Should we stop building social housing?

Balanadan

Why do some working people get free houses and others don't?

kneemos

Nobody gets a free house.

Lady Spangles

As the poster above me said: no one gets a free house. And, if we stop building social housing, homelessness will skyrocket. Entire families consigned to the streets.

biko

Who told you this OP? Some fella down the pub?

hatrickpatrick

As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.

Gatling

kneemos wrote: »

Nobody gets a free house.

90 million in unpaid rents and arrears in social housing at present seems obvious people are getting free housing and can't or won't ever be evicted

Yer Da sells Avon

No, we should build more social housing - enough to ensure that any working person can afford to live a reasonable distance from where they work.

Schwanz

More of course, it does more good in the long run for our country than the opposite.

Del2005

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.

They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

Franz Von Peppercorn II

Gatling wrote: »

90 million in unpaid rents and arrears in social housing at present seems obvious people are getting free housing and can't or won't ever be evicted

We should deal with that too.

Lady Spangles

Gatling wrote: »

90 million in unpaid rents and arrears in social housing at present seems obvious people are getting free housing and can't or won't ever be evicted

That's not a free house though, is it? They're obligated to pay rent and breaching their tenancy by not doing so. I'll admit I'm not sure how it works in the Republic of Ireland, but in the North (and the rest of the UK) tenants are certainly evicted for not paying their rent. Furthermore, if they're evicted for not paying rent on a council property, they're classified as "voluntarily homeless" and not eligible for any further help from the Housing Executive.

_blaaz

Del2005 wrote: »

They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

Hardly much more misery than raising.families in hotel rooms,moving around every week or two?



However bad them social housing estates were,whats going on now isnt sustainable

Arghus

This thread is going to be full of nuanced arguments.

Leg End Reject

I've no problem with social housing and there is a need for it. I think social housing in cities or areas with high demand should only be offered to working families.

The long term unemployed dont be to a 5 min luas ride from Dublin city.

Richard Hillman

The reason why they stopped was because they were becoming sink estates with very high levels of crime. And this is also the reason why people didn't want these estates built beside their own.

If they actually enforced law and order and evicted problem families, they would work again.

hatrickpatrick

Del2005 wrote: »

They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

That was when most average people could afford to rent or buy a home on the private market, and social housing blocks were only for the seriously disadvantaged. That isn't the case anymore - most young people are unable to afford current rents as things stand, without making totally unacceptable sacrifices in other areas of their lives. As far as the quality of the homes themselves, I've toured many of them on Open House Days and while I agree that they have their flaws, they're a massive improvement on living on the streets or forking out €1,300 per month for a tiny bedroom with a kitchen shared between 40 people.

NoteAgent

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.

Misery has been caused by government intervention. If taxes were lowered, this would incentivise more building of houses and thus fix the supply problem.

Every government quango thats been set up to deal with something like this has been a complete and utter failure. The beauty of capitalism in this scenario is that there is a huge demand for houses. Just leave the private builders to it, lower taxes, lower regulation, etc and the houses will be built, house prices will drop due to increase in supply and the market should come back to equilibrium

eviltwin

Social housing isn't just for people on the dole, it's for anyone unable to afford housing at market rates which is a lot of working people too.

Gatling

Lady Spangles wrote: »

That's not a free house though, is it? They're obligated to pay rent and breaching their tenancy by not doing so. I'll admit I'm not sure how it works in the Republic of Ireland, but in the North (and the rest of the UK) tenants are certainly evicted for not paying their rent. Furthermore, if they're evicted for not paying rent on a council property, they're classified as "voluntarily homeless" and not eligible for any further help from the Housing Executive.

Unfortunately down here it's the complete opposite local authorities won't make people homeless regardless how much you owe ,
You have more chance of getting evicted if you deal drugs but even that's a stretch .

The housing boards like cluid , circle ,tuath and a few others will evict for non payment of rents but that tenant will then have to housed by the local council .

90 million is crazy considering how little rents they charge
My local authority is owed 8 million alone

Realtai

Balanadan wrote: »

Why do some working people get free houses and others don't?

