Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Should people in emergency accommodation be made pay for their stay?
Options
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »who did this all happen to
To me its a very possible outcome to the idea that *suitable location* doesnt matter.
Because if you have to keep moving to suit what's affordable - then you could end up moving further and further away from your original place.
I created an extreme scenario based on the idea that if Dublin gets too dear and people move to Kildare - then Kildare gets expensive.
This would then repeat itself in other areas of the country as people move around to the next affordable area.
Remember someone on minimum wage can't sort of work around the issue by buying a new Golf and doing a 100 mile round trip to work every day.
They will be more reliant on public transport and be less able to work around the flexibility minimum wage employers like retail and hospitality often like.0 -
That’s a great story but that’s all it is.
It’s jist a line being spun to justify people having their lifestyle subsided so they can live in a major urban area and make no effort to better themselves.
As long as we make excuses rather than set expectations for people to better themselves then the problem will grow and grow because it makes more sense to make yourself homeless and get handouts than work hard, scrimp and save, do without all tonhetter yourself. People want instant everything now including solutions to the mess they got themselves into.
We could set expectations for the housing model to adapt to a wide variety of income types.
And provide solutions.for a variety of incomes.
I see nothing wrong with someone living in a social housing unit. Screwing the person on low incomes isn't the way to fix our housing inequalities.
Reducing housing costs at higher incomes seems a better way for me.
Bringing more people of higher incomes into housing supports seems a good idea.
Imagine only paying 800 euros to a grand to rent a sustainable long term home instead of 1900 for a less sustainable solution.
Need to stop making people's lives harder then they need to be by moving away from bad housing models that merely drain people's back pocket0 -
There is another poster here that has worked for SVDP. I have done work with them & still do from time to time. In the world I live in (I call it the real world) there is a homeless crisis. Many posters have been posting about the homeless crisis and the looming housing shortage since 2012. Both of these things are very real. Obviously the homeless crisis is directly linked to the housing crisis.
.
As somebody who worked for SVDP maybe you can clarify something for me. A friend of mine offered his help a few Christmases ago. When he was being "trained in" he was told about withholding all judgement. He was particularly told to ignore all signs of wealth. My friend couldn't believe the expensive items people had in their homes. He didn't say anything or react, he did talk of the obvious poverty of others but said it was not the norm.
Now you can say that isn't true but I certain believe this friend before you. You could possibly know it is true and deny it. I also know people from my childhood where they did nothing but scam every system. So basically unless you admit this happens I could never believe anything you say.
As for the issue of people cannot be charge rent for the hotel accommodation that is not the question. The question should the pay for their stay or in other words contribute is the question. The answer is yes and they are meant to. It isn't rent so all dispute about what is rentable are moot, it is contribution towards a service they get. That is it0 -
Old diesel wrote: »We could set expectations for the housing model to adapt to a wide variety of income types.
And provide solutions.for a variety of incomes.
I see nothing wrong with someone living in a social housing unit. Screwing the person on low incomes isn't the way to fix our housing inequalities.
Reducing housing costs at higher incomes seems a better way for me.
Bringing more people of higher incomes into housing supports seems a good idea.
Imagine only paying 800 euros to a grand to rent a sustainable long term home instead of 1900 for a less sustainable solution.
Need to stop making people's lives harder then they need to be by moving away from bad housing models that merely drain people's back pocket
people strive to higher incomes to live a better life, one of the first things is to move away from people who don't.
I work very hard precisely so I don't have to live near people who don't. I never want to live in the same type of house and beside the type of people that sit around all day drinking while im at work and don't maintain a garden.0 -
Old diesel wrote: »To me its a very possible outcome to the idea that *suitable location* doesnt matter.
Because if you have to keep moving to suit what's affordable - then you could end up moving further and further away from your original place.
I created an extreme scenario based on the idea that if Dublin gets too dear and people move to Kildare - then Kildare gets expensive.
This would then repeat itself in other areas of the country as people move around to the next affordable area.
Remember someone on minimum wage can't sort of work around the issue by buying a new Golf and doing a 100 mile round trip to work every day.
They will be more reliant on public transport and be less able to work around the flexibility minimum wage employers like retail and hospitality often like.
nobody
the answer is that this happened to nobody0 -
Advertisement
-
I'd like to point out that you qualify for means tested social welfare payments even with several thousand euro in the bank or credit union. They don't ask you to sell car or TV before they pay you. The community welfare officer will still help you out even if you have a 12 month old Mercedes.
SVP don't ask you to sell your possessions before they help you. You could have been earning 100k plus & still lose everything. Your business could fold up with debts still outstanding. You might have possessions that cost a lot of money but has little or no resale value. Waterford Crystal for example you'll find it hard to give away 2nd hand. If you have followed the news since 2012 or so you will have seen SVP stating that they are no longer just helping the families that you might traditionally expect them to help. Families could be a a tiny blip in their finances. It might only last 6 months & you get back on your feet. SVP will be there to help you.
They don't advertise it but their own figures suggest that about 10 percent of people are scamming. They don't like this figure being spoken about because it could effect donations. If it effects donations then it will effect genuine cases. Obviously you can't be judgemental. There are very poor people with little or no possessions & people with plenty of possessions. There are spotless homes & filthy homes. There is a huge mix0 -
i think if a person has some form of income incl social welfare then yes there should be a contribution.
i can appreciate that some are grateful for any help thry get but those that expect and take and never intend to change their lifestyle blacken the name of those who are trying.
its the same old crap at this time every year, winter, cold, homeless etc but nothing changes. and nothing will unless money is provided by the useless politicians running this country to provide suitable housing across all 26 counties and somehow magically convince people that there is more to Ireland than bloody dublin.0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »So a councilor has come out and said people aren’t paying anything in hotels and and are deliberately going homeless to get a house.
How refreshing.
how is it refreshing given nobody has ever denied that people in hotels don't pay anything to the government or that the odd person does deliberately go homeless. the councilor hasn't made some shocking revelation today dispite attempts to make out otherwise.A “suitable location”
Suitable locations are those you can afford, if you can’t afford your desired location then up sticks and move to somewhere you can afford. It’s not the states responsibility to supplement people to live in their desired location. Plenty of us have to compromise on this stuff and work and pay the bills and support those who won’t compromise on where there is accommodation they can afford.
in a lot of cases it's not viable either financially or practically to up sticks and move to somewhere one can supposibly afford. the other costs of doing so such as commuting costs, + rent if one is renting will add up to the same if not more then what they are currently paying. they may end up having to give up that job which brings all sorts of other problems.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
But if you haven’t moved to either how do you know if you can’t create a cheaper life there and find work ??
because they will have done their research before hand.Living in major Urban centres is for people on high wages and who can afford it. If your job in Dublin smdoesnt oay tue rent move to an area that you can afford or move to a commuter belt.
a simplistic soundbite that if practical or viable, would have been done. if it isn't being done, it's because it's not viable or practical.The solution isn’t blame everyone and expect handouts forever because you want to live close to mammy.
given the vast majority of people aren't doing that, this is nothing more then an irrelevant soundbite, which is likely being used as a tactic to dismiss this whole issue which effects people from all walks of life.Imagine working people in rented accommodation who can be told to go in identical circumstances...... What is good enough for workers who pay for their accommodation is seemingly not good enough for those who want to be housed for nothing.
In a non working household, city centre accommodation should not be provided either rented or council.
if it is the first accommodation to become availible, then it absolutely should.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »There are some people working below an income threshold who need to live in dublin , but most do not. The idea that being near your ma entitles you to get a free house in the capitol is madness.
