The Constitutional Right to a Home

suicide_circus

There is currently no specific law on the books that gives people a right to a home in Ireland.

In 2014 The Constitutional Convention voted to have the right to housing...“expressly stated” in the Constitution.

In 2017 the dail rejected a bill which sought to make housing a constitutional right.

What say you, After Hours?

What are the pros and cons? What difference would it make? What would be the attendant responsibility on the citizen on acquiring this new right? Would a right to a home be a right to a home in a preferred location?

Would it force the government to build a rake of social housing? Would it force the government to increase taxes? Would it make any practical difference to our housing crisis or would it just be a platitude?

A right to housing is already covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but this came after our Constitution so i'm not sure how that works.

facehugger99

Any proposed Constitutional amendment should include for adequate trampoline provision space.

TuringBot47

suicide_circus wrote: »

There is currently no specific law on the books that gives people a right to a home in Ireland.

Why would there be?

Is there any other country in the world that does?

A right to housing/accommodation is different to a right to a long term / permanent home.

Kingp35

suicide_circus wrote: »

There is currently no specific law on the books that gives people a right to a home in Ireland.

I would hope it stays that way. The current right to shelter is perfectly adequate.

suicide_circus

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Why would there be?

Is there any other country in the world that does?

i couldnt tell you but there are people calling for this to be introduced;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/right-to-a-secure-home-must-be-added-to-constitution-say-advocates-1.3808858

lazygal

Have we not learned by now to stop shoving stuff into our constitution.

GLaDOS

What would the actual practical effects of introducing this into the constitution be?

I saw a lot of people angry that the recent proposal was rejected, but I'm wary of introducing stuff into the constitution willy nilly.

valoren

Shelter should be a constitutional right.

There should be shelter properties which give access to a bed, washing facilities, a shelter with minimum temperature's for homeless (shelterless) people.

Take an abandoned property. Develop it up to standard. It's not going to be luxury, it's going to be austere in a soviet russia "crying chair" way but it would give people shelter from the elements at a minimum.

The legitimately homeless i.e. the one's with an actual emergency for shelter would be catered for and the willingly homeless i.e. the drunken bowsies, the toxic walking dead who are estranged from their families would also be catered for.

Cina

Why should there be?

In no other country in Europe is there such an obsession with owning a house as there is in Ireland. People won't even entertain the idea of an apartment, nope, need that back garden.

We need to be more like the Germans and Belgians and actually implement laws and practices that allow people to rent long-term affordably, and more high-rise, family friendly apartments, instead of this stupid current system of building overpriced housing estates in the middle of our capital city. The entitlement culture here when it comes to owning a house is baffling, and why we have threads on boards every week complaining about the "homeless" getting their free houses.

Dohnjoe

valoren wrote: »

Shelter should be a constitutional right.

There should be shelter properties which give access to a bed, washing facilities, a shelter with minimum temperature's for homeless (shelterless) people.

Take an abandoned property. Develop it up to standard. It's not going to be luxury, it's going to be austere in a soviet russia way but it would give people shelter from the elements at a minimum.

Not a bad idea, but as long as you are willing to pay the extra taxes to cover all this.

The_Brood

Whether it is or it isn't doesn't make a lick of difference, if the will is not there they will find loopholes and delays and everything needed not to adequately implement it.

You don't need a constitutional right, but you need a practical environment where most honest working class people have some kind of chance of owning a half decent home. That absolutely does not exist in some places, like Dublin, or anywhere close to it. It's an unlivable situation, and if/by the time it gets solved, it will be too late for those suffering now who have been suffering for a long time.

This cannot be the western world, the developed world - that unless you are super rich or super poor, you must be forced to rent sub-standard flat until you retire and then you have nothing. It's an all out nightmare that requires an all out response, but it will not get anything close to it. Democracy has well and truly failed if these are the results.

TuringBot47

suicide_circus wrote: »

i couldnt tell you but there are people calling for this to be introduced;

There are always "people" calling for free stuff.
Just because a "group" managed to put some clickbait proposition into a newspaper on a slow news day doesn't mean it'll happen.

And it would be political suicide to tell all the middle class/coping class voters that they're now going to have to pay for houses for others too. More than they are already.

