Right to a house?

tringle

Everyone should have a roof over their head but I don't believe anyone has the "right to a house" and in particular the mini palaces that some people are now demanding. We talk about how homelessness and the housing crisis are at their greatest ever. But are they really...they are greater than the 90s and 00s but I don't believe greater than before that. We just counted differently then, you were homeless only if you lived on the streets.

Most houses I have lived in were accommodating at least two families. I was born in the late 60s and lived in inner city Dublin in 60s and 70s. At the time it was normal when you got married to move in with a family member and usually it was a bed in the sitting room not a spare bedroom. We lived in a two bedroom Victorian terrace with my great grandfather. When he died my aunt moved in, we were 4 parents and 3 children in a two bedroom house with no bathroom and a toilet in the yard. Older people on our street whose families had moved away took in lodgers. By today's counting half of these families would be homeless.

The young couples and families today expect too much from accommodation. We built a new house and tried to let our small family 3 bedroom home (in a rural village). One couple with two babies said it was too small as it didn't have a separate dining room to use as a playroom. Another single mother with a four year old wanted a new couch as it was only a two seater and she wanted a three seater. I get annoyed that as a landlord I was expected to provide microwave/ hoover/toaster/kettle. I don't have a microwave myself and the house had no carpets....use a brush. (No longer ours now so don't have to deal with any more demanding prima donnas).

I am now a boomerang parent. Adult son lives with me. Daughter, son in law and baby moving in with us in January as their rental property has been repossessed and nowhere else in the village available. Other adult daughter lives and works in Dublin, she has just moved in with her grandparents as private renting and houseshares way to expensive and also to be able to help care for her grandmother. Again all of these could be considered homeless and go moaning to the council but isn't helping each other what family is about.

Everyone has the right to a roof over their head and a warm safe bed but some need to lower their expectations to fit their means. Social housing lists need to be looked at and culled of all those who have refused an offer of reasonable accommodation. It should also be possible to look at what the local community will gain from housing a family, will they work, will they contribute to the community, will they support local shops and businesses.

I don't think moving the permanently unemployed families from cities to villages is the solution but maybe a version of it could be looked at. I know two families who were a sucess of the rural relocation programme early 90s. Other options such as more decentralization of businesses and services should be looked at. The greater Dublin area does not need more industrial estates and warehouses.

I am saddened this Christmas that there are children staying in emergency accommodation but angry that for some of these children it is purely the fault of the parent, that the expect to be housed as a right.

tringle

tringle wrote: »

Everyone should have a roof over their head but I don't believe anyone has the "right to a house" and in particular the mini palaces that some people are now demanding. We talk about how homelessness and the housing crisis are at their greatest ever. But are they really...they are greater than the 90s and 00s but I don't believe greater than before that. We just counted differently then, you were homeless only if you lived on the streets.

Most houses I have lived in were accommodating at least two families. I was born in the late 60s and lived in inner city Dublin in 60s and 70s. At the time it was normal when you got married to move in with a family member and usually it was a bed in the sitting room not a spare bedroom. We lived in a two bedroom Victorian terrace with my great grandfather. When he died my aunt moved in, we were 4 parents and 3 children in a two bedroom house with no bathroom and a toilet in the yard. Older people on our street whose families had moved away took in lodgers. By today's counting half of these families would be homeless.

The young couples and families today expect too much from accommodation. We built a new house and tried to let our small family 3 bedroom home (in a rural village). One couple with two babies said it was too small as it didn't have a separate dining room to use as a playroom. Another single mother with a four year old wanted a new couch as it was only a two seater and she wanted a three seater. I get annoyed that as a landlord I was expected to provide microwave/ hoover/toaster/kettle. I don't have a microwave myself and the house had no carpets....use a brush. (No longer ours now so don't have to deal with any more demanding prima donnas).