To be fair, I was told that Wexford County Council is currently giving out houses to those who are working, instead of the ones on the council list who are in dire straits and have been on the list for years. Maybe the OP heard similar? I am not surprised if that is the case, they will get more rent off them. As well as that, there is a little bit of nepotism and "scratch my back, and I will scratch yours" going on there.

However, once you pay your rent..its not free!

The homeless association (I forget which one) said Wexford County Council were the worst council they had to deal with.

Tony EH

There should be more social housing built.

Guy:Incognito

kneemos wrote: »

Nobody gets a free house.

If your landlord gives you money each week for not working but takes a small bit of it back as rent, that's not you paying rent imo.

Roger_007

Tony EH wrote: »

There should be more social housing built.

There should always be an adequate supply of social housing. Unfortunately the term 'social housing' has become synonymous with ghettos to house people who want everything in life to be provided for them for free.
Social housing should be housing provided to people whose means do not allow them to buy or rent houses on the open market. That said, it is important that agreed and fair rents are paid and evictions should ensue if they are not.
There should be no sell-offs of social housing at knock-down prices to any tenant irrespective of how long they may have occupied the property. Properties should only be sold at full market value if they are to be sold at all.

Graces7

Lady Spangles wrote: »

That's not a free house though, is it? They're obligated to pay rent and breaching their tenancy by not doing so. I'll admit I'm not sure how it works in the Republic of Ireland, but in the North (and the rest of the UK) tenants are certainly evicted for not paying their rent. Furthermore, if they're evicted for not paying rent on a council property, they're classified as "voluntarily homeless" and not eligible for any further help from the Housing Executive.

excellent series available on youtube re council housing in the UK. The fact you mention is emphasised in every programme. From private rental evictions more than council.

But if there are children, the family will be found emergency accommodation by the council immediately.

Annasopra

Del2005 wrote: »

They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

What do you suggest then?

Thelonious Monk

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The reason why they stopped was because they were becoming sink estates with very high levels of crime. And this is also the reason why people didn't want these estates built beside their own.

If they actually enforced law and order and evicted problem families, they would work again.

Evicted them to where though?

Annasopra

NoteAgent wrote: »

Misery has been caused by government intervention. If taxes were lowered, this would incentivise more building of houses and thus fix the supply problem.

Thats a complete con job. If taxes are lowered then public services get lowered and the taxpayer ends up paying MORE for public services.

If taxes were lowered

Kermit.de.frog

OP we should certainly NOT be supplying housing for those who simply refuse to work or are involved in criminality.

The issue is not social housing so much as who gets the housing imo.

For example do I want a working family who can't afford a house to get one? - YES. Do I want a Margaret Cash and her brood to get one? - NO.

Needs to be given to those who make the effort, not welfare queens or kings.

kneemos

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If your landlord gives you money each week for not working but takes a small bit of it back as rent, that's not you paying rent imo.

It's also not your house.

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

Social housing isn't just for people on the dole, it's for anyone unable to afford housing at market rates which is a lot of working people too.

It's absolutely not. When I was unemployed I was told I couldn't go on the housing list because I was a single male living with my parent (who was struggling to pay for their house). Now I'm earning too little to afford rent in Dublin but too much to be eligible to be on the housing list. So I commute an hour and 15 mins each way.

suicide_circus

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The long term unemployed dont be to a 5 min luas ride from Dublin city.

why someone who has never worked a day in their lives gets the luxury of living in areas most working people could never live in is a mystery to me

Trigger Happy

Social housing is needed for those who need assistance with the cost of accommodation.

Not for those who expect it and are unwilling to help themselves.

Kermit.de.frog

Leg End Reject wrote: »

The long term unemployed dont be to a 5 min luas ride from Dublin city.

They have to get to the four courts/children's court and drug clinics though? That's what the red line was built for.

99problems1

Why are they getting NEW houses? Why don't they buy second hand houses and put them in there?

lola85

It’s bonkers.

Never ever should people who are not working be given a NEW house for 40 euro a week in the area of their choice when working people have to buy and commute an hour away from where they would like because they can’t afford it.

Absolute BONKERS!!!

Unfortunately a monster has been created and it can’t be stopped now.

Oh by the way if you’re receiving money for doing nothing as the journal.ie today has shown that there is many people and using a tiny amount to pay your rent then sorry but that house is free.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Social housing is needed, that's the society we live in. However, I don't think social housing should take up prime real estate. Those who are unemployed, long term, should not be housed in areas where working people could benefit from. I also don't think it's a good idea to build social housing estates. Some conflicting opinions in there, which I don't have the answers for.

I don't know anything about city planning or anything like that, but I do know that it is incredibly unfair for workers to be forced to commute 60 - 90 minutes while the unemployed are living in the center of the city.

99problems1

A house is the biggest cost to someone in their lifetime.

I could live like a king if I only had to pay 500 quid a year for a new house. It's as good as free.

Kermit.de.frog

99problems1 wrote: »

I could live like a king if I only had to pay 500 quid a year for a new house. It's as good as free.

That's the country we live in unfortunately.

El_Bee

If you live in a house where the rent is paid through HAP or social welfare, then how is it not free? the cost to you is zero.

eviltwin

GarIT wrote: »

It's absolutely not. When I was unemployed I was told I couldn't go on the housing list because I was a single male living with my parent (who was struggling to pay for their house). Now I'm earning too little to afford rent in Dublin but too much to be eligible to be on the housing list. So I commute an hour and 15 mins each way.

I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.

Paulzx

eviltwin wrote: »

I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.

..............and priority for social housing should be focused on those people who work but will never afford or qualify for a mortgage. There's thousands of people who work long hours for minimum wage and make a contribution to society. All brand new social houses should be targeted at these type of people. They will pay rent and also bring their families up in an environment where work and having a job is expected.

People who have never worked a day in their lives should be at the bottom of the pile for housing

The One Doctor

99problems1 wrote: »

A house is the biggest cost to someone in their lifetime.

I could live like a king if I only had to pay 500 quid a year for a new house. It's as good as free.

Nobody pays that for social housing. The absolute minimum payment is €32.50 per week. Bills are the tenant's responsibility.

Another Journal.ie/Indo shill. Expect to see an article shortly.

Tony EH

Roger_007 wrote: »

There should always be an adequate supply of social housing. Unfortunately the term 'social housing' has become synonymous with ghettos to house people who want everything in life to be provided for them for free.

Only with morons.

The vast majority of people who are in or have been in social housing don't fit that bill.

Thelonious Monk

The thing is what can we actually do with the likes of Ms Cash? Weve no choice but to house them. The only real way to stop people like her existing is through education and better social services and that wont be happening any time soon.

Tony EH

99problems1 wrote: »

A house is the biggest cost to someone in their lifetime.

But, it absolutely should NOT be what it costs today. Housing "markets" have been allowed to get completely out of control in this neo-lib boom and bust bogus type of "economy".

Nobody should be hocked into an incredible level of debt for the majority of their lives just to put a modest roof over their heads. A debt that a huge number of people will struggle to finance and no modest three up two down should cost a half a million Euro.

We are heading for a really serious problem, when all of the 30 something mortgage holders now who are struggling to pay for their house find that it's impossible later in life because they can't find work due to their age.

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that social housing is available to anyone unable to afford housing. It is available to some people, particularly those with children. And there is a gap in Dublin between earning to much to be eligible for social housing and earning too little to afford rent.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/settled-residents-should-lose-right-to-object-to-traveller-accommodation-experts-say

Hopefully this will see more social housing for travellers too lol

GarIT

Paulzx wrote: »

..............and priority for social housing should be focused on those people who work but will never afford or qualify for a mortgage. There's thousands of people who work long hours for minimum wage and make a contribution to society. All brand new social houses should be targeted at these type of people. They will pay rent and also bring their families up in an environment where work and having a job is expected.

People who have never worked a day in their lives should be at the bottom of the pile for housing

I was just thiniking that number of weeks PRSI paid in your whole life should be added onto the "time on the waiting list" factor.

Sweet.Science

nly mugs pay rent in a council house

It is more certainly free

Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional

Balanadan

biko wrote: »

Who told you this OP? Some fella down the pub?

A man in the street told me actually, m8.

Guy:Incognito

eviltwin wrote: »

I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.

Yes and if you're a working couple with kids earning over 36k (between you) you dont qualify.


Youd be doing well to get much of a house for about 100k.