Right to housing

We'll always need low paid staff.

Cleaners, shop workers, deli staff etc.

Then we have students as well, but they can house share.

To me the low paid deserve housing. And that's where social housing should come in. The minimum wage in Ireland is fairly ok, but you're never going to buy, and will struggle to rent on less than 10 an hour.

Ush1

What's the question?

Kintarō Hattori

Or we need to have housing which is affordable to purchase....... as it used to be. Really just giving away (essentially) housing isn't the way to go for so many reasons. You want people to feel they have accomplished something by owning their own home. Saving for a deposit gives them a goal and then there's the pride that comes with ownership, that normally, but not always isn't there when you've just inherited it.

orourkeda1977

We also need somewhere to crack one off in relative comfort.

frag420

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Or we need to have housing which is affordable to purchase....... as it used to be. it.

Whats to stop Johnny Big Balls or Flash Mick buying up a load of those affordable houses?

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

We also need somewhere to crack one off in relative comfort.

Behind the deli counter, near the bins!

enricoh

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

We also need somewhere to crack one off in relative comfort.

True, might not make it into building regulations though!

orourkeda1977

enricoh wrote: »

True, might not make it into building regulations though!

Earthquake protection?

Sweet.Science

Cool

Where do we build all these houses ? Who do we get to build them when they would have to take a big pay cut to do so ?

How many will we build? Do we double or triple taxes to do so ?

JohnnyFlash

Sounds like the musings of a 1st year Arts student who has discovered Marx and Socialism.

klaaaz

According to the FG capitalists here, low paid workers who cannot afford to live in Dublin should live in the likes of Donegal and commute, leave the cities only for rich people.

Mrs OBumble

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

We'll always need low paid staff.

Cleaners, shop workers, deli staff etc.

We should subsidise housing for people who have impairments which mean they will never move beyond such jobs.

But for most people these would be starter jobs, or end of career jobs when they're winding down towards retirement.

seamus

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Cool

Where do we build all these houses ? Who do we get to build them when they would have to take a big pay cut to do so ?

How many will we build? Do we double or triple taxes to do so ?

The right to shelter and security are already recognised internationally, and interpreted to mean the right to have a home.

The question in Ireland is not necessarily about whether anyone has a right to housing. We already recognise that they do and we provide it.

The argument is over what kind of housing. I can go to the state and plead poverty and they'll give me a house. Or I can use my own money to buy the one that I want.

People get confused though and think that the right to housing is the right to get the house that you want. It's not. And it should never be.

I have no problem with "free" housing. I have a problem with people being picky about where they get it.

This is an interesting idea. As one in the age group he’s on about, I think that more smaller properties aimed at the older age group who wish to downsize could help alleviate the problem of housing for families. A 3 or 4 bed property with a large garden would be more suited to a young family than a retired couple or person. Although only a small number may be interested, I think that it’s worth exploring.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/we-need-more-houses-for-over50s-to-downsize-says-tvs-wallace-37829875.html

Chinasea

The minimum jobs outlined by the OP are by and large carried out by migrants.

Gawd help them though if they dare apply for a social house or even any type of welfare payments.

dudara

I recently bought a house in what was one of the very earliest housing developments in the country. They were built in reaction to tenement crowding and collapses. It was an aspirational development with the goal of giving poor people a better standard of living. The houses are all in private hands now (nearly 100 years later) but it makes me think about what is needed.

We definitely need affordable housing for low-mid level earners who want to earn their home, but will need some taxpayer support to get there. It’s not possible for everyone to upskill, change career. Some people will spend their whole careers in service-orientated jobs. That doesn’t mean they work any less harder than others. These people are the backbone of our economy. And it benefits us all in the long-term to help them.

The problem is defining social housing - for those that can’t work, and those that won’t work. We all want to help the can’t work. IMO society has a responsibility to look after all members, but it can be galling to help those that simply won’t help themselves. It doesn’t mean that we leave them behind though, as that will only worsen the problem.

rgodard80a

Pappa Dolla wrote: »

We'll always need low paid staff.

Nope.

Robots and artificial intelligence will replace a lot of low paid staff.
So we just need to build water proof cupboards for those robots.

Sweet.Science

People who see social welfare as a way of life will always be put before low paid workers . They are seen as the most vulnerable in society as they have children. Unfortunately nothing will be done for low income workers while there a thousands of people in a more needy position.