I am now a boomerang parent. Adult son lives with me. Daughter, son in law and baby moving in with us in January as their rental property has been repossessed and nowhere else in the village available. Other adult daughter lives and works in Dublin, she has just moved in with her grandparents as private renting and houseshares way to expensive and also to be able to help care for her grandmother. Again all of these could be considered homeless and go moaning to the council but isn't helping each other what family is about.

Everyone has the right to a roof over their head and a warm safe bed but some need to lower their expectations to fit their means. Social housing lists need to be looked at and culled of all those who have refused an offer of reasonable accommodation. It should also be possible to look at what the local community will gain from housing a family, will they work, will they contribute to the community, will they support local shops and businesses.

I don't think moving the permanently unemployed families from cities to villages is the solution but maybe a version of it could be looked at. I know two families who were a sucess of the rural relocation programme early 90s. Other options such as more decentralization of businesses and services should be looked at. The greater Dublin area does not need more industrial estates and warehouses.

I am saddened this Christmas that there are children staying in emergency accommodation but angry that for some of these children it is purely the fault of the parent, that the expect to be housed as a right.

Excellent post. I think it’s a generation thing. Young people want it all and want it now, with as little effort on their own part.

Seth Brundle

Fann Linn wrote: »

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.

...and how can they fix it quickly?

Idbatterim

kbannon wrote: »

...and how can they fix it quickly?

Just editing this post. As I re read again and you said how can they fix it quickly. Whack up lpt, might force those with extra bedrooms to rent them out, thus making better use of ACcomodation. Politically they will never do that though.

Other quick fix in my opinion. Allow studio or apartments to rear of properties. These new wooden units are the last word in luxury compared to many of the "legal" hovels people are renting. Allow them for perhaps five years, at which point, their legality would be reviewed. But five years would be enough to pay for these units comfortably, I would imagine Alf also obviously generate a decent profit for the property owner. Thanks

Allow higher density. Smaller units. Single aspect apartments. Rezone more land. That is stuff they actually would do / are contemplating.

get Nama Involved, it can accesss money at near zero interest. Perhaps even get it to be a state house building scheme. Builders can tender for the entire project or break it up into phases / zones of large and they could tender for that. The builders margin doesn't need to be as large when there is no risk, which there wouldn't be with the state as client...

server down

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

The cost of state or council social housing will be offset by

1) the rent coming in &
2) the reduction in payments of private rent.

The costs would be the repayments on a 30+ year loan.

The biggest mistake ever made was selling off council houses. Imagine a landlord who had paid off his mortgages and was making money off rent. He has obligation to house his tenants. That’s fine. He is housing them. Then he sells off the houses at below market rents but has to pay the decendents of the tenants to rent privately. Over time that rent subsidy increases as private rent increases. He loses both the rent coming in and now has to pay ever increasing money out.

That’s what we did.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Excellent post. I think it’s a generation thing. Young people want it all and want it now, with as little effort on their own part.

Utter rubbish. Houses were cheaper back in the day, more people could afford them, people bought those houses at a younger age. Rent was cheaper. Deposits were less Those who could never afford a house could get more easily available council housing rather than the less secure private housing.

recedite

There is no quick fix. Quick fix is just the politician's BS way of feeding the homeless industry monster with more money. Hotels "modular housing" "rapid build housing" etc.. these all have the stink of lobbyists about them. Fine for emergencies, but we need a proper solution.

Build more social housing, or pay private contractors to do it. But these houses should be fairly basic, separate to private housing, and not in the best locations. Otherwise whats the point? There is no incentive for anyone to pay a mortgage or rent privately.
Starting now, it will take up to 5 years to build proper council houses. But then, if we had started 5 years ago, it would be done by now. Only let the tenants buy out the houses and pass them on to their kids after they have paid the equivalent of full market value (with credit for rent paid over the years as if it had been a mortgage).

