No social housing

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 09:40AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Jesus this is like pulling teeth. Previous levels of social housing obligation was 20%; alleged Labour politician Alan Kelly cut this to 10%.

Unite's former property is being made into four flats. It is impossible to deliver 0.4% of a flat for social housing; even under the old rules they'd have been exempt.

In other words, the rules don't apply to developments less than ten as it would be impossible to deliver.

As Brian has astutely pointed out, this is a non-story and hatchet job and don't hold your breath for RTÉ to clarify the messing and/or grill the government about their failure to build any social housing when we so desperately need it.

Ahhh yes cus its the government that have been attempting to vote down housing

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-city-councillors-approve-plans-for-nearly-1-700-homes-1.2930705

And nothing to do with the populist opposition

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/critic-of-housing-crisis-says-no-to-300-homes-lhc7dkmw5

andekwarhola · 17-01-2017 09:41AM

pjproby wrote: »

Even if it was 4 apartments why could one not be allocated to social housing?

To be fair, it's obvious that the measure was brought in with larger scale private housing developments in mind, not once-off conversion type builds like this. Allocating a rental apartment in such a location would be a cosmetic and largely futile exercise and not an efficent use of local authority funding.

Was ironic to see the local authorities recently being pilloried for refusing NAMA stock to lower social housing homogeneity but also usually being savaged by the same people for the ignored social issues that unchecked late 70s/early 80s local authority housing sprawls have caused.

The integrated housing model is a good one in theory, I feel. The only major issue is that it's dependant on the vagaries of the private housing development cycle.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 09:43AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Big difference between an 8 room house and a huge building like Apollo House with multiple washing facilities and a kitchen.

Likewise, for the umpteenth time, it isn't up to Unite to deal with homelessness provision it's the governments. Apollo House was a political action aimed at highlighting the NAMA debacle and the crisis itself. And it was a very successful one judging by the eagerness of some people in the media to engage in hatchet job non-stories. As for being a failure? Lol. They were never off the news and all those dwelling in Apollo got offered long stretch accommodation with their own keys.

Some failure.

Well actually since they have decided to weigh in and sanction the HSH organisation under their union banner using "union legislation" or whatever garbage they said it now very much is their responsibility as well.

Im not saying the government are blameless but Unite and Ogle are completely in the wrong here as well and have been caught out for the sham that apollo house and their involvement in it was.

Wheres the 170k ehh?

musiknonstop · 17-01-2017 09:43AM

10% is a minimum. They could have gone over that. It all sounds sounds very neo-liberal to me.

Brian? wrote: »

10% of 4 flats is impossible to deliver. This is a non story, hatchet job on Unite. It's a classic tactic, whip up hatred towards an evil trade union to distract from government incompetence.

17-01-2017 09:56AM

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/unite-plans-for-merrion-square-34195401.html

[Unite] has just applied for planning permission to convert a building on Dublin's exclusive Merrion Square from an office into six apartments.

And it wants to build an extension out the back to add on another six.

corner of hells · 17-01-2017 09:58AM

FTA69 wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Theres nothing stinking about it, the fact is they had an empty building they could have used indefinitely but instead chose to go for a building that was nothing but a PR stunt that had to fail and the people would always have been evicted from

Big difference between an 8 room house and a huge building like Apollo House with multiple washing facilities and a kitchen.

Likewise, for the umpteenth time, it isn't up to Unite to deal with homelessness provision it's the governments. Apollo House was a political action aimed at highlighting the NAMA debacle and the crisis itself. And it was a very successful one judging by the eagerness of some people in the media to engage in hatchet job non-stories. As for being a failure? Lol. They were never off the news and all those dwelling in Apollo got offered long stretch accommodation with their own keys.

Some failure.

I'm saying this as someone who works in frontline homeless services , there has been so many false truths and misinformation created by the events following the Apollo house occupations.

These individuals who were presented as being homeless are now appearing in homeless accommodation and presenting as special cases wanting to go directly in housing without engaging with services properly because of being fed misinformation.
As far as I know none got " thier own accommodation with keys" , with attempts being made to segregate themselves from homeless with addictions , mental ill health , long term rough sleeping and present themselves as being different.
The reality being some individuals used these people as pawns to massage thier own egos.

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 10:01AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Well actually since they have decided to weigh in and sanction the HSH organisation under their union banner using "union legislation" or whatever garbage they said it now very much is their responsibility as well.

Im not saying the government are blameless but Unite and Ogle are completely in the wrong here as well and have been caught out for the sham that apollo house and their involvement in it was.

