Right to a house?

PJW · 20-12-2017 1:14am #1

After watching Miriam tonight, I do feel sorry for the people living on the street, “the true homeless” and accept that these people’s needs/health/mental health issues need to be addressed but...

I can’t understand how “families” in emergency accommodation feel they have a right to a house and it’s the right of the government bodies to get them one.

I was watching tonight’s programme and couldn’t help thinking the minister has a thankless job here as families in emergency accommodation are the highest growing sector of the homeless crisis. It seems to me the more housing thats built to combat the situation the more families will “appear homeless” demanding a right to a house.

Of course there are the genuine families in need but can’t helping feeling they are the minority.

c montgomery · 20-12-2017 1:19am

We now have a homeless industry

Lots of people making money from it and lots of people prepared to brasen it out for a free home

recedite · 20-12-2017 11:52am

PJW wrote: »

After watching Miriam tonight, I do feel sorry for the people living on the street, “the true homeless” and accept that these people’s needs/health/mental health issues need to be addressed but...

Get with the program dude, these people are now called "rough sleepers". Seeing as the definition of "homeless" has been widened to include anyone living in a hotel, hostel, B&B, their parent's house, temporary rented accommodation or almost anything that is not a house which they have the exclusive use of.
Rough sleepers, as you point out, is a more of a mental health issue.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 3:27pm

c montgomery wrote: »

We now have a homeless industry

Lots of people making money from it and lots of people prepared to brasen it out for a free home

If what they are doing isn't illegal, maybe we need look at the rules. If what these few(?) are doing is illegal, we need root it out.
However we have a government aided system funded by the tax payer that profits from the homeless industry, that's of far greater concern. It cannot be watered down to some people on welfare taking advantage of the system.

The other concern, and often ignored, are the majority, the working tax payer who has trouble making rent or raising a deposit to buy.

As regards the right to a house, those days fade as we have the wealthy using homes as investments. This drives up pricing and makes it more difficult for the average worker. These are the real problems, but not the kind of news story where we can look to a few scallys on the dole.

We need address the way the state does business and quit the codology of looking at a few single mothers like they carry great sway over the economy. It's simply not genuine.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 3:34pm

recedite wrote: »

Get with the program dude, these people are now called "rough sleepers". Seeing as the definition of "homeless" has been widened to include anyone living in a hotel, hostel, B&B, their parent's house, temporary rented accommodation or almost anything that is not a house which they have the exclusive use of.
Rough sleepers, as you point out, is a more of a mental health issue.

People are put up in temporary emergency accommodation because they are homeless. Nothing's been widened here. the only nefarious change in terminology is 'emergency accommodation' to 'family hub'. An indecent PR fob.

*********

If you work and pay tax, you should be able to afford to rent a roof. As regards buying, if you and a partner are working and can't afford to buy, that's the system failing you. It may not be a right, but it's an economic state sponsored and aided wrong. I'd say mismanagement, but it's a concerted goal to keep private developers and landlords in coin, to the detriment of the average working tax payer. The tax payer is fleeced and it's state sponsored.

recedite · 20-12-2017 3:59pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

People are put up in temporary emergency accommodation because they are homeless. Nothing's been widened here. the only nefarious change in terminology is 'emergency accommodation' to 'family hub'.

There was a time when "rough sleepers" who had been taken off the streets and given taxpayer funded accommodation were no longer called "homeless".

"Family hub" is another good one alright.

Owryan · 20-12-2017 4:05pm

One of those housing networks is now claiming that 'homeless' people include those who are in private rented accommodation or are paying a mortgage. This is down in Carlow.

Apparently the only way out of this crisis is for the state to give everyone a 'forever' home. I had the misfortune to be present for one of their tirades against the oppressive Nazi state we now live in.

They have strong links to the Freeman movement and other far left leaning groups but hey if it means i get a house for free I'm all in.

