How do you interpret "A Right to Housing"?

JizzBeans

The right to housing topic has appeared more than a couple of times recently in the media.



Apparently 82% of people in Ireland believe that housing should be a human right.



https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1209/1183463-housing-ireland-survey/


What do people think that means exactly? How do they think it would work?

Smee_Again

That the government will not put unreasonable barriers in place to prevent people being homed.

JizzBeans

Such as?

One eyed Jack

JizzBeans wrote: »

The right to housing topic has appeared more than a couple of times recently in the media.

Apparently 82% of people in Ireland believe that housing should be a human right.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1209/1183463-housing-ireland-survey/

What do people think that means exactly? How do they think it would work?

Housing is a Human Right under numerous international human rights instruments already, particularly Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the one I personally prefer to go with when asked -


Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


How do I expect it to work? The same as any other rights which people are entitled to be able to exercise, a right which is protected by the State and provided for by the State, same as the right to education, healthcare and any of the other Human Rights obligations which the Irish State agreed to upon becoming a signatory to these legal instruments, but to the best of my knowledge has not been implemented in Irish legislation.


Right to Housing

Smee_Again

JizzBeans wrote: »

Such as?

Don’t know.

I don’t really see how a right to housing would actually work. It certainly won’t be that the state has to provide housing for everyone.

"You have a right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you."

So kinda like that, I guess. But just with houses instead.

Samuel T. Cogley

With rights come duties. One of those duties should be that if you are state housed and not working you have to work in that community for it's betterment. Another should be a duty not to have children one can't support. In theory I'm for it but, especially for lower paid workers; in practice there would have to be a massive shift in public attitudes towards contributing to society.

Article 45 is well worth a read bearing in mind it's status.

piplip87

You have a right to be housed but how many people who are currently homeless have had that right and through fault of their own are now homeless?

Woukd a right to a home in the constitution mean thay those neighbours who are drug dealing, have constant parties, rob their neighbours would be protected from eviction ?

Would the right to a home mean i can stop paying my mortgage and face bo consequences

JizzBeans

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Housing is a Human Right under numerous international human rights instruments already, particularly Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the one I personally prefer to go with when asked -


Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


How do I expect it to work? The same as any other rights which people are entitled to be able to exercise, a right which is protected by the State and provided for by the State, same as the right to education, healthcare and any of the other Human Rights obligations which the Irish State agreed to upon becoming a signatory to these legal instruments, but to the best of my knowledge has not been implemented in Irish legislation.


Right to Housing

The UDHR is not a legal document, carries no legislative weight.


How can someone have the "right" to a house? That wold imply the state must supply.

JizzBeans

Very true, I don't think anybody has the "right" to a house.

One eyed Jack

JizzBeans wrote: »

The UDHR is not a legal document, carries no legislative weight.


How can someone have the "right" to a house? That wold imply the state must supply.

I didn’t say it was? I’m referring to the numerous legal instruments which recognise the right to housing as a human right, and the definition in Article 25 of the UDHR is the one I choose to go with when asked to explain what is meant by the right to housing.

I cannot think how anyone imagines that either Article 25 or any other legal instruments imply the right to housing is interpreted as the right to a house, so I can’t answer that question.

Galwayguy35

82% out of 1200

I'm all for helping folks out to get a house if they are prepared to step up and play their part and not act the bollix when they get the keys to the place.

I've see it here in Galway were travellers have wrecked houses worth 300 k that were provided to them for free and the council has to pay to fix them up again.

And when I say the council its taxes from the rest of us that covers the bill for this.

skooterblue2

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

I'm all for helping folks out to get a house if they are prepared to step up and play their part and not act the bollix when they get the keys to the place.

I've see it here in Galway were travellers have wrecked houses worth 300 k they were provided to them for free and the council has to pay to fix them up again.

Remember the hate speech law. you cant criticise minorities regardless how they act even it borders on animal like.

mickuhaha

I don't believe I in a right to have a house or home to be provided but definitely temporary accommodation as needed.

You don't want people living on the street.

If you give one person a free house you have to give everyone a free house.

I would guess a right to housing would in my opinion be the right to hold(purchase/lease) a house no matter your background. I am not sure if it is the same as a right to being sheltered which I am in favour of.

skooterblue2

piplip87 wrote: »

You have a right to be housed but how many people who are currently homeless have had that right and through fault of their own are now homeless?

