Where's the "social justice" in the Government hoovering up new homes?

Fred Cryton

Here's the nub of the issue.



The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.

Fann Linn

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Here's the nub of the issue.



The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.

People working can and do qualify for social housing.

Fred Cryton

Fann Linn wrote: »

People working can and do qualify for social housing.

Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

Fann Linn

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

Not the point. Many give semi d social homes won't.

oceanman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Here's the nub of the issue.



The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.

you can always choose to live somewhere else...

B2021M

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

Its gone beyond ridiculous now. I wonder will people finally see whats going on.

Fred Cryton

Fann Linn wrote: »

Not the point. Many give semi d social homes won't.

Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

Fann Linn

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.

Jinglejangle69

Fann Linn wrote: »

People working can and do qualify for social housing.

Majority don't work.

Fann Linn

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Majority don't work.

Guessed you'd be along. I know. But others do.

B2021M

Fann Linn wrote: »

You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.

But some people earning far more than 42k cant afford to buy similar homes. Isnt that the point?

Fred Cryton

Fann Linn wrote: »

You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.

And why can't they be housed far more cheaply outside the M50? They are dependent on the State after all.

Fann Linn

B2021M wrote: »

But some people earning far more than 42k cant afford to buy similar homes. Isnt that the point?

Exactly. But that's the criteria that's in force at the moment. Where I'm living the qualification rates are 26k. Everything is relative.

It's the price of housing that's skewed.

oceanman

B2021M wrote: »

But some people earning far more than 42k cant afford to buy similar homes. Isnt that the point?

because they are buying...as opposed to renting.

Fann Linn

Fred Cryton wrote: »

And why can't they be housed far more cheaply outside the M50? They are dependent on the State after all.

Again. Not all are. Nurses, Gardai teachers, journalists. All options out of reach.

jrosen

The real issue is that the state will end up paying millions and never have anything to show for it. In 25 years those people housed will still need a place to live.
I heard someone recently comment on a development near to me. They claimed its costing close to 1million per year to house all the families, cover the maintenance of the estate and the homes. Approx figure based on averages they were aware of in similar size development. Now thats really ****ed up.

B2021M

oceanman wrote: »

because they are buying...as opposed to renting.

Probably couldnt afford to rent them either. Plus theyd have more take home pay if their taxes werent subsidising this system.

Yellow_Fern

jrosen wrote: »

The real issue is that the state will end up paying millions and never have anything to show for it. In 25 years those people housed will still need a place to live.
I heard someone recently comment on a development near to me. They claimed its costing close to 1million per year to house all the families, cover the maintenance of the estate and the homes. Approx figure based on averages they were aware of in similar size development. Now thats really ****ed up.

I am very uncomfortable with the current situation but the idea that building is always better because 'the state will have something to show for it is' a sunk cost fallacy. The rent social tenants pay is so tiny that it would never pay for the costs. What matters is the total cost of each arrangement, not whether the state gets ownership because they cant possibly exploit its actual capital value.

pjohnson

Fann Linn wrote: »

You can earn upto 42k and qualify. I didn't know you just wanted to confine your thread to the usual SW stereotypes.

When is it anything else? :pac:

One eyed Jack

Fred Cryton wrote: »

The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.

No, we won’t :pac:

Jinglejangle69

Fann Linn wrote: »

Guessed you'd be along. I know. But others do.

Just stating a fact for the discussion.

Not my fault you don't like that fact.

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

Well done, we need people like you to judge others and punish them accordingly, for their low moral standards.

Off to the workhouse and laundries with those women of loose morals.

jrosen

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I am very uncomfortable with the current situation but the idea that building is always better because 'the state will have something to show for it is' a sunk cost fallacy. The rent social tenants pay is so tiny that it would never pay for the costs. What matters is the total cost of each arrangement, not whether the state gets ownership because they cant possibly exploit its actual capital value.

I see the point. But with the number of people looking to be housed by the state unless the state start to build themselves they will continue to buy up housing stock and pay rents to landlords. Still leaving those wanting to buy with little option.

Burt Renaults

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Not the point. Many given semi-d social homes will be single mothers with multiple children.

hustlenbustle

Isnt the problem that after leasing these homes the state will have nothing after a certain amount of years its money down the drain. They should instead be building council houses but not in the most expensive areas. Rents should be paid or taken at source and they should be strictly managed with evictions promptly for anti social behaviour. Of course the state would have far more housing if they didnt allow tenants to buy out their council houses which was foolishly done in the past. If you want to buy a house then do so _ but leave the council house for someone else who needs a home.

Fred Cryton

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Here's the nub of the issue.



The Department of Housing is actively encouraging councils to lease entire new estates for social housing because that way the homes won't be on the States balance sheet. This is the real scandal.



The council are going to take over 130 new homes built in Cabinteely on a 20 year lease. So we will have the welfare class living in brand spanking new homes valued north of €600k in South Dublin.


Can you think of another country which rewards such bad life choices as Ireland? Get pregnant at 16 , put the name down for the council house and get a brand spanking new semi-d in South Dublin worth €700k. Ireland, what a country.

Oh the humanity.
Also bullsh1t

Thelonious Monk

Where's our Eric these days?

Thelonious Monk

hustlenbustle wrote: »

Isnt the problem that after leasing these homes the state will have nothing after a certain amount of years its money down the drain. They should instead be building council houses but not in the most expensive areas. Rents should be paid or taken at source and they should be strictly managed with evictions promptly for anti social behaviour. Of course the state would have far more housing if they didnt allow tenants to buy out their council houses which was foolishly done in the past. If you want to buy a house then do so _ but leave the council house for someone else who needs a home.

I think they should build in the most expensive areas, leafy South Dublin suburbs etc. There's no way the Garda would ignore anti social behaviour in these areas so everyone would be kept in line. Housing and crime taken care of, win win.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I think they should build in the most expensive areas, leafy South Dublin suburbs etc. There's no way the Garda would ignore anti social behaviour in these areas so everyone would be kept in line. Housing and crime taken care of, win win.

Snore

growleaves

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Wow, that's insightful. But most will. We are rewarding bad behavior, poor life choices and poor work ethic.

Not sure why poor work ethic has been thrown in there. Do you think a young girl on her own with two or three children can also be a software programmer?

There's no 'solution' for single motherhood. Putting single mothers into institutions is seen as a societal crime. Therefore they have to be housed.

Do you favour the re-introduction of Christian taboos on fornication and the encouragement of early marriage?

Or do you think single mothers should be put in smaller/cheaper housing units or what?

Jizique

jrosen wrote: »

The real issue is that the state will end up paying millions and never have anything to show for it. In 25 years those people housed will still need a place to live.
I heard someone recently comment on a development near to me. They claimed its costing close to 1million per year to house all the families, cover the maintenance of the estate and the homes. Approx figure based on averages they were aware of in similar size development. Now thats really ****ed up.

And the buyers, the recipients of this largesse, at a risk free yield of 4-5% will pay no tax on their income; if I was to buy an investment property, I would be taxed at >50% on the income.
When 20 year risk free investments (govt bonds) yield 1%, giving any investor a guarantee f 5%, state sponsored, is robbery, complete and utter robbery and reflects poorly on any politician or public servant who puts a deal like this in place.

Thelonious Monk

bubblypop wrote: »

Snore

well isn't it better than creating ghettoes?

Burt Renaults

hustlenbustle wrote: »

They should instead be building council houses but not in the most expensive areas.

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be in 'expensive areas'.

Fred Cryton

growleaves wrote: »

Not sure why poor work ethic has been thrown in there. Do you think a young girl on her own with two or three children can also be a software programmer?

There's no 'solution' for single motherhood. Putting single mothers into institutions is seen as a societal crime. Therefore they have to be housed.

Do you favour the re-introduction of Christian taboos on fornication and the encouragement of early marriage?

Or do you think single mothers should be put in smaller/cheaper housing units or what?

Whatever the answer is to single mothers and their housing needs, the answer is most certainly not to reward them with newly built housing in desirable areas of our capital city.

Fred Cryton

Burt Renaults wrote: »

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be in 'expensive areas'.

Why would they be in the expensive areas? Give us the logic!


Whats with the weird Irish poverty porn obsession which virtue signals about putting welfare dependents into the most expensive areas. Oh aren't you so virtuous.

The DayDream

You make a thread about social housing every week

Jizique

Fred Cryton wrote: »

Why would they be in the expensive areas? Give us the logic!


Whats with the weird Irish poverty porn obsession which virtue signals about putting welfare dependents into the most expensive areas. Oh aren't you so virtuous.

They won’t be expensive for long; I don’t expect the current govt (bad as they are) to go for this “leveling down” strategy beloved of the SJWs

The DayDream

The DayDream wrote: »

You make a thread about social housing every week

Have to keep the faux outrage stoked

lazygal

bubblypop wrote: »

Well done, we need people like you to judge others and punish them accordingly, for their low moral standards.

Off to the workhouse and laundries with those women of loose morals.

We could sell their kids to rich Americans to off set the cost of keeping keeping alive.

Beasty

OP, you started a very similar thread a few days ago

No need for another