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

InTheShadows

InTheShadows wrote: »

I'm sorry but as an employer there are some people on long term benefits I wouldn't hire in a fit. Some of these people are never going to work again and that's a fact.

Most wouldn't want to work anyway as they'd need €50k salaries to equal their benefits packages.

naughtb4 wrote: »

100% however this means we should be targeting the next generation of long termers and give them a real reason to work before it becomes a way of life to them.

And that can be done by making long term less attractive, or making work more attractive

A huge struggle really.
When the folks are total wasters they won't be encouraging their kids to get in the "rat race" when there's a chance of a forever home if you have a few sprogs.

Building fook loads of social housing is the best solution really. But to avoid the Ballymums etc of the past is difficult conceptually.

Stop moaning ffs

gibgodsman wrote: »

The Minimum wage is a myth. No matter how much you increase it, you will not be earning more, your money will be worth less as the cost of everything else will increase with it. That is basic Economics.

The only real way to get an incentive would be to offer real incentives after 1,2,3+ years of working for a company.

Well do that then.
But that would take govt to enforce a rule that said there must be an active upward scale of payment for all employees. Be it working in a centra or working in a warehouse or whatever.
Most skilled jobs have that and always have.
Grunt level work and minimum wage jobs don’t.
The type of people you see people here complaining about (in this very thread) and inferring theyre all layabouts and scroungers, are economically and socially trapped in most cases. And there’s no incentive for them to even try and engage.
There’s a certain older demographic usually female out there working in care jobs and cleaning jobs often for decades and never once seen a pay increase. But they have seen pay cuts. That’s personal experience and anecdotal so I understand if you don’t believe it. But if you want to make working attractive to that cohort trapped in lower socioeconomic forever on the dole no education horror, you have to make it so they won’t want to stay on it when there’s clearly good money to be made doing something.

Look at current minimum wage and then look at the average rent in ballyfermot or tallaght or any crappy area (I’m not downplaying or insulting these areas just an example) and you’ll quickly see it’s not even possible to afford a room in a shared house even if you could find one. You would have been better off staying on the dole.

That’s the very root of the problem.

Mad_maxx

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 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.

Are you familiar with the long term leasing scheme offered by the local authorities?

The reason I bring it up is there are plenty of old vacant houses which could be let to the councils, unfortunately the councils use these long term leasing arrangements to house problem tenants ( personal experience)

The housing issues won't be solved while our local authorities are either too lazy, incompetent or dishonest to manage their affairs to a proper standard

Mad_maxx

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Totally agree.

What we have is an ‘Entitlement Crisis’.

I wonder will RTE do a prime time special on the entitlement.

Mad_maxx

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.

The only problem with home repossession is that it happens far too rarely

Sleepy

Having actually done some professional analysis of this data from a couple of local authority sites, it's extremely obvious that a majority of the refusals are due to the area the house being offered is in.

While part of me falls back to the "beggars can't be choosers", I know full well that were I on the housing list and in receipt of HAP in a reasonable area I'd be doing everything I could to refuse an offer of a "forever home" in some hell-hole estate where half the neighbours are known trouble-makers or members of the travelling community.

There's very little the councils can actually do with anti-social tenants. Evict them and they're straight back onto the housing list and no-doubt getting priority as they're now "homeless". The sad reality is that some people just behave like absolute scumbags and it only takes one or two families of them to ruin an estate. I just can't see any Irish government ever having the stomach to deal with them properly. Rounding them all up to live in a purpose built estate in the middle of nowhere where they couldn't disturb law-abiding citizens would draw too many comparisons to concentration camps.

Mad_maxx

marieholmfan wrote: »

I am not from Limerick but I think Limerick should be made the capital. Already has good links and has a great setting.

I would actually split functions between Limerick and Derry but obviously Derry must wait. Both have a great natural setting for state buildings and horrible accents.

First you need a stalin like purge of Limerick Council, awful and the bar is low

Mad_maxx

Kivaro wrote: »

Maybe we won't ......

What we don't need to solve real life problems in our society are academics. The vast majority of them have rose-tinted views on how to fix societal problems, and unfortunately liberal politicians grasp onto these concepts to further their agendas.

Vast majority are PC Left ideogues

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you attacking that poster? Most of us interested in the housing problem would listen closer to somebody who is a planner than to somebody who doesn't have expertise in the area. ..............

A planner?
They claimed to be an academic......... if they were a planner I'd have thought they'd have mentioned it.

James Brown

maxsmum wrote: »

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.

Likely they've jobs too so depends on if it might mean quitting.
When you sign up you put down 3 areas you are looking for. If you turn down those you've no right to remain on the list IMO.

Also TBF Murphy is just some hipster chump Leo rolled in so I'll take his opinion with a pinch of salt.

InTheShadows

Augeo wrote: »

Oh right.
Well done.
Probably on the housing list yourself.

What's wrong with being on the housing list?

El_Bee

No sane political party is ever going to run on an anti-social welfare platform, even when safely incumbent FG quickly backpedaled on "people who get up early" comment, going into a general election with those sentiments is electoral suicide.

InTheShadows

InTheShadows wrote: »

What's wrong with being on the housing list?

Nothing, unless you are a waster

InTheShadows

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.

Bingo. That is the bottom line. Its not the fault of anyone who is paying rent in a social house but FG'ers want to deflect the blame away from their frankly disgraceful policies.

James Brown

overkill602 wrote: »

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.

