Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Homelessness Crisis
Options
Comments
-
end of the road wrote: »it's not no . people will have certain needs and requirements which need to be taken into account. i don't mean the garden isn't big enough or any of that nonsense however.
they have to be allowed input as otherwise we are forcing people into unsuitable accommodation which will cause more problems then the current system would.
because they need to be housed as they don't earn enough to house themselves.
can't be done as people will suffer undue hardship for no good reason, + crime would rise.
On my phone so can't multi quote.
1. I'm saying 90% would have standard similar requirements, I do realise a small amount have specific needs in a property. But they would be the exception not the rule.
2. In my book putting people into "unsuitable" accommodation in there view i.e. Too far from family/friends etc is far superior to them being on the street so I can't see how this causes more problems than the current system. Again here I feel a standard template for what qualifies as adequate housing is a must.
3. If they need to be housed because they can't afford to house themselves then I'm sorry but you accept the first offer you get. Nobody offered to give me an extra 100k to buy where I really wanted too, I compromised and bought what real world practicalities told me I could buy. I don't see why these same realities shouldn't apply to social housing.
4. It's not for no good reason. It's because they refused the property they were offered in this hypothetical situation. If they want to turn too crime as a result of there decisions that's not anybody's business but the judicial system. I loathe this point as it's basically threatening society with a "look after me how I want or else" attitude. That thinking is utterly unacceptable in the normal working to buy a home class of people in this country so again I cannot comprehend how it can be let apply to people on a housing list.0 -
end of the road wrote: »they aren't no . clearly they aren't excepting a property that is sufficient to their needs, doesn't matter whether you or i agree or not as to whether their needs are being met, that's between them and the local authority and is for the local authority to decide what to do via the relevant legislation.
You are correct- it is between them and the Local Authority, and the Local Authority determine their housing needs having met with the applicant. If they require specific type housing e.g. specially adapted housing, this will be offered to them, otherwise it is not housing that is sufficient to their needs.
If they choose to turn this down, well then they clearly are putting other priorities above their housing
they are still homeless.
See above
we shouldn't ultimately. but that is for the local authority to decide what to do. however they have to be housed somewhere ultimately.
If they turn down suitable housing, then the Local Authority have met their housing need. They will ultimately need to be housed somewhere but the Local Authority have no obligation to provide it.
it's not really. we lose no matter what as we are paying in some form.
We are paying in some form, but I for one am not keen to be paying for people to live in hotels and B&B's when there is perfectly good accommodation available to them that they are unwilling to accept.
..0 -
tomwaterford wrote: »This is ture....even when the country was on its knees in the 50s and 60's we could build social housing
But not today,when it's supposedly one of richest in Europe?
How is that
Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.
It's not that hard to understand.
There is only a limited amount of money.
40 billion a year on health and welfare.0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.
It's not that hard to understand.
There is only a limited amount of money.
40 billion a year on health and welfare.
Off topic but that 40billion could arguably be halved if private sector efficiancy was introduced. Unfortunately there is 0 political will to do so much like there is 0 political will to just bite the bullet, build 3k social housing units in north Dublin, 2k in Cork and 1k in Galway/Sligo, introduce an absolute zero tolerance attitude to anti social behaviour in these units and actually fix this problem in two years.
I don't think this is a question of money, as is usually the case in Ireland, political realitys are the core problem.0 -
How hard is it to get council housing / Temporary accommodation in Ireland from the council? I know here in the UK unless you are seriously ill or have children, the council won't even enetertain you. If you're a single fella, you may as well not even bother going to the council. There aren't even any self referring homeless hostels in London, that's another whole rigmarole, which can entail sleeping out on the streets overnight for 3 nights in one location waiting for an outreach team to come find you and verify that you are rough sleeping, and they MIGHT be able to take you to a crappy hostel with 25 other people sleeping on mattresses on the floor. Is it similar in Ireland? How hard is it to get into a hostel?0
-
Advertisement
-
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.