Forget about twiddling around with the people on tracker mortgages. Cut standard mortgage interests rates for everybody to the ECB base rate; 2%. The ECB lends out the money at that rate, just pass it on direct to the consumer via a state bank. That makes houses twice as affordable straight away.
Fewer people then require social housing.

Remove the tax incentives for hoarding development land. Instead of the Property Tax, slap on a Site Valuation Tax instead for all land in the state. That makes it uneconomical to sit on development land. More houses get built, rents fall as a consequence.

Chips Lovell

Increasing the amount of money people can borrow doesn't make houses more affordable, it just makes them more expensive, which is what happened in the last boom.

oxygen

recedite wrote: »

There is no quick fix. Quick fix is just the politician's BS way of feeding the homeless industry monster with more money. Hotels "modular housing" "rapid build housing" etc.. these all have the stink of lobbyists about them. Fine for emergencies, but we need a proper solution.

Build more social housing, or pay private contractors to do it. But these houses should be fairly basic, separate to private housing, and not in the best locations. Otherwise whats the point? There is no incentive for anyone to pay a mortgage or rent privately.
Starting now, it will take up to 5 years to build proper council houses. But then, if we had started 5 years ago, it would be done by now. Only let the tenants buy out the houses and pass them on to their kids after they have paid the equivalent of full market value (with credit for rent paid over the years as if it had been a mortgage).

Forget about twiddling around with the people on tracker mortgages. Cut standard mortgage interests rates for everybody to the ECB base rate; 2%. The ECB lends out the money at that rate, just pass it on direct to the consumer via a state bank. That makes houses twice as affordable straight away.
Fewer people then require social housing.

Remove the tax incentives for hoarding development land. Instead of the Property Tax, slap on a Site Valuation Tax instead for all land in the state. That makes it uneconomical to sit on development land. More houses get built, rents fall as a consequence.

Those areas would be similar to ghettos and projects, we shouldn't look to be creating\expanding these areas of disenfranchisements. I hate the thoughts of moving a family with children to a rough neighbourhood because the market value is cheaper so it benefits landlords and private home owners. What chance are we giving that child? We sending them a very specific message.

Providing social housing in the same location as private housing gives everyone an equal opportunity to be a part of our society as a whole. We shouldn't be looking to move “undesirables” to the outskirts of Tallaght or commuting from Carlow etc etc. There are always going to be a small contingent who look to “milk” the system, that’s unavoidable. But in providing fair, good, accessible social housing gives people a chance to get a leg up and become a working tax paying member of society. Its economically sound, its just not economically sound for landlords or private developers.

mikep

Interesting move by DCC here..looks like the plan to mix social  and private housing isn't really a runner..
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/private-developer-gives-discount-to-dublin-city-council-on-block-of-apartments-for-social-housing-trade-off-819948.html

tringle

server down wrote: »

Utter rubbish. Houses were cheaper back in the day, more people could afford them, people bought those houses at a younger age. Rent was cheaper. Deposits were less Those who could never afford a house could get more easily available council housing rather than the less secure private housing.

Why? Wages were much lower, I know my dad worked and had less disposable income than families on social welfare now. We shared houses because there were no houses available. A two bedroomed house was perfectly suitable to raise a family of 8 in...now a 2 bedroom house is barely acceptable to a couple.

MayoSalmon

I know should be moving them into areas like Blackrock and the sort...they will all rid themselves of the behaviours that make them so called "undesirables" within a week or two. Equality achieved!

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

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

A growing population, less people able to afford rent, less people able to get by. There's lots of reasons.
Can you support people refusing homes and still been given hotel rooms with any stats from CSO?
It should be noted people are made two offers so it stands to reason they'll refuse one, but what ever makes good hay.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

Completely agree.
What's happening is people are saying those in need, including working tax payers, are being neglected.
The comeback is stories about welfare lifers and people lying. So it can get confusing. Nobody as far as I can tell is supporting 'free money' or the mythical 'free house' to people who purposefully avoid work and try play the system. That's just attempts at taking the discussion off road.

