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

Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

1…1314151719

Comments

  • #482
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Hived off the election talk and moved it into the new thread. Maybe keep this one for the ongoing discussion of the government's handling of the homelessness crisis.

    Thanks for that, a really good idea, but I think this post of mine ended up in the wrong thread, as it has to do with the homelessness issue:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105362610&postcount=146

    "You are not legally entitled to purchase your house under the scheme, the Councils can refuse to sell.

    Section 22 (2) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 provides that:

    "(2) A housing authority may sell an affordable house under this Part where the authority no longer requires the house for the purposes of affordable housing and the authority has allocated the dwelling to a household in accordance with an allocation scheme."

    The key word is "may", which is used instead of "shall". In the case of all of the Dublin councils, they should not be selling any houses to tenants as they clearly require the houses for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, if any houses are being sold in Dublin, and are not available for the homeless as a result, it is clearly the fault of the councils as they have discretion under the Act.

    There is no legal entitlement to buy a council house."


  • #483
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Every few years, the government is required to do a Housing Needs Assessment, which is basically a tally of all the local authority housing waiting lists. Here's all the recent ones:

    1993 - 28,200
    1996 - 27,427
    1999 - 39,176
    2002 - 48,413
    2005 - 42,946
    2008 - 56,249
    2011 - 98,318
    2013 - 89,872
    2016 - 91,600

    The real jump came in 2011 and you may have been able to predict a crisis would happen if the economy picked up but construction didn't.
    Just to add on to this, as a percentage of population it looks like this:
    1993 - 28,200 - 0.78%
    1996 - 27,427 - 0.75%
    1999 - 39,176 - 1.04%
    2002 - 48,413 - 1.23%
    2005 - 42,946 - 1.03%
    2008 - 56,249 - 1.25%
    2011 - 98,318 - 2.15%
    2013 - 89,872 - 1.95%
    2016 - 91,600 - 1.92%


  • #484
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Obvious Otter wrote: »
    The government can’t just build all these social houses. We just couldn’t pay for it. The government isn’t going to increase income tax or corporation tax so how exactly can the government afford to subsidise housing for so many people on a massive scale? The housing problem was caused by really poor regulation and still the government expects the private sector to build houses that people can’t afford to buy to an extremely high standard. The Irish electorate need to get real if we are to deal with this crisis.
    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    No, I'm not suggesting that we can build 91,000 local authority houses straight away. But there's a difference between that and building enough to ease homelessness levels.

    Homelessness and affordability are two separate (albeit related issues). And the former takes priority over the latter.

    On a separate point, arguing about paying money to private landlords for emergency accommodation is a red herring. We can't turf these people out on the street. We have to keep paying it until more accommodation is built.

    I don't buy either issue has to take priority. As I outlined earlier, the obvious solution is to axe the rent assistance scheme and provide incentive for developers to build a percentage of affordable houses by way of tax breaks, legislation and removal of height restrictions in certain areas.

    The government should not be a landlord other than for those who are the most poor in society. Allowing the government to build social housing for the poorest and leaving the private sector (albeit well regulated) to deal with affordable housing, both issues can be quickly addressed.


  • #485
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Thanks for that, a really good idea, but I think this post of mine ended up in the wrong thread, as it has to do with the homelessness issue:

    Oops. Moved it back now


  • #486
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    But we don't need legislators to stop it, any of the councils could just refuse to sell the public stock of housing, of course, that would mean one of our so-called left-wing parties having to make a decision rather than just whinge and protest.

    Aren't Sinn Fein kind of left wing?
    “In the context of the housing crisis – when housing supply is at a critical level in Dublin – selling houses, particularly in high-demand areas with low housing stock isn’t necessarily a good idea.”
    “Giving somebody a 60 per cent discount on a council house someone may have only lived in for a year makes no sense. If somebody is living there for 30 or 40 years they are entitled to buy their home but is it fair for people who have only lived there for a year or two?”
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/just-26-of-dublin-council-tenants-use-scheme-to-buy-home-1.3208165

    We need to all move away from the outdated left versus right. Bertie called himself a Socialist back in the day.

