Homelessness on the rise (over 130 more children) - Mod Warning Post #392

TSQ

Macha wrote: »

Far away from your family and friends? Your job? Your social network? You would not.

What world do you live in? I am working with non-nationals. All of them came here to work, far away from family and friends, all paying their own way. None having lots of kids they cant afford and then demanding virtually free house in the location of their choice. Not to mention all the Irish who emigrated to the US and Australia...

Macha

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

Yes a million times. Just because you have family, friends and grew up in a neighborhood, does not mean that you are entitled to live there all your life and have the government pay for it.

I choose not to live in Dublin as I could not afford it. Why should my taxes pay for someone else to do what I could not do, just because they have friends and family there.

I also had to move away from my family to get a job and I don't regret it at all. I'm better off today for doing it, made new friends and have a family of my own too.

Why can't you do the same that I did.

TSQ wrote: »

What world do you live in? I am working with non-nationals. All of them came here to work, far away from family and friends, all paying their own way. None having lots of kids they cant afford and then demanding virtually free house in the location of their choice. Not to mention all the Irish who emigrated to the US and Australia...

I get the impression you guys have never lived in a well planned, well managed city. These expectations of people to have zero expectations of living a half-normal life are not normal.

Coffeebean2, you said you chose not to live in Dublin because you couldn't afford it. That's the opposite of choice. My point is that sort of situation shouldn't be arising - for you or anyone else. And having to move away because of a job is very different from having to move away simply because you can't afford to rent a property within a decent distance of where you work.

I'm not saying someone should expect to be able to live in Dublin 4 but other posters are talking about them having to move out of Dublin entirely.

Seriously, raise your heads, look around at other cities in Western Europe and you'll realise how ****ed up the Irish property market is, and the conversation around it.

Macha

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

If you check the research you will find that wealthier people have less children than poorer people. And you do not need to have your own property before having children. Many families in Europe rent all of their lives.

There is nothing wrong with renting all of your live. It's just Irish people have a love for property.

The situation in Dublin is that people can't even afford to rent. I'm not even talking about home ownership.

Spanish Eyes

Macha wrote: »

The situation in Dublin is that people can't even afford to rent. I'm not even talking about home ownership.

This is true and so demoralising for many.

However points have been made on the thread about Council housing being procured in prime areas (presumably on the 20% rule for new developments) for those who qualify even if they are not working, number of children seems to be a feature. That makes those who HAVE to move outside their preferred areas a little miffed IMO.

I am not saying that those who qualify for Council Housing are all total wasters without a job, but many are.

To my mind and sorry if this offends, the points system for housing within the canals in Dublin should be based on your contribution to society, whether you work, contribute, fulfil the criteria, here you are, best of luck.

On the other hand, those who are not working, and never have should not qualify for housing within the M50. That might sound extreme, but I hope you understand that I see every day those travelling from outer Dublin and elsewhere to work hard, while those who do not work are housed where the workers should be!

I am sure it is more nuanced than that, but it is no wonder people are getting very angry, and I'm not talking about those who demand a house with two kids under 21 and another on the way, and neither parent is working, and probably won't at this stage, sadly.I am talking about hard working people who cannot get a mortgage, and cannot afford to rent near their work in Dublin, like you said.

There are many like them. And many on the other side who seem to get all the publicity.

CoffeeBean2

Macha wrote: »

Coffeebean2, you said you chose not to live in Dublin because you couldn't afford it. That's the opposite of choice. My point is that sort of situation shouldn't be arising - for you or anyone else. And having to move away because of a job is very different from having to move away simply because you can't afford to rent a property within a decent distance of where you work.

I chose to live in a city which would give me best opportunity long term, that city was not Dublin and it was not where I was raised. That was a choice, not the opposite of a choice. I could have lived in Dublin if I really wanted to, but I believed at the time I would not get the same quality of live as elsewhere.

Macha wrote: »

I'm not saying someone should expect to be able to live in Dublin 4 but other posters are talking about them having to move out of Dublin entirely.

It sounds very much like you are. Why did you give Dublin 4 as as an example? Probably because it is more than what the vast majority of people can afford. But the location does not matter, if it's Dublin 4 or Dublin 17. If you can not afford to live there, why should we the tax payer support you?

Macha wrote: »

Seriously, raise your heads, look around at other cities in Western Europe and you'll realise how ****ed up the Irish property market is, and the conversation .

I'm not saying there is no property problem, clearly there is. But if you look at those western European cities, they are all high rise, which good public transport that are filled with workers.

Not unemployed people expecting a semi-d with a nice small garden a short walk away from the off license.

Sleeper12

CoffeeBean2 wrote:

It sounds very much like you are. Why did you give Dublin 4 as as an example? Probably because it is more than what the vast majority of people can afford. But the location does not matter, if it's Dublin 4 or Dublin 17. If you can not afford to live there, why should we the tax payer support you?