All social housing in cities should be on a new transient model, its yours as long as atleast 50% of the working age adults in your house are working or in full time education , As soon as youre on JSA or are somebody who has never worked or are say a single mother with no education who is unlikely to work , city accomodation should not be available to you and you should be assigned accomodation in a much cheaper area.
and when the cheaper areas are no longer cheaper areas, which would i suspect happen quite quickly with your idea, then we are back to square 1.Eric Cartman wrote: »Imagine the help we could give to working poor families and reduce crime and anti social behaviour rates if we took those who never worked living on the likes of sean mcdermot street , moved them to various rural towns and gave productive members of society those properties.
we wouldn't be able to give any help to working poor families, because the main issues that cause unaffordibility of housing would remain. a housing shortage, and the housing market's general operation. housing will always cost more within the city then outside, throwing everyone on wellfare out to wherever with nothing won't change that fact, it would likely increase my tax tbh.
we also wouldn't reduce anti-social behaviour and crime rates. we'd simply be moving the problem elsewhere. screw that, it's not other people's job to put up with your problem people or to have their areas become a dumping ground for such people. social cleansing type guff can stay in the heads of those who wish for it, thanks.Eric Cartman wrote: »Sitting on your arse all day infront of the TV can be done in leitrim too, also spreading them all out might solve the heroin problem.
no, no it really won't. in fact, it will be simply moving the problem like with anti-social behaviour and crime.Eric Cartman wrote: »Anyone who has declined a property shouldnt be in emergency accomodation either.
of course they should. not everyone declines a property for dubious reasons.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »
of course they should. not everyone declines a property for dubious reasons.
If your reason isn’t something essential like lack of wheelchair access, why would you refuse a house?0 -
That’s a great story but that’s all it is.
It’s jist a line being spun to justify people having their lifestyle subsided so they can live in a major urban area and make no effort to better themselves.
no it isn't. it's an actual reality people can potentially face within ireland currently. a consiquence of the whole housing issue. it effects working people in the majority of cases.As long as we make excuses rather than set expectations for people to better themselves then the problem will grow and grow because it makes more sense to make yourself homeless and get handouts than work hard, scrimp and save, do without all tonhetter yourself.
the only ones making excuses are yourself and people with similar views. making excuses for the current shortage of housing which is effecting people from all walks of life. we have set expectations for people a plenty, guess what, sometimes the real world intervenes.
people who can better themselves, better themselves. they are in the vast vast majority. people who have enough money to scrimp and save, scrimp and save. not everyone has that luxury, dispite working as hard as they can. the amount making themselves homeless are tiny in reality. very very very very few are going to give up a house they are living in to spend a long time in a room in a hotel. if they are in that hotel, then in the majority of cases it's because of good reason.People want instant everything now including solutions to the mess they got themselves into.
the majority in this situation didn't get themselves into any mess. they did what they needed to do and still ended up where they are.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »the majority in this situation didn't get themselves into any mess. they did what they needed to do and still ended up where they are.
funny how the best examples of "the majority" that the pity merchants and the rabblerouser element of the media can come up with are people who never did anything at all
have you anything to back up a statement like the above?
i know of very few ppl that work, have always worked and who have a sensible approach to their own ability to feasibly reproduce that are """"""homeless"""""""
in fact i dont know a single such case.
where's your majority, because straight up- that behaviour is what people "need to do" in order to live the lives they appear to feel entitled to0 -
Deleted User wrote: »funny how the best examples of "the majority" that the pity merchants and the rabblerouser element of the media can come up with are people who never did anything at all
have you anything to back up a statement like the above?
i know of very few ppl that work, have always worked and who have a sensible approach to their own ability to feasibly reproduce that are """"""homeless"""""""
in fact i dont know a single such case.
where's your majority, because straight up- that behaviour is what people "need to do" in order to live the lives they appear to feel entitled to
the media exists to sell their product. therefore when doing a story about things like homelessness they will write about a particular person which would suit the viewpoint of the likely readers of that particular product. also, in some cases those who have done nothing may be a bit more willing to be vocal about their situation then someone who has done lots, hence they will get more exposure.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote:the media exists to sell their product. therefore when doing a story about things like homelessness they will write about a particular person which would suit the viewpoint of the likely readers of that particular product. also, in some cases those who have done nothing may be a bit more willing to be vocal about their situation then someone who has done lots, hence they will get more exposure.
This is why most if not all of the poster children of the homeless movement have turned out to be frauds. What they forget is its hard to hide a lie with social media.
Rather than being heros they actually damage the homeless movement. People latch on to these names and spit them out during debates.0 -
This is why most if not all of the poster children of the homeless movement have turned out to be frauds. What they forget is its hard to hide a lie with social media.
Rather than being heros they actually damage the homeless movement. People latch on to these names and spit them out during debates.
And its always the most obvious ones, just for once id like to see a story about somebody getting a free social house and not be able to find out on the internet that they have double digit previous convictions, a mini bus load of kids by different fathers (all absent) and a drinking problem.
But despite every story having that in common, aparantly thats a tiny almost to the atomic level minority of the people...allegedly...0 -
This is why most if not all of the poster children of the homeless movement have turned out to be frauds. What they forget is its hard to hide a lie with social media.
Rather than being heros they actually damage the homeless movement. People latch on to these names and spit them out during debates.
What exactly is the 'homeless movement?'0 -
What exactly is the 'homeless movement?'
I'm dyslexic. When I'm online on my phone I can't always say what I want to say as spellcheck isn't as good. Homeless was short & sweet & I'd hoped would sort of get across what I wanted to say
I'll rephrase it. What I wanted to say was that these "poster children"set a certain image of homeless people being frauds. Some people don't bother to educate themselves on the issue & come to the conclusion that all or most homeless people are frauds when they are not. Go back on threads & you will see the same posters, time & again, name the same half a dozen poster children as proof that we don't have a homeless crisis. As proof that they are all scamming the system. Some people really want to believe this. It suits their narrative & these poster children help them accomplish this slant on reality. In short it hurts the reputation & genuineness of the vast amount of homeless people.
There was a thread on Apollo House a few years back & someone posted photos or a video of people queuing for Christmas food parcels. Well wouldn't you know several posters found it funny & started slagging off the homeless people queuing for food. These poster children feed into this ignorant mentality0 -
You could have yes it happens but of course you couldn'tI'd like to point out that you qualify for means tested social welfare payments even with several thousand euro in the bank or credit union. They don't ask you to sell car or TV before they pay you. The community welfare officer will still help you out even if you have a 12 month old Mercedes.
SVP don't ask you to sell your possessions before they help you. You could have been earning 100k plus & still lose everything. Your business could fold up with debts still outstanding. You might have possessions that cost a lot of money but has little or no resale value. Waterford Crystal for example you'll find it hard to give away 2nd hand. If you have followed the news since 2012 or so you will have seen SVP stating that they are no longer just helping the families that you might traditionally expect them to help. Families could be a a tiny blip in their finances. It might only last 6 months & you get back on your feet. SVP will be there to help you.
They don't advertise it but their own figures suggest that about 10 percent of people are scamming. They don't like this figure being spoken about because it could effect donations. If it effects donations then it will effect genuine cases. Obviously you can't be judgemental. There are very poor people with little or no possessions & people with plenty of possessions. There are spotless homes & filthy homes. There is a huge mix
Yes people can suddenly be poor and means tests allow you keep your possessions.That is not disputed but very firmly not what I was talking about and you know it. There are simply people who lie and play the system and my friends experience wasn't 10% but closer to 80%.
Now I grew up right beside a council estate my mother came from one.I am fully aware people deserve, need and should get state support. There is a social issue before a poverty issue. There are people who expect the state to pay for them and genuinely don't know any better. Their friends and family all live the same way so they think anybody who judges them are snobs. Even when they make money they play the system and still claim benefits and contact SVP. I personally know them they aren't stories I heard down the pub.
I worked in a government agency and have seen the information myself. Crazy allowed stuff as it too much work to prove the cases in a court or there are some loop holes that get abused.
I think there are reforms that should happen that would be wildly hated by the public like single parents should be able to retain their allowance when a new partner moves in. I think it makes social sense even though I think it is unfair in many ways. While I think it is ridiculous that two parents with one child both are entitled to a two bed place. I understand the logic and think makes sense in many ways but I can't abide by it.
I just think you have a very warped view and can't see all side because you have no respect for landlords and claim all are the same. You can't accept anything said about the welfare state dependants who are there through their own choices and I accept that it is actually much harder for them both financially and emotionally. They still exist and you just play it down0 -
Ray Palmer wrote:You could have yes it happens but of course you couldn't
You are treating me like an enemy. I answered your question but you moan that I went into too much detail? What is your problem?Ray Palmer wrote:Yes people can suddenly be poor and means tests allow you keep your possessions.That is not disputed but very firmly not what I was talking about and you know it. There are simply people who lie and play the system and my friends experience wasn't 10% but closer to 80%.
