Social Housing: a flawed system

Pixel Eater

The social housing system is broken, in at least as far as I can see. It's massively subsidised - some tenants pay as little as €25 a week in the centre of Dublin - put even then there is massive rent evasion and arrears, as much as 50%. As well as that it's, or at least some developments, are blighted with social issues and illegal dumping. The whole concept seems to discourage work and can ensnarl people in the poverty trap. It may even encourage homelessness if the 'gaming the system' remark are to be believed.

This is probably the main reason Dublin City Council (and other local authorities) don't want to build them. They will pay the private sector, try to create PPP or encourage co-ops, but by and large won't and don't do large scale social housing developments directly.

Now this is a very general view, many social housing developments and tenants are fine; plus, having said all that, I actually am in favour of large scale public housing as a way to solve the current housing crisis, but not the way it's done here currently. When various commentators, politicians and activists promote the building of more social housing I'm always surprised that they never acknowledge that the sector requires deep reform.

traveller0101

What are you talking about? It seems to be working well and is well received by the public. Round of applause for anyone ever involved in any it :rolleyes:

jimmycrackcorm

Pixel Eater wrote:

Now this is a very general view, many social housing developments and tenants are fine; plus, having said all that, I actually am in favour of large scale public housing as a way to solve the current housing crisis, but not the way it's done here currently. When various commentators, politicians and activists promote the building of more social housing I'm always surprised that they never acknowledge that the sector requires deep reform.

Sadly though political correctness is blocking councils from building traditional large scale council estates as we once successfully used to do.

Now housing has to be integrated for fear of creating ghettos and this policy is simply too expensive both for the government to pay for a slice of private housing for social use, and for private buyers competing.

It's as if there is no other solution to preventing ghettoisation such as simply removing problem tenants.

doolox

We no longer have large scale prisons, mental hospitals, workhouses, orphanages, Magdalene laundries etc.. in which to deposit problem tenants. Society has moved on from the coercive and often cruel practices of the past but no viable solution has been found for preventing anti social behaviour in some people and encouraging and leading good behaviour in some people.

Simply evicting problem tenants means they have to be housed elsewhere on a new set of tenants until trouble starts again and they are moved on in a never ending cycle of "kicking the can down the road".

Eventually this problem will fester and become so acute that some intemperate and wrong headed solution will be tried which may cost us all in the long run.
Large scale and easily visible social housing units have been found to be unworkable in the past because employers will not take on people with addresses in these areas, shops, businesses and amenity providers will not set up in or near these areas and they become unworkable as even people in dire need of housing will try and leave these areas due to fear.

Other schemes where houses are bought in private estates leads to resentment and friction between buyers and tenants due to perceived unfairness in one person having to buy and pay for his house while a neighbour is seen to do nothing and get his for free....why these arrangements cannot be kept secret I do not know but people talk..It will be very tricky and expensive to solve this housing problem.

jimmycrackcorm

doolox wrote:

Simply evicting problem tenants means they have to be housed elsewhere on a new set of tenants until trouble starts again and they are moved on in a never ending cycle of "kicking the can down the road".

It's always a minority that cause all the trouble. But that minority contaminates the rest of their community. So what if they are isolated out. The problem is that there are no repercussions now.

Very large scale social housing such as Darndale or Balllymun has been problematic but there are numerous small council estates up and down the country that demonstrate the opposite.

The Student

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It's always a minority that cause all the trouble. But that minority contaminates the rest of their community. So what if they are isolated out. The problem is that there are no repercussions now.

Very large scale social housing such as Darndale or Balllymun has been problematic but there are numerous small council estates up and down the country that demonstrate the opposite.

I was only discussing this issue with my Dad recently. He said when he was growing up and if a social tenant did not pay their rent they were moved to properties that were not a place people would choose to live.

Those guilty of anti social behavior do not appear to suffer any consequences for their actions. if they realized what they had and could lose if they engage in anti social behavior then they might think twice, as the system currently stands they appear to get away with what they want ruining an area for the majority of good decent people.

seamus

The Student wrote: »

I was only discussing this issue with my Dad recently. He said when he was growing up and if a social tenant did not pay their rent they were moved to properties that were not a place people would choose to live.