What a dirty comment. The indo does a few stories on chancers and you get to dismiss everyone on the list but saying, 'some are legit' or other shyte? People in the worst situations do get priority. It's a points system. If a single lad walks in he won't be ahead of the special needs kid that comes in after him.
Forever homes my hole.

Boggles

sugarman wrote: »

Figure of speech :rolleyes: In other words I've worked extremely hard at 2 well paying jobs trying to scrape together enough for a mortgage over the last 10 years. What else do you want me to say?

I don't want you to say anything. I fail to see how you having to work "extremely hard at 2 well paying jobs" or failing to attain what you want has anything to do with someone residing in a Hub or Homeless accommodation.

How do you conflate the 2?

Like I said the notion of their life or lifestyle I find horrific, I don't see how anyone should get as upset as you over it.

It is bizarre. Especially when you are pontificating about personal responsibility, etc.

InTheShadows

Augeo wrote: »

Nothing, unless you are a waster

The vast majority aren't so let's target the ones who are instead of this mantra of all in social housing are on the scam.

Cryptopagan

Kivaro wrote: »

I wouldn't put my wife and two kids in that predicament in the first place. There is so much available work out there that this situation should never arise to able-bodied parents .......... who represent the vast majority abusing the housing system.

A recent survey of homeless families by Focus Ireland found that 3/4s of them "had been in lengthy, successful tenancies before landlords withdrew the property from the market"

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/the-irish-times-view-on-homelessness-a-crisis-that-shames-us-all-1.3925671

James Brown

Get Real wrote: »

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.

That's it and you've people who don't know what they are talking about chiming on about forever homes. As long as these gombeens continue to vote for wasters like FG we'll need another crash to start again. Hopefully when Martin gives his 'change the way we do business' he sticks to it unlike Enda the pork pie man.

s7ryf3925pivug

I live in a nice area, but it has bad public transport connections, and the roads to the city/suburbs are not safe to cycle on because they are narrow and winding.

There is a council estate in the village. I've walked through it and there aren't that many cars. There aren't a whole lot of jobs outside of schools in the village. So if you're living there with no car you're going to find it hard to find work.

So it would be reasonable to turn down a house there if you have no car, assuming you want to work.

I would suggest that it is not a suitable location for social housing at all for this reason. Note that the residents are absolutely fine. The estate is better kept than a mainly private estate opposite it, and I'm not aware of antisocial behavior. But they either have to maintain a car or commit to living in the bubble of the village.

Better to develop purpose-built high efficiency social accommodation. Police it proactively and boot out and punish troublemakers. Mixing them in with private housing solves nothing, just makes the problem less visible.

El_Bee

InTheShadows wrote: »

The vast majority aren't

Where are you getting that from?

Wheeliebin30

El_Bee wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?

Well we know 20% in “homeless” accommodation have a job.

So take what you will from that.

Cryptopagan

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well we know 20% in “homeless” accommodation have a job.

So take what you will from that.

How do you work that out?

And why do you call it "homeless accommodation" and put "homeless" in quotes, when it's typically referred to as emergency accommodation? Who are you quoting?

Wheeliebin30

Cryptopagan wrote: »

How do you work that out?

And why do you call it "homeless accommodation" and put "homeless" in quotes, when it's typically referred to as emergency accommodation? Who are you quoting?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/census-homeless-adults-3538939-Aug2017/%3famp=1
Census 2016: Nearly one in five homeless adults have a job

Alun

We have a local TD here in Bray who lives in a council house, who at the same time is quite vociferous about the lack of social housing. A bit hypocritical to say the least.

Stop moaning ffs

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well we know 20% in “homeless” accommodation have a job.

So take what you will from that.

Need you to back that up

You’re saying there isn’t a hosing crisis then saying 20% of homeless people have jobs?

Under Leos watch?
I thought he was all for the early risers?

suicide_circus

Alun wrote: »

We have a local TD here in Bray who lives in a council house, who at the same time is quite vociferous about the lack of social housing. A bit hypocritical to say the least.

whats a TDs salary? 90k? how much rent would he be paying on a council house given the salary does anyone know?

Wheeliebin30

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Need you to back that up

You’re saying there isn’t a hosing crisis then saying 20% of homeless people have jobs?

Under Leos watch?
I thought he was all for the early risers?

Yeah I think it’s pretty self explanatory that 4 out of 5 adults are unemployed in emergency accommodation.

Th 20% will get something eventually.

What’s the issue?

Stop moaning ffs

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Well we know 20% in “homeless” accommodation have a job.

So take what you will from that.

I’m laughing and despairing at you undoing your own position ‘there is no housing crisis.’
20% of the homeless are part of the workforce.
Are you hearing the stupidity of your many rants about the scroungers and loafers and wasters?

People in full time employment can’t find or afford housing.

Say it again and again until it settles into your brain

Wheeliebin30

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’m laughing and despairing at you undoing your own position ‘there is no housing crisis.’
20% of the homeless are part of the workforce.
Are you hearing the stupidity of your many rants about the scroungers and loafers and wasters?

People in full time employment can’t find or afford housing.

Say it again and again until it settles into your brain

Have you stats to show they are in full time employment?

The reply was to someone suggesting the majority aren’t spongers.

20% really isn’t a high number and they will get somewhere eventually.

There is no huge issue.

The state is supporting them until they can get a place, which is what is happening.

I don’t see any major problem here.