    They refuse to learn or simply like quango like slush funds for 'their own'?
    Fine Gael ministers are backpedalling over a mooted plan to create an Irish Water-style quango which would take over the building of houses from local councils.

    It was suggested yesterday that the Government may establish a new semi-State company to drive house-building across the country in an effort to solve the housing crisis.

    But the possibility of such a move prompted an immediate public backlash amid concern that the structure would be created along a similar model to Irish Water.

    A number of senior figures have told Extra.ie that the plan is doomed to fail and that the immediate public resistance to the idea at such an early stage gave cause for concern.

    One minister said: ‘If there is this much backlash at this stage, and there is the perception that this is a quango, then that plan is dead.’

    Similar to the model of Irish Water, the new body would take powers off local authorities in an effort to solve the housing crisis. Speaking about the suggestion yesterday, housing expert Lorcan Sirr from the Dublin Institute of Technology suggested there was some merit to the proposal.
    https://extra.ie/news/irish-news/backlash-fine-gael-housing-plan
    Good loser wrote: »
    Don't you see that the exact same dilemma presents itself to those that currently rent houses (and would prefer ownership)?
    Your help to these people is to say 'stop paying rent and buy a house'.
    But, but, but - - -etc

    It all comes down to money (as usual) the Govt can no more pay for all the houses/apts needed, especially in Dublin, as the private individual can buy his own house. So both rent. Both with the same intention of paying as little rent as possible and for as short a length of time as possible.

    So putting forward capital proposals without identifying the source of the money is waffling while those who refuse to pay nominated taxes like LPT and Water Charges are the hypocrites.

    But, there's money for this;
    A truly ambitious social housing programme of 47,000 units to 2021 will be delivered with
    funding of €5.35 billion    .
    We have also put in place a €200m Infrastructure Fund to open up large sites where homes
    are needed and where homes are now going to be built.

    Brilliant, 5.35 billion for social housing, (sourced from a magic money tree I assume).
    ...but wait....
    By mid-2017, emergency hotel and B&B type accommodation for families will only be used in limited circumstances and will have been largely replaced by suitable permanent family accommodation by delivering additional housing solutions including through an expanded Rapid-Build Housing Programme.
    http://rebuildingireland.ie/Rebuilding%20Ireland_Action%20Plan.pdf

    Huh?

    The number of people accessing emergency accommodation has hit a record number of 8,374.
    That includes 5,250 adults and 3,124 dependents, according to figures released by the Department of Housing. However, the Department says that the rate of those entering homelessness has slowed and the numbers of people being placed in homes is ahead of the number of those entering homelessness.
    This, Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy says, is “welcome progress”.
    “Unfortunately, families and individuals continue to present to our emergency accommodation services.
    http://www.thejournal.ie/emergency-accommodation-housing-progress-3666900-Oct2017/

    So relying on the private market is obviously not working.
    Releasaing state lands
    A programme will be put in place under a State Lands Management Group to identify and release further sites from the ownership of other public bodies for master-planning and making them available to a variety of scales of developers with the potential to deliver at least 500 homes initially in 2017 and building up incrementally after that to a potential capacity for provision of up to 1,000 homes annually by 2021.
    http://rebuildingireland.ie/Rebuilding%20Ireland_Action%20Plan.pdf

    Their own plans, being followed are not helping. So why do they insist on going down the same road?


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I don't buy either issue has to take priority. As I outlined earlier, the obvious solution is to axe the rent assistance scheme and provide incentive for developers to build a percentage of affordable houses by way of tax breaks, legislation and removal of height restrictions in certain areas.

    The government should not be a landlord other than for those who are the most poor in society. Allowing the government to build social housing for the poorest and leaving the private sector (albeit well regulated) to deal with affordable housing, both issues can be quickly addressed.

