Does Owen Keegan have a point re homeless?

hatrickpatrick

touts wrote: »

We can talk all day about what "should be". It's what idealistic fantasies like socialism are based on. But in the real world we can't afford to have the people who contribute the least to society (the welfare class) getting better treatment than the people who contribute the most (the working and middle classes). That utterly undermines the foundation of society where everyone contributes and gets rewarded for that contribution. Basic housing is a human right. Having a forever house, with a garden large enough for a trampoline and a couple of extra bedrooms "just in case", on the street you grew up on, and all free for life, isn't. If you want to fix it so people shouldn't have to move for a house then I would suggest the people who should get first priority in their preferred location are the people who contribute to society and not the other way around.

And yet the entire foundation of the state's public housing program from the 1930s to the 1990s was predicated on keeping communities together as a priority. The neoliberal concept that housing and land are purely commercial commidities and have absolutely no deeper or more meaningful significance is a relatively new one.

Again, we live in a democratic society. Talking about what "should be" is more than an idealistic fantasy, it forms the basis of discussions on who we should vote for and what legislation they should pass. And in my view, we need to get rid of FFG as they have entirely converted to third way neoliberalism and abandoned any concept whatsoever of social policy.

Ush1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet the entire foundation of the state's public housing program from the 1930s to the 1990s was predicated on keeping communities together as a priority. The neoliberal concept that housing and land are purely commercial commidities and have absolutely no deeper or more meaningful significance is a relatively new one.

Again, we live in a democratic society. Talking about what "should be" is more than an idealistic fantasy, it forms the basis of discussions on who we should vote for and what legislation they should pass. And in my view, we need to get rid of FFG as they have entirely converted to third way neoliberalism and abandoned any concept whatsoever of social policy.

But all the culchies and fardiners wanna live in Dublin.

Deebles McBeebles

Ush1 wrote: »

But all the culchies and fardiners wanna live in Dublin.

You're alright, thanks.

hatrickpatrick

Amirani wrote: »

When you have a couple of million people wanting to live in Dublin, some of those people won't be able to live within the canals, regardless of any matter of policy. It's just simple geometry, unless you propose densifying Dublin from among the least dense capitals in Europe to one of the most dense overnight.

There's a middle ground, though. Most people agree that Dublin does need to densify, and fairly quickly. And right now, the state is doing practically nothing despite as you say, a couple of million people wanting them to. Given the population of Ireland, that suggests a clear majority in favour of more affordable housing - ergo it's something we should be pursuing on a policy basis. But we're not, because our politicians don't ideologically believe in it.

Ergo, we need to vote for different politicians.

Sweet.Science

Who would of thought free houses wasn't sustainable.

Turn 18 . Get pregnant . Get a fancy buggy to push around town in the afternoon. Wear gym clothes but dont go the gym. That career isnt as appealing anymore.

Probably a good thing

Yurt2

touts wrote: »

We can talk all day about what "should be". It's what idealistic fantasies like socialism are based on. But in the real world we can't afford to have the people who contribute the least to society (the welfare class) getting better treatment than the people who contribute the most (the working and middle classes). That utterly undermines the foundation of society where everyone contributes and gets rewarded for that contribution. Basic housing is a human right. Having a forever house, with a garden large enough for a trampoline and a couple of extra bedrooms "just in case", on the street you grew up on, and all free for life, isn't. If you want to fix it so people shouldn't have to move for a house then I would suggest the people who should get first priority in their preferred location are the people who contribute to society and not the other way around.

If what you say is true, I'd tend towards agreeing with you. But, If we say there is a problem, then we should quantify it. How many council houses are there between the canals and how many residents are long term unemployed?

Through a job I had many years ago, I came into contact with a good many people who grew up and continue to live spitting distance from the city centre in corpo accommodation - all hard working folk and any of their family I met were the same.

Yurt2

Amirani wrote: »

When you have a couple of million people wanting to live in Dublin, some of those people won't be able to live within the canals, regardless of any matter of policy. It's just simple geometry, unless you propose densifying Dublin from among the least dense capitals in Europe to one of the most dense overnight.

Dublin is leagues less dense than cities like Amsterdam or Copenhagen. We got density very very wrong and continue to compound the problem. We don't don't need to turn into Manhattan. If we doubled Dublin's density, we still wouldn't be approaching Amsterdam.

You can't blame layabouts and dole merchants for poor planning, poorly executed developments, chronic nimbyism and a Ronald Reagan attitude to property rights.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet the entire foundation of the state's public housing program from the 1930s to the 1990s was predicated on keeping communities together as a priority. The neoliberal concept that housing and land are purely commercial commidities and have absolutely no deeper or more meaningful significance is a relatively new one.

Again, we live in a democratic society. Talking about what "should be" is more than an idealistic fantasy, it forms the basis of discussions on who we should vote for and what legislation they should pass. And in my view, we need to get rid of FFG as they have entirely converted to third way neoliberalism and abandoned any concept whatsoever of social policy.

My house was built in the 1930’s. So were 5 others on a 2 mile stretch. The first one a mile from the village. How was that keeping communities together?

mariaalice

Deleted User wrote: »

My house was built in the 1930’s. So were 5 others on a 2 mile stretch. The first one a mile from the village. How was that keeping communities together?