Woukd a right to a home in the constitution mean thay those neighbours who are drug dealing, have constant parties, rob their neighbours would be protected from eviction ?

Would the right to a home mean i can stop paying my mortgage and face bo consequences

Read it again how they were going to finance this fantasy? 82% tax on inheritance on property? Its no better than a communist and grab on your parents house.

dotsman

Polls like this are complete BS. The poll is not constructed in a way to provide balance views or even understanding of what people are being asked. It's like saying "100% of people believe puppies should be kicked" (as 200 people were asked if they would rather kick a puppy or kill their own mother).

Ultimately, the "right to housing" is the same as the right to "food" and "water". The government are not allowed implement laws/policies that deny people housing/food. They can't implement a law saying ginger-haired people are not allowed live in houses; much the same way they can't implement a law denying the people of Leitrim food or access to food shops etc.

It doesn't mean that the government must magically provide everybody with whatever house they want. Just like your right to "food" doesn't mean that the government must promptly deliver a perfectly cooked steak to your door any time you are hungry.

In Ireland we have no problems with "rights to housing". We have a massive planning with urban planning and left-wing magic-money expectations.

JizzBeans

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said that housing should be a right, not a commodity.


What I am really asking is, do they mean everyone should be given a house? Everybody already has the right pursue housing so it cant be that.

Gatling

Free tents for everyone ?

JizzBeans

dotsman wrote: »

Polls like this are complete BS. The poll is not constructed in a way to provide balance views or even understanding of what people are being asked. It's like saying "100% of people believe puppies should be kicked" (as 200 people were asked if they would rather kick a puppy or kill their own mother).

Ultimately, the "right to housing" is the same as the right to "food" and "water". The government are not allowed implement laws/policies that deny people housing/food. They can't implement a law saying ginger-haired people are not allowed live in houses; much the same way they can't implement a law denying the people of Leitrim food or access to food shops etc.

It doesn't mean that the government must magically provide everybody with whatever house they want. Just like your right to "food" doesn't mean that the government must promptly deliver a perfectly cooked steak to your door any time you are hungry.

In Ireland we have no problems with "rights to housing". We have a massive planning with urban planning and left-wing magic-money expectations.

Yep, makes sense. The idea of giving everybody houses is ludicrous anyway.

Dunfyy

Free housing for every one build big apartment blocks like in Soviet Union used to do


Reds in the bed

One eyed Jack

JizzBeans wrote: »

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said that housing should be a right, not a commodity.


What I am really asking is, do they mean everyone should be given a house? Everybody already has the right pursue housing so it cant be that.

Suggesting that it should be a right means that it should be an obligation of the State. I can’t remember the details exactly, but I think it was Leo who put the kibosh on the idea that the State was obligated to provide for accommodation in Irish law as a right. Effectively like any good politician, he gave the answer he had rehearsed to a question that sounded similar to one he had rehearsed being asked.

But then we know Leo is better than most politicians at remembering his lines, so it doesn’t come as a surprise that he’s not very good at thinking on his feet.

LessOutragePlz

What about people that already have houses?

Does this only apply to people without houses?

Whose going to pay for it?

The list of questions is endless really.

DubCount

A right to housing is a minimum right to shelter. Its not a right to a free house in the location of your choice. IMHO our expectation of what we should receive off the back of other people paying the taxes to pay for it is already too high.

Del2005

JizzBeans wrote: »

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said that housing should be a right, not a commodity.


What I am really asking is, do they mean everyone should be given a house? Everybody already has the right pursue housing so it cant be that.

There's plenty of homes in this country the problem is the free ones* are not next door to mammy. So if you have a right to a home it shouldn't be a right to refuse all offers till the one you like comes up.




*Paying a low set percentage of your income for rent is nearly free, especially when all the providers have huge rent arrears

weldoninhio

JizzBeans wrote: »

Very true, I don't think anybody has the "right" to a house.

Afaik you have the “right” to shelter. The looney left have twisted that into Housing.

cdeb

JizzBeans wrote: »

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said that housing should be a right, not a commodity.


What I am really asking is, do they mean everyone should be given a house? Everybody already has the right pursue housing so it cant be that.

Dermot Desmond had an article in the Irish Times earlier this year arguing that housing shouldn't be tradable. It shouldn't be something that there's an active government policy to increase the cost of. It shouldn't be commercially tradable (even to pension funds)

That all sounds quite reasonable to me, and I think is within the scope of the original question (and the question of housing as a commodity)

Hubertj

I interpret this as more populist bollo*. Impossible to make such a complex issue a simple yes/no answer. The intent of those that propose it is clear.

Samuel T. Cogley

Housing is not a house. The right to housing could be a room in shared accommodation.

Graces7

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Housing is not a house. The right to housing could be a room in shared accommodation.

There you have the crux of it. They need to define "housing" very clearly. Maybe those who answered the poll assumed housing means a house.. easily done.

skooterblue2

You know why the mouse get killed in the trap?
He hasnt worked out why the cheese is for free.

Social welfare is a poverty trap that wont allow you to leave in most cases.
It is near impossible to escape from.

Graces7

JizzBeans wrote: »

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said that housing should be a right, not a commodity.


What I am really asking is, do they mean everyone should be given a house? Everybody already has the right pursue housing so it cant be that.

What do other countries do? The gap between the ideal and the fulfilment of the ideal is wide.

In the UK the NHS fulfilled the ideal of the universal right to health care. By making it freely available to all.. How would that translate to housing?

And also in the UK education is universally free.. as are books etc therein.

DubCount

Graces7 wrote: »

What do other countries do? The gap between the ideal and the fulfilment of the ideal is wide.

In the UK the NHS fulfilled the ideal of the universal right to health care. By making it freely available to all.. How would that translate to housing?

And also in the UK education is universally free.. as are books etc therein.

The issue is as much about agreeing what the ideal is, before you even start to say how you achieve that ideal.

Health and education are different to housing. If I need a hip replacement, its the same operation for me as all the other people who need a hip replacement. I may want to pay for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, but I can offer a "free" version to everyone which is going to do the same job. If I want to educate my children, I can pay extra for better playing fields, but again I can offer a "free" version which will teach a standard syllabus.

Housing is as much about aspiration as function. I would love a big house in Foxrock (exclusive Dublin Suburb) but alas I cannot afford it. The problem is that lots and lots of other people have the same aspiration which is what makes it expensive in the first place. So if we nationalise housing, how do we decide who gets the big house in Foxrock, and who gets the small apartment in a less attractive suburb?

When we created new areas with standard housing for all, we ended up with social housing ghettos. Places which didnt meet many peoples idea of an ideal solution. Now we are trying to mix "free" housing with "non-free" housing in the same type properties, which creates a moral problem of why should I pay and you should get the same for free.

This is why "free housing" doesnt work. Once the state has provided shelter, their obligation is complete. Its a socialist dream that everyone should receive their ideal home from the state - but even with a magic money tree, not everyone can get to live in a big house in Foxrock.

jelem

DubCount wrote: »

The issue is as much about agreeing what the ideal is, before you even start to say how you achieve that ideal.

Health and education are different to housing. If I need a hip replacement, its the same operation for me as all the other people who need a hip replacement. I may want to pay for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, but I can offer a "free" version to everyone which is going to do the same job. If I want to educate my children, I can pay extra for better playing fields, but again I can offer a "free" version which will teach a standard syllabus.

Housing is as much about aspiration as function. I would love a big house in Foxrock (exclusive Dublin Suburb) but alas I cannot afford it. The problem is that lots and lots of other people have the same aspiration which is what makes it expensive in the first place. So if we nationalise housing, how do we decide who gets the big house in Foxrock, and who gets the small apartment in a less attractive suburb?

When we created new areas with standard housing for all, we ended up with social housing ghettos. Places which didnt meet many peoples idea of an ideal solution. Now we are trying to mix "free" housing with "non-free" housing in the same type properties, which creates a moral problem of why should I pay and you should get the same for free.

This is why "free housing" doesnt work. Once the state has provided shelter, their obligation is complete. Its a socialist dream that everyone should receive their ideal home from the state - but even with a magic money tree, not everyone can get to live in a big house in Foxrock.

"for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, " and the time of the surgeon whom is the same as paid
for by tax payers.
just like ministers may be doctors and ministers of government "2 jobs" which is not possible but fooled into
thinking it is.
the ghetos were design error by government appointed whom sought cheapest method and surronded plans with
graphical make believe "excellant social areas and green space etc." .
All is based on capitalism and greed which has to be removed first before even discussing housing\health\services
in ireland.

the_syco

jelem wrote: »

the ghetos were design error by government appointed whom sought cheapest method and surronded plans with
graphical make believe "excellant social areas and green space etc." .
All is based on capitalism and greed which has to be removed first before even discussing housing\health\services
in ireland.

The ghetto are a collection of free houses. Otherwise do you expect those who don't work to be placed next to a family where both parents have to work 60 hours a week each to afford their house?

Or do you give everyone the same house, for free, regardless of where they may work?

Graces7

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Housing is a Human Right under numerous international human rights instruments already, particularly Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is the one I personally prefer to go with when asked -


Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


How do I expect it to work? The same as any other rights which people are entitled to be able to exercise, a right which is protected by the State and provided for by the State, same as the right to education, healthcare and any of the other Human Rights obligations which the Irish State agreed to upon becoming a signatory to these legal instruments, but to the best of my knowledge has not been implemented in Irish legislation.


Right to Housing

The passage you refer to is powerful and right. As you rightly say, where housing is concerned it has not been implemented.

They are very clear about excluding shelters and temporary accommodation, as is right.

Graces7

DubCount wrote: »

The issue is as much about agreeing what the ideal is, before you even start to say how you achieve that ideal.

Health and education are different to housing. If I need a hip replacement, its the same operation for me as all the other people who need a hip replacement. I may want to pay for private care for a nicer room, or a better meal, but I can offer a "free" version to everyone which is going to do the same job. If I want to educate my children, I can pay extra for better playing fields, but again I can offer a "free" version which will teach a standard syllabus.

Housing is as much about aspiration as function. I would love a big house in Foxrock (exclusive Dublin Suburb) but alas I cannot afford it. The problem is that lots and lots of other people have the same aspiration which is what makes it expensive in the first place. So if we nationalise housing, how do we decide who gets the big house in Foxrock, and who gets the small apartment in a less attractive suburb?

When we created new areas with standard housing for all, we ended up with social housing ghettos. Places which didnt meet many peoples idea of an ideal solution. Now we are trying to mix "free" housing with "non-free" housing in the same type properties, which creates a moral problem of why should I pay and you should get the same for free.

This is why "free housing" doesnt work. Once the state has provided shelter, their obligation is complete. Its a socialist dream that everyone should receive their ideal home from the state - but even with a magic money tree, not everyone can get to live in a big house in Foxrock.

Interesting attribution/transference of ambition. Wondering how many really have such aspirations of grandeur. Or would be happy to have a smaller abode. As many are happy to have HSE hospital care etc.

DubCount

Graces7 wrote: »

Interesting attribution/transference of ambition. Wondering how many really have such aspirations of grandeur. Or would be happy to have a smaller abode. As many are happy to have HSE hospital care etc.

I wonder how many offers of state-provided housing are refused because its in the wrong area, or they want a bigger home, or .......

I wonder how many people have refused HAP in order to get a council house.

I wonder how much arears of rent is owed by people who the state assesses as able to pay, but dont pay.

Is that also attribution/transference of ambition?

Graces7

DubCount wrote: »

I wonder how many offers of state-provided housing are refused because its in the wrong area, or they want a bigger home, or .......

I wonder how many people have refused HAP in order to get a council house.

I wonder how much arears of rent is owed by people who the state assesses as able to pay, but dont pay.

Is that also attribution/transference of ambition?

Now you are needlessly complicating the matter with administrative aspects that reflect your critical attitude of folk, and diverting from the real subject.

Back to base? Abuse of a system or ideal does not negate the ideal. need to focus on those who do not abuse,rather than negate the system because of abuse. Please avoid giving them that power.

And ambition has nothing to do with the ideal or with what I wrote.

My point is that not everyone wants a big house . Writing as a council tenant very happy with a small safe place.

Maybe the transference of ambition is yours.

jimmycrackcorm

I wonder what percentage of that 82% that think there should be a right to housing, would still she is that meant they could not be NIMBY objectors to housing development next to them.

Or co-living becomes more normal because you know, can't object to a right to housing.

Pkiernan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

With rights come duties.

Article 45 is well worth a read bearing in mind it's status.

Not in Ireland, where the professionally unemployed have time to burn but won't help a soul.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Social welfare is a poverty trap that wont allow you to leave in most cases.
It is near impossible to escape from.

Jesus, I've read some sh/te on this site.. :rolleyes:



What are you basing that on? I live in a rough council area and every opportunity is available to those who are bothered.

Of my own social circle from secondary school onwards, everyone is working, most own their own houses (a mix of buying from the council and buying elsewhere privately).

These are the people who have worked at something and made an effort to get by.

There are, however, loads, and loads of people who live beside me and went to school with me who didn't bother doing anything other than get drugged up or play videogames 24/7, and although they've sat on their ass their whole life and never contributed anything, they're now at the age where the council has either offered them housing of their own or is preparing them to move (most of them signed up to the housing list on their 18th birthday, with never an intention to work).

Although they've never lifted a finger, they never had to pay for work costs, training, travel, market-rate rent or mortgage costs, somehow they're at about the same 'level' in life as all the others who busted their humps, despite never working for it. They actually have, in some cases, much nicer houses than the ones that my other friends bought privately.


A girl I know is 28 and got a house off the council that I would estimate to be worth about 275k. We'll say she signed up for the housing list the minute she turned 18, which means the longest she's been 'on the list' is 10 years. Which means any other 28 year old, to be in the same position, has had to save 27,500 per year (roughly €530 per week), just to buy a house with, to be on par with the girl that never worked.

What poverty trap..?

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you basing that on? I live in a rough council area and every opportunity is available to those who are bothered.

Of my own social circle from secondary school onwards, everyone is working, most own their own houses (a mix of buying from the council and buying elsewhere privately).

These are the people who have worked at something and made an effort to get by.

There are, however, loads, and loads of people who live beside me and went to school with me who didn't bother doing anything other than get drugged up or play videogames 24/7, and although they've sat on their ass their whole life and never contributed anything, they're now at the age where the council has either offered them housing of their own or is preparing them to move (most of them signed up to the housing list on their 18th birthday, with never an intention to work).

Although they've never lifted a finger, they never had to pay for work costs, training, travel, market-rate rent or mortgage costs, somehow they're at about the same 'level' in life as all the others who busted their humps, despite never working for it. They actually have, in some cases, much nicer houses than the ones that my other friends bought privately.


A girl I know is 28 and got a house off the council that I would estimate to be worth about 275k. We'll say she signed up for the housing list the minute she turned 18, which means the longest she's been 'on the list' is 10 years. Which means any other 28 year old, to be in the same position, has had to save 27,500 per year (roughly €530 per week), just to buy a house with, to be on par with the girl that never worked.

What poverty trap..?

But you see they dont bother. The minimum wage and social welfare gap is so small its not worth the effort.

I am basing it on my father who just gave up (I suspect due to depression in the 80's) and certain members of my wifes family who just had a few kids got a house and another who is raising his daughter in the back wilds of wicklow with the "no one is going to hire me with these" tattoos. You can say all you want about discrimination and tattoos but people do judge tattoos.

skooterblue2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

But you see they dont bother. The minimum wage and social welfare gap is so small its not worth the effort.

I am basing it on my father who just gave up (I suspect due to depression in the 80's) and certain members of my wifes family who just had a few kids got a house and another who is raising his daughter in the back wilds of wicklow with the "no one is going to hire me with these" tattoos. You can say all you want about discrimination and tattoos but people do judge tattoos.

Yeah but you said it's a trap that you can't escape, which isn't true. 'Not bothering' is not the same as 'being trapped'.

skooterblue2

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah but you said it's a trap that you can't escape, which isn't true. 'Not bothering' is not the same as 'being trapped'.

To make the escape worth it you have to jump over the minimum wage to either a university education, a trade or to some sort of business. That takes a massive jump for someone who grew up in a home where education was not valued or you were indoctrinated into the social welfare system. That is a hell of a jump.

Tea drinker

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Housing is not a house. The right to housing could be a room in shared accommodation.

It's a bout shelter, basic amenities like access to sanitary facilities.
Could be a single small space in a converted church or an old sports hall. With a curtain dividing from the next resident. As long as adequate facilites in toilet and showers are available