5,459 applicants turned down an offer of social housing since 2016.

Wheeliebin30

https://www.thejournal.ie/murphy-social-housing-4678670-Jun2019/

Murphy says it's 'ultimately fair' those who turn down two 'reasonable' social housing offers be blacklisted for 5 years


Is this fair?

I think so, a lot of these probably remain “homeless” after turning down perfectly good houses.

This homeless crisis is greatly exaggerated.

maxsmum

I don't get how people who are living in a hotel can have any chance to turn down a permanent roof over their heads. This business of not living near enough to their parents or schools is nonsense. I'll never be able to afford where my parents live. I actually think a province wide radius is reasonable given there's a housing crisis.

Gatling

It should be a single offer -refuse it and sorry your off the list .
Meanwhile your living in s hotel or b&b free from any financial contribution including utilities (with minor exception of hubs )
The minister should also be asking how the council's plan of getting the tens of millions of rent arrears are actually paid to local authorities

machiavellianme

Gatling wrote: »

It should be a single offer -refuse it and sorry your off the list .
Meanwhile your living in s hotel or b&b free from any financial contribution including utilities (with minor exception of hubs )
The minister should also be asking how the council's plan of getting the tens of millions of rent arrears are actually paid to local authorities

Agreed. The only way back on the list should be in a county at least 2 further away from the original application. They'll quickly learn to take whatever offer they get.

_Brian

Surely now is a great time of year for families to accept new accommodation and get settled in.
Kids can start in a new school in September at start of a new year and they will have two months to make a few friends in advance.

If we really have a homeless crisis people need to take what they are given and then work themselves up into something better under their own steam if that’s what they want.

I absolutely think this new rule is fair to both those waiting in lists and those paying tax towards supporting them.

Allot of people in sheltered housing have intentionally made a series of bad decisions against the advice of literally everyone be that parents, teachers and everyone. No education, strings of kids often to different fathers, drugs and alcohol abuse, never worked a day in their lives. This shiit catches up with you and somehow it’s everyone else’s fault ??

pjohnson

I wouldnt be trusting that eejit to know what a "reasonable" offer was.

"Exciting" co-living for all.

InTheShadows

I think it’s “ultimately fair” that if Leo Varadkar turns down two “reasonable offers” to make an example of an insurance cheat within the space of a year they won’t receive any other votes for five years from the public.

overkill602

They do try to meet several of the applicants requirements so wrong these many planned social career spongers can be choosers.
People with genuine special needs should be a priority.
a complete overhaul needed to cover under use, arrears and rent levels i know of one been let where the separated couple share another forever free gafe in D1 neither are working too.

enricoh

Gatling wrote: »

It should be a single offer -refuse it and sorry your off the list .
Meanwhile your living in s hotel or b&b free from any financial contribution including utilities (with minor exception of hubs )
The minister should also be asking how the council's plan of getting the tens of millions of rent arrears are actually paid to local authorities

Surely in 2019 its possible to take the rent out of peoples welfare payment.
Same as paying fines, instead of wasting cops n prison officers time bringing lads up to the joy for a few hours.
Obviously no political will to do it

eviltwin

I work in rehousing homeless families. Some do have genuine reasons for turning down a house. The people I work with are in the main either disabled themselves or have a disabled child and they turn down property because its completely unsuitable. Some do turn down perfectly nice homes for ridiculous reasons but someone else on the list will take it so a family in need still gets rehomed.

Stop moaning ffs

eviltwin wrote: »

I work in rehousing homeless families. Some do have genuine reasons for turning down a house. The people I work with are in the main either disabled themselves or have a disabled child and they turn down property bec

Was just wondering was there any info or breakdown on the reasons for them turning down a house. And if there’s a spike in certain reasons.

_blaaz

Wheelchair users reported being offered houses that had stairs, while another applicant said they were offered housing was too damp for their child, who had asthma.

.

Oink

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Was just wondering was there any info or breakdown on the reasons for them turning down a house. And if there’s a spike in certain reasons.

Yeah that would give us something to base an opinion on, rather than guessing that a lot of them have unrealistic expectations.