Thats the reality.

I

FTA69

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

We should subsidise housing for people who have impairments which mean they will never move beyond such jobs.

But for most people these would be starter jobs, or end of career jobs when they're winding down towards retirement.

Starter jobs me bollix. The idea that everyone is going to end up a computer technician or marketing executive is a load of guff that has been sold to us for decades now to justify the decimation of previously well-paid industrial jobs. Industry has largely collapsed, apprenticeships are largely gone. Construction is generally confined to large urban areas that leads to a difficult and transient working life. The reality is that wages have largely stagnated and the only thing available to many people now is service jobs which are almost invariably precarious and low-paid - often generates by insanely wealthy international conglomerates that make a fortune and treat staff like sh*t.

Everyone deserves a living wage and everyone deserves somewhere to live. At the moment, housing is inaccessible not only for those in low-paid jobs but also for people in career positions; a sign something is deeply wrong. What we need is state-owned mixed housing whereby working people can afford to rent somewhere in the city where they work and live. The “free market” is t providing this so something else is needed.

It’s not only the wealthy who have a right to live in the city and it’s a poor town that excludes swathes of necessary workers from living in it.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

This is an interesting idea. As one in the age group he’s on about, I think that more smaller properties aimed at the older age group who wish to downsize could help alleviate the problem of housing for families. A 3 or 4 bed property with a large garden would be more suited to a young family than a retired couple or person. Although only a small number may be interested, I think that it’s worth exploring.

People can be so mental about property.

Any time you suggest a scheme that encourages older people to sell up and downsize, you get detractor wailing that the government are kicking people out of their hard-earned homes, their life's work.

It's just some dirt with bricks on top of it. Why you would continue to pour money into a property that's bigger than you need is beyond me. But some people will. You can find plenty of people in their 80s who have 4 bedrooms, but can't even go upstairs anymore, whose decor is 15 years out of date, and the house is cold, draughty and damp.
But offer to buy the house so they can have a nice, warm, modern 2-bed apartment, and they will lose their mind. They'd rather cling onto their sh1tty old sentimental house even though they're miserable in it.

We should offer downsizing incentives. No stamp duty if you move from a property with 3 or more bedrooms to a property with two or less. And no VAT if the property is new.

andekwarhola

I think some people just want the poor, or the low paid, to simply not exist.

The overwhelming majority of social housing tenants work for a living and there will always be low to medium waged jobs, many of which are still essential and those workers need to live somewhere within reasonable distance for work, education, services etc.

While large scale social housing has its own social issues, leaving the low-paid to the mercy of the private rental market, while ideologically satisfying for some, is just counter productive. All that the cessation of social housing construction has done is to put incredible pressure on the private rental sector and waste even more taxpayers money on exorbitant rent subsidy in the private rental sector.

Sweet.Science

Where would people build large scale social housing ?

Cryptopagan

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

We should subsidise housing for people who have impairments which mean they will never move beyond such jobs.

But for most people these would be starter jobs, or end of career jobs when they're winding down towards retirement.

Yeah, you start out cleaning toilets and work your up to software engineering...the **** some of you people come out with.

LirW

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

We should subsidise housing for people who have impairments which mean they will never move beyond such jobs.

But for most people these would be starter jobs, or end of career jobs when they're winding down towards retirement.

Sure, all the cleaners, carers, social workers and hairdressers will work their way up to being office managers, otherwise we ship them off to Cavan where the proles belong.

Sweet.Science

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Where would people build large scale social housing ?

Wherever it’s needed. X amount of houses in every city, town and village depending on their size.

Sweet.Science

Deleted User wrote: »

Wherever it’s needed. X amount of houses in every city, town and village depending on their size.

Forget the money involved. No way would it get approved. Not even large scale private housing would. Unless its in the middle of nowhere.

aloneforever99

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Cool

Where do we build all these houses ?

You could build quite a lot of social and affordably housing on sites the government already owns. Check out this article, one site alone is 141 acres. You'd build plenty on that: https://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/over-300-state-controlled-sites-lie-vacant-amid-housing-crisis-1.3515430

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Who do we get to build them when they would have to take a big pay cut to do so ?