Gavin "shels" · 20-12-2017 4:27pm

The whole thing with Eoghan Murphy stating that 2000 homes were being build and Anthony Flynn from ICHH saying it needs to be 5 times this - how to they logically and logistically expect that level of housing to be built every year!? Similar to Ruth Coppingers, Paul Murphy and their lefties - no thought process just the obvious simple solution.

Realistically I'd love the stats for how many people in Social Housing move out to their own privately rented/owned home within 1-5 years - I'd imagine it's very low. How many people in Social Housing gets passed down to their children would be another great stat. These are the real underlying problem, no cycle of social housing just permanent freebies therefore the need for 10000 new homes a year will always be needed/expected...

Owryan · 20-12-2017 4:38pm

Gavin "shels" wrote: »

The whole thing with Eoghan Murphy stating that 2000 homes were being build and Anthony Flynn from ICHH saying it needs to be 5 times this - how to they logically and logistically expect that level of housing to be built every year!? Similar to Ruth Coppingers, Paul Murphy and their lefties - no thought process just the obvious simple solution.

Realistically I'd love the stats for how many people in Social Housing move out to their own privately rented/owned home within 1-5 years - I'd imagine it's very low. How many people in Social Housing gets passed down to their children would be another great stat. These are the real underlying problem, no cycle of social housing just permanent freebies therefore the need for 10000 new homes a year will always be needed/expected...

You need to ask how many people are living in social housing who no longer need it. Plenty of people living in rent subsidised homes who can afford to move into the private rented market or can buy but are better off staying put and eventually buying their home at a discounted rate.

Social housing should be fixed term and reviewed periodically not for life. Even where rents are adjusted upwards they are still well below market rates

oceanman · 20-12-2017 4:48pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The other concern, and often ignored, are the majority, the working tax payer who has trouble making rent or raising a deposit to buy.

As regards the right to a house, those days fade as we have the wealthy using homes as investments. This drives up pricing and makes it more difficult for the average worker.

That's where the real problem lies....not with the homeless, but nobody wants to address that problem, least of all the government. The rich get richer...

James Brown · 20-12-2017 4:50pm

Owryan wrote: »

One of those housing networks is now claiming that 'homeless' people include those who are in private rented accommodation or are paying a mortgage. This is down in Carlow.

Apparently the only way out of this crisis is for the state to give everyone a 'forever' home. I had the misfortune to be present for one of their tirades against the oppressive Nazi state we now live in.

They have strong links to the Freeman movement and other far left leaning groups but hey if it means i get a house for free I'm all in.

You're fudging the issue.
Have you a link?

Gavin shels wrote: »

The whole thing with Eoghan Murphy stating that 2000 homes were being build and Anthony Flynn from ICHH saying it needs to be 5 times this - how to they logically and logistically expect that level of housing to be built every year!? Similar to Ruth Coppingers, Paul Murphy and their lefties - no thought process just the obvious simple solution.

Realistically I'd love the stats for how many people in Social Housing move out to their own privately rented/owned home within 1-5 years - I'd imagine it's very low. How many people in Social Housing gets passed down to their children would be another great stat. These are the real underlying problem, no cycle of social housing just permanent freebies therefore the need for 10000 new homes a year will always be needed/expected...

It's about a supposed first world economy putting a roof over the poor. It's about a system designed to put home ownership out of reach, making allowances so working people can afford a roof.
It's about NAMA using tax payer money to give loans to developers at more favourable rates than professional bankers will. It's about working taxpayers needing state aid to afford a roof. It's about a government aiding in a property crisis and Varadkar downplaying a homeless one.
Nobody is buying a few chancers wanting a 'forever home' being the root problem here.

recedite · 20-12-2017 5:14pm

Gavin shels wrote: »

How many people in Social Housing gets passed down to their children would be another great stat.