    I agree with less government involvement, but we can't cut rent subsides while funding private business on the other hand, enabling them create profit off the public with tax payer assistance. It needs be a measured move.
    Developers are in a business, if they need looking after from the tax payer they need revisit their business model.


  • #488
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I agree with less government involvement, but we can't cut rent subsides while funding private business on the other hand, enabling them create profit off the public with tax payer assistance. It needs be a measured move.
    Developers are in a business, if they need looking after from the tax payer they need revisit their business model.
    That's not what I was suggesting in the slightest (because it's what we already to with rent assistance); we promote new affordable housing by giving tax breaks and relaxation of planning to developers. It works very well in other countries.


  • #489
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Matt Barrett wrote: »


    But, there's money for this;



    Brilliant, 5.35 billion for social housing, (sourced from a magic money tree I assume).
    ...but wait....

    You're not correct on this. Firstly, it's actually only an increase of €733m per year (i.e. €2.2bn over 3 years) and, secondly, that money had to come from somewhere... it's not "new" money but either/both (i) reduction in another area (ii) increased income.

    I think that's the fundamental piece of the puzzle you keep missing here which others have been attempting to explain to you.


  • #490
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    You're not correct on this. Firstly, it's actually only an increase of €733m per year (i.e. €2.2bn over 3 years) and, secondly, that money had to come from somewhere... it's not "new" money but either/both (i) reduction in another area (ii) increased income.

    I think that's the fundamental piece of the puzzle you keep missing here which others have been attempting to explain to you.

    It's about allocation isn't it? Who suggested 'new' money? If can be diverted it the will is there as borne out by Fine Gael's plan.
    The real issue is the problem that what the state has been doing all along as the homeless crisis worsens, is still the way to continue.
    I can't see how things will improve with more of the same policies?


  • #491
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,353 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    That's not what I was suggesting in the slightest (because it's what we already to with rent assistance); we promote new affordable housing by giving tax breaks and relaxation of planning to developers. It works very well in other countries.

    I'm unsure if tax breaks would work as well here given the considerable gap in supply and demand. The outcome is more likely to be more profits in the developers' pockets.

    I think there is a worthwhile opportunity to turn NAMA into a housing funding and development agency from its current remit as being a bad bank. It would have the scale, access to finance, and expertise to force through significant development.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    Good loser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's about allocation isn't it? Who suggested 'new' money? If can be diverted it the will is there as borne out by Fine Gael's plan.
    The real issue is the problem that what the state has been doing all along as the homeless crisis worsens, is still the way to continue.
    I can't see how things will improve with more of the same policies?

    You're all over the place.

    There's no sense, rhyme nor reason to that bolded sentence.

    Your grasp of the rational is obscure.


  • #493
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    It's about allocation isn't it? Who suggested 'new' money? If can be diverted it the will is there as borne out by Fine Gael's plan.
    The real issue is the problem that what the state has been doing all along as the homeless crisis worsens, is still the way to continue.
    I can't see how things will improve with more of the same policies?


    Excellent, are we cutting social welfare or public sector pay for this investment in social housing?


  • #494
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Someone in another thread directed me towards an OECD report which was fascinating.





    http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/housing/

    "In Ireland, households on average spend 21% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, slightly above the OECD average of 20%."

    So, more or less in line with the average.

    "In Ireland, the average home contains 2.1 rooms per person, more than the OECD average of 1.8 rooms per person. In terms of basic facilities, nearly every dwelling (99.9%) in Ireland contains private access to an indoor flushing toilet, more than the OECD average of 97.9%."

    Well above average. In the country report on Ireland it says:

    http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/ireland/

    "Ireland performs well in many measures of well-being relative to most other countries in the Better Life Index. Ireland ranks above the average in jobs and earnings, housing, personal security, health status, education and skills, social connections, subjective well-being, work-life balance, and environmental quality"


    When we hear the government say that internationally this country is not too bad on housing, those figures explain why they say it.


  • #495
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,447 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Excellent, are we cutting social welfare or public sector pay for this investment in social housing?
    I'd be well up for both as they are still majorly ott. Certainly welfare is


  • #496
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Good loser wrote: »
    You're all over the place.