Why would they have to take a big pay cut? A huge part of the cost of building is land - which we have already sorted out (above). Another huge part of the cost is the profit margin for the developer. In this instance the developer is the government who wouldn't be seeking profit. So already the cost of building has dropped dramatically.

Pay labourers the going rate, cut out the guys at the top.

Sweet.Science wrote: »

How many will we build? Do we double or triple taxes to do so ?

I would suggest we look at the census and population trends to decide how many to build in different areas.

There would be no need to double or triple taxes, but I would be happy to pay a small increase to see this happen.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

There is a right to shelter, not a free house. I don't think we should be giving free houses out left right and centre. Family's living in hotels etc. isn't right either. We also can't just ship everyone off to Donegal or wherever. There should be flats/apartments etc. used for social housing. I don't think whatever your circumstances if you are getting it for free you should be able to pick and choose. I know someone living in a social housing estate and her sister lives next door, and the cousin two doors down and the aunt in the same cul de sac. How did that happen. Each of them with a 3 bedroom house. This is a prime commuter town.

Yurt2

Christophe Guilluy (the French geographer who predicted the onset of a movement like the yellow vests), just released a book that is worth a read.

In summation, urban centres like Paris (insert London or Dublin here for the UK or Ireland) have captured all the social and educational capital of the country. Those that work and live in touching distance of this engine of national growth continue to benefit from globalisation, and those on the periphery have experienced a cultural relegation and a commensurate collapse in wealth. There is a bourgeois hipster class(nominally of the left, but really behave as apologists of predatory globalisation) just underneath the very small elite that hoover up most of the gains that endorse it because the crumbs they are thrown from above. In essence, a small number of cities have become citadels and society is irreversibly fractured.

It's a dramatic read, and it sometimes it over-eggs the pudding, but the processes in train in France are very much similar to Ireland.

FTA69

Yurt! wrote: »

Christophe Guilluy (the French geographer who predicted the onset of a movement like the yellow vests), just released a book that is worth a read.

In summation, urban centres like Paris (insert London or Dublin here for the UK or Ireland) have captured all the social and educational capital of the country. Those that work and live in touching distance of this engine of national growth continue to benefit from globalisation, and those on the periphery have experienced a cultural relegation and a commensurate collapse in wealth. There is a bourgeois hipster class(nominally of the left, but really behave as apologists of predatory globalisation) just underneath the very small elite that hoover up most of the gains that endorse it because the crumbs they are thrown from above. In essence, a small number of cities have become citadels and society is irreversibly fractured.

It's a dramatic read, and it sometimes it over-eggs the pudding, but the processes in train in France are very much similar to Ireland.

100% mate. Bourgeois hipster class is spot on, condescending asshats who actually hate the post industrial working class and also fetishise migrant workers without actually knowing any. They’re not remotely left at all, the worst examples of bourgeois liberals.

Cryptopagan

Tristian Ashy Sparkler wrote: »

There is a right to shelter, not a free house. I don't think we should be giving free houses out left right and centre. Family's living in hotels etc. isn't right either. We also can't just ship everyone off to Donegal or wherever. There should be flats/apartments etc. used for social housing. I don't think whatever your circumstances if you are getting it for free you should be able to pick and choose. I know someone living in a social housing estate and her sister lives next door, and the cousin two doors down and the aunt in the same cul de sac. How did that happen. Each of them with a 3 bedroom house. This is a prime commuter town.

They're not free. Councils charge rent.

Feisar

rgodard80a wrote: »

Nope.

Robots and artificial intelligence will replace a lot of low paid staff.
So we just need to build water proof cupboards for those robots.

I actually think it'd be cheaper and easier on the short term to replace a lot of thinking jobs with AI. We always go on about robots taking over the low paid jobs, I think it's the higher paid ones that will get replaced quicker with AI.

LirW

Tristian Ashy Sparkler wrote: »

There is a right to shelter, not a free house. I don't think we should be giving free houses out left right and centre. Family's living in hotels etc. isn't right either. We also can't just ship everyone off to Donegal or wherever. There should be flats/apartments etc. used for social housing. I don't think whatever your circumstances if you are getting it for free you should be able to pick and choose. I know someone living in a social housing estate and her sister lives next door, and the cousin two doors down and the aunt in the same cul de sac. How did that happen. Each of them with a 3 bedroom house. This is a prime commuter town.

The issue is that here you either earn an above average wage or you've been placed in social housing in order to be able to live in Dublin, where the majority of jobs are. All these jobs bring a demand for other services, like restaurants, cleaners, dry cleaners, security staff, care workers etc. These people often struggle to afford the rent in Dublin and can't even dream of buying a house here. They are not demanding a free house, they'd just like to live reasonably close to work like every other person too. We can't all become lawyers and doctors or IT managers, someone has to cook our food, clean our hospitals and streets and care for our sick and elderly.
Yet the only affordable family homes in the Dublin area that you can afford to buy in when you as a family live on a household income of 50k gross (a executive chef and a social worker) come with problems; you'd be sharing the street with a certain percentage of dolers4life at best and have to fear for your safety at worst.

So you'd rather take the commute which also eats a lot of money. People have 2 crappy choices if they are in some way tied to Dublin and are on a small income.

ohfa6muwtsvkc1

People in the GDR where given a job and a house/flat. All. Everyone. We could learn from that. We're under more surveillance than them so may as well take the good bits.

Plopsu

aloneforever99 wrote: »

Another huge part of the cost is the profit margin for the developer. In this instance the developer is the government who wouldn't be seeking profit. So already the cost of building has dropped dramatically.

Pretty sure this would result in the government being dragged to court.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Where would people build large scale social housing ?

Dalkey.

aloneforever99

LirW wrote: »

So you'd rather take the commute which also eats a lot of money. People have 2 crappy choices if they are in some way tied to Dublin and are on a small income.

One solution to this would be to introduce bullet trains connecting Dublin to Limerick, Cork and Galway (any other major cities outside the Pale that I've missed?)

If you could get from Dublin to Galway in under an hour (and that should be totally possible with high speed trains), the reliance on accommodation in the capital would lessen.

You could have people who do that commute 3-4 days a week, work from home on a Friday and live where they are from. I know lots of people who would rather not live in Dublin but don't feel they have a choice.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

LirW wrote: »

They are not demanding a free house, they'd just like to live reasonably close to work like every other person too. We can't all become lawyers and doctors or IT managers, someone has to cook our food, clean our hospitals and streets and care for our sick and elderly.

None of the families Im talking about here work. They are all on the dole.

Sweet.Science

Cryptopagan wrote: »

They're not free. Councils charge rent.

This again

aloneforever99

Plopsu wrote: »

Pretty sure this would result in the government being dragged to court.

Why? Social and affordable housing is already a thing.

piplip87

There needs to be serious questions asked.

1). Why do you feel like you need social housing ?

2). If the answer is disability that prevents you from working or you are working but cannot afford anything then you shall be put on the list. If the answer is I've a heap of kids, I don't work and I'm entitled to a forever home, then social services will be called. If you cannot provide for your children you have failed as a parent

We need to give tax breaks to developers, tax breaks to returning immigrants, and tax cuts to the middle class to give them the opportunity to build or buy houses. As much as developers are hated here we kind.of need them to build.

These tax cuts can be paid for by slashing the welfare bill. If you are fit and healthy and have not worked in 12 months and made no attempt to retrain then your benefits will be cut. You can go live in a hall, we will feed you but nothing else. If you have children don't worry they will be placed in the care of somebody who will provide for them and stop them ending up like you

Yurt2

andekwarhola wrote: »

I think some people just want the poor, or the low paid, to simply not exist.

The way our economic model works at the moment, if the poor and low paid didn't exist, we'd have to invent them.

Ush1

LirW wrote: »

The issue is that here you either earn an above average wage or you've been placed in social housing in order to be able to live in Dublin, where the majority of jobs are. All these jobs bring a demand for other services, like restaurants, cleaners, dry cleaners, security staff, care workers etc. These people often struggle to afford the rent in Dublin and can't even dream of buying a house here. They are not demanding a free house, they'd just like to live reasonably close to work like every other person too. We can't all become lawyers and doctors or IT managers, someone has to cook our food, clean our hospitals and streets and care for our sick and elderly.
Yet the only affordable family homes in the Dublin area that you can afford to buy in when you as a family live on a household income of 50k gross (a executive chef and a social worker) come with problems; you'd be sharing the street with a certain percentage of dolers4life at best and have to fear for your safety at worst.