You can see this all the time in places like Ballyfermot and Crumlin; somebody cashing in a recently inherited ex-corpo house for well over €300K. Some hard pressed middle class/middle wage person or couple will be struggling to pay that mortgage, while various other neighbours live in an identical house up the road for nothing, and can spend their money on cars and holidays instead.

recedite · 20-12-2017 5:35pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's about NAMA using tax payer money to give loans to developers at more favourable rates than professional bankers will. It's about working taxpayers needing state aid to afford a roof. It's about a government aiding in a property crisis and Varadkar downplaying a homeless one.

These are issues, but really there are two different ones; the "housing crisis" and the "homeless crisis". If somebody can't pay their rent and gets kicked out, then the two overlap. But most of the time they don't overlap, and there are wealthy people making money out of both.

There are plenty of landlords, and vulture funds, and speculators who like things just as they are. They can feed into the homeless industry and the asylum industry when it suits them. If they don't want to commit properties on long leases, or they only want to commit for the off season winter months, then its great to have a permanent high demand for "temporary emergency" accommodation.

Its good for them when mortgages are expensive, because that keeps rents high.

Then there's the artificially high cost of paying a mortgage in Ireland; around twice the interest rates they pay in Germany, even though we are both supposed to be in the same "eurozone". Banksterism at its finest.

Then there's the tax incentives for land hoarders. Apparently back in 2010/2011 when speculators were queuing up to offload their debts onto the ordinary taxpayer, the govt. offered tax incentives to other (or maybe the same) speculators to buy building land cheap and hold onto it. These schemes have another year or two to go AFAIK. They could build on the land now, or sell it to developers, but they would forfeit the full tax advantage, ie they would have to pay full capital gains tax on the increase in land values over that period. So expect the building boom to be postponed for a year or two.

Most of these issues could be easily addressed by having pro-citizen policies, instead of pro-lobbyist policies.

Tabnabs · 20-12-2017 5:53pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you work and pay tax, you should be able to afford to rent a roof. As regards buying, if you and a partner are working and can't afford to buy, that's the system failing you. It may not be a right, but it's an economic state sponsored and aided wrong. I'd say mismanagement, but it's a concerted goal to keep private developers and landlords in coin, to the detriment of the average working tax payer. The tax payer is fleeced and it's state sponsored.

The problem I have with this logic is that it attracts a very vocal cohort who ultimately seek to make housing a right rather than a need. When we bought our house, we managed our expectations and moved accordingly. There was no way we could afford the areas close to our families. We adjusted our expectations and got on with it. That kind of pragmatic thinking is missing from this debate.

20-12-2017 6:01pm

recedite wrote: »

You can see this all the time in places like Ballyfermot and Crumlin; somebody cashing in a recently inherited ex-corpo house for well over €300K. Some hard pressed middle class/middle wage person or couple will be struggling to pay that mortgage, while various other neighbours live in an identical house up the road for nothing, and can spend their money on cars and holidays instead.

What are you blathering on about.
Social housing is not free FFS
It's linked to the income of the inhabitants (all, including any adult children in residence)

boombang · 20-12-2017 6:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you blathering on about.
Social housing is not free FFS
It's linked to the income of the inhabitants (all, including any adult children in residence)

But what the people pay in social housing cost is nowhere near the market value of the home. So person A lives in social housing in Crumlin and pays buttons to rent it from the corpo, while person B next door breaks his hole working to pay a €1,500 a month mortgage on the same house. This can be the case even if person A is working.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 6:13pm

Tabnabs wrote: »

The problem I have with this logic is that it attracts a very vocal cohort who ultimately seek to make housing a right rather than a need. When we bought our house, we managed our expectations and moved accordingly. There was no way we could afford the areas close to our families. We adjusted our expectations and got on with it. That kind of pragmatic thinking is missing from this debate.

The smoke screen is only making it about people playing the system. There are many who work in the city unable to afford rent. There are a growing number unable to afford to buy. In the meantime developers are still profiting as the tax payer is picking up the short end. This looks great economic growth wise, but doesn't go beyond that.
It seems we've a ponzi/pyramid scheme. Eventually there'll be no more free money for these people to dip into.