    There's no sense, rhyme nor reason to that bolded sentence.

    Your grasp of the rational is obscure.

    What's currently happening isn't working, so why keep slogging away with depending on the private market and the PPP model? How's that?


  • #497
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Excellent, are we cutting social welfare or public sector pay for this investment in social housing?

    I don't know but here it is, this money, over this period?:
    A truly ambitious social housing programme of 47,000 units to 2021 will be delivered with
    funding of €5.35 billion.

    The problem here is the social housing programme does not only pertain to Social Housing.


  • #498
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,568 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    Hived off the election talk and moved it into the new thread. Maybe keep this one for the ongoing discussion of the government's handling of the homelessness crisis.

    Thread title changed to reflect the specific topic that has developed. Link to hived off thread here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057812753


  • #499
    JP Liz V1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 91,690 ✭✭✭✭JP Liz V1


    2 more homeless died in Dublin this week

    No matter what people tell you, words and ideas can change this World



  • #500
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    2 more homeless died in Dublin this week

    While beds lie empty. I suppose that’s Leo’s fault too?


  • #501
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    2 more homeless died in Dublin this week
    About 145 people will die in Dublin this week.

    2 of them happen to be homeless.

    I know it sounds heartless, but unless they actually died because they were homeless, it's not that big a deal. Yes, ideally no-one should suffer the indignity of dying in the street, but unless the primary cause of death is hypothermia and the person had nowhere to go, then it's not society's "fault" that they died.

    Yes, I know how that sounds. But ultimately pointing out that a homeless person died is unremarkable. It's an appeal to emotion. People die all the time. Where's the outrage for them?


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    JP Liz V1 wrote: »
    2 more homeless died in Dublin this week

    I figured you'd be doing yourself no favours by posting a bare fact.
    Any minute now we might begin to see the inevitable character assassinations of the dead.

    You cannot comment on the homeless crisis, sure its as bad or worse elsewhere, depending on how you skew the figures. Sure it's gotten worse and worse under Fine Gael but...something something.


  • #503
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I figured you'd be doing yourself no favours by posting a bare fact.
    Any minute now we might begin to see the inevitable character assassinations of the dead.

    You cannot comment on the homeless crisis, sure its as bad or worse elsewhere, depending on how you skew the figures. Sure it's gotten worse and worse under Fine Gael but...something something.

    I heard an interesting article on a radio show in the week. It was a quote from Alice Leahy that said that the numbers sleeping rough in Dublin hasn’t changed much over the years since she started “Trust”


  • #504
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I heard an interesting article on a radio show in the week. It was a quote from Alice Leahy that said that the numbers sleeping rough in Dublin hasn’t changed much over the years since she started “Trust”

    What is your point?

    Instead of jumping to the defense of a political party, let's acknowledge there's a problem and take it from there. Just because Varadkar wants to down play it, doesn't mean there isn't a growing problem or his lackluster faux efforts at tackling it are any use.

    Should I post numerous articles about record breaking numbers? I'll stick with Ms. Leahy.
    Politicians failing to approach homelessness via ‘basic human issues’, says campaigner

    Homeless campaigner Alice Leahy finds criticisms of unofficial homeless agencies “deeply insulting”.

    Caring for the roughest of rough sleepers for 42 years, or since four years before Taoiseach Leo Varadkar saw his first morning at Dublin’s Rotunda hospital in January 1979, she despairs of the politics at play where homelessness is concerned.

    “The politicians haven’t a clue, really,” she said.

    She found distressing the words of Eileen Gleeson, director of the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, this week. Ms Gleeson said “ad hoc” unauthorised groups handing out “cups of soup” or tents were hampering agencies trying to accommodate vulnerable homeless people.

    It was “deeply insulting”, said Ms Leahy. It was “awful what she said, but I’m not sure she meant to say it like that.”

