Whatever happened to the housing crisis ?

end of the road

Kivaro wrote: »

The vitriol from one poster on this thread is unnecessary and generally it is seen as just a deflection mechanism. Using words like "sneery right-wing, scumbaggery, right wingers on a rager etc." and then attempting to degrade posters because they disagree with his comments is not conducive to a healthy discussion.

the poster you refer to is 100% correct when he makes those comments and statements. it's the perfect description of certain individuals and their views which don't tally with reality.

Kivaro wrote: »

His claim of less than 1% of the people on the housing list or who get social housing are playing the system is bewildering.

how so.
playing the system is engaging in actual rule breaking.

Kivaro wrote: »

The Dublin housing authorities tells us that 20% of the people on their lists are from outside the EU. The Families from outside the EU were flying into Ireland and declaring homelessness, and then getting emergency housing in hotels and put on the housing list as a priority.

no they weren't as that isn't possible.
it is not possible to just rock up from wherever and claim homelessness.
being from outside the EU, coming here and engaging with a government agency and following the various rules, and being housed within the rules is not playing the system.

Kivaro wrote: »

The We also have the situation of the very high percentage of Travelers who are claiming disability and their spouses getting paid as carers with the overwhelming majority of them getting free homes. Remember the new huge detached houses in Tipperary that Travelers refused because stables were not included?

i don't see employers rushing out to employ them so i'm not sure what you are expecting to be done here.

Kivaro wrote: »

The A front line emergency worker posted on here about the high rents and the lack of affordability. These are the people that the main focus should be on. Working people who are charged unaffordable high rents should be helped. The pandemic will ease the high rent issue somewhat, but the Government focus should be on availability of affordable homes for workers, students, carers, and other contributing members of society. The fail-safes are already there for the genuinely vulnerable; it's just that the likes of RTE and the Irish Times needed a front page story for the last year and they got it with pictures of Traveler families in Garda stations or others in tents, but now with this worldwide pandemic there is something with real importance that has overtaken the 10,000 "homeless".

the main focus is on working people. always has been. the do nothing brigade still want us to do nothing.
rte reports the facts of what is going on, the fact that it isn't your little propaganda machine for your views is just something you are going to have to get over, it's not going to happen for you so you will need to set up your own little propaganda machine.

Wanderer78

Huntergonzo wrote: »

There is a shortage of houses and there are homeless people out there. Call it a crisis if it suits you, but again crisis is a media term used to grab headlines and when they're done flogging the housing 'crisis', they'll have a few more 'crisis' headlines lined up for you, that's how the media works.

Now some people are unfortunate to be homeless no question but others are to blame themselves, that's a harsh reality. Like I said people turn down social houses for all sorts of ridiculous reasons and then they remain part of the stats and also slow down the housing of other people who often have a more genuine need.

The demand for social housing is huge, again there is no silver bullet solution for this issue no matter what any politician says. It takes time and huge investment to deliver houses (which I completely understand can be frustrating), but in the mean time people should be more responsible and not exacerbate the issue by having 4 or 5 etc children that they can't provide for.

it takes over 10 years, to only build a fraction of the houses needed?

Huntergonzo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

it takes over 10 years, to only build a fraction of the houses needed?

Apparently so.

I'm not saying we couldn't be doing better by the way, but we were in a very deep financial hole for the best part of the last decade as well don't forget.

Houses don't mushroom up overnight and don't take a chance on any houses that do!!!

Wanderer78

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Apparently so.

I'm not saying we couldn't be doing better by the way, but we were in a very deep financial hole for the best part of the last decade as well don't forget.

Houses don't mushroom up overnight and don't take a chance on any houses that do!!!

ah dont mind that financial hole nonsense, we have to eventually stand up and acknowledge our financial sector is more or less a parasite, whos main aim is to in-debt us, particularly in regards housing, the bail outs were really just a scam from the fcuk ups from the same financial sector, moving our monetary systems over to a more credit based system, is failing, and yes, thats the financial sector again, and money does fcuking grow on trees within our, again, beloved financial sector!

it doesnt take 10 years to build fcuking houses!!!!!!!