Deleted User wrote: »

What are you blathering on about.
Social housing is not free FFS
It's linked to the income of the inhabitants (all, including any adult children in residence)

Totally.
It's a term folks use to fudge the problem.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 6:16pm

boombang wrote: »

But what the people pay in social housing cost is nowhere near the market value of the home. So person A lives in social housing in Crumlin and pays buttons to rent it from the corpo, while person B next door breaks his hole working to pay a €1,500 a month mortgage on the same house. This can be the case even if person A is working.

That's an issue you may have with the LA.
Housing are provided at rents based on income. These should be policed. If the person in the corpo house simply isn't looking for work, Leo must be all over them :rolleyes:
Chances are the neighbour bought that home off the corpo by choice, rather than rent.

NIMAN · 20-12-2017 6:16pm

There is now a momentum among the people to continually talk about the homelessness crisis to use it as a stick to beat the authorities over. Every Tom Dick and Harry is telling us we should built a home for every single 'homeless' family.

Now,tell these folk that thats ok, it'll be 1% on to their income tax to solve the problem, and they'll not be long shutting up.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 6:18pm

NIMAN wrote: »

There is now a momentum among the people to continually talk about the homelessness crisis to use it as a stick to beat the authorities over. Every Tom Dick and Harry is telling us we should built a home for every single 'homeless' family.

Now,tell these folk that thats ok, it'll be 1% on to their income tax to solve the problem, and they'll not be long shutting up.

I'd say the crises have gotten so bad, there is a greater move to down play it, with Varadkar playing cheerleader.
The fact that it's gotten worse has become a PR problem.

GhostyMcGhost · 20-12-2017 6:21pm

It’s completely and utterly messed up

Remind me me again, how much is the rent on Dominic street?

http://www.thejournal.ie/luas-cross-city-stops-3750406-Dec2017/

20-12-2017 6:23pm

Then you have a homeless campaigner realising than her much longed for foreva home isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. What with pesky drafty windows. No pleasing some people.

boombang · 20-12-2017 6:23pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

That's an issue you may have with the LA.
Housing are provided at rents based on income. These should be policed. If the person in the corpo house simply isn't looking for work, Leo must be all over them :rolleyes:
Chances are the neighbour bought that home off the corpo by choice, rather than rent.

I'm making a simple point that similar people are dealt with differently by the system. Some people pay the full market cost of their home while other people who have similar incomes benefit from very cheap housing. That doesn't seem fair to me.

NIMAN · 20-12-2017 6:26pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'd say the crises have gotten so bad, there is a greater move to down play it, with Varadkar playing cheerleader.
The fact that it's gotten worse has become a PR problem.

Has it gotten worse or have people become better at claiming its got worse?

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 6:29pm

The reality of it is

1) there are less than 200 rough sleepers. They are for the most part drug addicts and alcoholics. I do not believe these people deserve housing. However a detox centre (isolated from everybody) should be put in place for those who actually want help

2) Homeless, by definition now includes just about everybody. I live in rental accommodation that isn't PRTB registered and have no lease agreement, theoretically I am homeless by their standards.

3) There are a lot of 'homeless' people who have declined properties or are holding out for properties in dublin , of which they have no need for. These people should be prepared to moved to meath/louth/wicklow/kildare like everyone who has to buy a house.

4) There is a homeless industry, all these charities profit from adding people to the list and as they continue they get more funding to lobby government and reach more people to have them declared homeless to get more money. They have no interest in solving any 'crisis'

5) There will always be homeless people. Every country not executing homeless people has homeless people.

6) PbP/AAA/Whatever parties all bang on the whole time about fixing the problem, yet TD's like claire daly actively campaign to not have housing built around some areas where they grew up / have family interests (the biggest NIMBY's of all)

I would say take everyone on that list, find out the ones who are not addicts who are working and make them the priority, the intergenerationally unemployed can have some attention after all the workers have been looked after.