So you'd rather take the commute which also eats a lot of money. People have 2 crappy choices if they are in some way tied to Dublin and are on a small income.

Can't help but feel people on the lefts mask slips slightly when they come out with the above.

They want a helping hand because they're poor but don't want to be around other poor people?

There should be pressure on the guards to make areas safe, not build more unsafe areas.

aloneforever99

piplip87 wrote: »

There needs to be serious questions asked.

1). Why do you feel like you need social housing ?

2). If the answer is disability that prevents you from working or you are working but cannot afford anything then you shall be put on the list. If the answer is I've a heap of kids, I don't work and I'm entitled to a forever home, then social services will be called. If you cannot provide for your children you have failed as a parent

What if the answer is "I work 40 hours a week as a waiter in a city centre restaurant, and it's impossible to find accommodation locally on what I make." as the OP pointed out?

We need waiters.

Plopsu

The government would be acting in an anti-competitive way. Pretty sure under existing legislation (open to correction) what you're suggesting would be illegal.

Sweet.Science

Ush1 wrote: »

Can't help but feel people on the lefts mask slips slightly when they come out with the above.

They want a helping hand because they're poor but don't want to be around other poor people?

There should be pressure on the guards to make areas safe, not build more unsafe areas.

Its actually hilarious. People here last week justifying turning down houses in rough areas . Couldnt make the stuff up

aloneforever99

Plopsu wrote: »

The government would be acting in an anti-competitive way. Pretty sure under existing legislation (open to correction) what you're suggesting would be illegal.

But it's already happening. The government already builds social housing. We're just talking about doing it on a wider scale.

Plopsu

aloneforever99 wrote: »

But it's already happening. The government already builds social housing. We're just talking about doing it on a wider scale.

As far as I know, the government does not build housing. Regulations demand that developers provide as portion of the housing they build as lower cost social housing.

aloneforever99

Plopsu wrote: »

As far as I know, the government does not build housing. Regulations demand that developers provide as portion of the housing they build as lower cost social housing.

Local authorities are responsible for providing social housing. They are meant to build as well as buying them and getting the 10% of developers, but most are well behind their targets:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/only-4-of-new-social-houses-built-by-local-authorities-1.3643509

Across the 31 local authorities to the end of June 1,051 newly-built units of social housing came on stream. Of these, as well as those built by councils, 313 were built by approved housing bodies (AHBs) and 251 were delivered through Part 5 of the planning laws – which requires private developers to make at least 10 per cent of the dwellings in a development available to the local authority at a reduced rate.

Some 1,181 units were bought on the open market for social housing – 612 by local authorities and 569 by AHBs (9.5 per cent of the total).

LirW

Ush1 wrote: »

Can't help but feel people on the lefts mask slips slightly when they come out with the above.

They want a helping hand because they're poor but don't want to be around other poor people?

There should be pressure on the guards to make areas safe, not build more unsafe areas.

See when you're working your backside off doing jobs that nobody else wants to do, save hard and manage to get a mortgage, the best you can do is buying in an urban area where you're running risk being run over by a scrambler?
People on low income managing getting a mortgage deserve to live in safe areas like the rest of us. It's not their fault that councils and the guards doing sweet f all to make these areas liveable. They shouldn't commit to a 30 year mortgage for a house in Darndale because that's all they can afford and it's only affordable because there's a good chance your car will be set on fire because it's feral breeding ground.

piplip87

aloneforever99 wrote: »

What if the answer is "I work 40 hours a week as a waiter in a city centre restaurant, and it's impossible to find accommodation locally on what I make." as the OP pointed out?

We need waiters.

Yes then these waiters shall be looked after through social housing. We need to look after those who are working and contributing first. Enough is enough.

Sweet.Science

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Forget the money involved. No way would it get approved. Not even large scale private housing would. Unless its in the middle of nowhere.

Why not? Where there’s a will, there’s a way. Take my local town, Clonmel. There are many vacant sites that could easily be rezoned for dwelling. Even if one is developed with a mixture of houses and apartments built, say every 5 years it’d clear the housing list in no time. Same goes for Carrick on Suir, Cahir, Thurles etc. Families that no longer need anything other than a small 2 bed apartment should have it as part of their contract that they move once their children leave home.