Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

Wheeliebin30 · 14-11-2017 03:26PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So have Varadkar in government is pointless? It seems you might have a point.
Did I say it's nothing to do with councils? The concern here, for me, is a taoiseach, unwilling to accept we have an issue worth bothering about. He's gone from ignoring it to dismissing it. That's deeply concerning.

Once again he never dismissed it.

Stop making things up to suit your agenda.

ancapailldorcha · 14-11-2017 03:39PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Once again he never dismissed it.

Stop making things up to suit your agenda.

Stop posting in this manner please. It isn't acceptable here. Next time you post in this manner will be met with a ban.

McMurphy · 14-11-2017 04:11PM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Go on, 100k houses at 250k a pop.

Do the maths, who has to pay for it?

The current solution (if you can describe it as such) of housing people in emergency situations -ie bed and breakfasts, hotels, hostels and in private tenancy placements has to be paid from somewhere too.

That is dead money. Money the state will never see again.

Building social and or affordable housing would also have to be paid for, no doubt.

However, if the state own the properties, the properties become an asset of the state, and as such makes the spending an investment.

Investment v dead money?

No brainer.

Idbatterim · 14-11-2017 04:12PM

However, if the state own the properties, the properties become an asset of the state, and as such makes the spending an investment.

Investment v dead money?

No brainer.

in the past and maybe even currently, arent many of these houses sold to the tenants for a pittance?

McMurphy · 14-11-2017 04:22PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

in the past and maybe even currently, arent many of these houses sold to the tenants for a pittance?

I'm not too sure of the ins and outs of the scheme, but I think it was an option for long term tenants in years gone past.

Obviously one would have to qualify for the mortgage/loan to purchase the property, to qualify for same, presumably to qualify for that, one would have to be in employment.

Being employed would mean they paid rent (perhaps below average, but rent none the less) over so many years.

It's not like the state build a house at for say 200k, place a family in it and then tell them they can buy it for 100k a week or two later.

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 04:24PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

By the way, leading up to the most recent crash we'd LC awash with FF and FG, selling off public property in various ill conceived PPP deals. But that's different and not relevant somehow I suppose.

So having Varadkar in government is pointless? It seems you might have a point.
Did I say it's nothing to do with councils? The concern here, for me, is a taoiseach, unwilling to accept we have an issue worth bothering about. He's gone from ignoring it to dismissing it. That's deeply concerning.

This is very confusing.

Can you explain to me how "selling off public property in various ill conceived PPP deals" works?

My understanding (and experience) of PPP deals is that they provide a method of funding public capital programmes up front which the State cannot afford to do (or is prevented by fiscal rules from doing so) which the State pays for over a set number of years before ownership of the new asset (which didn't previously exist) reverts to the State.

Essentially then, how can you sell off something that doesn't exist and wouldn't exist without the PPP?

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 04:26PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

in the past and maybe even currently, arent many of these houses sold to the tenants for a pittance?

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I'm not too sure of the ins and outs of the scheme, but I think it was an option for long term tenants in years gone past.

Obviously one would have to qualify for the mortgage/loan to purchase the property, to qualify for same, presumably to qualify for that, one would have to be in employment.

Being employed would mean they paid rent (perhaps below average, but rent none the less) over so many years.

It's not like the state build a house at for say 200k, place a family in it and then tell them they can buy it for 100k a week or two later.

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/home-ownership/tenant-purchase-scheme/tenant-purchase

Essentially you get a discount of between 40% and 60%.

Therefore if you buy a house in a mixed estate, the person next door to you who happens to have been on the social housing list, could get the house for 40-60% cheaper than you.

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 04:28PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

DCC, dominated by SF, AAA-PBP, etc have elected to reduce the LPT by the maximum allowed amount for the last few years, despite being informed that this would impact housing services [ of which social housing, your suggested solution, is one].

This has coincided with a rise in homelessness, which is still much less of a problem here than on mainland Europe.

Can you see the link between these two events?

You have hit the nail on the head with this post.

Most of the people paying LPT would have no problem with the extra money going to housing and homelessness but the misquided twisted ideology of the Irish left means that they are willing to reduce a tax on the rich (those who own homes) to penalise those who are poor (those who are homeless).

Only in Ireland can you get left-wing parties as stupid as this.

Chips Lovell · 14-11-2017 04:34PM

I wouldn't really consider SF or AAA-PBP to be left-wing though. They're by and large populist types. We don't have much in the way of truly left-wing parties in Ireland.

McMurphy · 14-11-2017 04:35PM

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/home-ownership/tenant-purchase-scheme/tenant-purchase

Essentially you get a discount of between 40% and 60%.

Therefore if you buy a house in a mixed estate, the person next door to you who happens to have been on the social housing list, could get the house for 40-60% cheaper than you.

Isn't it also true that you could be in a mixed estate today, and the house next door belongs to a private landlord, bought as a buy to let investment, and has a family living in it, funded via the taxpayers money?

So essentially, taxpayers are funding the mortgage repayments of a private landlord ?

Red_Wake · 14-11-2017 04:37PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

DCC, dominated by SF, AAA-PBP, etc have elected to reduce the LPT by the maximum allowed amount for the last few years, despite being informed that this would impact housing services [ of which social housing, your suggested solution, is one].

This has coincided with a rise in homelessness, which is still much less of a problem here than on mainland Europe.

Can you see the link between these two events?

By the way, leading up to the most recent crash we'd LC awash with FF and FG, selling off public property in various ill conceived PPP deals. But that's different and not relevant somehow I suppose.

So having Varadkar in government is pointless? It seems you might have a point.
Did I say it's nothing to do with councils? The concern here, for me, is a taoiseach, unwilling to accept we have an issue worth bothering about. He's gone from ignoring it to dismissing it. That's deeply concerning.

If the, alleged, housing crisis is recent enough that the current government is to blame for it, how can the councils pre 2008 be culpable for it?

The Taoiseach's remit is not social housing, that is the remit of the local authorities. I'd be happy to put it under central government, and massively row back the level of authority delegated to the councils[their causing this mess reeks of cynical politics imo], but that requires a changing of the system, which you're not suggesting.

Why is Varadkar acknowledging that our levels of homelessness are below standard European levels offensive to you, but the councils which are supposed to be implementing your desired social housing, but neglecting to do so, barely get a mention?

James Brown · 14-11-2017 04:42PM

blanch152 wrote: »

This is very confusing.

Can you explain to me how "selling off public property in various ill conceived PPP deals" works?

My understanding (and experience) of PPP deals is that they provide a method of funding public capital programmes up front which the State cannot afford to do (or is prevented by fiscal rules from doing so) which the State pays for over a set number of years before ownership of the new asset (which didn't previously exist) reverts to the State.

Essentially then, how can you sell off something that doesn't exist and wouldn't exist without the PPP?

Sure. You sell publicly owned land, some former social housing estates, to a private company. The deals vary, but generally it's for a promise of a certain percentage of any new builds, being allocated as affordable and/or social housing.
This leaves the state/LA's where we are today. Buying homes at market rate and renting homes at market rates and paying out to privately owned B&B's, hostels and hotels.
In my opinion, during the heyday of the boom the regeneration projects were designed for the sole purpose of freeing up capital by bulldozing publicly owned social housing estates, moving the lions share of the inhabitants to the suburbs and building PPP schemes as described. This was at a time when the councils were very much FG/FF led, seeing as some believe the government play a supporting role in such things.
And lest we forget, Varadkar's comments seem to show he is going to be nothing more than a caretaker, albeit one who gives more time and effort to spin and waffle over substance.

Red_Wake wrote: »

If the, alleged, housing crisis ...

Sorry, we don't live in the conservative utopia FG would have you believe.

Red_Wake · 14-11-2017 04:56PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

If the, alleged, housing crisis ...

Sorry, we don't live in the conservative utopia FG would have you believe.

Can internationally low rates of homelessness be considered a crisis?

Which country's model and approach to homelessness would you follow?

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 04:57PM

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Sure. You sell publicly owned land, some former social housing estates, to a private company. The deals vary, but generally it's for a promise of a certain percentage of any new builds, being allocated as affordable and/or social housing.
This leaves the state/LA's where we are today. Buying homes at market rate and renting homes at market rates and paying out to privately owned B&B's, hostels and hotels.
In my opinion, during the heyday of the boom the regeneration projects were designed for the sole purpose of freeing up capital by bulldozing publicly owned social housing estates, moving the lions share of the inhabitants to the suburbs and building PPP schemes as described. This was at a time when the councils were very much FG/FF led, seeing as some believe the government play a supporting role in such things.
And lest we forget, Varadkar's comments seem to show he is going to be nothing more than a caretaker, albeit one who gives more time and effort to spin and waffle over substance.

Sorry, we don't live in the conservative utopia FG would have you believe.

Can you provide a link to the scheme you are talking about. It certainly doesn't sound like PPP.

Praetorian · 14-11-2017 05:00PM

I don't really agree with much of what the OP said, but if I was having a rant, I would have moaned about the state of our infrastructure, in particular with the lack of investment in trams around Dublin / to Dublin airport and heavy rail. If I was in government, I would be pushing for huge expenditure in those areas. You can literally see Dublin choking every single day on traffic. A lot could be done to alleviate those issues and improve the cities green credentials at the same time.

Nobody in Ireland has ever been able to fix "health / hse / hospitals / mental health" in one go. I think a lot of things have been improved by successive governments, but a huge amount is left to do. My own uncle, my favorite uncle whom I was extremely close to died recently in Tallaght hospital. The room where we watched him pass away was completely unsuitable and the carry on and the noise from the staff around was a disgrace. What made me angry was there was multiple rooms with absolutely no one in them with all the same equipment. What would it have cost for my uncle and his family to have been moved to a quite room where we could be with him for his last few minutes.

My own missus is a health care professional and she is of the opinion that "middle management / upper management" are utterly clueless, and massively overpaid. I believe her direct boss is on a 6 figure salary, and having met the woman a couple of times she does seem like a bit of a *****

https://www.quora.com/Whats-a-nicer-way-to-say-someone-is-dumb

James Brown · 14-11-2017 06:05PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Can internationally low rates of homelessness be considered a crisis?

Which country's model and approach to homelessness would you follow?

Whatabout. You don't believe there is a crisis so I'm not sure why you are interested.
We have a housing and homeless crisis. How the Ugandans or Hungarians address there's is for them to discuss. Are you suggesting, just short of paddy last is acceptable?
If you don't believe in climate change the housing crisis, I understand your defense of Varadkars distasteful comments.

blanch152 wrote: »

Can you provide a link to the scheme you are talking about. It certainly doesn't sound like PPP.

http://www.per.gov.ie/en/public-private-partnerships/

Budget 2018 is the fourth of the “post-austerity” budgets, the first budgets to see significant capital investment in housing since 2009.
However, for the fourth year running the Government is relying on the private rental sector to solve the social housing crisis, a policy which has yet to succeed.
Almost €1.9 billion is being provided for social housing next year, an increase of 46 per cent on 2017, which Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy said will provide homes for 25,000 people currently on waiting lists.
However, only 3,800 of those “new” homes will be built by local authorities or voluntary housing bodies. The majority – about 20,000 – will be rented from private landlords, largely using the Housing Assistance Payment (Hap), where rent is paid directly to landlords by local authorities on behalf of tenants.
The remaining homes will be built by private developers, returned to the system through refurbishment, or bought on the private market.
Mr Murphy concedes this needs to be “rebalanced” but he said it was a “legacy” of years of outsourcing social housing to the private sector.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/budget-2018-state-continues-reliance-on-private-sector-for-social-housing-1.3250659

The 2008 collapse of the Public Private Partnership (PPP) schemes resulted in the disbanding of communities and left the city scarred by derelict blocks of empty flats vacated for regeneration projects that never happened.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-public-housing-proposal-struggles-to-shake-off-ppps-legacy-1.2276724

You led me to believe you'd knowledge in the area. But happy to help.

Praetorian wrote: »

...

Nobody in Ireland has ever been able to fix "health / hse / hospitals / mental health" in one go. I think a lot of things have been improved by successive governments, ...

But many things are worse since the crash. The big disgrace being Varadkar's dismissing it with whatbouterey. He's a lame duck, albeit a lame duck actively allowing things get worse.

blanch152 · 14-11-2017 06:14PM

Praetorian wrote: »

I don't really agree with much of what the OP said, but if I was having a rant, I would have moaned about the state of our infrastructure, in particular with the lack of investment in trams around Dublin / to Dublin airport and heavy rail. If I was in government, I would be pushing for huge expenditure in those areas. You can literally see Dublin choking every single day on traffic. A lot could be done to alleviate those issues and improve the cities green credentials at the same time.

I would agree that if Varadkar is to be criticised, it is for his time as Minister for Transport. It was his first Ministerial portfolio and I would hope he has learned a lot since.

server down · 14-11-2017 07:58PM

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If you know a thing or two about it then please cost out how much it would take to build 100k houses at roughly 300k each. Who is paying for it.?

We are paying now for the rental subsidies with no return. And the houses would t cost the government 300k. They won’t be paying council charges, VAT etc (or they get it back). So can we finance those houses over 30 years with a low interest bond. I say we can

It's very blasÃ© to blame neo-liberal accolytes when it's the left that insists that we can't build large scale social housing because it must be inclusive.

That’s one part of the left. I fairly centrist and I think council estates don’t have to be “inclusive”.

Many people who don't consider themselves that way also have an issue with handing out free 300k forever homes when they are struggling to work and pay for theirs.

That’s sheer pettiness. In any case people didn’t mind years ago.

Social derived renting is competing with private renting, not the other way around.

The subsidy of private rentals by people in the private sector actually pushes up rents. Using council housing to reduce pressure on private rental would reduce it.

server down · 14-11-2017 07:59PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

in the past and maybe even currently, arent many of these houses sold to the tenants for a pittance?

That’s what we are opposed to. Who started that? Thatcher.

end of the road · 15-11-2017 03:02AM

Idbatterim wrote: »

in the past and maybe even currently, arent many of these houses sold to the tenants for a pittance?

yes. can easily be stopped though by banning the sale of such houses as should be happening. as much as i can understand the argument for right to buy and i agree with it in theory, in reality it's not viable ultimately, unless the money is enough to re-invest in building replacement stock, which it clearly isn't.

blanch152 wrote: »

You have hit the nail on the head with this post.

Most of the people paying LPT would have no problem with the extra money going to housing and homelessness but the misquided twisted ideology of the Irish left means that they are willing to reduce a tax on the rich (those who own homes) to penalise those who are poor (those who are homeless).

Only in Ireland can you get left-wing parties as stupid as this.

there was nothing stupid about reducing an unjust tax that was brought in for political reasons rather then the greater good. a tax most people couldn't afford.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Isn't it also true that you could be in a mixed estate today, and the house next door belongs to a private landlord, bought as a buy to let investment, and has a family living in it, funded via the taxpayers money?

So essentially, taxpayers are funding the mortgage repayments of a private landlord ?

absolutely. it's unsustainible as well, due to the constantly rising rents and the fact it's not the job of the tax payer to subsidize private landlords. it's also not sustainible to rely on the hotels and hostels to provide for our housing shortage.

Conas · 15-11-2017 03:39AM

Our current Taoiseach is a safe pair of hands, even though I don't really think he's going to do anything much different to Enda Kenny in the long term.

I know people moan a lot about Housing and the HSE, but we don't control the money supply since we joined the Euro.
If you want more money for Health and Housing, you may go to the EU or ECB and ask them, or else don't pay the €6 billion we have to pay annually on the interest alone of our debt. That ought to solve the housing crisis anyway.

Stop always looking to scapegoat the goverment. They are doing their very best, with the mandate the Irish electorate have handed them.

turbbo · 15-11-2017 11:00AM

Conas wrote: »

Our current Taoiseach is a safe pair of hands, even though I don't really think he's going to do anything much different to Enda Kenny in the long term.

I know people moan a lot about Housing and the HSE, but we don't control the money supply since we joined the Euro.
If you want more money for Health and Housing, you may go to the EU or ECB and ask them, or else don't pay the €6 billion we have to pay annually on the interest alone of our debt. That ought to solve the housing crisis anyway.

Stop always looking to scapegoat the goverment. They are doing their very best, with the mandate the Irish electorate have handed them.

Sure we spend an absolute shed load of money on HSE as it is.
I don't think the answer is more spend - the answer is cuts to spending on HSE!

McMurphy · 15-11-2017 12:02PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

DCC, dominated by SF, AAA-PBP, etc have elected to reduce the LPT by the maximum allowed amount for the last few years, despite being informed that this would impact housing services [ of which social housing, your suggested solution, is one].

This has coincided with a rise in homelessness, which is still much less of a problem here than on mainland Europe.

Can you see the link between these two events?

Yes. What was FG thinking of when they wrote that provision into the legislation anyway

Red_Wake · 15-11-2017 12:58PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

DCC, dominated by SF, AAA-PBP, etc have elected to reduce the LPT by the maximum allowed amount for the last few years, despite being informed that this would impact housing services [ of which social housing, your suggested solution, is one].

This has coincided with a rise in homelessness, which is still much less of a problem here than on mainland Europe.

Can you see the link between these two events?

Yes. What was FG thinking of when they wrote that provision into the legislation anyway

Councils are allowed increase it LPT as well.

As the LPT revenue goes to the council, why would they not be allowed some influence over it?

George Sunsnow · 15-11-2017 01:02PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Can internationally low rates of homelessness be considered a crisis?

Which country's model and approach to homelessness would you follow?

Yemen
We’re considerably better than Yemen
No warm hotel room showers for families there that can’t afford rent or mortgages

James Brown · 15-11-2017 01:24PM

So not only were Varadkars comments a disgraceful downplay of the homeless crises, they were not an accurate picture:

Fr McVerry said he was equally furious at Taoiseach Leo Varadkar's comments last week, when he said that Ireland had a low level of homelessness compared to other countries.

However, Mr Varadkar said the number of people living in emergency accommodation here has increased.

Fr McVerry said it was "absolutely untrue what the Taoiseach was saying".

He said he was quoting an OECD report from 2015, which is out of date and explicitly states that you cannot compare homelessness between countries because they use different definitions of homelessness.

He said the homeless figures of half of the countries referred to in that report included those staying at the homes of friends or family, because they cannot get alternative accommodation .

Mr McVerry said if we were to do that, our homeless figure would be 70,000- 80,000.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1115/920219-homelessness/

It's very telling that the only comments of note the political leader of the country makes regarding homelessness are to down play it. Who is he trying to cod?

Before we go any further putting homelessness on par with the anecdotal welfare lifers living in luxury;

He said: "The majority of people do become homeless overnight. They become homeless because the landlord evicts them, because they cannot afford to pay the rent or because the landlords say they're selling their house or because the banks have re-possessed the landlord's house because the landlord hasn't paid their mortgage".

Fr McVerry said secondly Ms Gleeson said they want people to engage with the services, but "he said the services are awful and inadequate."

He said if you are drug free and you get a bed at all, "you will be placed in a room full of active drug users".

He said everyday people come to him to say they were robbed in the emergency accommodation.

McMurphy · 15-11-2017 01:45PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

Councils are allowed increase it LPT as well.

As the LPT revenue goes to the council, why would they not be allowed some influence over it?

Sinn Fein, and others campaigned against any introduction of a local property tax (so did FG before them lest we forget).

The government of the day made provisions within the legislation concerning LPT - that gave the relevant local authorities the power to decrease or increase the LPT as desired.

No one should be surprised if a council, that has a majority of elected officials that campaigned against LPT, did what they did once in office, if the govt put legislation in place to enable it.

In fact, given SF's (and others) committed to doing so, if elected into LAs, and then being democratically elected....

Some might call it democracy.

A political party(s) sticking to a pre election promise in Ireland is a rarity, I'll grant you that. But regardless, anyone that didn't see what was going to happen in any local authority that had a majority of representatives that opposed an introduction of an LPT - with the government of the day's legislation enabling them to do so wasn't looking hard enough.

blanch152 · 15-11-2017 01:49PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Sinn Fein, and others campaigned against any introduction of a local property tax (so did FG before them lest we forget).

The government of the day made provisions within the legislation concerning LPT - that gave the relevant local authorities the power to decrease or increase the LPT as desired.

No one should be surprised if a council, that has a majority of elected officials that campaigned against LPT, did what they did once in office, if the govt put legislation in place to enable it.

In fact, given SF's (and others) committed to doing so, if elected into LAs, and then being democratically elected....

Some might call it democracy.

A political party(s) sticking to a pre election promise in Ireland is a rarity, I'll grant you that. But regardless, anyone that didn't see what was going to happen in any local authority that had a majority of representatives that opposed an introduction of an LPT - with the government of the day's legislation enabling them to do so wasn't looking hard enough.

Sinn Fein also has another policy - increase spending on homelessness.

So Sinn Fein actually has a choice, do the populist thing for those who vote - reduce the LPT or do the populist thing for those who don't - spend money on homelessness.

Which one does SF do?

Red_Wake · 15-11-2017 02:08PM

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Councils are allowed increase it LPT as well.

As the LPT revenue goes to the council, why would they not be allowed some influence over it?

Sinn Fein, and others campaigned against any introduction of a local property tax (so did FG before them lest we forget).

The government of the day made provisions within the legislation concerning LPT - that gave the relevant local authorities the power to decrease or increase the LPT as desired.

No one should be surprised if a council, that has a majority of elected officials that campaigned against LPT, did what they did once in office, if the govt put legislation in place to enable it.

In fact, given SF's (and others) committed to doing so, if elected into LAs, and then being democratically elected....

Some might call it democracy.

A political party(s) sticking to a pre election promise in Ireland is a rarity, I'll grant you that. But regardless, anyone that didn't see what was going to happen in any local authority that had a majority of representatives that opposed an introduction of an LPT - with the government of the day's legislation enabling them to do so wasn't looking hard enough.

So they've got a hierarchy of priorities, placing the haves over the homeless have note?

This is probably the first time I've seen someone take the moral high ground on the basis of screwing over the poor to help the rich.

James Brown · 15-11-2017 02:40PM

Red_Wake wrote: »

So they've got a hierarchy of priorities, placing the haves over the homeless have note?

This is probably the first time I've seen someone take the moral high ground on the basis of screwing over the poor to help the rich.

Do you follow the musings of Leo Varadkar and Fine Gael at all?

Mind the homeless do get up early.

Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

Comments