Wheres the 170k ehh?

You're waffling now to be honest. I mean what is your point exactly? As I said above; Apollo House was a political action to highlight NAMA and homelessness and it was a rip roaring success that garnered international attention and ended up securing provision for 40 odd people they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Likewise, despite RTE bollocks, Unite have been shown not to be shirking anything whatsoever on the social housing front. As was said above, it isn't Unite's responsibility to engage in homelessness provision at all - it's the governments and Home Sweet Home exposed their failure utterly.

All in all, a great citizen's initiative; it's just a shame certain Blueshirt types get into a tizzy over it but there you go.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 10:17AM

FTA69 wrote: »

You're waffling now to be honest. I mean what is your point exactly? As I said above; Apollo House was a political action to highlight NAMA and homelessness and it was a rip roaring success that garnered international attention and ended up securing provision for 40 odd people they wouldn't have had otherwise.

Likewise, despite RTE bollocks, Unite have been shown not to be shirking anything whatsoever on the social housing front. As was said above, it isn't Unite's responsibility to engage in homelessness provision at all - it's the governments and Home Sweet Home exposed their failure utterly.

All in all, a great citizen's initiative; it's just a shame certain Blueshirt types get into a tizzy over it but there you go.

Ahh typical when your backed into a corner resort to petty attempts at namecalling, people who default to calling everyone that disagree with them blueshirts are just showing they are simply unable to have a reasonable discussion. I bet you'll be calling me and others alt right next cus I disagree with you on this one specific issue that really has nothing to do with the political spectrum at all. I hate homlessness and that it exists but its far more complex and difficult to solve than HSH and Ogle like to make it out, I also hate others using people to further their own selfish ends which is all brendan ogle is about

You want to engage on this topic and actually discuss it then grow up and maybe engage on the issue like your claim the government is doing nothing yet opposition parties are the ones attempting to block new housing all over the city?

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 10:30AM

I didn't call you anything; I said you were waffling from one point to the next and it's clear you're just attempting to throw any sh*te you can at either Ogle, Unite or HSH. As for being backed into a corner? You're the one who gleefully jumped on a hatchet story about Unite apparently shirking the social housing despite them being well below the exemption percentage and not in a position to provide any social housing at all. You then jumped on this other silly notion that it's the responsibility of a union to provide for the homeless as opposed to the government.

And now you're banging on about Clare Daly and housing in Dublin in general which is well off the topic at hand. "Backed into a corner" my arse. All you're doing is flitting from one tangent to another.

Without getting too off-topic, I imagine Daly's problem was the state bulldozing council properties to make way for private homes that will be sold by developers at unaffordable prices. Something that will exacerbate the housing cross of anything.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 10:40AM

FTA69 wrote: »

I didn't call you anything; I said you were waffling from one point to the next and it's clear you're just attempting to throw any sh*te you can at either Ogle, Unite or HSH. As for being backed into a corner? You're the one who gleefully jumped on a hatchet story about Unite apparently shirking the social housing despite them being well below the exemption percentage and not in a position to provide any social housing at all. You then jumped on this other silly notion that it's the responsibility of a union to provide for the homeless as opposed to the government.

And now you're banging on about Clare Daly and housing in Dublin in general which is well off the topic at hand. "Backed into a corner" my arse. All you're doing is flitting from one tangent to another.

Without getting too off-topic, I imagine Daly's problem was the state bulldozing council properties to make way for private homes that will be sold by developers at unaffordable prices. Something that will exacerbate the housing cross of anything.

Ahh so you missed this then?

[Unite] has just applied for planning permission to convert a building on Dublin's exclusive Merrion Square from an office into six apartments.

And it wants to build an extension out the back to add on another six.

20% of 12 is....

Also Unite are the ones who decided to directly support HSH by apparently letting them organise under Unites Union legilsation (ogles words not mine) so they now are directly linked to the homeless issue. They can't with one hand point at everyone else and call them out for not doing enough and then do nothing themselves either when they have the ability to do so. Its the very definition of hyopcritical.

Im not flitting from tangent to tangent, you claimed the government were not doing enough and I simply pointed out that many members of the opposition are attempting to block new housing projects so its not just about "de gubernment" messing things up.

Also if youd read the articles youd know that new properties being built in the articles i mentioned will have to have 30 per cent social housing, 20 per cent affordable rental, and 50 per cent private homes.

We need private houses just as much as we need social housing the two problems are intrinsically linked as a lack of either squeezes the entire market.