However I would actively object to any social housing being built inside of the M50. Nobody has the right to live on some of the most expensive land in europe.

NIMAN · 20-12-2017 6:33pm

Bang on Eric.

Numbers inflated by false claimants or ones who are hell bent on putting in criteria that can never be fulfilled by the State.

If there are 8000 homeless now, and the Gov built homes for every single one of them on the outskirts of Dublin, we'd probably still have 7000 homeless, cos they want to live near their ma.

We have, and are bringing more, big companies to Dublin. They need all the accom they can get their hands on for workers. People who bring in money to the city/Country and who are not a burden on the taxpayer. Yet we allow so many wasters the right to a house in the centre of a highly sought after city while they contribute next to nothing.

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 6:44pm

NIMAN wrote: »

Bang on Eric.

Numbers inflated by false claimants or ones who are hell bent on putting in criteria that can never be fulfilled by the State.

If there are 8000 homeless now, and the Gov built homes for every single one of them on the outskirts of Dublin, we'd probably still have 7000 homeless, cos they want to live near their ma.

We have, and are bringing more, big companies to Dublin. They need all the accom they can get their hands on for workers. People who bring in money to the city/Country and who are not a burden on the taxpayer. Yet we allow so many wasters the right to a house in the centre of a highly sought after city while they contribute next to nothing.

Sure the government go on about the decline of rural Ireland. take a small village that can barely survive, put 200 of them there, suddenly thats 200 off the list, houses filled and theres jobs in the form of a social office, pub, bookies, supermarket, post office. win win for all. Also probably a better quality of life not being surrounded by smack heads, lured by gangs or being constantly burgled.

20-12-2017 6:50pm

boombang wrote: »

But what the people pay in social housing cost is nowhere near the market value of the home. So person A lives in social housing in Crumlin and pays buttons to rent it from the corpo, while person B next door breaks his hole working to pay a €1,500 a month mortgage on the same house. This can be the case even if person A is working.

Yes and they have an asset at the end of their mortgage. But carry on saying that social housing is free or near to it.

Also my parents were paying MORE than the mortgage payments for their social house as their income rose long after they were eligible to get a mortgage but the rent went way past the level of their mortgage neighbours.

They also can never move no matter what neighbours are landed on them, home upkeep is on them, as are upgrades or repairs. Completely unlike private rentals.

But yeah social housing is free

20-12-2017 6:52pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure the government go on about the decline of rural Ireland. take a small village that can barely survive, put 200 of them there, suddenly thats 200 off the list, houses filled and theres jobs in the form of a social office, pub, bookies, supermarket, post office. win win for all. Also probably a better quality of life not being surrounded by smack heads, lured by gangs or being constantly burgled.

Where are the jobs, schools, transport links for these people?
Can they afford cars to commute to their city based jobs?

Idiocy

James Brown · 20-12-2017 6:52pm

If people are avoiding work to get a 'free house', (no such thing) call the Garda, tell welfare. It's considered fraud.

There are working tax payers reliant on state hand outs. Should they strike for a higher wage? This can't be dismissed by whinging about 'forever homes' or cribbing about some young wan in the paper. It's being conned or conning in action.
NAMA intends on using tax monies reclaimed from developers who went bust, to fund developers at rates better than any professional working bank is willing to. These homes will be sold privately for as much profit as possible. We are getting into the housing business, just for private gain.

Harry Palmr · 20-12-2017 6:53pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure the government go on about the decline of rural Ireland. take a small village that can barely survive, put 200 of them there, suddenly thats 200 off the list, houses filled and theres jobs in the form of a social office, pub, bookies, supermarket, post office. win win for all. Also probably a better quality of life not being surrounded by smack heads, lured by gangs or being constantly burgled.