Stop moaning ffs

Houses being on remote locations with no public transport and the family having no mode of transport id imagine is a huge one. I’d easily call that a genuine reason to refuse.

And I’d bet it’s one of the most common reasons of refusal.

shesty

Yeah but.....then you are talking rehoming all those people who refused, in areas close to cities with good transport links- i.e. housing that us idiots pay through the nose for.How is that right either?And the nearest two new social housing estates that I see every day, all of the houses have two cars in the driveway.All of them.They may not be new or state of the art, but they still can run two cars.

Serious overhaul of the screening process needed.Surely it can't be too difficult to start out identifying those with a disability need, and putting them in a separate category for a particular form of housing???At the very least?

I'd be more concerned about the headline this morning saying that if house prices/supply continue the way they are, we risk becoming a "welfare state" when it comes to housing.

Thinkingaboutit

InTheShadows wrote: »

I think it’s “ultimately fair” that if Leo Varadkar turns down two “reasonable offers” to make an example of an insurance cheat within the space of a year they won’t receive any other votes for five years from the public.

I'm sure FG are hoping people are becoming amnesic regarding their insurance scammers, Maria and the lad with whiplash. Honesty is for little people or something like that.

eviltwin

shesty wrote: »

Serious overhaul of the screening process needed.Surely it can't be too difficult to start out identifying those with a disability need, and putting them in a separate category for a particular form of housing???At the very least?

There is a disability list but that doesn't stop people on that list still being offered unsuitable accommodation.

Wheeliebin30

InTheShadows wrote: »

I think it’s “ultimately fair” that if Leo Varadkar turns down two “reasonable offers” to make an example of an insurance cheat within the space of a year they won’t receive any other votes for five years from the public.

There is a thread about Maria Bailey already.

overkill602

we are already a welfare state only a matter of time a very broke one at that no the next time the IMF come they will reform it

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/murphy-social-housing-4678670-Jun2019/

Murphy says it's 'ultimately fair' those who turn down two 'reasonable' social housing offers be blacklisted for 5 years


Is this fair?

I think so, a lot of these probably remain “homeless” after turning down perfectly good houses.

This homeless crisis is greatly exaggerated.

There is no homeless crisis. What we do have is a homeless industry with hundreds employed in it in Dublin alone. If it wasn’t so profitable, we wouldn’t have so many homeless “Charities”.

Fr_Dougal

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no homeless crisis. What we do have is a homeless industry with hundreds employed in it in Dublin alone. If it wasn’t so profitable, we wouldn’t have so many homeless “Charities”.

Totally agree.

What we have is an ‘Entitlement Crisis’.

Plumbthedepths

Deleted User wrote:

There is no homeless crisis.

You better tell Leo and the lads for some strange reason they believe there is.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no homeless crisis. What we do have is a homeless industry with hundreds employed in it in Dublin alone. If it wasn’t so profitable, we wouldn’t have so many homeless “Charities”.

Jaysis.

Would it not be more profitable and healthy for the state in the long run if homes were affordable and accessible to all and allow people to live and work and contribute?

_Brian

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You better tell Leo and the lads for some strange reason they believe there is.

If they believed there was they would act on it.

They are saying there is one because they beleive that’s what people want to hear them say, same with climate emergency, they declared one because they believed that would be popular with he masses, not because they beleive it’s an issue.

There is a vast difference between what a government say to be popular and their actual internal policies.

LirW

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Houses being on remote locations with no public transport and the family having no mode of transport id imagine is a huge one. I’d easily call that a genuine reason to refuse.

And I’d bet it’s one of the most common reasons of refusal.

There's the misconception though that if you apply for social housing in Dublin they could house you in Cavan. You can only be housed within the council you applied for, Dublin has 4 councils alone. Let's say you applied in Fungal you won't be housed in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown.
I think this is part of the issue, that every council is doing their own thing. You can be housed in a rural area when applying in a busy urban one but this is a voluntary process.

Boggles

Wheelchair users reported being offered houses that had stairs,

Can Eoghan also bring in a rule that whatever fúcktards make these decisions get fired immediately.