It's not that hard to understand.
There is only a limited amount of money.
40 billion a year on health and welfare.
And paying endlessly for rent relief and putting people up in hotels with near on 3000 children homeless is a viable alternative??
When did this become something to aspire to?0 -
tomwaterford wrote: »And paying endlessly for rent relief and putting people up in hotels with near on 3000 children homeless is a viable alternative??
When did this become something to aspire to?
Well how many social houses do want built?
Tell me what you think and we will work out the maths.0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »Well how many social houses do want built?
Tell me what you think and we will work out the maths.
However many it takes tbh to take every child out of homelessness (taking an average of 2 kids per family??...that's a rough count of 1500 homes)
Why bother pretending to be a rich country if we can't even ensure children have a roof over there head???
Its pure ludicrious to think it's ok to have 3000 children homeless while they can turn around and hand a garda commissioner retiring in disgrace 300K of a pay off0 -
tomwaterford wrote: »However many it takes tbh to take every child out of homelessness (taking an average of 2 kids per family??...that's a rough count of 1500 homes)
Why bother pretending to be a rich country if we can't even ensure children have a roof over there head???
Its pure ludicrious to think it's ok to have 3000 children homeless while they can turn around and hand a garda commissioner retiring in disgrace 300K of a pay off
They do have a roof over their head.
And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".
But you don't want to discuss that.0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »They do have a roof over their head.
And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".
But you don't want to discuss that.
How many have refused housing?
Do you wish to see government keep people housed in hotels in perpetually?0 -
Advertisement
-
tomwaterford wrote: »How many have refused housing?
Do you wish to see government keep people housed in hotels in perpetually?
In a Local Authority that I dealt with there was 21% refused in 2016 and 15% refused so far in 2017.
( that is "first refusals" and the housing applicants are allowed to refuse 2 offers before they are taken off the list, so you can probably halve that figure for actual "total refusal to take a house")
I certainly don't want to see people housed in hotels but if that is what they choose over an offer of a house, then what can you do ?
BTW, don't want an Erica Fleming situation either, whereby you can refuse as many offers as you like until you are housed next door to mammy/the school/the shopping centre.0 -
tomwaterford wrote: »Wheeliebin30 wrote: »They do have a roof over their head.
And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".
But you don't want to discuss that.
How many have refused housing?
Do you wish to see government keep people housed in hotels in perpetually?
There would be no figures on how many refused housing - iirc in the Fleming case, that detail was leaked, presumably by a council employee.0 -
For anyone saying that people should be moved to the country, you're aware we have a country wide homelessness problem, right? The homeless services have been stretched to their limits all over the country. I don't understand where all these magical places are that I hear people saying the homeless should be moved to. The issue is that there are not enough properties available for rent to meet the demand, so the prices have become unaffordable for most people, and unless something drastic changes it's going to get worse with more and more working people being priced out of the housing market.
You might get the odd cheap rental that's in the middle of the countryside, but that really isn't a feasible option for anyone who doesn't or can't afford to drive.
There is an issue, and the issue isn't the few people who do have a sense of entitlement and take the piss. It's really sad to see so many people get caught up on the small few who do that, instead of looking at the bigger picture and the overall numbers of rough sleepers and families needing emergency accommodation and how much those numbers are increasing.
You also have to wonder why the government are making decisions to convert buildings, many of which are disused warehouses, into family hubs (emergency accommodation under a new name) when the money could be better used to provide local authority housing which would be a longer term solution and also generate more income for local authorities through rent. But once they can re-brand it into something that sounds nice and not have to call it emergency accommodation anymore it makes it look like the issue is being resolved.
There are empty Local Authority flat complexes around Dublin that may need some work, but could go a long way in helping the issue. There are empty properties all over the country that could be used. But a homeless crisis and increased rental and property prices means we're building again, the jobs are back and the recession is over and those on top are profiting. I'd love to know how much of an impact that's having on the government's reluctance to do anything to actually solve the problem.0 -
In a Local Authority that I dealt with there was 21% refused in 2016 and 15% refused so far in 2017.