That is in a rural area,I remember reading it was something to do with electoral bounders as well, grateful recipients would vote for who got the cottages built and people got a small bit of land with the cottage to grow potatoes and keep hens and a pig, some came with access to a bank of turf I know someone who discovered this when they went to buy an old cottage.

mariaalice

Yurt! wrote: »

If what you say is true, I'd tend towards agreeing with you. But, If we say there is a problem, then we should quantify it. How many council houses are there between the canals and how many residents are long term unemployed?

Through a job I had many years ago, I came into contact with a good many people who grew up and continue to live spitting distance from the city centre in corpo accommodation - all hard working folk and any of their family I met were the same.

Another thing people forget is in a Dublin context it's only in the last 25 to 30 years that living in the city center became fashionable.

nice_guy80

If you increase density closer to city centre you have to massively increase investment in facilities
e.g. schools, creches, playgrounds, outdoor play areas for sport, primary care availability

BBFAN

mariaalice wrote: »

Another thing people forget is in a Dublin context it's only in the last 25 to 30 years that living in the city center became fashionable.

I don't know how many times I've made this EXACT point and everyone chooses to ignore it. For many years living in Dublin city centre was only for the "lower class" and now people want all those people to get out of the city.

Wheeliebin30

BBFAN wrote: »

I don't know how many times I've made this EXACT point and everyone chooses to ignore it. For many years living in Dublin city centre was only for the "lower class" and now people want all those people to get out of the city.

It’s not fashionable.

It’s the way the whole world has gone, with foreign companies locating in cities.

BBFAN

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It’s not fashionable.

It’s the way the whole world has gone, with foreign companies locating in cities.

So all of a sudden the people who were born and raised in cities should just rev up and fcuk off out of them?

Life doesn't work that way. Try moving down to a rural town in Ireland and telling them because a big employer had set up there then they all should move so you can live there. :rolleyes:

touts

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And yet the entire foundation of the state's public housing program from the 1930s to the 1990s was predicated on keeping communities together as a priority. The neoliberal concept that housing and land are purely commercial commidities and have absolutely no deeper or more meaningful significance is a relatively new one.

Again, we live in a democratic society. Talking about what "should be" is more than an idealistic fantasy, it forms the basis of discussions on who we should vote for and what legislation they should pass. And in my view, we need to get rid of FFG as they have entirely converted to third way neoliberalism and abandoned any concept whatsoever of social policy.

We do live in a democratic society and in every election for the past 100 years that democracy has consistently rejected the fringe "socialist" parties who clamber to represent the welfare class. But between elections these so called champions of the working man (the irony being few of their target voters actually work) get a disproportionate amount of airtime on the left leaning Irish media so they create the illusion that there is some sort of a popular desire for their pro welfare class lunacy. Come the local and European elections in May we'll see a comprehensive rejection of these parties again.

Yurt2

touts wrote: »

We do live in a democratic society and in every election for the past 100 years that democracy has consistently rejected the fringe "socialist" parties who clamber to represent the welfare class. But between elections these so called champions of the working man (the irony being few of their target voters actually work) get a disproportionate amount of airtime on the left leaning Irish media so they create the illusion that there is some sort of a popular desire for their pro welfare class lunacy. Come the local and European elections in May we'll see a comprehensive rejection of these parties again.

We're running at an unemployment rate of 5%. Are you suggesting that parties of the left are chasing that demographic and not the rest of the population?

touts

Yurt! wrote: »

We're running at an unemployment rate of 5%. Are you suggesting that parties of the left are chasing that demographic and not the rest of the population?

Maybe that's why they have so few TDs.

hatrickpatrick

touts wrote: »

We do live in a democratic society and in every election for the past 100 years that democracy has consistently rejected the fringe "socialist" parties who clamber to represent the welfare class. But between elections these so called champions of the working man (the irony being few of their target voters actually work) get a disproportionate amount of airtime on the left leaning Irish media so they create the illusion that there is some sort of a popular desire for their pro welfare class lunacy. Come the local and European elections in May we'll see a comprehensive rejection of these parties again.

So in your opinion, the majority of the people in this country are happy with the housing crisis and the skyrocketing rents?

Topgear on Dave

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So in your opinion, the majority of the people in this country are happy with the housing crisis and the skyrocketing rents?

Some are happy, some have just bought houses and don't want them to go down in value and a very large chunk of the population are not even aware of a rent problem.

touts

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So in your opinion, the majority of the people in this country are happy with the housing crisis and the skyrocketing rents?

No. But most people are not happy with increasing numbers of the welfare class exploiting loopholes in the housing policy to secure a free "forever" home paid for by the taxpayer thus worsening the housing crisis and pushing rents ever higher for those same taxpayers.

Yurt2

touts wrote: »

No. But most people are not happy with increasing numbers of the welfare class exploiting loopholes in the housing policy to secure a free "forever" home paid for by the taxpayer thus worsening the housing crisis and pushing rents ever higher for those same taxpayers.

What's the scale of the problem? How many are doing it?

Long term unemployment (the vaunted welfare class) is trending downwards...

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/long-term-unemployment-rate

Idbatterim

touts wrote: »

No. But most people are not happy with increasing numbers of the welfare class exploiting loopholes in the housing policy to secure a free "forever" home paid for by the taxpayer thus worsening the housing crisis and pushing rents ever higher for those same taxpayers.

Why don’t they close the loop holes then?! Why are they getting this housing for nothing ? The piss taking is government lead ...