Huntergonzo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ah dont mind that financial hole nonsense, we have to eventually stand up and acknowledge our financial sector is more or less a parasite, whos main aim is to in-debt us, particularly in regards housing, the bail outs were really just a scam from the fcuk ups from the same financial sector, moving our monetary systems over to a more credit based system, is failing, and yes, thats the financial sector again, and money does fcuking grow on trees within our, again, beloved financial sector!

it doesnt take 10 years to build fcuking houses!!!!!!!

I know it doesn't take 10 years to build a house, couple of months should do the trick and we are building houses, just not enough to meet demand and we need to do better in this regard.

I'm sensing a lot of hatred for the financial sector and undoubtedly a lot of crinimal activity went on and still goes on there. But unless you have an alternative solution to the trading and lending of money for goods and services I'm afraid we're always going to have a financial sector.

As a matter of interest how many houses do you propose we build over the next 5 years? Who should build them? And how will we finance (there's that trigger word again) them?

Kivaro

Someone asked about the non-EU stat earlier:
"SOME 21% OF new families presenting as homeless in Dublin last year were non-EU citizens, according to a new report."
The report was The Homeless Action Plan and it was commissioned by Dublin City Council.
These people were then provided with lodging, at the expense of the Irish tax payer.

34% of people on Dublin's city housing list were from outside of Ireland.
Like it or not, immigration does play a part on issues with housing.

I see we have a poster singing the praises of RTE once again, but then again he said that none of their massive salaries should be reduced during a time of not only a national pandemic, but a deadly worldwide one. How many people in this country are out of work now due to Covid-19?

Originally Posted by end of the road
it's not the job of rte or any other staff to take pay cuts in solidarity with anyone.

end of the road

Kivaro wrote: »

I see we have a poster singing the praises of RTE once again, but then again he said that none of their massive salaries should be reduced during a time of not only a national pandemic, but a deadly worldwide one. How many people in this country are out of work now due to Covid-19?

rte get lots wrong but their current affairs and news output is generally reliable, accurate and good.
not sure what it has to do with housing though.

efanton

I really can't understand those posting here complaining that there is too much demand on the housing system, people are 'gaming' the system and the media is being used by some to 'jump' the queue.
No doubt most of those posting these types of comments vote for FG or FF or would not consider themselves supporters of the 'left of centre' parties.

There is absolutely no doubt that rules are being abused, that media is used to gain advantage for certain individuals, and that there is a totally inadequate supply of social housing. But the reality is those abusing the system and making the headlines are but a very small fraction of those on the housing list.

What I find astounding is that its the parties that represent those posting these view are the parties that have been in government for the last 20 years. If rules are being manipulated why haven't the rules been tightened up or modified to prevent abuse. Why is it that a single story in the media can elicit an almost instant response from government and housing authorities if that was not the FG or FF governments reacting and flexing the rules so that a 'problem' would disappear because they are more interested in their media appearance than actually governing and applying rules fairly?
Why is it that housing appears to be prioritised for certain segments of the population when the rules should be applied equally and fairly to all?

The truth is not what those positing these comments want to hear.
The parties that allegedly represent them are the ones that have the power to enforce or modify the rules but refuse to do so. They are also the ones that are so concerned about their 'media appearance' that they will allow themselves to be manipulated by someone on the housing list who will use the media to their own unfair advantage.
Instead of pointing at the problem, the rules that housing authorities use and how they are implemented, they then seek to blame this on parties or their supporters that were never in government.

The problem does not emanate from the left of centre parties, nor does it emanate from those who appear to be abusing the system. It is solely down to the the government of the day or those parties that control local authorities.

Surely instead of blaming the people or parties that have no control of the rules pressure should be put on government by their own party members or supporter to change the rules or the way they are implemented.
If a ministers suddenly magics up a 3 bed house for likes of Margaret Cash, its not her who is to blame it is those that abused their power or the rules to suddenly magic her into top spot on the housing list. If ministers and government can be so easily manipulated then surely its not unreasonable to lay the blame squarely at them. Why did they not stick to the rules and make the likes of Margaret Cash wait their turn like everyone else on the housing list.
If there is insufficient housing then why blame it on parties that were never in government and had no control of the rules. If those parties ceased to exist does anyone truly believe that the demands for housing would go away? Of course they wouldn't.