Not a place people would choose to live...because of the kind of people who live there.

Problem is, you're talking about a minority that don't follow the typical rules. If someone is that kind of awful neighbour, then being moved into a place with other sh1tty neighbours is no skin off their nose. Everyone there is an asshole, they'll even find some kindred spirits.

And eventually you end up with the Ballymuns, Moyrosses and Fettercairns of this world - places packed full of problem tenants shipped in from elsewhere, where petty crime is rife, poverty and social deprivation skyrockets and organised criminals take control.

In the end you haven't solved the problem, just concentrated it and made it more dangerous.

I don't know what the solution is. Taking problem tenants and putting them in quiet estates solves the problem of having too many scumbags concentrated in one area. But like putting the bold kid in the class beside the good kid, you might make the bold kid quieter, while you make life worse for the good one.

I had suggested before building very standard one-off houses in rural Ireland, 500m or so from the nearest town, for these kinds of special tenants. Places where they can't disturb the neighbours with their day-to-day goings-on and where they're sufficiently isolated from other scumbags that they can't cause disruption in the local area.
That still seems like it may be the only way forward.

Graces7

seamus wrote: »

Not a place people would choose to live...because of the kind of people who live there.

I
I had suggested before building very standard one-off houses in rural Ireland, 500m or so from the nearest town, for these kinds of special tenants. Places where they can't disturb the neighbours with their day-to-day goings-on and where they're sufficiently isolated from other scumbags that they can't cause disruption in the local area.
That still seems like it may be the only way forward.

are you serious?

Xterminator

Pixel Eater wrote: »

The social housing system is broken, It's massively subsidised - some tenants pay as little as €25 a week in the centre of Dublin -

It is not perfect, but no system is. however the principle of paying on a scale based on your income is one that i do agree with. how the principle is implemented is worthy of discussion.

Currently tenants are assessed yearly and have to provide proof of income, children attending full time education etc.

Re providing social housing in city centre etc, i wholehearted disagree with allowing the gentrification of areas like has happened in london, where the firefighters, nurses and shopkeeper cannot afford to live in the area which they work, and get pushed out of desirable areas. Of course people who are born in and have ties with city centre communities should be allowed to live in these areas.

Pixel Eater wrote: »

, but by and large won't and don't do large scale social housing developments directly. , having said all that, I actually am in favour of large scale public housing .

you might want to educate yourself as to the societal costs of quick fixes like building a town the size of ballymun and populating with with only council tenants. By doing so you create areas where poverty, disadvantage, poor education are concentrated.

We as a society learned from areas like ballymun, darndale, moyross, and dolphins barn etc, that building large estates of council housing risks creating ghettos of social unrest, entrenched poverty where promote anti social behaviour can thrive. In addition they are a gift to the drug dealers and criminal in society as they provide them recruiting grounds and estates to operate from.

http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/72345/1/72345.pdf

http://www.combatpoverty.ie/publications/workingpapers/2011-02_WP_CombatingSocialDisadvantageInSocialHousingEstates.pdf

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/people-politics-law/politics-policy-people/sociology/problem-populations-problem-places/content-section-3.4

It is best practise to build mixed estates where there are good schools, home ownership rates are higher, stronger and better planned community resources, and more social mobility allowing the children from poorer homes a better chance at improving their own situation beyond those they were brought up in.

This is not an irish phenomenon, just look at riots in UK and france, and the fractured society in the US etc.

I find it hard to believe people are calling for large council estates. Is it because some people begrudge the social housing tenants in the same estate as the one they have purchased their house in?

Asus X540L

doolox wrote: »

We no longer have large scale prisons, mental hospitals, workhouses, orphanages, Magdalene laundries etc.. in which to deposit problem tenants.

Shame imo.
We never stop hearing about the cruelty of the Magdalene laundries but you wouldn't have ended up there if you didn't have repeated and flagrant disregard for the law of the land

seamus

Graces7 wrote: »

are you serious?

Yes. A non-descript white box with a roof, built to very basic standards, on 1/32 of an acre, with walls around it, at least 200m from any other home and a 10 minute walk from the nearest town.