You are right. Move all of the OAPs out of the sheltered housing and ship them off down the country. Some of these freeloaders actually do live in D4 and the taxpayer pays for this. Who cares if their family live close by.

Grolschevik

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

If you can not afford to live there, why should we the tax payer support you?

Transpose that argument to "if you cannot afford an adequate level of private health insurance for all your possible future health needs, why should we the taxpayer support a public health system?'

Amirani

Macha wrote: »

Seriously, raise your heads, look around at other cities in Western Europe and you'll realise how ****ed up the Irish property market is, and the conversation around it.

Most other Western European capitals are having similar affordability issues with housing.

CoffeeBean2

Grolschevik wrote: »

Transpose that argument to "if you cannot afford an adequate level of private health insurance for all your possible future health needs, why should we the taxpayer support a public health system?'

That isn't remotely close as comparable to what I said.

My view would be closer to, yes give health cover for those that need it, just not in the Blackrock clinic.

CoffeeBean2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are right. Move all of the OAPs out of the sheltered housing and ship them off down the country. Some of these freeloaders actually do live in D4 and the taxpayer pays for this. Who cares if their family live close by.

If they can't afford it, you are right, offer them accommodation outside of the city. But if they can afford it, they can do whatever they like with their own money.

Sleeper12

CoffeeBean2 wrote:

If they can't afford it, you are right, offer them accommodation outside of the city. But if they can afford it, they can do whatever they like with their own money.

That's harsh

L1011

To be phenomenally blunt - if you restrict living in cities to those that can afford market rates expect no services of any description. No cafes no shops and eventually no schools or policing as you price higher and higher

CoffeeBean2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That's harsh

Not as harsh as people communiting two / four hours a day to and from work in the city and getting to see their kids for maybe one hour a day. All because there are no property in the city as a lot are filled by unemployed people on welfare.

L1011

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

Not as harsh as people communiting two / four hours a day to and from work in the city and getting to see their kids for maybe one hour a day. All because there are no property in the city as a lot are filled by unemployed people on welfare.

The vast majority of social housing tenants work - or are retired after working

CoffeeBean2

L1011 wrote: »

To be phenomenally blunt - if you restrict living in cities to those that can afford market rates expect no services of any description. No cafes no shops and eventually no schools or policing as you price higher and higher

However once the coffee shops and services disappear, the value of the property in the city would drop as it would be a less desirable place to live.

This is why you still have cafés on every corner in London.

Everything finds a balance.

CoffeeBean2

L1011 wrote: »

The vast majority of social housing tenants work - or are retired after working

There are jobs outside of Dublin too you know? I would guess that it would be simpler for someone on welfare to find a similar job outside of Dublin a lot more easily than for someone not on welfare to do the same.

L1011

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

There are jobs outside of Dublin too you know? I would guess that it would be simpler for someone on welfare to find a similar job outside of Dublin a lot more easily than for someone not on welfare to do the same.

The tenants have jobs already

And the rest of your post is incoherent

L1011

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

However once the coffee shops and services disappear, the value of the property in the city would drop as it would be a less desirable place to live.

This is why you still have cafon every corner in London.

Everything finds a balance.

London has swathes of social housing and a far better 24h public transit system

Sleeper12

L1011 wrote:

The vast majority of social housing tenants work - or are retired after working

Unfortunately most posters refuse to believe this as fact. The quote below is typicall of posters on this topic.

retalivity wrote:

But no, move the wasters that are on the scratcher that have no need to be in the city centee into brand new apartments, for free effectively. The exact same thing happening over on the southside where the tom kelly flats are/were - why is there social housing being built between dublin's CBD and one of the most expensive postcodes in the country (ranelagh)??

The vast majority of people in council homes work. This is a fact. They tend to be in very low paid jobs but they get up every morning and go to work

Macha

Amirani wrote: »

Most other Western European capitals are having similar affordability issues with housing.

I'd agree with that but I think the issue is frustratingly compounded in Dublin and other Irish cities by poor planning. The failure to build good quality apartments means there is a physical limit to the amount of residential units that can be built in areas with reasonable access to amenities.

Wage stagnation is another big part of the problem. But then again, if wages went up surely prices would also go up even more? This was an interesting article: https://www.ft.com/content/38f8c8e4-8227-11e9-9935-ad75bb96c849

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

It sounds very much like you are. Why did you give Dublin 4 as as an example? Probably because it is more than what the vast majority of people can afford. But the location does not matter, if it's Dublin 4 or Dublin 17. If you can not afford to live there, why should we the tax payer support you?