( that is "first refusals" and the housing applicants are allowed to refuse 2 offers before they are taken off the list, so you can probably halve that figure for actual "total refusal to take a house")
I certainly don't want to see people housed in hotels but if that is what they choose over an offer of a house, then what can you do ?
BTW, don't want an Erica Fleming situation either, whereby you can refuse as many offers as you like until you are housed next door to mammy/the school/the shopping centre.
Majority of rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation haven't ever been offered local authority housing though. So those figures don't refer to a percentage of the number of those homeless, they refer to those who have actually been offered housing, and the numbers who have actually been offered housing are probably quite small in comparison given that local authority housing isn't being built.0 -
Majority of rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation haven't ever been offered local authority housing though. So those figures don't refer to a percentage of the number of those homeless, they refer to those who have actually been offered housing, and the numbers who have actually been offered housing are probably quite small in comparison given that local authority housing isn't being built.
Link?0 -
Would all these fake students comingbin huge numbers affect number of places to rent0
-
Majority of rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation haven't ever been offered local authority housing though. So those figures don't refer to a percentage of the number of those homeless, they refer to those who have actually been offered housing, and the numbers who have actually been offered housing are probably quite small in comparison given that local authority housing isn't being built.
Agreed that most of the rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation have probably never been offered housing. But there have been a few that I am aware of who have refused housing.
Then there are those among the "homeless" who are simply incapable of maintaining a tenancy, so even when they are offered housing, they are homeless again within a very short time.
Plus, what people seem to forget that we supposedly 300+K applications which require housing.
Of these, most are adequately housed in either HAP or Rent Supplemented housing.
The number of persons who are homeless (say 8,000 applications) represents only about 2.5% of the overall total.0 -
If they need to be housed because they can't afford to house themselves then I'm sorry but you accept the first offer you get.
i'm not sorry but you don't accept the first offer you get unless it's suitable.Nobody offered to give me an extra 100k to buy where I really wanted too, I compromised and bought what real world practicalities told me I could buy.
and? so what? that means nothing to others. i also had to do the same, we are nothing special.I don't see why these same realities shouldn't apply to social housing.
because they can't. it's not practical. what you have to do means nothing to others.It's not for no good reason. It's because they refused the property they were offered in this hypothetical situation.
it's for no good reason. someone refusing a property is for the local authority to deal with.If they want to turn too crime as a result of there decisions that's not anybody's business but the judicial system.
we will have to pay a lot more for it and we will be at greater risk, so it is my business.I loathe this point as it's basically threatening society with a "look after me how I want or else" attitude.
sure, but it's still reality.That thinking is utterly unacceptable in the normal working to buy a home class of people in this country so again I cannot comprehend how it can be let apply to people on a housing list.
because it's a non-issue. it's been blown out of all proportion.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
If they choose to turn this down, well then they clearly are putting other priorities above their housing
they aren't no . or at least it cannot be proved, only they will know thatIf they turn down suitable housing, then the Local Authority have met their housing need.
they haven't as they haven't been housed.They will ultimately need to be housed somewhere but the Local Authority have no obligation to provide it.
they have within reason.Wheeliebin30 wrote: »Because it realised in time long run it costs too much and isn't viable.
It's not that hard to understand.
There is only a limited amount of money.