The fault can only lie with government or those responsible for implementing the rules, and the fault can only be addressed by government by either adjusting the rules or ensuring the rules are administered in a fair way.

Huntergonzo

efanton wrote: »

I really can't understand those posting here complaining that there is too much demand on the housing system, people are 'gaming' the system and the media is being used by some to 'jump' the queue.
No doubt most of those posting these types of comments vote for FG or FF or would not consider themselves supporters of the 'left of centre' parties.

There is absolutely no doubt that rules are being abused, that media is used to gain advantage for certain individuals, and that there is a totally inadequate supply of social housing. But the reality is those abusing the system and making the headlines are but a very small fraction of those on the housing list.

What I find astounding is that its the parties that represent those posting these view are the parties that have been in government for the last 20 years. If rules are being manipulated why haven't the rules been tightened up or modified to prevent abuse. Why is it that a single story in the media can elicit an almost instant response from government and housing authorities if that was not the FG or FF governments reacting and flexing the rules so that a 'problem' would disappear because they are more interested in their media appearance than actually governing and applying rules fairly?
Why is it that housing appears to be prioritised for certain segments of the population when the rules should be applied equally and fairly to all?

The truth is not what those positing these comments want to hear.
The parties that allegedly represent them are the ones that have the power to enforce or modify the rules but refuse to do so. They are also the ones that are so concerned about their 'media appearance' that they will allow themselves to be manipulated by someone on the housing list who will use the media to their own unfair advantage.
Instead of pointing at the problem, the rules that housing authorities use and how they are implemented, they then seek to blame this on parties or their supporters that were never in government.

The problem does not emanate from the left of centre parties, nor does it emanate from those who appear to be abusing the system. It is solely down to the the government of the day or those parties that control local authorities.

Surely instead of blaming the people or parties that have no control of the rules pressure should be put on government by their own party members or supporter to change the rules or the way they are implemented.
If a ministers suddenly magics up a 3 bed house for likes of Margaret Cash, its not her who is to blame it is those that abused their power or the rules to suddenly magic her into top spot on the housing list. If ministers and government can be so easily manipulated then surely its not unreasonable to lay the blame squarely at them. Why did they not stick to the rules and make the likes of Margaret Cash wait their turn like everyone else on the housing list.
If there is insufficient housing then why blame it on parties that were never in government and had no control of the rules. If those parties ceased to exist does anyone truly believe that the demands for housing would go away? Of course they wouldn't.

The fault can only lie with government or those responsible for implementing the rules, and the fault can only be addressed by government by either adjusting the rules or ensuring the rules are administered in a fair way.

Walks, talks and sounds like a left wing politcial statement that, could have come straight from an AAA/PBP or SF playbook.

You seem to know who 'represents' those with opposing views, who represents you as a matter of interest?

Anyway as stated here before the housing shortage was caused by many different factors, not just the government or Margaret Cash, but they all have their part to play.

People like Margaret Cash may not represent the majority of people on waiting lists but they're not as rare as you're trying to make out either and I know this first hand through places I've worked. Also some people do have children to speed up the process of getting a house, now maybe that's not a PC thing to say, but it is a harsh reality that you won't hear too many politicians speaking about it.

Undoubtedly though we do need to do better in the delivery of houses, that I would not deny, I just don't think it's a quick fix.

What are your suggestions in this regard? Who should build them? And where would we get the extra money?

jimmyrustle

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha be nice to have a few French doors alright, should come as standard :-)

Another one we had recently was a family turning down a 3 bed council house because it was 'in a council estate', how about that. They wanted a nice big Part V in a private estate which wasn't on offer.

May I ask, what your role is in housing allocation exactly?

Assuming you work for a council, I want to ask you this. Is there any sort of pressure put on staff to treat Romas and former asylum seekers as priority cases? Or, more in general, are people who have zero family supports in this country given an advantageous position (which would by default bump these people up the list)

Is it possible in any circumstance for a Roma to arrive in Ireland, push out a kid or two, and obtain a right to state assisted housing without she or her spouse having any consistent work history in Ireland?