This is utter nonsense. The true figure is around 10 percent. Yes people lie & play the system but it is around 10 percent.
You make me laugh though. You must think I'm a right thick. You think that I donate my valuable time & money to a charity where 80 percent of it goes to liers and scammers? I'm quite a successful business person yet I give my time free of charge to scammers? You think that I donate my time & money to scammers and I'm so happy doing so that I'll lie here.
Come on now be honest. You don't know anyone that has volunteered for SVP or else they stopped after the first night. No one & I mean no one continues to volunteer if 80 percent are scammers. You do realise how stupid this is right?0 -
Advertisement
-
Ray Palmer wrote:I just think you have a very warped view and can't see all side because you have no respect for landlords and claim all are the same. You can't accept anything said about the welfare state dependants who are there through their own choices and I accept that it is actually much harder for them both financially and emotionally. They still exist and you just play it down
I just saw this part. No respect for landlords? Where do you get this idea? I am a landlord. I have private & commercial rentals.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »funny how the best examples of "the majority" that the pity merchants and the rabblerouser element of the media can come up with are people who never did anything at all
have you anything to back up a statement like the above?
i know of very few ppl that work, have always worked and who have a sensible approach to their own ability to feasibly reproduce that are """"""homeless"""""""
in fact i dont know a single such case.
where's your majority, because straight up- that behaviour is what people "need to do" in order to live the lives they appear to feel entitled to
Are you assuming that disabled people and pensioners never get made homeless and /or end up in emergency accommodation?
Can you please find stats to that?
As I am assuring you that we do; I am nearly 80, disabled and was almost living in my car not too long ago.
As for refusing a house? I never did but as we are allowed to refuse 2? The council has more cop on.... I would have at need.0 -
You are the first disabled person I've heard of but there are plenty of pensioners homeless. Actually I was thinking viable disability. Hundreds if not thousands have mental illness that might not be visible.0
-
Are you assuming that disabled people and pensioners never get made homeless and /or end up in emergency accommodation?
Can you please find stats to that?
As I am assuring you that we do; I am nearly 80, disabled and was almost living in my car not too long ago.
As for refusing a house? I never did but as we are allowed to refuse 2? The council has more cop on.... I would have at need.
very, very, seldom, and hardly at all without other more relevant dimensions to the case.
are you claiming they're a significant amount?
i haven't, that i recall, linked house refusals to the present discussion.
i have pointed out that fuzzy concepts and language only seem to go one way, so, again:
homeless vs "homeless"
there are very few of the former in ireland, and in the vast majority of those cases there are significant issues totally separate to housing to be addressed first
and, again, "scammers" vs "people who are doing very little to help themselves"
sleeper12 wants to reproach us sceptics for suggesting that the current boom in emergency accommodation required is being manipulated by the media, by political parties, by the applicants and by the charities benefitting from the attention and funds thus generated.
they keep lamenting the idea of "scammers" which seems to be a very narrow definition of explicit abuse/cheating of the system.
ive rather pointed out that what people are sick of is the acceptance that 10000 people cant meet their own housing need and nothing should be asked about that.
the majority of these people have the capacity to contribute and choose not to, and apparently thats the end of the discussion- we're paying for them, that's that.
so rather than an attempt to make this discussion about the very unrepresentative hard-luck story of someone who is genuinely unable to work or who has always worked and is now somehow without the means to meet their own housing need, and rather than fudge between actually homeless vs spending the year or two in the hotel for list-jumping purposes, lets talk about the majority of this 10000.
people who dont want to work and who want you to pay for it.0 -
seems crazy to me that id have to even point out that there is a group even more at a loss because of all these chancers:
the genuine cases of homelessness that dont get time, attention or funding because of the huge influx of numbers on this bandwagon
the very people ye want to hold up as representative of the majority when they are anything but
its totally counterproductive, the propaganda effort here.0 -
Deleted User wrote:the very people ye want to hold up as representative of the majority when they are anything but
Here's the problem. Most homeless people are ashamed of the situation they find themselves in and are reluctant to take centre stage. Their family or employer might not know that they are homeless. There is huge stigma associated with homelessness as people like to paint the picture that they are all scamming the system.
This leaves it wide open for the chancers, who generally have no shame at all, to get in front of the camera and become the poster child.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »very, very, seldom, and hardly at all without other more relevant dimensions to the case.
are you claiming they're a significant amount?
i haven't, that i recall, linked house refusals to the present discussion.
i have pointed out that fuzzy concepts and language only seem to go one way, so, again:
homeless vs "homeless"
there are very few of the former in ireland, and in the vast majority of those cases there are significant issues totally separate to housing to be addressed first
and, again, "scammers" vs "people who are doing very little to help themselves"
sleeper12 wants to reproach us sceptics for suggesting that the current boom in emergency accommodation required is being manipulated by the media, by political parties, by the applicants and by the charities benefitting from the attention and funds thus generated.
they keep lamenting the idea of "scammers" which seems to be a very narrow definition of explicit abuse/cheating of the system.
ive rather pointed out that what people are sick of is the acceptance that 10000 people cant meet their own housing need and nothing should be asked about that.
the majority of these people have the capacity to contribute and choose not to, and apparently thats the end of the discussion- we're paying for them, that's that.
so rather than an attempt to make this discussion about the very unrepresentative hard-luck story of someone who is genuinely unable to work or who has always worked and is now somehow without the means to meet their own housing need, and rather than fudge between actually homeless vs spending the year or two in the hotel for list-jumping purposes, lets talk about the majority of this 10000.
people who dont want to work and who want you to pay for it.
If your income isnt allowing you to actually get a mortgage (when multiplied).
How do you create a house for yourself when renting - social or private - requires someone else to supply the house somehow.
If someone is not genuinely homeless where is the house they should be staying in.
You can't meet a housing need if the house that's not there.
BTW I know of someone on Twitter who has had to go to the extremes of doing a go fund me to try and buy a house.
HAP and local authorities cannot supply a suitable accessible bungalow suited to her severely disabled sons needs.
She is a full time carer to her son who needs a lot of care.
She looked in THREE different counties to find a Bungalow on HAP.
She eventually had to settle for a suboptimal HAP home but that still falls short of her needs.0 -
You are the first disabled person I've heard of but there are plenty of pensioners homeless. Actually I was thinking viable disability. Hundreds if not thousands have mental illness that might not be visible.
And then we have the false disabled, we have the most disabled workforce in europe because of allowing some self inposed conditions like alcoholism , or just fake conditions like whiplash to garber disability payments if you play it rught0 -
Old diesel wrote: »If your income isnt allowing you to actually get a mortgage (when multiplied).
How do you create a house for yourself when renting - social or private - requires someone else to supply the house somehow.
If someone is not genuinely homeless where is the house they should be staying in.
You can't meet a housing need if the house that's not there.
BTW I know of someone on Twitter who has had to go to the extremes of doing a go fund me to try and buy a house.
HAP and local authorities cannot supply a suitable accessible bungalow suited to her severely disabled sons needs.
She is a full time carer to her son who needs a lot of care.
She looked in THREE different counties to find a Bungalow on HAP.
She eventually had to settle for a suboptimal HAP home but that still falls short of her needs.
firstly, owning a house is not the conversation. thats a very very high bar to set as "not homeless" and that has to be called out at every opportunity.
secondly, and i appreciate you typed a long response, but the minority example offered of someone with a genuine case and a very specific need is not a good one to offer. nobody is arguing that these cases should be in the situation they are in but a battle of the anecdotes is no way to solve anything.
its the majority of the 10000 registered as utterly helpless that gum up the works, the lists and the attention.0 -
Advertisement
-
Rte news....majority of folk in emergency accommodation get their meals provided or have access to kitchen facilities.
Lad on camera reckons his kids are sick of McDonald's, burger king etc etc .... when he gets his forever home I doubt he will be in the kitchen doing the dinner of an evening.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement