nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

JupiterKid

When Leo Varadkar assumed office of Taoiseach he did the obligatory lap of honour, with the international media fawning over his sexuality and mixed ethnicity, making out the Ireland was now such a modern, progressive society. He was photographed comparing socks (WTF??) with Canadian premier Justin Trudeau.

But look at his record. As Minister for Health, he slashed the already paltry budget for mental health services, an utterly reprehensible act in my view. Irish mental health services are among the worst in the developed world and need more funding, not less. Look at the suicide rates amongst our young. Also, as a gay man myself I found it a bit disingenious that Varadkar chose to come out shortly before the same sex marriage referendum, which if you may not recall he originally opposed.

But then again, our public health system is in a mess generally as a brief stint in A&E in a major Dublin hospital showed me. Very unwell people left on trolleys in corridors for hours, overworked nurses and doctors and taking 11 hours to be seen by a doctor over a heart complaint.

Then there is Varadkar's statement on the housing crisis being over-exaggerated by charities and housing agencies. The pure gall of him to make such a flippant statement. Dublin has a serious housing emergency, a major social housing building programme would go a long way to solving that situation but no, the private market and the banking sector must prevail at all costs. I honestly can't see the situation changing one iota unless a general election takes place.

IMO Leo is a neo-liberal Thatcherite who talks the talk, but can't walk the walk. He has zero interest in the most vulnerable in Irish society. Sadly, I don't see many votes in mental health issues or housing issues, except to ensure those in the know and with connections ensure their over-inflated dwellings continue to rise in price.

It's a sad spectacle and IMO Leo is no supporter in social justice or equality, in any shape or form. The current minority FG govt are a lame duck. They seem to have no ability to tackle serious pressing social problems, particularly with housing and health. Where is the sense of vision? Where is the sense of doing things for the good of Irish society as a whole? I sure don't see it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

hatrickpatrick

It's also not just homelessness that's the problem here. The ridiculous proportion of income people in urban areas are being asked to fork over for rent each month has now also reached crisis levels, and this could also be impacted if the state took action to deflate that market by building affordable rental units.

Don't even get me started on the antics of NAMA...

[Deleted User]

Rick Shaw wrote: »

From the funds they're currently using to prop up the hotels, bed and breakfasts and private landlords with.

Been covered multiple times already.

Where will the money come for those people be housed while waiting for their forever homes?
Where will the land come from to build said homes?

Even the lefties on councils are objecting to proposed developments because they're not big enough!

tayto lover

The big landlords should be hit with a "maximum rent" rule as they're fleecing the working class with their rents. The Govt were quick enough to consider the " Minimum price" laws for alcohol. So now let them go another step and protect the same people.

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Those are both real issues, not to be dismissed lightly as "administrative". No amount of administrative skill could fix the issue of people waiting for a social house to come up in a relatively small region.

Removing problem tenants takes months, often over a year, and often the house itself needs significant work afterwards to fix any damage left by them. Plus there's the lost rent, which currently stands at 65 million euros with a relatively small[according to you] amount of social housing. Expanded social housing will only increase this figure.

Where are you getting this 55,000 euro figure for? The Independent had an article about average rents, with Dublin's being just under 1800 a month. This works out at less then 22,000 a year, which while still expensive, is less than half of the figure you've posted.

Why would these problems not be present in your proposed situation?

You don't seem to grasp the concept of administration. It's not dismissing. It's pointing out that rules can be followed through in a more efficient manner, if they aren't up to scratch. There are clear rules regarding anti-social behaviour. The go to of opening up rabbit holes is a tiresome deflectionary tactic. Yes, some tenant might wreck the home, some homeless are a lost cause, some on welfare don't want a job and so on and so on. It's pretty boring at this point in the debate.
Even the worst case scenario of the anecdotal evidence you supplied, we are wasting money throwing it down the big dark hole of the homeless industries landlords and hoteliers If we built social housing we would not be. Social housing is better value for money. That's it really.

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

No (how you drew that conclusion is confusing)

Yous are only person arguing for a laissez-faire attitude to homelessness....which has landed us into a situation where we have more homeless now than at any time since the famine

Eh because you said surely its better to build 120 social housing as opppsed to doing nothing.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

So how many homes could we build with 39 million then?