Former Observer

The state of rental apartments in this country is abominable. Tacky places filled with cheap disposable furniture. We could learn a lot from the Germans and Americans on building generous, solid apartments with a bit of character that you furnish yourselves and could maybe call a home.

Finland did a pretty good job

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

The_Brood

Cina wrote: »

Why should there be?

In no other country in Europe is there such an obsession with owning a house as there is in Ireland. People won't even entertain the idea of an apartment, nope, need that back garden.

We need to be more like the Germans and Belgians and actually implement laws and practices that allow people to rent long-term affordably, and more high-rise, family friendly apartments, instead of this stupid current system of building overpriced housing estates in the middle of our capital city. The entitlement culture here when it comes to owning a house is baffling, and why we have threads on boards every week complaining about the "homeless" getting their free houses.

The main difference is the rents aren't absurdly high there where most of your salary goes into paying for your shelter, leaving you with little else. Unless there is a dramatic change with that in Dublin (there won't be, that's for sure) owning a home is indeed a necessity if you don't want to be ****ed out of luck when you retire.

amcalester

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

valoren

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Not a bad idea, but as long as you are willing to pay the extra taxes to cover all this.

Of course there will be costs but private citizens who by whatever machination find themselves without shelter can be catered for. I think there are 514 registered homeless people in Cork City. I'm sure it won't cost billions to shelter them.

TuringBot47

The_Brood wrote: »

Whether it is or it isn't doesn't make a lick of difference, if the will is not there they will find loopholes and delays and everything needed not to adequately implement it.

And then... because it would be in the constitution, people would take a high court action against the government (paid for by the taxpayer) if they didn't get their house in a timely manner.

We'd also be flooded by asylum seekers.

Antares35

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Why would there be?

Is there any other country in the world that does?

A right to housing/accommodation is different to a right to a long term / permanent home.

The South African Constitution provides for the right to adequate housing.
(Extract)

26. Housing
1. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

3. No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

I don't think there should be a right to ownership of a property, but I think there should be a right to adequate shelter.

Antares35

valoren wrote: »

Shelter should be a constitutional right.

There should be shelter properties which give access to a bed, washing facilities, a shelter with minimum temperature's for homeless (shelterless) people.

Take an abandoned property. Develop it up to standard. It's not going to be luxury, it's going to be austere in a soviet russia "crying chair" way but it would give people shelter from the elements at a minimum.

The legitimately homeless i.e. the one's with an actual emergency for shelter would be catered for and the willingly homeless i.e. the drunken bowsies, the toxic walking dead who are estranged from their families would also be catered for.

:D

Cina

The_Brood wrote: »

The main difference is the rents aren't absurdly high there where most of your salary goes into paying for your shelter, leaving you with little else. Unless there is a dramatic change with that in Dublin (there won't be, that's for sure) owning a home is indeed a necessity if you don't want to be ****ed out of luck when you retire.

Yeah but that's exactly what I said in my post.

dotsman

Putting it in to the constitution is another stupid idea coming from the same people who are the cause of the crisis.

• Putting it in the constitution won't magically increase the supply of decent accommodation.
• Putting it in the constitution won't magically improve or urban planning.

But...

• Putting it in the constitution would likely result in antisocial tenants getting a carte-blanch
• Putting it in the constitution would likely result in squatters doing whatever they want.
• Putting it in the constitution would likely result in the collapse (and, thus, further reduction in the supply) of the rental market as landlords would not be able to repossess their own properties in the event of arrears.
• Putting it in the constitution would likely result in the complete collapse (and, thus, a further reduction) of the housing market (and obvious impact on wider economy) as banks stop lending as they would no longer be able to repossess properties in mortgage arrears.

But these are the stated desires of the socialist/anarchist ***** who have caused this crisis and and are now making these calls.

Fr_Dougal

There is currently no specific law on the books that refuses people a right to a home in Ireland.

suicide_circus

Antares35 wrote: »

The South African Constitution provides for the right to adequate housing.
(Extract)

26. Housing
1. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

seems to be working a treat for them over there

amcalester

Antares35 wrote: »

The South African Constitution provides for the right to adequate housing.
(Extract)

26. Housing
1. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

3. No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

I don't think there should be a right to ownership of a property, but I think there should be a right to adequate shelter.

Has this been tested in the courts because it seems overly vague in terms what the government must do it achieve it.

The_Brood

Antares35 wrote: »

The South African Constitution provides for the right to adequate housing.
(Extract)

26. Housing
1. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

3. No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

I don't think there should be a right to ownership of a property, but I think there should be a right to adequate shelter.

See language like that is extremely easy to manipulate. Technically you have the "right to access to adequate housing" in Dublin too, there is no law preventing you. Just the tiny factors of life, salaries, and astronomically high, unworkable prices...

Plumbthedepths

Cina wrote:

People won't even entertain the idea of an apartment, nope, need that back garden.

Yet thousands of apartments have been built and are occupied.........

TuringBot47

Antares35 wrote: »

The South African Constitution provides for the right to adequate housing.
(Extract)

Ah South Africa, the Utopian land of human rights.

Maybe the OP needs to clarify here.
The right to housing... any roof over your head, which includes B & B's, short term rentals etc, is one thing.

The right to a home, which implies an apartment/flat/house for life / very long term periods is quite a different matter.
What if the tenants are anti-social, they would have zero consequences to their actions, couldn't be evicted out/moved.

So I'd be totally against "the right to a home" in the constitution.
Certainly something to be worked towards as a goal, but not an enshrined right.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

and used their powers on local authorities to block planning at every possible opportunity

_Brian

We couldn’t do this.

There would immediately be an avalanche of cases taken against the government by people who have failed to provide for themselves saying the state is breaching their right to a home by not providing one.

Tabnabs

No constitutional right should come at the expense of other citizens.

Why should I have to pay for your "rights"?

suicide_circus

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Ah South Africa, the Utopian land of human rights.

Maybe the OP needs to clarify here.
The right to housing... any roof over your head, which includes B & B's, short term rentals etc, is one thing.

The right to a home, which implies an apartment/flat/house for life / very long term periods is quite a different matter.
What if the tenants are anti-social, they would have zero consequences to their actions, couldn't be evicted out/moved

Well i cant really clarify as i'm not proposing the motion but my take on it is that a "home" differs from "shelter" in that it is very long term in nature and you hold the keys but i may be wrong.

suicide_circus

Tabnabs wrote: »

No constitutional right should come at the expense of other citizens.

Why should I have to pay for your "rights"?

because socialism.

Antares35

amcalester wrote: »

Has this been tested in the courts because it seems overly vague in terms what the government must do it achieve it.

I'm trying to remember back to first year law! As far as I can recall the provision for some socio-economic rights have been challenged, in particular, healthcare.

I know that here, there has been strong resistance to implying such rights into the constitution e.g. right to education (Sinnot v Minister for Education) and right to dignity and freedom (O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation). The general consensus is that such things are better provide for in legislation and the courts would not intervene as it would be a separation of power.

Constitutional provisions are, by necessity, vague in nature and there are different principles applied by the courts in interpreting provision e.g. as a living document which allows it to be interpreted in a flexible manner which reflects a society's changing culture and values.

amcalester

[Deleted User] wrote: »

and used their powers on local authorities to block planning at every possible opportunity

To be honest I don’t know much about that but judging by the candidates in my area, some of whom I went to school with, I’m not surprised.

facehugger99

amcalester wrote: »

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

A combination of money-trees and a 'tax da rich' strategy presumably.

the_syco

amcalester wrote: »

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

Robbing Post Offices Peter to pay Paul.

amcalester

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm trying to remember back to first year law! As far as I can recall the provision for some socio-economic rights have been challenged, in particular, healthcare.

I know that here, there has been strong resistance to implying such rights into the constitution e.g. right to education (Sinnot v Minister for Education) and right to dignity and freedom (O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation). The general consensus is that such things are better provide for in legislation and the courts would not intervene as it would be a separation of power.

Constitutional provisions are, by necessity, vague in nature and there are different principles applied by the courts in interpreting provision e.g. as a living document which allows it to be interpreted in a flexible manner which reflects a society's changing culture and values.

It's a long time since my constitutional law lectures as well, but I do understand the need for vagueness. My question was really enquiring if there are any real world examples on what the courts have decided the right to access actually means.

Does it require the state to pro-actively ensure that there are enough adequate houses for the population, or if the state can show that there are no state barriers in place is that where their obligation ends.

And, have the courts decided what this means, or even what the test is?

reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

Cina

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yet thousands of apartments have been built and are occupied.........

Thousands?

There are a disproportionate number of apartments to houses in Dublin compared to other European cities. Far more estates with houses than apartment blocks being built here. Also more apartments are one or two beds that you could never really raise a family in.

In European cities they build massive apartment blocks with 3 or 4 beds, same footprint as houses, that people can easily raise a family in. Here an apartment is simply seen as a place to rent or a stepping stone to a house, or for people who can't afford a house.

TuringBot47

We should kill two birds with the one stone.

We need to plant more trees to address the environment crisis.
We need more houses to address the homeless/state dependent citizens.

Tree houses.
There, that's the answer.

The homeless can live like Ewoks on Endor.

AlanG

Former Observer wrote: »

The state of rental apartments in this country is abominable. Tacky places filled with cheap disposable furniture. We could learn a lot from the Germans and Americans on building generous, solid apartments with a bit of character that you furnish yourselves and could maybe call a home.

This is largely down to the instance up until recently of renting furnished apartments. In Germany most apartments don't even come with kitchen units yet alone furniture. You rent first and then you have to pay several thousand buy and plumb kitchen units. That is why many IKEA units are designed to be standalone rather than fitted kitchens.

gjim

Who exactly would be granted this right?

Citizens? There are 3m living outside of Ireland - can all of them pitch up and demand their "right"?

Residents? So any of 450m Brits and other Europeans - given their rights to reside here - could just pitch up and demand a "home"?

Or some new classification? Official definition of "most vulnerable in society" coming to a constitution near you...

Silly, stupid populism...

Cordell

Having a right to a home simply means that you cannot be wrongfully prevented to own/occupy one and that's as long as you do it legally. So, basically, it means nothing. In no case it means that you are entitled to one.

Antares35

amcalester wrote: »

It's a long time since my constitutional law lectures as well, but I do understand the need for vagueness. My question was really enquiring if there are any real world examples on what the courts have decided the right to access actually means.

Does it require the state to pro-actively ensure that there are enough adequate houses for the population, or if the state can show that there are no state barriers in place is that where their obligation ends.

And, have the courts decided what this means, or even what the test is?

I have no idea!:o

Wheeliebin30

Just tell me when I can stop paying my mortgage and live for free in my house.

I’d happily vote for SF if that’s the case!!

BattleCorp

If there is a constitutional right to a house, why should I bother my hole working and paying off my mortgage. I'll just get one for free.

the_syco

Cina wrote: »

Thousands?

There are a disproportionate number of apartments to houses in Dublin compared to other European cities.

Most apartment blocks in other european cities aren't so low.

gjim wrote: »

Who exactly would be granted this right?

Everyone. And SF thinks that the rich people & corporations will magically pay for it.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

If there is a constitutional right to a house, why should I bother my hole working and paying off my mortgage. I'll just get one for free.

Because it's an asset that you can sell when you retire, and downgrade to a smaller home and have a bit of a lump sum to enjoy your retirement?

Anyway, any of the vocal critics look at what Finland did, and address that?

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's an asset that you can sell when you retire, and downgrade to a smaller home and have a bit of a lump sum to enjoy your retirement?

Anyway, any of the vocal critics look at what Finland did, and address that?

The Finns are paying over 51% in income tax on earnings.

Good luck getting the Irish to pay that.

klaaaz

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Just tell me when I can stop paying my mortgage and live for free in my house.

I’d happily vote for SF if that’s the case!!

FFG have allowed people especially the entitled wealthy to live mortgage free since 2007.

TuringBot47

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The Finns are paying over 51% in income tax on earnings.

Good luck getting the Irish to pay that.

We already do.
Certainly the squeezed middle classes do.

Direct income tax (41%), then USC and PRSI on top of that.
Certainly not far from 50% and that's not including all the stealth taxes, property tax, government "levies" on your electricity and gas bills, etc...
And the robbery of private pension funds a few years ago, skimming a percentage off private personal pension funds each year.