For one example, there's an estate in D15, social housing, it's the new development beside Parslickstown and Wellview, Avondale,, and any time I've been there the majority of people walking around appear to be non national. Are non nationals easier to house because they object to their offers less? Is there a policy of housing them in newer developments to avoid conflicts with people in existing estates that have a rough reputation? (you would see much fewer non nationals when driving through the long established estates- Ladyswell, Corduff, Fortlawn etc etc). Or is it because it was the only new social development in D15 and some people from Fortlawn and Whitestown thought it was too far from me maaassss.

Like, thinking of D15, to my knowledge there was barely a council house built between the 80's and 2012 or so save for a handful in Castlecurragh. Recycling the existing ones seemed to do the trick for all that time.

maccored

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Walks, talks and sounds like a left wing politcial statement that, could have come straight from an AAA/PBP or SF playbook.

when someone starts a reply like that then they've already discredited themselves

Idbatterim

what disgusts me is, they all have their "rights" the long term wasters, the ones who just rock up. And the struggling working man or woman, well they cant possibly be vulnerable, sure they are working arent they? :rolleyes:

its a banana republic! If the **** hits the fan here again, FG should do , what they should have done last time round, use this as an opportunity to rectify the idiotic set up. No more free gp visits for some, while other poor, pay E60. Every one pays at least twenty! The xmas welfare bonus is gone! Implement a council tax , every adult pays it! review local authority "rents" :rolleyes:

Use the several billion switch , to get the working poor and middle earners off the breadline!

Fred Cryton

I think we need to teach the millennials and the welfare classes the age old values of saving, sacrificing, earning and bettering yourself. The lefty politicians certainly won't do that. The great problem with the left as an ideology is they are incentivized to keep you poor and dependent so you'll keep voting for them. We need to make an aspirational society where hard work pays off and where lazy dependency is punished.

Fann Linn

Will all those 200k plus who are now on the dole get a foreva home?

efanton

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Walks, talks and sounds like a left wing politcial statement that, could have come straight from an AAA/PBP or SF playbook.

You seem to know who 'represents' those with opposing views, who represents you as a matter of interest?

Anyway as stated here before the housing shortage was caused by many different factors, not just the government or Margaret Cash, but they all have their part to play.

People like Margaret Cash may not represent the majority of people on waiting lists but they're not as rare as you're trying to make out either and I know this first hand through places I've worked. Also some people do have children to speed up the process of getting a house, now maybe that's not a PC thing to say, but it is a harsh reality that you won't hear too many politicians speaking about it.

Undoubtedly though we do need to do better in the delivery of houses, that I would not deny, I just don't think it's a quick fix.




What are your suggestions in this regard? Who should build them? And where would we get the extra money?

I'm not saying or making the assertion that the likes of Margaret Cash are a extremely rare occurrence. But her case certainly is not typical of most people on the housing list. Do we punish or blame the majority because a small minority appear to be abusing the system?

But tell me this, how did someone who obviously was not top of the housing list suddenly walk into a 3 bed home a week or so later?
How did that happen unless a minister or senior member of government made a phone call? Was that not wrong?

As far as being PC, as long as you dont not insult people, use racism or gender slurs, surely stating facts cannot be politically incorrect unless used in nefarious way.

As for political views what does that have to do with what I said?
Either a party represents the people that vote for them and their views, or they do not. If a government feels that the rules are not working the way that they should, they, and they alone, have the power to change them.

Were the rules there? were they adhered too? and were they implemented in a fair way that did not disadvantage others that were also on the housing list?

If the housing rules are unfair, change them. If people are abusing rules, punish them. If ministers, government members, councillors or those administrating the rules bypass them then surely they are part of the problem and that should be addressed. Apportioning blame to anyone else or any other party in situations where rules appear to be bypassed or ignored for political expediency is just plain wrong.

As for fixing the problem, yes I do believe that this country should commit itself to a massive home building program for both social housing and affordable housing so that those working can also afford to buy a home.
Last year the govern me spent 612 million renting private property for social housing use via the HAP scheme and another 170 million on emergency housing. THis year that cost will increase. Do you believe that spending nearly a billion euro in such a way is good value for money?

Over a 20 year period that will be approximately 20 billion euro spent and not a single brick to show for it. 20 billion is a damn sight more than any measure propsed by any political party. If you built 100,000 homes, depending on which party you support and amortised that cost it would cost the state no more than 250 million a year if you believe the SF view, or 500 to 600 million a year if you believe the FG view. Either way it would be far better value for money. Yet this government and previous governments have built less than 5000 homes each year.