Oh yeah that'll work - double the size of the village with new housing (which will still have no jobs), annoy the natives ("who are these blow ins?"), annoy the blow-ins ("we're miles from anywhere"), mess up the roll at the local national school, how far to the nearest secondary school? and so on. 'Social engineering' a problem like this by moving cohorts about the countryside is like Mao lite!

jobbridge4life · 20-12-2017 6:56pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Sure the government go on about the decline of rural Ireland. take a small village that can barely survive, put 200 of them there, suddenly thats 200 off the list, houses filled and theres jobs in the form of a social office, pub, bookies, supermarket, post office. win win for all. Also probably a better quality of life not being surrounded by smack heads, lured by gangs or being constantly burgled.

What kind of hysterical vision of Dublin do you have? Are you the guy who wrote about Conor McGregor's gangland childhood?

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 7:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are the jobs, schools, transport links for these people?
Can they afford cars to commute to their city based jobs?

Idiocy

You clearly didn't read my post correctly. I would be relocating the intergenerationally unemployed / long term unemployed. The infrastructure would be created at the same time as the social housing, bringing supply and demand simultaneously.

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Oh yeah that'll work - double the size of the village with new housing (which will still have no jobs), annoy the natives ("who are these blow ins?"), annoy the blow-ins ("we're miles from anywhere"), mess up the roll at the local national school, how far to the nearest secondary school? and so on. 'Social engineering' a problem like this by moving cohorts about the countryside is like Mao lite!

if you throw 200 additional people into an area you also throw in the services they need which provide jobs and room for additional demand for services which create jobs. Mess up the roll at a school - what are you on about.

what do you propose ? leave them all in dublin where we can't afford to give them a gaf and they're taking up space needed by workers, but sure the luas is there.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

What kind of hysterical vision of Dublin do you have? Are you the guy who wrote about Conor McGregor's gangland childhood?

This makes 0 sense. The only vision I have for dublin is - people who need to live there can afford to live there. People who do nothing all day don't live there which frees up space for those in need. I would even consider it a bit leftist for my usual views.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 7:16pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

You clearly didn't read my post correctly. I would be relocating the intergenerationally unemployed / long term unemployed. The infrastructure would be created at the same time as the social housing, bringing supply and demand simultaneously.

if you throw 200 additional people into an area you also throw in the services they need which provide jobs and room for additional demand for services which create jobs. Mess up the roll at a school - what are you on about.

what do you propose ? leave them all in dublin where we can't afford to give them a gaf and they're taking up space needed by workers, but sure the luas is there.

This makes 0 sense. The only vision I have for dublin is - people who need to live there can afford to live there. People who do nothing all day don't live there which frees up space for those in need. I would even consider it a bit leftist for my usual views.

But employment is at record highs. Surely these accepted crises aren't caused by this slim minority, (which includes the sick)?
If there are any generationally unemployed, why aren't they being rooted out? Didn't Varadkar have a campaign?

It's also the workers who can't afford a roof. How can we blame them? Too many high-faluting expectations, like a roof to rent?

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 7:20pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But employment is at record highs. Surely these accepted crises aren't caused by this slim minority, (which includes the sick)?
If there are any generationally unemployed, why aren't they being rooted out? Didn't Varadkar have a campaign?

It's also the workers who can't afford a roof. How can we blame them? Too many high-faluting expectations, like a roof to rent?

My plan is to free up space in dublin for workers , so that those people can.

being unemployed is (sadly) not a crime. Plenty of people in social housing / declared homeless have never worked, are never going to work and it is sadly not illegal. Thos people do not deserve to be housed in dublin or cork city / suburbs even if they grew up there.

jobbridge4life · 20-12-2017 7:24pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This makes 0 sense. The only vision I have for dublin is - people who need to live there can afford to live there. People who do nothing all day don't live there which frees up space for those in need. I would even consider it a bit leftist for my usual views.

The vision I was referring to was your fantastical nonsense about smack heads and roving gangs.

As for your policy on the forced relocation of individuals, I have to say that strikes me as a bit 'statist' for you alright.