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 10:55AM

Nope I didn't miss anything. If you were actually bothered with the facts of the case you'd notice that the RTE article I posted above states the latest application is for four flats. Likewise the percentage is 10% not 20% (which is irrelevant as there's only 4 flats) So there you are, are Unite supposed to provide 0.4 or 0.8 of a flat are they?

Wheeliebin30 · 17-01-2017 10:57AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope I didn't miss anything. If you were actually bothered with the facts of the case you'd notice that the RTE article I posted above states the latest application is for four flats. Likewise the percentage is 10% not 20% (which is irrelevant as there's only 4 flats) So there you are, are Unite supposed to provide 0.4 or 0.8 of a flat are they?

If their so concerned maybe it would set an example by allocating more than 10% of them?

Maybe 1 or 2 apartments to show the government their serious.

But of course that would be too simple ay.

ThisRegard · 17-01-2017 10:58AM

FTA69 wrote: »

ended up securing provision for 40 odd people they wouldn't have had otherwise

You mean securing provision in hostels that were already in place and due to come on stream anyway?

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 10:59AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope I didn't miss anything. If you were actually bothered with the facts of the case you'd notice that the RTE article I posted above states the latest application is for four flats. Likewise the percentage is 10% not 20% (which is irrelevant as there's only 4 flats) So there you are, are Unite supposed to provide 0.4 or 0.8 of a flat are they?

Okay continue with your pedantry and ignore the facts cus your for some reason obsessed with RTE.....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/unite-plans-for-merrion-square-34195401.html

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 11:11AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay continue with your pedantry and ignore the facts cus your for some reason obsessed with RTE.....

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/unite-plans-for-merrion-square-34195401.html

Pedantry? You mean stating the facts as opposed to your delusions is now pedantry is it?

Oh Vin, you're slipping now mate - that article is over a year old. The latest planning application is for four flats therefore social housing isn't a viable proposition and nor does it meet the criterion for social housing provision.

They're the current "facts" of the case, next time you go trawling google to find anything and everything to bolster your point at least make sure your links are still relevant.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 11:20AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Pedantry? You mean stating the facts as opposed to your delusions is now pedantry is it?

Oh Vin, you're slipping now mate - that article is over a year old. The latest planning application is for four flats therefore social housing isn't a viable proposition and nor does it meet the criterion for social housing provision.

They're the current "facts" of the case, next time you go trawling google to find anything and everything to bolster your point at least make sure your links are still relevant.

Fair enough i didnt realise the main building was being changed to a single dwelling.

Still it amounts to 5 properties with 4 in the new building and 1 single house and you can get 20% out of 5 easily enough.

And yes fewer than 10 homes are exempt but ONLY if the developer applies for the exemption.

Again it comes back to the core issue they linked themselves to the homeless issue and then were found to be directly avoiding helping it. If they are so concerned by it why apply for the exemption when they could directly help even with 1 apartment?

You say its not their job to solve it and I agree yet they got directly involved with and organisation that is trying to solve it so this is their own fault

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 11:27AM

Pure spoof. The percentage is 10% not twenty for the umpteenth time. (One would swear you're more interested in having a bash off Unite than dealing with the case at hand.)

Also as Brian pointed out on another post, Unite's development is too small to provide social housing from. The reason they ticked the exemption box is because the entire application would be rejected without that formality. Likewise, and again this needs to be stated, it's not Unite's or anyone else's responsibility to provide social housing or homeless provision. That's the responsibility of the state. If you want to get p*ssed off about the lack of housing then blame the government for that.

Basically this thread was opened with a view to portraying Unite as somehow engaging in legal wrangling to get out of a social obligation. The reality is that they were never obliged to make such provision in the first place.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 11:43AM

FTA69 wrote: »

Likewise, and again this needs to be stated, it's not Unite's or anyone else's responsibility to provide social housing or homeless provision. That's the responsibility of the state.

Why did Unite get involved with HSH then?

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 12:03PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Why did Unite get involved with HSH then?

Because Unite campaigns in order to shift governments on to a certain platform. HSW aimed to shift government policy on this particular issue.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 12:30PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Because Unite campaigns in order to shift governments on to a certain platform. HSW aimed to shift government policy on this particular issue.

Theres a difference between lobbying for workers rights and campaiging against homelessness. Homelessness is something everyone can get involved in and simply pointing out the problems but not doing anything else is lazy.