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

As many as it takes for the market to cool.

Funding;
Re-purpose Fine Gael's developer friendly €5.35 billion 'Social Housing' Strategy to make it a Social Housing strategy.

Re-purpose the developers friendly Bank NAMA and it's €70bn in loans at more favourable rates than other banks are willing to offer.

Make no mistake, the state is in the house building business, mostly for supporting private builds. The difference is we have housing stock to show and we recoup via rents over time with Social.

An increase in housing construction to create a functioning housing market and we are targeting the construction of 25,000 new homes every year by 2020.
47,000 new social housing units through a €5.35 billion Social Housing Strategy.
We will work together – and those with other good ideas – to address the consequences of the devastating construction bubble and the property crash.
https://www.finegael.ie/our-priorities/housing-homelessness/

Ireland's controversial new "bad bank" has overnight become one of the biggest property banks in the world after it completed the acquisition of developers' loans worth more than €70bn (£59bn).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/20/ireland-nama-banks-property-loans

Using money reclaimed from bust developers to fund developers at better rates than other banks. Only in Ireland.
But hey, lets tell stories about young ones complaining about wall paper.

recedite

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Increasing the amount of money people can borrow doesn't make houses more affordable, it just makes them more expensive, which is what happened in the last boom.

And why was it called a boom? Because lots of houses got built. Because there was a good profit in building them.

The problems arose when banksters lent people more money than they could afford to repay, and charged interest rates way above the ECB base rate. Those are separate issues, which should be addressed separately.

mikep wrote: »

Interesting move by DCC here..looks like the plan to mix social and private housing isn't really a runner..
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/private-developer-gives-discount-to-dublin-city-council-on-block-of-apartments-for-social-housing-trade-off-819948.html

Its good to see the voice of reason starting to prevail at last...

Dublin City Council's Deputy Chief Executive Brendan Kenny said the deal is a first of its kind.
"At the end of the day, our job is to get housing units. There's a housing crisis in the city at the moment," he said.
"We think this is a better deal. We do have problems mixing social housing into private developments. There's tension there [with private residents]. It is better for us, in this situation, to have a full development," he added.

oxygen wrote: »

Those areas would be similar to ghettos and projects, we shouldn't look to be creating\expanding these areas of disenfranchisements. I hate the thoughts of moving a family with children to a rough neighbourhood because the market value is cheaper so it benefits landlords and private home owners. What chance are we giving that child? We sending them a very specific message.

That is just sanctimonious nonsense. I know a guy who grew up in a notorious block of flats, but he was brought up well by a single parent, and went on to do well at school. A warm secure home and a free education provided by the state. This is what it should be all about; equal opportunity. Not equal lifestyle for all.
Low income and middle income workers don't expect to be moved into the the same areas and houses that are occupied by high income earners. So why should they be landed with a neighbour who doesn't work at all, yet has been given the same or better lifestyle? Worse still, somebody who might have anti-social behaviours.

FreudianSlippers

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.

We spend more than twice as much per annum on social services alone than servicing debt; 3 times as much on social services and health.

The alternative would have been much worse.

server down

tringle wrote: »

Why? Wages were much lower, I know my dad worked and had less disposable income than families on social welfare now. We shared houses because there were no houses available. A two bedroomed house was perfectly suitable to raise a family of 8 in...now a 2 bedroom house is barely acceptable to a couple.

How far back was this? The early 19C? It’s no way that was common a generation ago. Also a two bedroom is a two bedroom. How many kids you have is up to you.


The actual statistics are that 80% of people owned their houses by the end of the 80s, early 90s

James Brown

oxygen wrote: »

Those areas would be similar to ghettos and projects, we shouldn't look to be creating\expanding these areas of disenfranchisements. I hate the thoughts of moving a family with children to a rough neighbourhood because the market value is cheaper so it benefits landlords and private home owners. What chance are we giving that child? We sending them a very specific message.

