of that the next time you send your kid to school for free (even private schools have state paid teachers), or drive anywhere, it's society.


I got to laugh; based on both average and median salaries I would earn more than most people posting here and I can tell you right now I could easily afford to be hit with more taxes, to fund a social housing programme. Because an investment in a countries citizens is never a waste.

More social housing built means more general housing stock and higher disposable income for those in these houses.
More housing stock means less pressure on the private rental market, meaning lower rents for all you poor renters complaining that "they are getting houses for free". Having them as your competition with Rent Allowance is causing a false floor in the cost of rents, as well as just more people to bid against.

Lower private rents also mean less one off landlords and more houses back into the market for purchase.

The lack of social housing is the KEY reason for the rental crisis we are seeing and in the long term (over 70 or so years) social housing does pay for itself per unit.

Right now we are losing out to other countries in Europe as there is no way of attracting people to work here because there is no where for them to live.

How is extra housing a bad thing I might ask? "But they get it for less than me" boo hoo.
The cost of social housing is absolutely nothing compared to what we are going to have to pay in terms of compensation for the Tracker Mortgage crimes, or the general bank bail out.

Target your ire where it should be, at the upper levels of business and wealth. We pay taxes to service the debt landed on us, how many houses would have been built with 10% of the bail out of unsecured bonds?
They are talking €1,000,000,000 for the tracker fund, where will that come from? How many houses is that?


But no, you keep targetting a tiny percentage of that cost in social builds, and a further tiny percentage of that defrauding the system.


And if your private rent is too high, take it up with your gouging landlord.
Mortgage rate too high? Take it up with your 2% rate adding bank (Vs European rates)

Ok so.

How many social houses do you want built?

Cost analysis please including where the money will come from seems you have it all sorted.

Jim2007

The lack of social housing is the KEY reason for the rental crisis we are seeing and in the long term (over 70 or so years) social housing does pay for itself per unit.

No, a housing policy that relies on people taking on huge amounts of debt or social services to put a roof over their head is the KEY reason for the rental crisis! It has never worked, indeed it has never worked in any country and has resulted in people suffering serious financial loss as a consequence.

pgj2015

oceanman wrote: »

That's where the real problem lies....not with the homeless, but nobody wants to address that problem, least of all the government. The rich get richer...

that is not a problem, fair play to the rich for getting richer, its better than sitting around doing nothing, having as many kids as you want even though you live in a hotel (at the tax payers expense) and then whingeing and moaning that the government wont give you a free 6 bed house beside your family.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

No, a housing policy that relies on people taking on huge amounts of debt or social services to put a roof over their head is the KEY reason for the rental crisis! It has never worked, indeed it has never worked in any country and has resulted in people suffering serious financial loss as a consequence.

I think that you need to, nice and slowly, read what I wrote. We have a lack of affordable rental accommodation, which social builds would correct.
The lack is driving up rents (gouging at that wonderful aspiration of "market rate"), higher rent yields drives several things including, but not limited to
Speculators buying stock
More one off landlords
Higher unit price
Lower unit availability for owner/occupation
Again higher unit price

(and cycle)

Social housing would begin to relieve that pressure and break the current cycle but the government is made up of landlords (TDs need to begin disclosure of business interests) and also will not interfere in the inflation of property related taxes

Chips Lovell

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is something that absolutely should change..

Absolutely no reason why someone shouldn't be able to be offered a home within a reasonable commuting distance from their desired location - That's what people buying their own homes have to do..

Agreed. We're in the middle of a housing crisis and there's people all over the country having to make compromises. Sure, it's nice to get somewhere in the area you want to live, but a roof over ones head ought to be the priority.