    Disappointed

    She was disappointed at the Taoiseach playing down the housing crisis last week by saying Ireland had one of the lowest levels of homelessness, and at Minister of State Damien English’s claim that media coverage of the issue was damaging to Ireland’s international reputation.

    Politicians were approaching homelessness “through computers” and agencies which were concerned with “outcomes” rather than “basic human issues”, she said. And everything was “cut-and-paste and statistics”.

    It reminded her of the saying that “basing anything on statistics is like a drunk leaning against a lamp-post for support rather than illumination”.

    She also could not understand how there were safety concerns in State-funded hostels.

    “Some people are extremely difficult, but they must be confronted and told: ‘This is not acceptable’,” she said.

    In 1975, when Ms Leahy set up the trust, the State built 8,794 houses for the homeless. In the first six months of this year, just 455 such houses were built for a 120,598 waiting list, as of the end of September last.
    https://aliceleahytrust.ie/news/

    I know FG don't do responsibility; What ever is being done and who ever is doing it, it's making things worse not better.


  • #505
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    What is your point?

    Instead of jumping to the defense of a political party, let's acknowledge there's a problem and take it from there. Just because Varadkar wants to down play it, doesn't mean there isn't a growing problem or his lackluster faux efforts at tackling it are any use.

    Should I post numerous articles about record breaking numbers? I'll stick with Ms. Leahy.



    I know FG don't do responsibility; What ever is being done and who ever is doing it, it's making things worse not better.

    My point is that no matter who has been in power, the number sleeping rough has stayed pretty much the same. There are beds lying idle while people are on the streets. Why is that? Despite the best efforts of numerous organisations, there are some that will not accept help.


  • #506
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,111 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    I figured you'd be doing yourself no favours by posting a bare fact.
    Any minute now we might begin to see the inevitable character assassinations of the dead.

    You cannot comment on the homeless crisis, sure its as bad or worse elsewhere, depending on how you skew the figures. Sure it's gotten worse and worse under Fine Gael but...something something.

    Here's a bare fact:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pregnant-woman-loses-home-after-allnight-parties-36359483.html


    Some people are the cause of their own problems.


  • #507
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,277 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    The issue is the overall number of homeless people. If you just focus on people sleeping rough, you're ignoring quite a dramatic spike in the numbers in emergency accommodation. If we weren't putting them in emergency accommodation, there'd be an awful lot more on the streets.


  • #508
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Here's a bare fact:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/pregnant-woman-loses-home-after-allnight-parties-36359483.html


    Some people are the cause of their own problems.


    The poster mentioned two homeless dead.

    We know some people are different than others. Not sure what point you're making.
    I could post an article on Conor McGregor speeding, to suggest some people will speed anyway or something?


  • #509
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Deleted User wrote: »
    My point is that no matter who has been in power, the number sleeping rough has stayed pretty much the same. There are beds lying idle while people are on the streets. Why is that? Despite the best efforts of numerous organisations, there are some that will not accept help.

    This is completely true. No idea. Same reason some people smoke despite the warnings, some people speed I suppose, human nature. We have record breaking reliance on emergency accommodation though. It's gotten to a point where we need start calling it 'family hubs' due to the embarrassment and asking people to keep it quiet so as not to show us up internationally. Why is that? Beats tackling it I suppose.


  • #510
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Matt Barrett wrote: »
    This is completely true. No idea. Same reason some people smoke despite the warnings, some people speed I suppose, human nature. We have record breaking reliance on emergency accommodation though. It's gotten to a point where we need start calling it 'family hubs' due to the embarrassment and asking people to keep it quiet so as not to show us up internationally. Why is that? Beats tackling it I suppose.

    I think the family hubs are better than B & Bs and hotels in that people have access to kitchens.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    James Brown
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,012 ✭✭✭✭James Brown


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think the family hubs are better than B & Bs and hotels in that people have access to kitchens.

    It's normalising the situation. How proud should we be when emergency measures become the norm? An obvious sign that rather than a problem being addressed effectively, it's being re-branded. Maybe if we called the homeless, 'nature adjacent beings'?


Advertisement