Again now Unite are directly linked to a homeless campaign they need to hold themselves to a specific standard of how you combat homelessness. Its not like with workers rights where you just stamp and shout the loudest about how unfair things are. You need to get involved directly on the ground and thats the hypocrisy of this they are pointing at the problems while actively not helping on the other end. They have a building that has not been used for 3 years that could have been used for all manner of things to help the homeless problem.

And again im not saying Unite should be the ones solving this, in fact im baffled why they got involved in the first place as this is so far beyond their wheelhouse its ridiculous, but they have got involved and now they are they need to understand that campaigning against homelessness involves on the streets physical action like providing your own vaacant properties for use which is exactly what is being asked of Nama to do,.

IF they really wanted to do something good and long term for the crisis and shame Nama at the same time they could easily go "hey look at use we're great we have this property we could sell but no we are instead using it to actually do some good"

Im even more baffled none of those geniuses did that tbh

FTA69 · 17-01-2017 12:41PM

Nope. It isn't up to Unite to provide for the homeless; it's the state. What you're saying is simply a more roundabout version of the "sure let them sleep in your house so Glen Hansard!" type nonsense we heard during the occupation. What you're suggesting is that homelessness and poverty in general should be alleviated by charity and donations as opposed to a state sanctioned plan of action and a societal contract with its citizens. Bugger that for a bag of chips.

What Brendan Ogle and HSH did was shine a light on the NAMA debacle and government inaction.

VinLieger · 17-01-2017 12:54PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope. It isn't up to Unite to provide for the homeless; it's the state. What you're saying is simply a more roundabout version of the "sure let them sleep in your house so Glen Hansard!" type nonsense we heard during the occupation. What you're suggesting is that homelessness and poverty in general should be alleviated by charity and donations as opposed to a state sanctioned plan of action and a societal contract with its citizens. Bugger that for a bag of chips.

What Brendan Ogle and HSH did was shine a light on the NAMA debacle and government inaction.

No im not im saying the government should be taking care of it better than they are but if Unite get involved as they have they cant just get away with pointing fingers and then be surprised when they get called out for it.

Im also saying unite have no business being involved at all

howiya · 17-01-2017 01:43PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Because Unite campaigns in order to shift governments on to a certain platform. HSW aimed to shift government policy on this particular issue.

As part of said campaign maybe unite could have built this development entirely for social housing instead. It would have been a very good put your money where your mouth is statement.

Nobody is saying it's Unite's responsibility. It is ultimately the responsibility of the government, local authorities etc etc.

But if you're going to campaign on something at least be consistent.

KyussBeeshop · 17-01-2017 02:01PM

Yea this is a classic example of the bullshít argument: "Give away your own possessions/assets to the poor first, otherwise you're a hypocrite for criticising government inaction".

Nothing more than trying to smear shíte on people, in order to distract from their criticism of government inaction.

The_Captain · 17-01-2017 02:10PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Nope. It isn't up to Unite to provide for the homeless; it's the state. What you're saying is simply a more roundabout version of the "sure let them sleep in your house so Glen Hansard!" type nonsense we heard during the occupation. What you're suggesting is that homelessness and poverty in general should be alleviated by charity and donations as opposed to a state sanctioned plan of action and a societal contract with its citizens. Bugger that for a bag of chips.

What Brendan Ogle and HSH did was shine a light on the NAMA debacle and government inaction.

No, Brendan Ogle and HSH shone a light on Brendan Ogle and HSH. "Look at me, I'm helping, I care so much. Now give me your money"

The big problem here is that the government wants to treat housing as a transferable asset first and foremost, and a necessity second. Whereas wealth generation under the FF government was based around giving every plumber mortgage approval for a €600,000 house, now it's a case of creating an artificial scarcity to allow property owners to make huge money at the expense of renters who can't afford to buy.

Property owners look at the massive mortgages on their second homes or invested property and there's this belief that they rent to at least cover that repayment through rent or they're losing money. In reality, because they'll own a house worth €300,000+ at the end of the mortgage, they've effectively managed to get a "free" house in 2040 or whenever, purely by being in a better position to pay deposits and upfront costs in 2015 than a couple in their twenties. The renters are repaying the property owners loan and they're left with nothing at the end.

While renting happens on a much larger scale in other big cities, there's legislation set up to enable that. Rent controls and laws around long-term leases make renting far cheaper in other cities. In Ireland, a long-term lease is two years at the very maximum. Landlords want this because they can review (and invariably raise) rates. The Irish solution of course is to raise rent allowance and a short term freeze.

I mean, it sounds like a stupid point to make, but the people who are becoming homeless are the people who can't afford to buy or rent. There's a view that all homeless are junkies, criminals or people with mental health issues who just can't function in normal society. This may have been the case in the past but the demographics are changing. The actual research carried out on the issue suggests that it's mainly families becoming homeless now, and in a majority of cases it's due to being squeezed out of the rental market. Between 30 and 40% of the homeless in Ireland are under 18. Structural economic factors (the 'system') is the leading cause of homelessness, not personal circumstances. Our recovery is a two tiered one, leading to rising costs driven by people who can afford to pay, while wages remain depressed for people in unskilled labour. It's not something people like to admit, as it's far easier to demonise the homeless or come up with impractical solutions like moving them all to a ghost estate in Longford. The main reason is the unregulated housing market driven by the government to generate wealth for the wealthy and create the illusion that Ireland is a country getting better.

howiya · 17-01-2017 02:13PM

Slightly off topic but why is Ireland given the same equivalence as the likes of the West Midlands in Unite's structure??

http://www.unitetheunion.org/how-we-help/listofregions/

Phoebas · 17-01-2017 02:15PM

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

Nothing more than trying to smear shíte on people, in order to distract from their criticism of government inaction.

This whole fiasco highlighted the fact that there was a great deal of government action on the issue of rough sleepers.

There used to be a common (mis)perception that there wasn't enough capacity for every rough sleeper who wanted a place.

nelly17 · 17-01-2017 02:25PM

The Government have dug themselves into a hole with their whole approach to social housing - by en large most of the government costs on housing these days goes directly into the hands of private landlords and they have nothing to show for it at the end of the day. I appreciate this was done to stop the Ghettoisation of certain areas but when they build Council Estates at least they had something to show for those costs and were able to put roofs over peoples heads

lawred2 · 17-01-2017 02:27PM

Gatling wrote: »

They Unite are claiming it wasn't them ,it was someone else who applied for the exemption

I'm convinced

jameorahiely · 17-01-2017 02:37PM

The_Captain wrote: »

No, Brendan Ogle and HSH shone a light on Brendan Ogle and HSH. "Look at me, I'm helping, I care so much. Now give me your money"

The big problem here is that the government wants to treat housing as a transferable asset first and foremost, and a necessity second. Whereas wealth generation under the FF government was based around giving every plumber mortgage approval for a €600,000 house, now it's a case of creating an artificial scarcity to allow property owners to make huge money at the expense of renters who can't afford to buy.

Property owners look at the massive mortgages on their second homes or invested property and there's this belief that they rent to at least cover that repayment through rent or they're losing money. In reality, because they'll own a house worth €300,000+ at the end of the mortgage, they've effectively managed to get a "free" house in 2040 or whenever, purely by being in a better position to pay deposits and upfront costs in 2015 than a couple in their twenties. The renters are repaying the property owners loan and they're left with nothing at the end.

While renting happens on a much larger scale in other big cities, there's legislation set up to enable that. Rent controls and laws around long-term leases make renting far cheaper in other cities. In Ireland, a long-term lease is two years at the very maximum. Landlords want this because they can review (and invariably raise) rates. The Irish solution of course is to raise rent allowance and a short term freeze.

I mean, it sounds like a stupid point to make, but the people who are becoming homeless are the people who can't afford to buy or rent. There's a view that all homeless are junkies, criminals or people with mental health issues who just can't function in normal society. This may have been the case in the past but the demographics are changing. The actual research carried out on the issue suggests that it's mainly families becoming homeless now, and in a majority of cases it's due to being squeezed out of the rental market. Between 30 and 40% of the homeless in Ireland are under 18. Structural economic factors (the 'system') is the leading cause of homelessness, not personal circumstances. Our recovery is a two tiered one, leading to rising costs driven by people who can afford to pay, while wages remain depressed for people in unskilled labour. It's not something people like to admit, as it's far easier to demonise the homeless or come up with impractical solutions like moving them all to a ghost estate in Longford. The main reason is the unregulated housing market driven by the government to generate wealth for the wealthy and create the illusion that Ireland is a country getting better.

We need to look aswell at how other countries buy and sell houses. Taking the dutch for example, a seller must consider and accept/reject each buyer individually. It cuts out the bidding wars that arise in this country, resulting in phantom bids that drive up prices.

For example, you are selling a house for 180,000. I offer 175,000. You must accept/reject my bid. No other buyer can offer a bid until you do so. 2+ people can not bid on a property at the same time.

No social housing

Comments