This thinking is the wrong way around. We need to be asking why people can't afford to live where they want to live. I gave the example of Dublin 4 because the cost to the taxpayer of subsidising someone living there is higher than anywhere else but actually, you're right. People should be able to live everywhere. We shouldn't have ghettos in the city.

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

I'm not saying there is no property problem, clearly there is. But if you look at those western European cities, they are all high rise, which good public transport that are filled with workers.

Not unemployed people expecting a semi-d with a nice small garden a short walk away from the off license.

That's a gross characterisation of people struggling to rent. Take a look at some of the people in emergency accommodation in Dublin. They are normal people who have simply been priced out of the Dublin rental market.

Yes, I agree about other cities. My point is, we should get angry about THAT, not about having to support people who are struggling to access housing.

CoffeeBean2

L1011 wrote: »

And the rest of your post is incoherent

Really, is that the best insult you can come up with? If true, it's more of a reflection on your ability to read / understand simple logic than anything else. It couldn't be explained any simpler.

CoffeeBean2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The vast majority of people in council homes work. This is a fact. They tend to be in very low paid jobs but they get up every morning and go to work

If the council didn't support them as much, they would be forced to either move, change jobs or demand more from the job they are already in.

Supermarket and the like get away with paying min wage because the people working there are supposed in other ways. If they have to pay their employees more money in shop locations in Dublin, I'm find with that. In fact it should be this way.

A new balance with will be found, but without as much council / tax payer support.

L1011

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

Really, is that the best insult you can come up with? If true, it's more of a reflection on your ability to read / understand simple logic than anything else. It couldn't be explained any simpler.

It's not an insult. The post actually makes no sense.

Your most recent post is entirely disprove Libertarian nonsense, if you want to find something else to call an insult. It doesn't work.

CoffeeBean2

L1011 wrote: »

Your most recent post is entirely disprove Libertarian nonsense.

Absolutely not, throwing made up statements around do not validate your own pov.

Increased buying power always drives prices up. And Council support increases buying power went it comes to rent. Yet you act surprised went rent does go up.

L1011 wrote: »

if you want to find something else to call an insult. It doesn't work.

The same right back at you.

L1011

You are banging the drum for Libertarian ideas that failed horribly every time someone got to try them out. A balance is never reached when everything is left to the market

You were complaining about social housing initially and now you're complaining about rent assistance. Two very different things.

CoffeeBean2

L1011 wrote: »

You were complaining about social housing initially and now you're complaining about rent assistance. Two very different things.

If you read back, I didn't switch the topic, but they are both a huge factors in the property problem at the moment.

Have you seen the huge increases in HAP payments by the gov over the last three years. It is completely unsustainable.

L1011

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

If you read back, I didn't switch the topic, but they are both a huge factors in the property problem at the moment.

Have you seen the huge increases in HAP payments by the gov over the last three years. It is completely unsustainable.

It's entirely down to the lack of construction of social housing - which it appears you are also against

Social housing should be at worst revenue neutral. Some councils not adding to their estates actually make profits off it.

CoffeeBean2

L1011 wrote: »

It's entirely down to the lack of construction of social housing - which it appears you are also against

Social housing should be at worst revenue neutral. Some councils not adding to their estates actually make profits off it.

Construction is a huge reason for sure, but not the only reason. Planning, or lack of is another major reason. Public transportation too.

You talked in your posts about failed systems and not wanted to try them again. We tried lots of social housing in the past and while it did house people, it was also a massive problem for lots of different reasons.

I do support the 20% idea, in most cases, to avoid creating ghettos. But that's it, and no houses for life. If your family decreases in size, you should be moved to a smaller social house.

Assetbacked

33% of the newly homeless families are non-nationals, with 12% being non-EU nationals. That should be low hanging fruit to reducing the figures.

Out of the remaining 67% Irish, being convicted of a certain number of crimes and refusing a maximum of two properties should have you kicked off the list as you do not deserve the sympathy the term homeless is being used to elicit these days. If people say this is harsh on the children well maybe the parents that have them are unfit to be parents.

The above are extremely tough views to take on homeless and entirely unfair. For me, looking after our homeless population should not be and is not typically that expensive, in the grand scheme of things, but housing policy of the FG/FF government has ensured it a catastrophic failure in the revered market. Emergency measures need to be brought in to get our 35,000 properties built monthly for as long as it takes. Start taxing the MNCs and using that money to improve public services. Public outrage against a few families of homeless is wrong and feeds into the narrative the super rich companies are happy to have instead of everyone looking up at them and saying "they have all the money, let's take it from them and use it to give people happier lives".

Stop moaning ffs

The relentless anger against homeless people and homeless families on these very forums is telling. When they actually admit they exist and there is a housing crisis that is. Some here would tell you there is neither. People are either ignorant of the facts or realities or are just argumentative toolbags