Huntergonzo

jimmyrustle wrote: »

May I ask, what your role is in housing allocation exactly?

Assuming you work for a council, I want to ask you this. Is there any sort of pressure put on staff to treat Romas and former asylum seekers as priority cases? Or, more in general, are people who have zero family supports in this country given an advantageous position (which would by default bump these people up the list)

Is it possible in any circumstance for a Roma to arrive in Ireland, push out a kid or two, and obtain a right to state assisted housing without she or her spouse having any consistent work history in Ireland?

For one example, there's an estate in D15, social housing, it's the new development beside Parslickstown and Wellview, Avondale,, and any time I've been there the majority of people walking around appear to be non national. Are non nationals easier to house because they object to their offers less? Is there a policy of housing them in newer developments to avoid conflicts with people in existing estates that have a rough reputation? (you would see much fewer non nationals when driving through the long established estates- Ladyswell, Corduff, Fortlawn etc etc)

I've worked in the Housing department in 2 local authorities but never specifically in the allocations section. However I was lower level admin staff in both authorities at the time and as such I was required to man the housing counters and dealt extensively with the allocations sections in both places.

To answer your question directly no, there was no pressure to house anybody from any specific background or country as preference. Each application is handled individually and the council tries to house people based on time on the list and specific need as the 2 most important criteria.

But foreigners now make up a large minority of the people on waiting lists, and in places like Dublin you'll have a lot more non-nationals than down the country etc, so they will be more visible. Also once they have the right to live here, they can and do apply for social housing, whether they have consistent work or not.

As for where people are allocated houses, that's a nuanced matter and those decisions tend to be made at senior level. But by and large the councils and the department push for social integration not segregation and of course they try to accommodate people based upon their stated area of preference.

Having said that you'd be surpised with the unexpected issues which can arise. For example, certain cultures (not travellers) have a habit of filling up buckets of water and throwing it over themselves in the bath to wash. But if the bathroom is upstairs then the water often goes everywhere and eventually damages the ceiling below, which ends up being a recuring and costly problem.

So to alleviate this the council started to allocate these people bungalows. It seems ridiculous and no one saw this problem coming at the time but there you go.

Wanderer78

Fred Cryton wrote:

I think we need to teach the millennials and the welfare classes the age old values of saving, sacrificing, earning and bettering yourself. The lefty politicians certainly won't do that. The great problem with the left as an ideology is they are incentivized to keep you poor and dependent so you'll keep voting for them. We need to make an aspirational society where hard work pays off and where lazy dependency is punished.

So rapidly rising asset prices such as housing will be solved by saving and working harder?

end of the road

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Walks, talks and sounds like a left wing politcial statement that, could have come straight from an AAA/PBP or SF playbook.

no, it walks, talks and sounds like a factual statement, because it is

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You seem to know who 'represents' those with opposing views, who represents you as a matter of interest?

Anyway as stated here before the housing shortage was caused by many different factors, not just the government or Margaret Cash, but they all have their part to play.

People like Margaret Cash may not represent the majority of people on waiting lists but they're not as rare as you're trying to make out either and I know this first hand through places I've worked. Also some people do have children to speed up the process of getting a house, now maybe that's not a PC thing to say, but it is a harsh reality that you won't hear too many politicians speaking about it.

Undoubtedly though we do need to do better in the delivery of houses, that I would not deny, I just don't think it's a quick fix.

What are your suggestions in this regard? Who should build them? And where would we get the extra money?

politicians don't speak about it because there is nothing to speak about.
people who have a couple of children in the aim of getting a house quicker find out quite quickly it doesn't work out for them.
nothing to do with pc or any other guff.