Probably about 120.

Yeah that's really gonna solve the "homeless" crisis.

Do you believe spending dead money, putting it in the pockets of private business is a better deal financially, than investing in social housing?

[Deleted User]

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You don't seem to grasp the concept of administration. It's not dismissing. It's pointing out that rules can be followed through in a more efficient manner, if they aren't up to scratch. There are clear rules regarding anti-social behaviour. The go to of opening up rabbit holes is a tiresome deflectionary tactic. Yes, some tenant might wreck the home, some homeless are a lost cause, some on welfare don't want a job and so on and so on. It's pretty boring at this point in the debate.
Even the worst case scenario of the anecdotal evidence you supplied, we are wasting money throwing it down the big dark hole of the homeless industries landlords and hoteliers If we built social housing we would not be. Social housing is better value for money. That's it really.

We all agree with this. However, the practicalities are not so simple. We don't have the land, money or in many cases, the goodwill to build.

tomwaterford

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe spending dead money, putting it in the pockets of private business is a better deal financially, than investing in social housing?

This lad/wan deosnt think homelessness exists

Sees nothing wrong with adults having to share rooms renting

Thinks poverty is a myth

Denying these things exist enables irish politians to avoid engaging them and doing something to improve the country....country Is fcuked if we don't hold those in power to account

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Poverty Industry is an international term

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/poverty-industry/487958/

https://iea.org.uk/blog/what-is-the-poverty-industry

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6174/poverty_industry_wowsers_are_back

But hey, if you have a chance to just throw a republican barb at Leo Varadkar, why bother with the truth?

I know it's a term...what I said was: 'it sounds like came from Leo's Straight Talking' manual.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know it's a term...what I said was: 'it sounds like came from Leo's Straight Talking' manual.

The funny thing is Fine Gael encourage private investing in the 'homeless industry' by using tax money to directly aid and encourage gouging and profiteering by landlords and developers.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you believe spending dead money, putting it in the pockets of private business is a better deal financially, than investing in social housing?

Just so I'm clear: you're advocating that the government should immediately stop paying for emergency accommodation and invest the savings in building social housing?

James Brown

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so I'm clear: you're advocating that the government should immediately stop paying for emergency accommodation and invest the savings in building social housing?

No. I'm stating money on emergency accommodation is lost once spent.
Social housing is a recoup-able investment. Worst case, we've houses at the end of the spend.
Obviously there would need be a cross over period now that we are so reliant on it.

Social housing is a better deal financially.

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If our constitution prohibits CPOs in the public interest, then how were the privately owned tenement buildings all over Dublin 1 bought by Dublin Corporation, demolished, and replaced with the flat complexes of the Gloucester Diamond - some of which are still standing today? Which particular bit of the constitution are you referring to, and did this not exist during the 20th century when Dublin Corporation routinely CPOd land for the purposes of building social housing?

EDIT: http://www.dublincity.ie/story/heart-dublin-gloucester-diamond?language=en

in 1941, Dublin Corporation bought Gloucester Place Upper and Lower, as well as surrounding tracts of land that included parts of Gardiner Street, Sean Macdermott Street and Summerhill, by means of Compulsory Purchase Order. This meant that the landowners did not reach an agreement with the Corporation, resulting in a forced sale. As part of this, existing tenement dwellings were reconditioned, while cottages and smaller dwellings at Gloucester Place Upper were gradually cleared to make way for Lourdes House, built c.1962. Throughout the sixties parts of Summerhill, Rutland Street Upper and Lower were bought by Compulsory Purchase Order for the purpose of erecting new blocks of flats, for example Matt Talbot Court on Rutland Street Upper /Great Charles Street North (1972) and Mountain View Court on Summerhill (1977).

Matt Talbot Court is still standing today and the last time I drove past, had no boarded up units and no apparent need for regeneration.

McWilliams was proposing to purchase land at cost, not at full market value. That is what was unconstitutional about his proposal. It was also what made it financially viable.

Essentially by pretending a legal block didn't exist, allowing a minimal amount for maintenance, and not providing for any facilities, green space, offices or retail, McWilliams was artificially making his figures look good.

Wheeliebin30

tomwaterford wrote: »

This lad/wan deosnt think homelessness exists

Sees nothing wrong with adults having to share rooms renting

Thinks poverty is a myth

Denying these things exist enables irish politians to avoid engaging them and doing something to improve the country....country Is fcuked if we don't hold those in power to account

From various articles and even listening to the radio today im not the only one who thinks it.

1 in 2 people turning down social housing and erica Fleming turning down various offers of accommodation thus keeping herself homeless until she finds her forever home would make one very suspicious indeed.

jimmycrackcorm

Matt Barrett wrote:

No. I'm stating money on emergency accommodation is lost once spent. Social housing is a recoup-able investment. Worst case, we've houses at the end of the spend. Obviously there would need be a cross over period now that we are so reliant on it.

Your advocating the equivalent argument about rent being dead money when it is actually spending money on a service, I.e emergency accommodation provides a roof over heads.

Social housing is not recoupable in Ireland as in practice it just gets passed down to the children of the people who are allocated the houses, regardless if they actually could provide a home themselves. They don't call them forever homes for nothing.

jimmycrackcorm

Matt Barrett wrote:

The funny thing is Fine Gael encourage private investing in the 'homeless industry' by using tax money to directly aid and encourage gouging and profiteering by landlords and developers.

Your economics is off. A lack of supply causes the gouging and profiteering.

tomwaterford

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

From various articles and even listening to the radio today im not the only one who thinks it.

1 in 2 people turning down social housing and erica Fleming turning down various offers of accommodation thus keeping herself homeless until she finds her forever home would make one very suspicious indeed.

Theres a phrase for this....positive confirmation....literally as always looking for an echo chamber for your taughts

As it stands,there's more people homeless than at any time since the famine

There's approx a dozen soup runs In dublin everyday,

But none of these people matter as they are either poor or unlikely to vote FF/FG??

Yous are from waterford iirc,walk down through red square in an hours time and try tell me theres no homeless,

Ive a friend,she runs a business with circa 10 years in the city centre and is out every night between now and feb/March on soup/food runs....don't yous come on here and try outright lie that there's not homeless about

Yous are taking a handful of extreme examples to justify keeping thousands of kids homeless and more or damning them to a life of poverty and hardship....just to pure and utter avoid critisem of the government....noone anywhere should be above critism

[Deleted User]

tomwaterford wrote: »

Theres a phrase for this....positive confirmation....literally as always looking for an echo chamber for your taughts

As it stands,there's more people homeless than at any time since the famine

There's approx a dozen soup runs In dublin everyday,

But none of these people matter as they are either poor or unlikely to vote FF/FG??

Yous are from waterford iirc,walk down through red square in an hours time and try tell me theres no homeless,

Ive a friend,she runs a business with circa 10 years in the city centre and is out every night between now and feb/March on soup/food runs....don't yous come on here and try outright lie that there's not homeless about

Yous are taking a handful of extreme examples to justify keeping thousands of kids homeless and more or damning them to a life of poverty and hardship....just to pure and utter avoid critisem of the government....noone anywhere should be above critism

Then you’ve the likes of Alice Leahy on the radio today giving out about do gooders. She says that people who choose to sleep rough will never be hungry. She gave an example of one guy who had to be told to clean up his pitch. To take some responsibility for himself. He was getting fed every night but just tossing the packages where they fell.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. I'm stating money on emergency accommodation is lost once spent.

Right, but you said:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We'd be able to chip in a few bob savings from the 39m for Emergency accommodation last year for Dublin alone.

You can't chip in that money unless you're not spending it. If you're not advocating not spending it, then the original question stands: where will the money come from to build social housing?

To fend off the inevitable deflection, I'm not arguing against building social housing. I'm just pointing out that you deflected the question about how to pay for it with something that you didn't actually believe. So: how should we pay for it?

James Brown

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your advocating the equivalent argument about rent being dead money when it is actually spending money on a service, I.e emergency accommodation provides a roof over heads.

We are paying for a service, yes.
It would be cheaper, long-term, to build social housing. We would be left with housing and and construction loans at a lower rate than 55,00 per home per year I would imagine.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Social housing is not recoupable in Ireland as in practice it just gets passed down to the children of the people who are allocated the houses, regardless if they actually could provide a home themselves. They don't call them forever homes for nothing.

Tenants are charged rent. Even if they pass down to their children, the children pay rent. Allocation is based on you situation. Rent is based on your income. If this is not being enforced, that's for the LA's to do their job. It does not take away from the fact that we are getting absolutely no return from emergency accommodation.
It's simple; you pay for a build, you own it, you rent it.
Or
You continue to pay for a service to the private market.

James Brown

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your economics is off. A lack of supply causes the gouging and profiteering.

If you try to rent to me but I can't afford it, the tax payer might fund the shortage. If you sell to me, but I can't afford it, I may be eligible for a grant, funded by the tax payer. That's certainly not allowing the market set the price and only serving to keep prices artificially high. They are feeding the industry off the crisis. That's why we don't see a move toward the more financially feasible, (for the tax payer anyway) social housing.
It's the governments need to feed the housing/rental industry that is a major part of why we increasingly need emergency accommodation.

Even if you disagree, it's quite obvious whatever Fine Gael are doing, it's not helping and things are getting worse. Common sense would suggest a change or strategy.

James Brown

oscarBravo wrote: »

Right, but you said:

You can't chip in that money unless you're not spending it. If you're not advocating not spending it, then the original question stands: where will the money come from to build social housing?

To fend off the inevitable deflection, I'm not arguing against building social housing. I'm just pointing out that you deflected the question about how to pay for it with something that you didn't actually believe. So: how should we pay for it?

I'll clarify.
The money going to emergency accommodation would be required less and less as we move to social housing. We can find the money for the increasingly record breaking need for emergency accommodation. I would suggest saving the tax payer money with social housing is achievable. We've found money for other less worthy ventures such as IW for example.
Things will implode if we continue this take from the tax payer to feed a worsening problem rather than financing a fix.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll clarify.
The money going to emergency accommodation would be required less and less as we move to social housing. We can find the money for the increasingly record breaking need for emergency accommodation. I would suggest saving the tax payer money with social housing is achievable. We've found money for other less worthy ventures such as IW for example.

That's not a clarification so much as a further evasion, with respect.

tayto lover

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Obvious Otter

tayto lover wrote: »

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi

Like the caste system in India?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It would be cheaper, long-term, to build social housing.

Rent is based on your income. If this is not being enforced, that's for the LA's to do their job..

So if rent is not being collected that's for the LAs to do their job. What about the councillors who oversee the LAs? Should we dump them at the next election?

Actually, LAs are also responsible for building social housing. Yet this is a thread about Varadkar and the current government but they don't control any of the councils you are complaining about. The councils in the areas with the biggest homelessness problem are controlled by SF, PBP and independents.

You should open a new thread where you give out about them.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll clarify.
The money going to emergency accommodation would be required less and less as we move to social housing. We can find the money for the increasingly record breaking need for emergency accommodation. I would suggest saving the tax payer money with social housing is achievable. We've found money for other less worthy ventures such as IW for example.
Things will implode if we continue this take from the tax payer to feed a worsening problem rather than financing a fix.

A great example. If we hadn't abolished water charges, we could have used the money saved on the IW subsidy to build social housing. Who are the irresponsible parties who protested about water charges?

end of the road

blanch152 wrote: »

A great example. If we hadn't abolished water charges, we could have used the money saved on the IW subsidy to build social housing. Who are the irresponsible parties who protested about water charges?

water charges were unaffordible, and were bringing undue hardship upon many people. they were not viable and had to go.

tomwaterford

blanch152 wrote: »

A great example. If we hadn't abolished water charges, we could have used the money saved on the IW subsidy to build social housing. Who are the irresponsible parties who protested about water charges?

Was the water charges money not supposed to be ring fenced for water repairs/works etc??

How much money was spent policing the water protests??....I've heard a figure from a fairly in the know source that suggests it is nearly more than money was raised by the charges,

And they are waiting for confirmation before releasing the info

blanch152

end of the road wrote: »

water charges were unaffordible, and were bringing undue hardship upon many people. they were not viable and had to go.

The money saved could have been used for social housing. I suppose the magic money tree will have to do.