So they can go and be sh1tty tenants in their own little coccoon.

thierry14

It's a broken system cause nothing to encourage them to get out of social housing

Why would you want to get out when your in a nice house in a private house that a poor soul next door paid 200k for

In the old days they were put together in horrible ghettos, the good ones worked to get out for a better life

That self worth is gone

No incentive anymore

Its hard to know who's social and who is not now

I preferred the harder touch

Not going to change with pussies in charge

Life needs to be hard at times, people need to be hungry, have a reason to get up in the morning

In Ireland you don't have to get up in the morning

0ph0rce0

thierry14 wrote:

Why would you want to get out when your in a nice house in a private house that a poor soul next door paid 200k for

I have a friend that was given a council house recently. When I heard the location I said to myself. No way.

I had seen the showhouse in this new build estate and thought if the council own a few maybe they are different sizes , builds etc... they weren't.

These houses are on sale from €640k for 3 bed and €695k for 4 bed which she is in.

Mad. I'd kill for that house.

Xterminator

Asus X540L wrote: »

Shame imo.
We never stop hearing about the cruelty of the Magdalene laundries but you wouldn't have ended up there if you didn't have repeated and flagrant disregard for the law of the land

Offenses such as being a victim of incest/rape and getting pregnant. yeah, sure.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000

Asus X540L wrote:

Shame imo. We never stop hearing about the cruelty of the Magdalene laundries but you wouldn't have ended up there if you didn't have repeated and flagrant disregard for the law of the land

When was getting pregnant unwed against the law of the land. Can you link the law you are referring to?

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What would you do in the same situation? Happyily pay an extra 1400 euro and no security of tenure? I think not?Blame the game not the player.

sbsquarepants

Asus X540L wrote: »

Shame imo.
We never stop hearing about the cruelty of the Magdalene laundries but you wouldn't have ended up there if you didn't have repeated and flagrant disregard for the law of the land

I don't think you really understand what a Magdalene laundry was or what purpose it served. People weren't in there because of their repeated and flagrant law breaking.

doolox

I have lost count of how many times I've heard that phrase. We live in an age where the hardest part of any job is the getting up and commuting. It seems that the internal conditions of most jobs have been tweaked and worked on by most employers and a raft of legislation, rules and procedures have meant that most jobs are relatively pleasant to do with minimal physical effort or risk.

Hours and environment at work are a lot less dangerous and unhealthy than they used to be. What is missing is a program of radical improvement in transport, commuting patterns and methods of informing people of traffic jams delays and way to avoid them. Mobile phones make the task of informing bosses of impending delays and lateness a lot less difficult than it used to be, no more hunting down a payphone to beat a morning deadline for reporting tardiness etc.
Many employers are more understanding of the unpredictability and quirky nature of commuting than they used to be. What is needed is to make commuting stress free and attractive and find some way to recognise and reward people for their efforts in getting to work.

Many of the long term unemployed have other issues besides mere lack of skills needed by todays employers. It is sometimes that people in authority cannot make a call on which people to work on to get back into employment and who to write off as hopeless cases.

The possibility is now very high that a large proportion of the unemployed are in that state due to mental health issues, unreliable physical health, drug and alcohol issues and possible early onset dementia issues and a whole host of undiagnosed or partially diagnosed reasons why they cannot participate in the workforce.

manonboard

Asus X540L wrote: »

Shame imo.
We never stop hearing about the cruelty of the Magdalene laundries but you wouldn't have ended up there if you didn't have repeated and flagrant disregard for the law of the land

Thats one of the lowest things i've heard on boards. Have you ever actually looked into these or worked with people from these places?
I have. They were put their because they got pregnant, often by rape or a lack of education about how it happens. They were put their to protect men in authority positions and to not infer their could be problems in the community.

If you're parents split up, or developed problems, or you were being neglected, you could easily end up in these places through the social care system. I met a person just last week who spent most of their life in one. Her crime was her dad was alcoholic who beat her mother. She was 11 when she entered. And decades older when leaving.

These people were worked to the bone, babies were starved and killed. The whole graveyard of dead babies show what happened there. You think the men running these torture prisons didnt constantly abuse and pay midnight visits to these helpless women?