40 billion a year on health and welfare.
it is viable. the reason they stopped was due to lobbying and other factors and vested interests. it was nothing to do with viability as it is viable. it's not viable however to leave social housing in the hands of the private sector as it's not profitable for them.Off topic but that 40billion could arguably be halved if private sector efficiancy was introduced.
it would not halve with so called private sector efficientsy, it would quadruple or more for a more inefficient system, as we can see from the uk where privatization of parts of the wellfare and other services has happened. there is no political will to do it because for all their faults, the irish government see that there is nothing to be gained and it is not financially or socially viable.Unfortunately there is 0 political will to do so much like there is 0 political will to just bite the bullet, build 3k social housing units in north Dublin, 2k in Cork and 1k in Galway/Sligo, introduce an absolute zero tolerance attitude to anti social behaviour in these units and actually fix this problem in two years.
I don't think this is a question of money, as is usually the case in Ireland, political realitys are the core problem.
indeed.Wheeliebin30 wrote: »They do have a roof over their head.
And like Erica Fleming a lot have been offered housing but are refusing therefore keeping their children "homeless".
But you don't want to discuss that.
because there is nothing to discuss. the odd couple of people refuse housing, they are put back to the back of the list, job done. non-issue that is blown out of all proportion.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »Link?
Not sure what sort of link you want on that, I would have thought it was common sense given the sheer number of people on the waiting list for council housing, the fact that there's very little being built and the fact that there are a large number of people in emergency accommodation - and those people may not even be top of the list.0 -
Advertisement
-
end of the road wrote: »i'm not sorry but you don't accept the first offer you get unless it's suitable.
--We are arguing different points here, my arguement is that we need to change what constitutes "suitable". As Iv said and somebody who works in this area has reiterated, 90% of people have the same "suitable" in the real world. Therefore it should be extremely rare that someone is offered something not "suitable". The only case i see for someone not being the same as everybody else on the list in this regard is health, and I mean an actual definable disability. If you don't have one then whatever you are offered IS suitable so you either accept the offer or your off the list/subsidies/HAP etc.--
and? so what? that means nothing to others. i also had to do the same, we are nothing special.
--Never claimed to be. My point is if I had to compromise on buying my property then tough luck if John and his family on a housing list do too--
because they can't. it's not practical. what you have to do means nothing to others.
--Why not? Lots of people in the real world do.--
it's for no good reason. someone refusing a property is for the local authority to deal with.
--As above, accept the offer or your off the list, my view is this should be the outlook of the authority--
we will have to pay a lot more for it and we will be at greater risk, so it is my business.
--I'm simply not interested in that arguement and iv already explained why.--
sure, but it's still reality.
--As above.--
because it's a non-issue. it's been blown out of all proportion.
--You are the one who raised it--
--In response to your other post, Almost all of one side of my family work in Healtcare and the stories of waste and inefficiency I hear from them would make your blood boil. Things that would get my sacked are a daily occurance in the HSE. I'm not about to tar the entire Public service with the same brush but there is an obscene level of waste in large areas of it. It's literally ingrained in the culture in a lot of it. It's also totally pointless comparing Irelands health system to Britians, two completely different systems with completely different populations. --
I'm trying to put forward workable sensible solutions and mechanisms for working them, I'm genuinly curious, how do you see this "issue" being resolved with the status quo and the current inefficiencies in the housing and welfare systems?0 -
Agreed that most of the rough sleepers and those in emergency accommodation have probably never been offered housing. But there have been a few that I am aware of who have refused housing.
Then there are those among the "homeless" who are simply incapable of maintaining a tenancy, so even when they are offered housing, they are homeless again within a very short time.
Plus, what people seem to forget that we supposedly 300+K applications which require housing.
Of these, most are adequately housed in either HAP or Rent Supplemented housing.
The number of persons who are homeless (say 8,000 applications) represents only about 2.5% of the overall total.
There will always be homeless that can't maintain tenancy for whatever reason, be it mental health, addiction or some other issue - those people still need support. There always have and always will be the few who take the piss or refuse housing for stupid reasons. However, that isn't what we're seeing, here, because the numbers of people homeless are increasing rapidly.
The numbers of piss takers and those who can't maintain tenancy didn't suddenly start rapidly increasing out of nowhere so that isn't the issue. The issue is that enough housing isn't being supplied to meet demand.
You are also forgetting the large number of adults who are being forced to live at home because they can't afford to move out, that's become a huge issue. Last census showed 460,000 adults living in the family home, with around half of those working many are full time students and ~ 15% unemployed. I'm sure a proportion of them are making up the council waiting list, and if these people couldn't live at home for whatever reason, the homeless numbers would be a lot bigger too.
I'm not directing this at you specifically, but anyone who doesn't recognise that there is an issue with homelessness in this country and that that issue is not created by the people who refuse a council house is frankly blind. Go walk around Dublin City Centre, late at night, there numbers of rough sleepers just keeps growing. Look in the hedges on the edge of St. Stephen's Green - full of tents. Go talk to anyone who works in homeless services - they are run off their feet trying to help people.
I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it a million more times. Unless you have your mortgage paid off or have a very large amount of savings behind you, the majority here are a few bad weeks or months away from homelessness. And unless you are in a well paid job, if you are renting it is very possible that you will be priced out of the Dublin and Dublin commuter belt rental market. I really think people would do well to remember the reality of how near they are to being in the same situation, and consider what kind of supports and attitudes you would like to face if you're ever so unfortunate.0 -
We are arguing different points here, my arguement is that we need to change what constitutes "suitable". As Iv said and somebody who works in this area has reiterated, 90% of people have the same "suitable" in the real world. Therefore it should be extremely rare that someone is offered something not "suitable". The only case i see for someone not being the same as everybody else on the list in this regard is health, and I mean an actual definable disability. If you don't have one then whatever you are offered IS suitable so you either accept the offer or your off the list/subsidies/HAP etc.
can't be done, as it would lead to undue hardship and other problems which will cost us more. they have to remain on the subsidies/hap unless their earnings and circumstances change to keep over all costs down.Never claimed to be. My point is if I had to compromise on buying my property then tough luck if John and his family on a housing list do too
not at all, you having to do something doesn't mean john and his family has to do the same. nobody is the same therefore they can't all do the same.Why not? Lots of people in the real world do.
because it's not practical. lots of people in the real world also don't do the same.As above, accept the offer or your off the list, my view is this should be the outlook of the authority
can't be done as it would lead to undue hardship and other potential problems that would cost us more.I'm simply not interested in that arguement and iv already explained why.
you will have to be interested in that argument as unless you want a bigger bill then we have to deal with the problems and reality in a practical manner.ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.
0 -
end of the road wrote: »can't be done, as it would lead to undue hardship and other problems which will cost us more. they have to remain on the subsidies/hap unless their earnings and circumstances change to keep over all costs down.
Rubbish. This is already being done.
Refuse 2 offers and you are automatically gone from the housing list for 12 months.
Same applies if you leave HAP or Local Authority accommodation without a very good reason.
As I said earlier, once you render yourself homeless the LA has no further obligation to you.0 -
There will always be homeless that can't maintain tenancy for whatever reason, be it mental health, addiction or some other issue - those people still need support. There always have and always will be the few who take the piss or refuse housing for stupid reasons. However, that isn't what we're seeing, here, because the numbers of people homeless are increasing rapidly.
My own thinking on why the numbers of homeless is increasing exponentially is this.
Firstly, the number of distressed mortgages( although these do not generally present as "homeless")
Secondly, the number of what could possibly be described as "sub standard" housing, which traditionally catered for people with addiction issues, are now either being closed or they are being improved just enough to be compliant with the new housing regs and can now be let at a higher rent, which the "homeless" can no longer afford.
The numbers of piss takers and those who can't maintain tenancy didn't suddenly start rapidly increasing out of nowhere so that isn't the issue. The issue is that enough housing isn't being supplied to meet demand.
Agree, but the provision of housing takes time and apparently builders cant make a profit on a €320,000 house.
You are also forgetting the large number of adults who are being forced to live at home because they can't afford to move out, that's become a huge issue. Last census showed 460,000 adults living in the family home, with around half of those working many are full time students and ~ 15% unemployed. I'm sure a proportion of them are making up the council waiting list, and if these people couldn't live at home for whatever reason, the homeless numbers would be a lot bigger too
Agreed that there are more adults still living at home. Not ideal, but if there is sufficient space at home, is it not better than living in a flat that you cant afford or worse still, living on the street.
I'm not directing this at you specifically, but anyone who doesn't recognise that there is an issue with homelessness in this country and that that issue is not created by the people who refuse a council house is frankly blind. Go walk around Dublin City Centre, late at night, there numbers of rough sleepers just keeps growing. Look in the hedges on the edge of St. Stephen's Green - full of tents. Go talk to anyone who works in homeless services - they are run off their feet trying to help people.
Fully accept that there is a serious homeless problem currently. But people need to wake up to the fact that a lot of the people who are currently homeless are without a home for reasons that have nothing to do with housing. For instance, if you were had a flat to let and your 2 prospective tenants were either an active heroin user or a young lad working in the local shop, who would you let it to ?
I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it a million more times. Unless you have your mortgage paid off or have a very large amount of savings behind you, the majority here are a few bad weeks or months away from homelessness. And unless you are in a well paid job, if you are renting it is very possible that you will be priced out of the Dublin and Dublin commuter belt rental market. I really think people would do well to remember the reality of how near they are to being in the same situation, and consider what kind of supports and attitudes you would like to face if you're ever so unfortunate.
BTW, I am not intending to judge anyone who is homeless for whatever reason (can't afford to, to be honest) but the full truth of homeless needs to be told, not "everyone who is homeless is taking the p**s" or conversely "all the homeless are victims and need to have every support given to them for nothing"0 -
Rents have gone up,its very hard to get a flat under the rent allowance system in dublin.
If a landlord wants to take hap or rent allowance its easier just to rent a house to a single mother, rather than deal with 2 or more single tenants .
i think theres lots of people homeless who do not use drugs,
when bedsits were banned alot of single people had to move out,
people on lower incomes or on rent allowance.0 -
And today's sob media story is here folks.
On the housing list since she was 18, now has a few sprogs and just wants a house. That's all. It's not too much to ask.
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/i-just-want-a-home-for-my-children-mum-on-housing-list-for-12-years-36130478.html0 -
Wheeliebin30 wrote: »And today's sob media story is here folks.
On the housing list since she was 18, now has a few sprogs and just wants a house. That's all. It's not too much to ask.
http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/i-just-want-a-home-for-my-children-mum-on-housing-list-for-12-years-36130478.html
Why did she put herself on the list at the age of 18? Do people not even try to get out of this council house mentality of "I'm an adult now, the council will look after me"
Jesus sometimes I really begrudge getting up at 5:45am for my 2 hour commute to pay for my mortgage.0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »Why did she put herself on the list at the age of 18? Do people not even try to get out of this council house mentality of "I'm an adult now, the council will look after me"
Jesus sometimes I really begrudge getting up at 5:45am for my 2 hour commute to pay for my mortgage.
She did it because she can.
Because this country and it's do gooder lefties have led her to believe she is a victim and it's the goverments fault for her choices and situation.
Unfortunately the culture is growing and sure soon noone will have to work anymore as there should be houses for everyone seems it's a right.
Money? Sure that grows on trees.0 -
Advertisement
-
Speaking of homeless there is a huge problem in cork with it and I seen it 1st hand last weekend when I headed in town to get a hair cut early.
Nearly every door way in the city has people sleeping in them I could have counted nearly 30 people sleeping in doorways of shops in the city I was shocked and felt what has gone wrong in the country?. With how many people that are now homeless.
I used to live in the city and this time last year was no where near as bad as now.
What can be done to fix this major issue that we are now facing in Ireland?.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement