Should we stop building social housing?

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

GarIT wrote: »

The council's need to start acting on complaints. I've seen situations where the council received their 600th complaint about a tenant and agree to threaten them with eviction that they won't follow through for the 100th time in the hopes this time it will get them to change.

5 complaints from at lease 3 different households in the immediate vicinity should be enough to get a council tenant evicted with no more questions asked.

I agree with your sentiments except for the "no more questions asked." Definitely ask questions. You wouldn't want 3 neighbours ganging up on another neightbour and having someone forcefully evicted on bogus claims because they complained about the litter on the street or something.

GarIT

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I agree with your sentiments except for the "no more questions asked." Definitely ask questions. You wouldn't want 3 neighbours ganging up on another neightbour and having someone forcefully evicted on bogus claims because they complained about the litter on the street or something.

I was debating that in my head. But it's very difficult to prove many types of complaints about a neighbor. I don't think the neighbours should be asked to prove their complaint because then we will be back to where we are with nobody getting evicted. That's why I settled on 5 complaints across at least 3 households to minimize someone ganging up on them.

RocketRaccoon

the beer revolu wrote: »

What is you point?
Are you advocating extermination of these people?
If not, where do they go if not in social housing?
Are you OK with increasing the amount of people living on the streets?
I'm not, but for selfish reasons. It makes the streets less safe and less pleasant.

If they do anything valuable for society then by all means house them. If not.... Meh.

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

wtf?



Us - as in the rest of society, Government etc.
Of course I'm concerned what happens people after that. Do you think we should just let people live on the streets if they break certain rules of social housing tenancy? You could have 1000s of families roaming the streets.
If you said more hands on social work dedicated to problematic families it might sound like a realistic attempt at a solution.

Social workers are professional hand ringers

Start throwing feral scum out on the street and the majority will quickly cop on

As for " society"

That word in this country stands for whatever the Liberal intelegensia believe should happen, policy architects don't care what most people think

Mad_maxx

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Dya know what drives me insane? There's a new estate going up in my town, 30+ houses which will be given to people on a waiting list. The vast majority of these people are scum who have never worked a day in their lives.

Meanwhile myself and my wife are both working full time with 3 kids, paying extortionate rent which ensure we can't save for a deposit. Where is the fairness in this type of situation?

Have you driven through tuam lately, few dozen brand new A rated houses being constructed exclusively for tinkers.

Mad_maxx

the beer revolu wrote: »

It's not my liberal bleeding heat that's concerned for these people. I'm concerned for society.
I'll ask you again, do you want these people living in a tent on your street?
If not where do you suggest they go?
They have to go somewhere.

Couldn't give a toss where they go, this is about anti social public housing tenants who not merely content with facing no consequences for not paying their rent, they then with fearless endeavour, make life miserable for their communities

RocketRaccoon

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Have you driven through tuam lately, few dozen brand new A rated houses being constructed exclusively for tinkers.

Hopefully with plenty of room for their horses....... What a load of ****e

the beer revolu

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Couldn't give a toss where they go, this is about anti social public housing tenants who not merely content with facing no consequences for not paying their rent, they then with fearless endeavour, make life miserable for their communities

Right.
Head in the sand.
Whether you care where they go or not, they will go somewhere. Somewhere where they will probably cause a lot more social problems for a lot more people. Problem now worse.

Fiftyfilthy

T

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

You still haven't told us what to do with these people!

Bullet to the back of the head

Thelonious Monk

Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

T



Bullet to the back of the head

So no suggestions then

RocketRaccoon

the beer revolu wrote: »

Right.
Head in the sand.
Whether you care where they go or not, they will go somewhere. Somewhere where they will probably cause a lot more social problems for a lot more people. Problem now worse.

Or maybe they will grow up, stop sponging off the state, get even a minimum wage job and cop the **** on and live like an actual regular human?

the beer revolu

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Or maybe they will grow up, stop sponging off the state, get even a minimum wage job and cop the **** on and live like an actual regular human?

You see that happening?
Really?
I don't.

Potential-Monke

I'm 100% on the side of turfing out the family for any reason which breaches their contract. Kids? Put them into care, as obviously the parent(s) don't care about their welfare if they're not bothered to keep paying rent/place reasonably clean. But I also see the problems this could cause with homelessness. However, I've seen the current trend of leaving them there and it doesn't appear to be working. So why not at least give turfing them out a try? Can't get that much worse if media is to be believed.

And I'm also on the side of not being happy that people who don't contribute get free houses. I had a mortgage, I sold my house and took negative equity when I could no longer afford it. Now it doesn't look like I'll ever be able to get another house to call 'my own', or possibly even be able to rent one. But because I'm a single male with no dependants earning €30k I'm not entitled to any help whatsoever. Of course i'm bitter.

Leg End Reject

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

And be near mammy.

Feisar

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.

Hard to argue with that logic!

RocketRaccoon

the beer revolu wrote: »

You see that happening?
Really?
I don't.

So turf them out to the street and maybe that will cop them on a bit.

This nanny state is a disgrace, why would most of them want to work?

What incentive is there for the average scumbag in the council house to work?

ILoveYourVibes

Balanadan wrote: »

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

Yeah kick the president out of that mansion! :mad:


Or be fair and give us all mansions!

I mean if we built LOTS of mansions the place would look much nicer!

beggars_bush

If you receive dole, rent should be deducted directly

ILoveYourVibes

beggars_bush wrote: »

If you receive dole, rent should be deducted directly

You are making a huge incorrect assumption about people who live in social housing.

Guy:Incognito

the beer revolu wrote: »

OK, so you don't know where to put these people?

In council accommodation outside cities and big towns. If they are not going to work then they shouldnt be taking up houses that working people need near jobs.

Mad_maxx

the beer revolu wrote: »

Right.
Head in the sand.
Whether you care where they go or not, they will go somewhere. Somewhere where they will probably cause a lot more social problems for a lot more people. Problem now worse.

You believe in appeasement, I say turf them out, plenty of people who will be grateful to get a house

As for the delinquents and what they get up to post eviction, tougher policing.

We must do better, current policies are creating a rot in our culture

Thelonious Monk

Mad_maxx wrote: »

You believe in appeasement, I say turf them out, plenty of people who will be grateful to get a house

As for the delinquents and what they get up to post eviction, tougher policing.

We must do better, current policies are creating a rot in our culture

But then they'll just be having lots of kids in even worse conditions creating lots more even bigger scumbags with even less opportunities. I'm not a fan of people getting free houses in cities but I can't really see any realistic solution apart from trying to help people be better members of society and isolating them to sink estates in the middle of nowhere or fecking them out on the streets just isn't going to work either.

Fiftyfilthy

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You are making a huge incorrect assumption about people who live in social housing.

Oh yeah, majority work only 20 hrs a week so it doesn’t effect ‘ me entitlements’

Or work as ‘carers’ As if that’s a real job

liatroimabu

Would be interesting to see the change in homeless figures in Dublin city if the families that are in hotels and such were willing to leave Dublin.

There are a certain amount (not enough) of affordable housing around the country but some of these people refuse to leave Dublin.

Why should the rest of the country nearly be forced to move to Dublin or work in Dublin for a livelihood but those that are already there feel some entitlement to state-aid in the form of housing so they can stay close to friends and family?

end of the road

NSAman wrote: »

Yes there is a need for social housing, not everyone has the ability to earn enough to keep themselves in the current economy.

BUT! This should not be a house for life. It should be a stepping stone to get you on the path to independence.

Self reliance is something that everyone should strive for. Putting yourself on the council listing immediately when you are young should be discouraged.

Families should be given a number of years to save and earn and this should be in the contract, there is nothing like knowing you have a definite amount of time to achieve something and making that happen.

Anti-social behaviour means loss of house, drug dealing means loss of house, make people responsible for the house, after all, if it your own home you have to pay to maintain it. Pride in ownership leads to less of the items mentioned prior to this.

Not paying rent is not taking responsibility for your own actions, there are rarely any excuses for this. If you are in the private sector rental you would be kicked out (especially where I live).

Not everyone has the ability to take responsibility for themselves. That is why we have social workers and other state employees who monitor individuals. If help IS needed then it should be available.

One thing that absolutely grinds my gears are those that CHOOSE not to work. (I know some will attack me for saying that I mean ALL social housing recipients when in fact I do not). Laziness should never be rewarded. There are some who choose not to work, yes I have met them and know them (as I am sure many others have). Someone able but not willing to work, should never be given things that others have to work for.

People should really be given every opportunity and assistance to make their own lives better and be given a leg up. Social housing is just one aspect of this.

much of that is idealistic and unworkable. there are always going to be people who will never earn enough to save for a mortgage. we know what happened when mortgages were given to people who ultimately couldn't afford them and we must not go down that road again.
making people in social housing fully responsible for a house they don't own is quite rightly a non-runner. they are responsible for basic things as is perfectly reasonable but heavy maintenance is the responsibility of the land lord as is quite right. comparing social housing to someone who is going to own a house currently owned by the bank if they pay back their bank loan on time doesn't really make any sense.

ILoveYourVibes

If we stop building social housing the building industry is ****ed also no HUGE contracts for developers either.

end of the road

Fiftyfilthy wrote: »

Oh yeah, majority work only 20 hrs a week so it doesn’t effect ‘ me entitlements’

Or work as ‘carers’ As if that’s a real job

being a carer is a real job yes . 1 which saves the state quite a lot of money i believe. yes there will be some abusing that but they do not take away from the genuine carers who do a fantastic job.

liatroimabu wrote: »

Would be interesting to see the change in homeless figures in Dublin city if the families that are in hotels and such were willing to leave Dublin.

There are a certain amount (not enough) of affordable housing around the country but some of these people refuse to leave Dublin.

Why should the rest of the country nearly be forced to move to Dublin or work in Dublin for a livelihood but those that are already there feel some entitlement to state-aid in the form of housing so they can stay close to friends and family?

because dublin is where the opportunities, resources and more are hence employers wish to set up there rather then the small towns. people then choose to go there to work.
those on the housing list in dublin belong to dublin and it is dublin's job to house them, not somewhere else who already have their own needing housing. + increased population in areas mean having to bump up resources which it is likely the government aren't going to spend the money on doing, hence we end up with the fallout similar to the council estates and tower blocks.

Sheeps

Ironically if we actually built social housing (which we dont), there'd be less competition in the private housing market, and house prices would come down.

ILoveYourVibes

Sheeps wrote: »

Ironically if we actually built social housing (which we dont), there'd be less competition in the private housing market, and house prices would come down.

That is part of the mechanism in places like Germany.


Maybe some people don't want the prices down.

Cee-Jay-Cee

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.

Not here. It’s a very costly and mostly ineffective exercise here (as it’s everything else related to the State) They go through all the costly actions of having to get someone evicted and then are obliged to house them afterwards. In most cases it’s cheaper to just let them stay where they are.