Plumbthedepths

_Brian wrote:

They are saying there is one because they beleive that’s what people want to hear them say, same with climate emergency, they declared one because they believed that would be popular with he masses, not because they beleive it’s an issue.

The cynic in me says this policy shift suggested by Murphy is a response to yesterday's miserable poll result for FG. The minions will lap it up as evidenced here. ;-)

Plumbthedepths

_Brian wrote:

They are saying there is one because they beleive that’s what people want to hear them say, same with climate emergency, they declared one because they believed that would be popular with he masses, not because they beleive it’s an issue.

So you believe the FG government are a bunch of populist liars? I tend to agree with you.

Stop moaning ffs

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The cynic in me says this policy shift suggested by Murphy is a response to yesterday's miserable poll result for FG. The minions will lap it up as evidenced here. ;-)

Have to agree. Murphy reacting to his disastrous idea in shared accommodation, with a press release blaming the scroungers on refusing houses.


Typical FG

_Brian

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The cynic in me says this policy shift suggested by Murphy is a response to yesterday's miserable poll result for FG. The minions will lap it up as evidenced here. ;-)

So I think this is good, damn sure it’s good.
Will it make me vote blue shirt, no it wouldn’t.

Many of us are capable of recognising a good idea without attaching it to any particular political party.

_Brian

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you believe the FG government are a bunch of populist liars? I tend to agree with you.

I don’t think any government are 100% honest in their statements, this one no more or less than the others.

Plumbthedepths

Stop moaning ffs wrote:

Have to agree. Murphy reacting to his disastrous idea in shared accommodation, with a press release blaming the scroungers on refusing houses.

Murphy's idea for shared living hit FG in the local elections. What kind of a clown thought 40+ people would be 'excited' to share a kitchen and live in a room the size of a disabled parking space. The disconnect with the FG elite is almost hilarious.

Plumbthedepths

_Brian wrote:

I don’t think any government are 100% honest in their statements, this one no more or less than the others.

It's reasonable to expect a large degree of honesty. You have suggested the present FG government is entirely dishonest and populist. The evidence to date would suggest you may be correct.

Wheeliebin30

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Murphy's idea for shared living hit FG in the local elections. What kind of a clown thought 40+ people would be 'excited' to share a kitchen and live in a room the size of a disabled parking space. The disconnect with the FG elite is almost hilarious.

It was an idea.

Why can’t all ideas be explored if were in a “homeless” crisis?

No one was been forced to live there, if people want to they can if not no big deal

Other countries do it but of course it’s not good enough for us.

Stop moaning ffs

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

It was an idea.

Why can’t all ideas be explored if were in a “homeless” crisis?

No one was been forced to live there, if people want to they can if not no big deal

Other countries do it but of course it’s not good enough for us.

The briefest glance on boards will show you countless threads from people asking advice about noisy disruptive neighbours from the small annoyances up to court cases.

Shared accommodation simply wouldn’t work here. Bizarre Murphy wasn’t asked would he be happy to live in such circumstances

ThunbergsAreGo

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The briefest glance on boards will show you countless threads from people asking advice about noisy disruptive neighbours from the small annoyances up to court cases.

Shared accommodation simply wouldn’t work here. Bizarre Murphy wasn’t asked would he be happy to live in such circumstances

Why are we so different to other nationalities?

Sonny noggs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The briefest glance on boards will show you countless threads from people asking advice about noisy disruptive neighbours from the small annoyances up to court cases.

Shared accommodation simply wouldn’t work here. Bizarre Murphy wasn’t asked would he be happy to live in such circumstances

This response is a perfect example of why we have a so called ‘crisis’. No imagination, no willingness to compromise, NIMBYism etc.

Plumbthedepths

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

It was an idea.

Actually it's in the planning process, did you not get the memo from HQ? The backlash should have been an indicator how repugnant an 'idea' it is. As for forcing people, if this' tenement type ' of accommodation is all that is available if course people are forced. Would you share a kitchen with 40+ people and dwell in a space equal to a disabled parking space?

Wheeliebin30

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

The briefest glance on boards will show you countless threads from people asking advice about noisy disruptive neighbours from the small annoyances up to court cases.

Shared accommodation simply wouldn’t work here. Bizarre Murphy wasn’t asked would he be happy to live in such circumstances

That’s not bizarre at all??

That’s like saying we should ask him if he would live in Sligo as other people want too.

If people want to live in co-op what’s the big deal????

No one is forcing anyone.

Stop moaning ffs

naughtb4 wrote: »

Why are we so different to other nationalities?

When it comes to home ownership and all that it’s a colonial hangover I reckon.
We have totally opposite views on living circumstances and property ownership than our European cousins.

And our only experiences of it are tenement life. Something members of my family can still recall and none of it good

lawred2

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/murphy-social-housing-4678670-Jun2019/

Murphy says it's 'ultimately fair' those who turn down two 'reasonable' social housing offers be blacklisted for 5 years


Is this fair?

I think so, a lot of these probably remain “homeless” after turning down perfectly good houses.

This homeless crisis is greatly exaggerated.

Sure. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable suggestion.

However what happens in the intravening 5 years? State footing the hotel bill?

B_ecke_r

you are not "homeless" if you are living in a hotel for free.

Stop moaning ffs

Sonny noggs wrote: »

This response is a perfect example of why we have a so called ‘crisis’. No imagination, no willingness to compromise, NIMBYism etc.

Eh no we have a crisis because 20/30 years of successive governments haven’t been building social housing and then allowed banks repossess homes post the crash. *when enda himself said he would not allow one home to be repossessed in one of his election promises.

Stop moaning ffs

B_ecke_r wrote: »

you are not "homeless" if you are living in a hotel for free.

A hotel room is not a home. If you think it is try living in one with your wife and two kids and not allowed cook for them or get them to school everyday.

B_ecke_r

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

A hotel room is not a home. If you think it is try living in one with your wife and two kids and not allowed cook for them or get them to school everyday.

tell that to someone sleeping in a park.

Get Real

This is a simple tactic by Murphy to be seen to be doing something. I agree with the policy.

But for jaysus sake, he's a Minister for housing, trying to divert blame for a national housing crisis on .001% of the entire population.

100th of a single percent!

Even all those waiting on social housing is a drop in the ocean. There are many, many more working people, who don't apply for/aren't eligible for social housing. They don't want a free house, they want to actually pay for their own house, but can't. Even when working full time, and fully contributing to the economic machine.

If he's trying to say that a 100th of a percent of the population are the reason why a post man, or teacher, or hotel manager can't buy a house, well that's bo!!ocks.

Sonny noggs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Eh no we have a crisis because 20/30 years of successive governments haven’t been building social housing and then allowed banks repossess homes post the crash. *when enda himself said he would not allow one home to be repossessed in one of his election promises.

We probably have the lowest level of house repossessions in Europe. It takes years to repossess a home and it usually only happens when the borrower has made no effort to co-operate. Any repossession that gets that far is entirely justified.

Stop moaning ffs

B_ecke_r wrote: »

tell that to someone sleeping in a park.

Both are homeless. It’s not a competition to see who is more homeless. They both are.

Wheeliebin30

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

........

This homeless crisis is greatly exaggerated.

Indeed, we have a waster crisis that is clogging up the social welfare system and genuine folk in need of assistance are the victims, along (to a lesser extent) the tax payer and the general public.

JupiterKid

Its plainly obvious that the OP is a shill/apologist for Minister Eoghan Murphy and his frankly cynical and pathetic attempts to deflect the blame for the very real housing crisis away from this inept and utterly disconnected government who have been warned about the difficulties in the housing system, particularly a highly distorted, pressured and dysfunctional private rented sector for years now and did little to properly address the mounting problems.

And I have longstanding expertise in housing policy so I actually know what I am talking about, unlike many on here who carp on about "entitlement culture" and "forever" homes...all these threads on this are getting rather tiresome at this stage.

lawred2

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Eh no we have a crisis because 20/30 years of successive governments haven’t been building social housing and then allowed banks repossess homes post the crash. *when enda himself said he would not allow one home to be repossessed in one of his election promises.

Repossessions have little to nothing to do with the levels of 'homelessness'.. we have some of the lowest levels of repossessions by banks in the Western world. It's why we are paying such a premium in our interest rates.