Providing social housing in the same location as private housing gives everyone an equal opportunity to be a part of our society as a whole. We shouldn't be looking to move “undesirables” to the outskirts of Tallaght or commuting from Carlow etc etc. There are always going to be a small contingent who look to “milk” the system, that’s unavoidable. But in providing fair, good, accessible social housing gives people a chance to get a leg up and become a working tax paying member of society. Its economically sound, its just not economically sound for landlords or private developers.

Great point.
The market value of publicly owned land shouldn't even come into it. It's the land that has value for what it can provide, selling it off has a lot to do with us being where we are. Also if you put a family in an area with a stigma attached, poor quality schools and little to no infrastructure, it in the least will make it difficult for people to try get ahead.

server down

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We spend more than twice as much per annum on social services alone than servicing debt; 3 times as much on social services and health.

The alternative would have been much worse.

A lot of that social welfare - the majority - is pensions.

It doesn’t matter that the “alternative was worse”. The banking led collapse is why we have higher taxes and are constrained in our spending. It’s also why developers are thin on the ground. We are poor because of badly regulated financial capitalism.

NIMAN

tringle wrote: »

A two bedroomed house was perfectly suitable to raise a family of 8 in...now a 2 bedroom house is barely acceptable to a couple.

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

James Brown

NIMAN wrote: »

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

And you feel there'll be sufficient amounts of this kind of situation for it to have a big effect or are we just looking to assign fault anywhere we can?

recedite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Great point.
Also if you put a family in an area with a stigma attached, poor quality schools and little to no infrastructure, it in the least will make it difficult for people to try get ahead.

Lets look at these three issues.
A "stigma" attaches to people, not a piece of land. So if you move these same kind of people to a better area, the stigma moves with them.
Also, it is within the power of the stimatised people to change their behaviour, so that the stigma disappears. So "stigma" is a red herring.

All state schools should be of a high standard, and the vast majority are. Nobody is suggesting poor quality schools for certain areas, or certain classes of people. So that is a red herring.

Nobody is suggesting putting little or no infastructure for new council houses, except maybe the "quick fix" lobbyist/politician/homeless industry partnership.
Properly built council estates should have proper infastructure.
The estates should not be so large that the whole area gets a bad name, but they should be separate from private houses, and as a matter of principle they should be more basic, or not quite as luxurious in some way.
The kids however should all be attending the same schools, unless the parents want to pay for fully private education.

NIMAN

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And you feel there'll be sufficient amounts of this kind of situation for it to have a big effect or are we just looking to assign fault anywhere we can?

EH?

I was pointing out that families need bigger homes now than in the 70s or 80s as new rules are in place. This is adding to the problem. I'm sure there are people out there with 4 kids who are saying they need a 5 bed house as all the kids need a separate bedroom, whereas a 3 bed would have sufficed in the 80s.

That's all. Plus how these rules are likely to change again in the future.

tringle

server down wrote: »

How far back was this? The early 19C? It’s no way that was common a generation ago. Also a two bedroom is a two bedroom. How many kids you have is up to you.


The actual statistics are that 80% of people owned their houses by the end of the 80s, early 90s

This was in the 70s and 80s.
My point was that people weren't homeless because they lived with family not like many of today's families that feel entitled to a comfortable home at this expense of the state.

tringle

NIMAN wrote: »

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

But these rules only apply to those living in social housing. Rent privately or own a house then you only get what you can afford regardless of gender and number of people.

server down

NIMAN wrote: »

Many 'rules' now exist that wouldn't have back in the 70s or 80s.

If you have a mix of boys and girls among your children, they need to have separate bedrooms, isn't that right? A girl wouldn't be expected to share a bedroom with her brother?

Add to this, its only a matter of time before we hear of some claimant say they have 3 children, a boy, a girl and another who doesn't want to be seen as either, so they need 3 additional bedrooms for that.

I might say it tongue in cheek, but watch this space.

And most people don’t have 8 kids. That’s the biggest reason we don’t have large families in 2 bedroom housing.

server down

tringle wrote: »

This was in the 70s and 80s.
My point was that people weren't homeless because they lived with family not like many of today's families that feel entitled to a comfortable home at this expense of the state.

You started off with that anecdote then you said that your children moved in to live with you.

And more people had homes courtesy of the state in the 70s and 80s.

James Brown

recedite wrote: »

Lets look at these three issues.
A "stigma" attaches to people, not a piece of land. So if you move these same kind of people to a better area, the stigma moves with them.
Also, it is within the power of the stimatised people to change their behaviour, so that the stigma disappears. So "stigma" is a red herring.

All state schools should be of a high standard, and the vast majority are. Nobody is suggesting poor quality schools for certain areas, or certain classes of people. So that is a red herring.

Nobody is suggesting putting little or no infastructure for new council houses, except maybe the "quick fix" lobbyist/politician/homeless industry partnership.
Properly built council estates should have proper infastructure.
The estates should not be so large that the whole area gets a bad name, but they should be separate from private houses, and as a matter of principle they should be more basic, or not quite as luxurious in some way.
The kids however should all be attending the same schools, unless the parents want to pay for fully private education.

Agreed. As regards stigmas, they are attached to areas for a long long time.
The line of discussion was regarding segregation over mixed. An area of only low/no income people, which in the past has seen drug issues, Garda calling it a no go area etc. is not what we should be returning to. These areas can often have poor quality schools, (I've seen teachers stumble in drunk, so it happens).
I would suggest pockets of social housing throughout the city centers and suburbs.

tringle

server down wrote: »

You started off with that anecdote then you said that your children moved in to live with you. .

Yes, because we have the space for them and they don't feel that the state is obliged to house them.

Mousewar

I don't actually believe in rights at all.
I mean, they're a useful concept and as a society I believe we have a moral duty to help out those who need help but I don't feel as if I have a right to anything at all. Not a house, not my health, not even my life. The fact that I have those things makes me feel very appreciative and I would like everyone to have them as well but I don't feel any of them are my "right" and don't understand people who do think like that.

MayoSalmon

Mousewar wrote:

I don't actually believe in rights at all. I mean, they're a useful concept and as a society I believe we have a moral duty to help out those who need help but I don't feel as if I have a right to anything at all. Not a house, not my health, not even my life. The fact that I have those things makes me feel very appreciative and I would like everyone to have them as well but I don't feel any of them are my "right" and don't understand people who do think like that.

So if you don't feel you have a "right" to your life or anybody else to theirs murder would be grand in your eyes.

Mousewar

As I said, just because I don't believe someone has a right to something doesn't mean I don't want them to have that something, nor do I think it acceptable to deprive them of that thing.

Do you think I have some kind of human right to my iPad? No, yet you'd still think it wrong if someone stole it.

MayoSalmon

Mousewar wrote:

Do you think I have some kind of human right to my iPad? No, yet you'd still think it wrong if someone stole it.

Yes you have a right to property so your iPad, house, car, bag of jellies are your right if they are your property.

Mousewar

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Yes you have a right to property so your iPad, house, car, bag of jellies are your right if they are your property.

Yes that's the law. You're just using rights as a pseudonym for laws.
Anyway, all these things as some kind of innate entitlements, I reject all that. I don't feel entitled to anything at all, just thankful for anything I manage to get either through luck or effort.

MayoSalmon

Mousewar wrote:

Yes that's the law. You're just using rights as a pseudonym for laws. Anyway, all these things as some kind of innate entitlements, I reject all that. I don't feel entitled to anything at all, just thankful for anything I manage to get either through luck or effort.

No property rights maybe are more closely aligned to legal rights but natural rights would apply to the right to life as do most basic human rights.

Anyway not really sure what the point if this discussion is. You don't feel anybody has a right to their property or life and that they shouldn't feel entitled to either...mad but sure each to his own.

Mousewar

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Anyway not really sure what the point if this discussion is.

Well you were the one perpetuating it. I just stated my view that I believe the concept of a human right is meaningless.

server down

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

That’s nice of you but you haven’t paid the government back for your schooling at primary, secondary or tertiary yet. When are you doing that?

jm08

Mousewar wrote: »

I don't actually believe in rights at all.
I mean, they're a useful concept and as a society I believe we have a moral duty to help out those who need help but I don't feel as if I have a right to anything at all. Not a house, not my health, not even my life. The fact that I have those things makes me feel very appreciative and I would like everyone to have them as well but I don't feel any of them are my "right" and don't understand people who do think like that.

With Rights come Responsibilities - be responsible not to take advantage of your fellow citizens or the State.

Carlos Orange

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 is 15% of income after tax in Dublin with a maximum rent that hasn't been updated since 2012. If you are on 300k a year you get a 4 bedroom house for about what I paid for a 2 bedroom apartment. Above that you don't pay any extra.

Galwayguy35

server down wrote: »

That’s nice of you but you haven’t paid the government back for your schooling at primary, secondary or tertiary yet. When are you doing that?

If he's a person with a job that's exactly what he is doing through his taxes as are the rest of us.

The 2 junkies in the tent that were on the programme the other night certainly won't be paying anyone for the house they were saying should be provided for them.

Consonata

Eric Cartman wrote:

I would say take everyone on that list, find out the ones who are not addicts who are working and make them the priority, the intergenerationally unemployed can have some attention after all the workers have been looked after.

Addicts often can't look after themselves, else they wouldnt be call3d addicts.

So if that person has kids, are you condeming that child to life without a home to call their own because their parent isnt capable of giving them one?

Are you condeming that person, who is in the depths of their own depressing situation, to make it 10x worse by making them sleep rough?

Eric Cartman

Consonata wrote: »

Addicts often can't look after themselves, else they wouldnt be call3d addicts.

So if that person has kids, are you condeming that child to life without a home to call their own because their parent isnt capable of giving them one?

Are you condeming that person, who is in the depths of their own depressing situation, to make it 10x worse by making them sleep rough?

I said give them a detox centre. I personally believe drug addicts should be offered sterilisation and also have any existing children taken from them. You can have a smack problem or kids, not both in my book.

Consonata

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I said give them a detox centre. I personally believe drug addicts should be offered sterilisation and also have any existing children taken from them. You can have a smack problem or kids, not both in my book.

I mean, what person is going to willingly sterilise themselves. I think you mean mandatory sterilisation, in which case what right do you have to decide who can have kids and who not to.

recedite

Consonata wrote: »

I mean, what person is going to willingly sterilise themselves. I think you mean mandatory sterilisation, in which case what right do you have to decide who can have kids and who not to.

I think if the previous poster had meant mandatory he would have said it. Lots of people get themselves sterilised, and pay for it themselves too. Have you never heard of "the snip" or tubal ligation?

hatrickpatrick

Tabnabs wrote: »

The problem I have with this logic is that it attracts a very vocal cohort who ultimately seek to make housing a right rather than a need.

Housing should be a right, because it is a need.

hatrickpatrick

boombang wrote: »

But what the people pay in social housing cost is nowhere near the market value of the home. So person A lives in social housing in Crumlin and pays buttons to rent it from the corpo, while person B next door breaks his hole working to pay a €1,500 a month mortgage on the same house. This can be the case even if person A is working.

The concept of the free market dictating everything is merely one ideology of many. You may believe that market value should be relevant when it comes to housing, plenty of others do not.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The concept of the free market dictating everything is merely one ideology of many. You may believe that market value should be relevant when it comes to housing, plenty of others do not.

If market value is irrelevant to housing then you are saying money is irrelevant to housing. And/or money is limitless. If money was limitless it would have no value. And market value would not exist. Which we know is absurd, don't we?

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

If market value is irrelevant to housing then you are saying money is irrelevant to housing. And/or money is limitless. If money was limitless it would have no value. And market value would not exist. Which we know is absurd, don't we?

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list. Everybody, absolutely everybody, should be entitled to a basic standard of living including housing. The free market should only kick in if people want to upgrade, just as the free market only kicks in for healthcare if people want to upgrade from a public to a private hospital, and the free market for transport only kicks in if people want to upgrade from public transport to a private vehicle.

We have never had pure capitalism in this country or I believe in most European countries, certainly not since the twentieth century anyway. There is no reason other than an ideological reason why housing should not be up for discussion as another basic living standard which should have a minimum "floor" that is guaranteed by the state, just like healthcare and so on.

Honestly, people talk as if Herbert Simms either didn't exist or else belongs to an age hundreds of years in the past. We've only done away with state built public housing since the 1980s and the dawn of neoliberalism. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (consult the census) of people currently alive who would be old enough to remember this.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list. Everybody, absolutely everybody, should be entitled to a basic standard of living including housing. The free market should only kick in if people want to upgrade, just as the free market only kicks in for healthcare if people want to upgrade from a public to a private hospital, and the free market for transport only kicks in if people want to upgrade from public transport to a private vehicle.

We have never had pure capitalism in this country or I believe in most European countries, certainly not since the twentieth century anyway. There is no reason other than an ideological reason why housing should not be up for discussion as another basic living standard which should have a minimum "floor" that is guaranteed by the state, just like healthcare and so on.

Honestly, people talk as if Herbert Simms either didn't exist or else belongs to an age hundreds of years in the past. We've only done away with state built public housing since the 1980s and the dawn of neoliberalism. There are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions (consult the census) of people currently alive who would be old enough to remember this.

Market value in housing exists. Otherwise there would be no such thing as House Price Statistics. That makes house market value prices relevant to any discussion on housing.

So, for example, if the average house price in Dublin is 300k it means to the Govt that every house it provides will set it back this amount. Or €1 m for every three.
Put another way every three people in Dublin that provide housing for themselves via the market saves the Govt €1m. And, at the same time , probably provides 300k in taxes to the Exchequer.

(If I remember, back the way, you were claiming apartments in Dublin could be supplied for 40K a pop)

tringle

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not everything is subject to the free market. For instance, in Ireland we have made the decision that primary education, healthcare, public transport and many other essential or even quasi-essential aspects of daily living should not be subject to the free market. I am advocating that housing be added to this list. Everybody, absolutely everybody, should be entitled to a basic standard of living including housing. The free market should only kick in if people want to upgrade, just as the free market only kicks in for healthcare if people want to upgrade from a public to a private hospital, and the free market for transport only kicks in if people want to upgrade from public transport to a private vehicle.
.

I actually agree with the ideology of this that "a basic standard of living including housing" is not subject to the free market and we all then are free to upgrade. However I feel that many younger people now see this "basic standard" as being much higher than what many of us grew up with as basic, that they expect much more than basic. And while I don't want to ghettoise families I feel that two identical rental houses in a street should cost the same regardless of who rents them.

oceanman

Good loser wrote: »

Market value in housing exists. Otherwise there would be no such thing as House Price Statistics. That makes house market value prices relevant to any discussion on housing.

So, for example, if the average house price in Dublin is 300k it means to the Govt that every house it provides will set it back this amount. Or €1 m for every three.
Put another way every three people in Dublin that provide housing for themselves via the market saves the Govt €1m. And, at the same time , probably provides 300k in taxes to the Exchequer.

(If I remember, back the way, you were claiming apartments in Dublin could be supplied for 40K a pop)

300k is the avarage price of the house in the current market, it dosent cost anywhere near that to build it...