Idbatterim wrote: »

what disgusts me is, they all have their "rights" the long term wasters, the ones who just rock up. And the struggling working man or woman, well they cant possibly be vulnerable, sure they are working arent they?

its a banana republic! If the **** hits the fan here again, FG should do , what they should have done last time round, use this as an opportunity to rectify the idiotic set up. No more free gp visits for some, while other poor, pay E60. Every one pays at least twenty! The xmas welfare bonus is gone! Implement a council tax , every adult pays it! review local authority "rents"

Use the several billion switch , to get the working poor and middle earners off the breadline!

weren't you an fg voter? you voted for this when you voted for them.
everyone pays 20 for a gp visit dispite the fact some could afford to pay more and others couldn't afford it at all. brilliant, great way to keep people who may need medical attention but who couldn't afford it out of the system or have them clog up a&e.
then on top of this we implement a council tax that isn't needed or required which would no doubt bring more hardship upon struggling workers and genuinely vulnerable, which would probably bring in little and go to nothing.
and this is all for what exactly? your taxes won't be reducing and any of the charges you keep looking for will go up and up and up, so how much are you willing to pay?

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

So rapidly rising asset prices such as housing will be solved by saving and working harder?

They will be more solved that way than by not saving and not working

end of the road

Fred Cryton wrote: »

I think we need to teach the millennials and the welfare classes the age old values of saving, sacrificing, earning and bettering yourself.

they are already aware of these values.
the millennials are not in a position to be able to do all but simply earn because of decades of bad policy which has insured a high cost of living.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The lefty politicians certainly won't do that. The great problem with the left as an ideology is they are incentivized to keep you poor and dependent so you'll keep voting for them.

so not much different to the right then really tbh.
at least the left for all of their faults do have some bit of a good record in terms of improving things for people.
i can't think of an example where actual right wing governments have improved things for the whole of their population. certainly a tiny part of it yes, the uk being a prime example.

Fred Cryton wrote: »

We need to make an aspirational society where hard work pays off and where lazy dependency is punished.

we already have the society where lazy dependency is punished. it's called never amounting to anything outside the situation they are in, and being at the mercy of the state.
that's more of a punishment then anything else you could implement.
the only way we will have a society where work pays is by reducing the cost of living, and that will mean various supports being available where required.

Wanderer78

ELM327 wrote:

They will be more solved that way than by not saving and not working

If you require most if not all of your current earnings to survive, paying most of it on rent, how do you save for a house?

If you have been long term unemployment, your employment options will be limited for life, mostly in low/minimum waged jobs, can a house be bought on such a wage, referring to the above statement.

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

If you require most if not all of your current earnings to survive, paying most of it on rent, how do you save for a house?

If you have been long term unemployment, your employment options will be limited for life, mostly in low/minimum waged jobs, can a house be bought on such a wage, referring to the above statement.

You need to cut your cloth.



People 20 years ago didnt rent privately, they lived at home until they had finished education and got a job, saved up living at home and then moved out when they got married.


Long term unemployment is another kettle of fish. If you are long term unemployed and rejoining workforce, you're not going to be able to stack shelves and live in an expensive area.

efanton

ELM327 wrote: »

They will be more solved that way than by not saving and not working

But that ignores the biggest problem. Most working couples simply do not qualify for a mortgage. If they cant buy a home they obviously they turn to social housing. Until this country adopts a system where tenancies are longer or more secure can you blame young couples from immediately turning to social housing as a solution to their housing needs if they already know they will never be in a position to get a mortgage.

The government doesn't help either. Nearly 45% of the cost of a new home goes back to the government in one form or another through VAT, stamp duty, connection fees and planning.
If the government is artificially increasing the cost of building a home through taxes and charges, is it not unreasonable to think that they should reduce the taxes on new builds, provide housing for those that cannot afford to buy homes or adjust tenancy laws so that those renting and have not missed payments have increased security of tenure and not faced with the fear that at the end of every years tenancy they will become homeless? Why would anyone in the right mind rent a private property in Ireland unless that had absolutely no other option. Again the government could address this by decreasing the taxes on rents. For most essential services or necessities that are required for even a minimal standard of living (food, electricity, fuel, medicines etc etc) they are charged at the lower VAT rate. Yet something as essential as a home whether bought or rented is charged at the 23% rate.

Huntergonzo

efanton wrote: »

I'm not saying or making the assertion that the likes of Margaret Cash are a extremely rare occurrence. But her case certainly is not typical of most people on the housing list. Do we punish or blame the majority because a small minority appear to be abusing the system?

Her specific case is unique but sure then isn't everybody's. Most people on the lists are probably fine, but there are a lot of aggressive, abusive people out there who have a strong sense of entitlement and little patience for waiting their turn and I know this because I've met them. I don't think it's correct to downplay this point, they are also part of the housing problem.

efanton wrote: »

But tell me this, how did someone who obviously was not top of the housing list suddenly walk into a 3 bed home a week or so later?
How did that happen unless a minister or senior member of government made a phone call? Was that not wrong?

These things do occasionally happen and they are completely wrong, I agree with you. But people fold under pressure, even those with the most iron will who are determined not to go against procedure wear down over time. Like I said before, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

efanton wrote: »

As far as being PC, as long as you dont not insult people, use racism or gender slurs, surely stating facts cannot be politically incorrect unless used in nefarious way.

Fair enough, I agree.

efanton wrote: »

As for political views what does that have to do with what I said?
Either a party represents the people that vote for them and their views, or they do not. If a government feels that the rules are not working the way that they should, they, and they alone, have the power to change them.

Were the rules there? were they adhered too? and were they implemented in a fair way that did not disadvantage others that were also on the housing list?

If the housing rules are unfair, change them. If people are abusing rules, punish them. If ministers, government members, councillors or those administrating the rules bypass them then surely they are part of the problem and that should be addressed. Apportioning blame to anyone else or any other party in situations where rules appear to be bypassed or ignored for political expediency is just plain wrong.

Look that all sounds good on paper and in an ideal world the rules would be fair and clear and those who obey them would be rewarded and those who broke them would be punished. But in practice things don't always work out that way.

I know of a specific person (a walking nightmare would be a better term) who turned down 3 social houses and was briefly banned off the list for a period of time. However unburdened by work or responsibility of any kind his person parked outside the council offices so they could go in daily and abuse staff (yes the guards were called and all that but they eventually got fed up as well).

Eventually over time, those in power buckled and this person was allocated another property within a year of the previous refusal.

Was this wrong, absolutely, but that's the reality of the situation in a certain number of cases, once again the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

efanton wrote: »

As for fixing the problem, yes I do believe that this country should commit itself to a massive home building program for both social housing and affordable housing so that those working can also afford to buy a home.
Last year the govern me spent 612 million renting private property for social housing use via the HAP scheme and another 170 million on emergency housing. THis year that cost will increase. Do you believe that spending nearly a billion euro in such a way is good value for money?

Over a 20 year period that will be approximately 20 billion euro spent and not a single brick to show for it. 20 billion is a damn sight more than any measure propsed by any political party. If you built 100,000 homes, depending on which party you support and amortised that cost it would cost the state no more than 250 million a year if you believe the SF view, or 500 to 600 million a year if you believe the FG view. Either way it would be far better value for money. Yet this government and previous governments have built less than 5000 homes each year.

I don't believe HAP is great value for money but it's basically replacing rent supplement and you're hardly suggesting we get rid of that!

The money will have to be found elsewhere, so to build more social houses the government needs more money, so basically they have to either increase taxes, decrease services or borrow or perhaps a combination of all 3. None of which are particularly popular.

Finally I don't believe SF, I don't believe FF and I don't believe FG, they'd all say anything to get elected and the figures they were bandying around before the last election were as worthless as chocolate money.

mkdon

people dying and all y'all wanna do is talk about price of houses?

AlekSmart

mkdon wrote: »

people dying and all y'all wanna do is talk about price of houses?

Probably something to do with the thread title ?

Boards is a big place and there's something for everyone....not interested in this thread ?....click on bruv...click on

efanton

mkdon wrote: »

people dying and all y'all wanna do is talk about price of houses?

Well I sure there's many other threads you cant talk all about it on.

Unfortunately, housing is still a big issue and is likely to become a bigger issue than before the virus outbreak is over. There will be many people once this virus crisis is over who will still be looking for a home or looking for a new home to live in.

Although the government has enforced a rent freeze and a temporary moratorium on mortgage payments there has been no promise that these will continue indefinitely. If that doesn't last indefinitely, and I cant see how it could, some will have run up rental and mortgage payment debts.

Many will no longer have a job to return to, again causing worry as to whether they can remain the the rental property they currently live in, how to repay rental debts with no income to cover those debts, or how they can continue to pay a mortgage.

So yes, for many it is a very big issue. Agreed your health and the health of others must come first, but life will continue for most. What then?

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

its terrible how you're being treated surely, yurt

? I'm well able to look after myself snoopsheep as you well know and have experienced..

If you you want to bring it back in the ring and back on topic let me know.

efanton

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Her specific case is unique but sure then isn't everybody's. Most people on the lists are probably fine, but there are a lot of aggressive, abusive people out there who have a strong sense of entitlement and little patience for waiting their turn and I know this because I've met them. I don't think it's correct to downplay this point, they are also part of the housing problem.



These things do occasionally happen and they are completely wrong, I agree with you. But people fold under pressure, even those with the most iron will who are determined not to go against procedure wear down over time. Like I said before, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.



Fair enough, I agree.



Look that all sounds good on paper and in an ideal world the rules would be fair and clear and those who obey them would be rewarded and those who broke them would be punished. But in practice things don't always work out that way.

I know of a specific person (a walking nightmare would be a better term) who turned down 3 social houses and was briefly banned off the list for a period of time. However unburdened by work or responsibility of any kind his person parked outside the council offices so they could go in daily and abuse staff (yes the guards were called and all that but they eventually got fed up as well).

Eventually over time, those in power buckled and this person was allocated another property within a year of the previous refusal.

Was this wrong, absolutely, but that's the reality of the situation in a certain number of cases, once again the squeaky wheel gets the oil.



I don't believe HAP is great value for money but it's basically replacing rent supplement and you're hardly suggesting we get rid of that!

The money will have to be found elsewhere, so to build more social houses the government needs more money, so basically they have to either increase taxes, decrease services or borrow or perhaps a combination of all 3. None of which are particularly popular.

Finally I don't believe SF, I don't believe FF and I don't believe FG, they'd all say anything to get elected and the figures they were bandying around before the last election were as worthless chocolate money.

So in general you would agree that we have a very significant housing problem.

You probably also agree that the rules for housing allocation need to be modified or tightened up, and something absolutely must be done for those that find themselves unable to get onto a council waiting list nor qualify for a mortgage.

Whether we like it or not, there will have to be a massive housing program but as that cost can be amortised it will not be as bad as some people claim.
This country collects 80 Billion euro a years in tax (obviously this is going to take a significant hit because of the impact of the virus on business) but it is certainly something that this country can afford.

Alternatively the government will have to significantly reduce taxation on property rental and new builds.

It seems we have kicked the can so far down the road that we have simply run out of road. Government and the parties that formed them cant continue to make excuses or push this back any further.

Huntergonzo

efanton wrote: »

So in general you would agree that we have a very significant housing problem.

You probably also agree that the rules for housing allocation need to be modified or tightened up, and something absolutely must be done for those that find themselves unable to get onto a council waiting list nor qualify for a mortgage.

Whether we like it or not, there will have to be a massive housing program but as that cost can be amortised it will not be as bad as some people claim.
This country collects 80 Billion euro a years in tax (obviously this is going to take a significant hit because of the impact of the virus on business) but it is certainly something that this country can afford.

Alternatively the government will have to significantly reduce taxation on property rental and new builds.

It seems we have kicked the can so far down the road that we have simply run out of road. Government and the parties that formed them cant continue to make excuses or push this back any further.

I agree there is a housing problem, we do have a shortage of units across the board and that must be addressed as quickly and prudently as possible.

I don't like the way the media reports it though, they love a good crisis because it generates attention for them. They jump from crisis to crisis with little regard for fair and balanced reporting, so to me the media need to be treated with a generous pinch of salt.

Also the opposition politicians flog the 'crisis' to death simply to score points, so I have little time for them either. But that's not to say I'm huge supporter of FG, they'd be doing the exact same as the rest if they were in opposition.

I've had a lot of experience on the front line of social housing and I'm just trying to share my experiences, things which I rarely hear on the radio.

We already invest hugely in housing, and we probably do need to invest more, but first thing I would do is scrutinize every penny already being spent and make sure we're getting value for money before investing any further.

You may well find some of the extra money needed is already there waiting for better use.

Sometimes it's no harm pressing the reset button if you think there's a better way of doing things, regardless of who's in power to do it.