You should retract your statement and excuse your ignorance of such a horrible part of our society.

Evd-Burner

Asus X540L wrote: »

Shame imo.
We never stop hearing about the cruelty of the Magdalene laundries but you wouldn't have ended up there if you didn't have repeated and flagrant disregard for the law of the land

Please elaborate on what your position is on the women of the Magdalene laundries who were put there simply because they were pregnant out of wedlock.

Hitman3000

manonboard wrote:

These people were worked to the bone, babies were starved and killed. The whole graveyard of dead babies show what happened there. You think the men running these torture prisons didnt constantly abuse and pay midnight visits to these helpless women?

Most of the laundries were run by the "good" sisters. Tuam was run by the Bon Secoure order of nuns.

Grab All Association

Funnily this thread comes up when I’m sitting here in work filling out the 7th housing needs assessment form for my friend who is a disabled man that has spent over 10 years on the list. If only he could drop out 5 kids and have 80+ convictions. One year he never received it and was removed off the list. Misandrist auld bunch they are.

Xterminator

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

rent is reviewed annually and lowered and highered based on household income and the no of people living at the address. Even if income doesn't change, rent goes up incrementally.

do you think we should evict council tenants if they reach a certain threshold of income?

charge everyone market rent regardless of their ability to pay?

create large tent cities for people who pay less than you?

I'm not sure what your suggesting. i think we need more council and affordable housing to make society fairer. I am aware in some countries they dont operate on these principles, eg trumps america.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Graham

Evd-Burner wrote: »

Please elaborate on what your position is on the women of the Magdalene laundries who were put there simply because they were pregnant out of wedlock.

Mod Note:

Please don't.

Thread has already been dragged sufficiently off-topic by that particularly daft comment.

Pixel Eater

Social problems are an issue (in some estates) but the main problem with social housing is that's it so economically unviable. They should open up public housing to people on far larger incomes. In theory a single person on €35k can qualify for a public house but in practice there is no way someone like that will get a house at the moment. Increase the threshold to €50 or 60k as these people can actually afford to pay and have a designated proportion for this cohort.

Take this scenario: a young couple are paying €1300/1400 a month for a one bed flat from a private landlord a few miles from the city centre. On top of that they have to pay their various bills, bins and commuting costs. Instead they live in a council owned flat and pay €900/1000 plus bins, and possibly wifi, are included and given a 4 or 5 year lease. The property is well insulated and closer to town meaning less heating bills and lower commuting costs. The council get a reliable tenant and a reasonable amount of rent which they can use to subsidise other tenants on lower incomes and invest in other housing developments. The couple save a considerable amount every month and could even have the guts of a deposit by the end of their lease.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Social problems are an issue (in some estates) but the main problem with social housing is that's it so economically unviable. They should open up public housing to people on far larger incomes. In theory a single person on €35k can qualify for a public house but in practice there is no way someone like that will get a house at the moment. Increase the threshold to €50 or 60k as these people can actually afford to pay and have a designated proportion for this cohort.

Take this scenario: a young couple are paying €1300/1400 a month for a one bed flat from a private landlord a few miles from the city centre. On top of that they have to pay their various bills, bins and commuting costs. Instead they live in a council owned flat and pay €900/1000 plus bins, and possibly wifi, are included and given a 4 or 5 year lease. The property is well insulated and closer to town meaning less heating bills and lower commuting costs. The council get a reliable tenant and a reasonable amount of rent which they can use to subsidise other tenants on lower incomes and invest in other housing developments. The couple save a considerable amount every month and could even have the guts of a deposit by the end of their lease.

The council may also have a reliable tenant in that property already.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Pixel Eater

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is another issue. Social housing rent is based on a percentage of income, usually around 15%, but for some daft reason it's also capped so someone who earns a lot will still pay relatively small rent.

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Differential rent is what the council charges. Although I get suspicious of these 'I know someone who' whenever these type of threads appear.

Pixel Eater

Fann Linn wrote: »

The council may also have a reliable tenant in that property already.

I didn't suggest evicting anyone.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fann Linn

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Differential rent is what the council charges. Although I get suspicious of these 'I know someone who' whenever these type of threads appear.

Hearsay.

jimmycrackcorm

seamus wrote:

I don't know what the solution is. Taking problem tenants and putting them in quiet estates solves the problem of having too many scumbags concentrated in one area. But like putting the bold kid in the class beside the good kid, you might make the bold kid quieter, while you make life worse for the good one.

The most likely scenario is the latter.

Xterminator wrote:

I find it hard to believe people are calling for large council estates. Is it because some people begrudge the social housing tenants in the same estate as the one they have purchased their house in?

No. Its simply unjustifiable that with such a massive crisis that the covenant pays double or triple the cost to pay for private housing for social needs instead of building economically and properly addressing the problems.

It doesn't make sense that the rules stipulate that a developer building ten million euro houses has to provide ten percent or one of those houses for social housing.

Pixel Eater wrote:

Social problems are an issue (in some estates) but the main problem with social housing is that's it so economically unviable. They should open up public housing to people on far larger incomes. In theory a single person on €35k can qualify for a public house but in practice there is no way someone like that will get a house at the moment. Increase the threshold to €50 or 60k as these people can actually afford to pay and have a designated proportion for this cohort.

I think this is a good idea. Instead of buying into private estates, build council housing and offer a proportion of those as affordable rents for low paid workers that fall just short of the threshold to qualify for social assistance.

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I said I was suspicious I didn't say you were lying. I'm just amazed at how many people are willing to share their intimate financial details with others. Although this knowledge is usually only forthcoming on threads such as this and benefit threads.

ionapaul

It is a very difficult problem to solve. I totally understand the reasoning behind the measure forcing developers to set aside a certain % of a new estate for social housing (often the poorest quality units understandably from the developers standpoint), it reduces the likelihood of ghettos, etc... but the knock on impact surely is that it puts downward pressure over time on the non-social housing home prices in said estate (particularly if any problem social tenants emerge) and upwards pressure on the older estates that were built before the social housing requirement?

On a personal note, I've occasionally wondered what is the % premium I'd pay for house A in a totally private estate versus an identical house B in a social housing % estate. The vast majority of social tenants are wonderful people I'm sure but how much would the typical person pay to avoid the chance of nightmare neighbours (you get them with private owners too obviously )? It's total NIMBYism but regardless of how destructive of societal development such a preference is, surely it actually impacts house prices over time you'd think? Would love to see some research on this in the future!

.......

This post has been deleted.

Xterminator

Pixel Eater wrote: »

This is another issue. Social housing rent is based on a percentage of income, usually around 15%, but for some daft reason it's also capped so someone who earns a lot will still pay relatively small rent.

Untrue. Urban myth. Comes up time and time again.

1st example that came up in google

https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/sites/default/files/content/Housing/Differential%20Rents%20Scheme%202016.pdf

4. MAXIMUM RENT:
No maximum rent applies. The rent as calculated will be charged.

Xterminator

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

do you know of a single person who is earning 120k that was approved for council housing via the waiting list? IE the list that is over 10 years long?

i suppose these 120k earners have couch surfed, or lived with family in overcrowded conditions for the last decade in the hope of scoring council accommodation?

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Do you think someone on a 120k pa is given a council house?
All I can take from your post is you know someone's financial details( well you claim to) and feel they are advantaged in a way you or others are not and would lie an equality of misery. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but that's all I can get from your post.
Seriously someone gets awarded a council house due to their low income family size. 10 years later they may have educated themselves better, got promoted even, got a job but you want them kicked out of their home and area just because....

.......

This post has been deleted.

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Once they are paying the rent and are a responsible tenant can't see the issue. Rent is means assessed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

'the market' , 'the market', are we not learning our lessons yet!

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You said you know someone who earns 80k and went on to describe their lifestyle . You claimed you know how much rent they pay. So why contradict yourself?

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

My tax is also subsidizing M O Leary in the form of child allowance. Our society has decided this is how we want things so I'm happy to go along. No joy in seeing others miserable tbh.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Xterminator

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

nope the market needs to be fixed to bring rents in line with earning.

Council rents are charged using a formula. If you said the formula needs to be tweaked, it is regularly.

But to charge market rents, when the market is broken?