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 7:28pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The vision I was referring to was your fantastical nonsense about smack heads and roving gangs.

As for your policy on the forced relocation of individuals, I have to say that strikes me as a bit 'statist' for you alright.

My vision of smack heads and roaming gangs. Pal come into dublin 1 right now, like this very minute. I saw 3 heroin deals go down while driving 100 meters down foley street today. Theres about 10 junkies off their heads on talbot street at the moment. I went out for a smoke an hour ago and a roaming gang of kids stole a womans purse and are still riding round shouting racial slurs and knocking bikes into people. Come here right now and ill take an hour to show you whats actually happening in dublin.

'forced relocation' well they could get jobs and stay in dublin, a lot of these people have already declined accommodation , holding out for a house 2 doors down from their ma.

jobbridge4life · 20-12-2017 7:31pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

My vision of smack heads and roaming gangs. Pal come into dublin 1 right now, like this very minute. I saw 3 heroin deals go down while driving 100 meters down foley street today. Theres about 10 junkies off their heads on talbot street at the moment. I went out for a smoke an hour ago and a roaming gang of kids stole a womans purse and are still riding round shouting racial slurs and knocking bikes into people. Come here right now and ill take an hour to show you whats actually happening in dublin.

Okay and you come to Dublin 8 right this minute and I'll show you streets of social housing that peaceful and quiet. Are we evens now?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

'forced relocation' well they could get jobs and stay in dublin, a lot of these people have already declined accommodation , holding out for a house 2 doors down from their ma.

And if they don't find work, are you going to move them to one of your resettlment camps?

christy c · 20-12-2017 7:32pm

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If people are avoiding work to get a 'free house', (no such thing) call the Garda, tell welfare. It's considered fraud.

When Varadkar proposed this, you were 100 per cent behind it weren't you?

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 7:36pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Okay and you come to Dublin 8 right this minute and I'll show you streets of social housing that peaceful and quiet. Are we evens now?

And if they don't find work, are you going to move them to one of your resettlment camps?

SOcial housing for low income workers (like I'm sure your D8 street is filled with) is fine, nobody including myself has taken issue with it. What I want to do is take all the permanently unemployed , the trouble makers, the smack heads etc… and spread them out all across the country. Give the current social housing stock in dublin to those with a need, who work.

putting somebody in a social house in portlaoise is hardly a resettlement camp.

jobbridge4life · 20-12-2017 7:38pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

SOcial housing for low income workers (like I'm sure your D8 street is filled with) is fine, nobody including myself has taken issue with it. What I want to do is take all the permanently unemployed , the trouble makers, the smack heads etc… and spread them out all across the country. Give the current social housing stock in dublin to those with a need, who work.

putting somebody in a social house in portlaoise is hardly a resettlement camp.

Mate Dublin 8 is an unemployment blackspot.

And what on earth does moving someone to Portlaoise achieve? And what about the residents of Portlaoise? I'm sure they will be thrilled to now that they are being used as a reciptical for Dublin's 'undesirables'.

Sleeper12 · 20-12-2017 7:40pm

PJW wrote:

I canâ€™t understand how â€œfamiliesâ€ in emergency accommodation feel they have a right to a house and itâ€™s the right of the government bodies to get them one.

I'm 50 in a few days and it's been like this all my life.

It's the housing shortage and inactivity of the government for the last 6 years that has increased the numbers to almost 9000 people. When we had a small amount homelessness you just didn't notice the people looking for housing

James Brown · 20-12-2017 7:41pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

My plan is to free up space in dublin for workers , so that those people can.

being unemployed is (sadly) not a crime. Plenty of people in social housing / declared homeless have never worked, are never going to work and it is sadly not illegal. Thos people do not deserve to be housed in dublin or cork city / suburbs even if they grew up there.

You seem very misinformed.

Welfare isn't given out unless people are unable to work due to illness or out of work and can show they are seeking work. Maybe they need ramp up this vetting process, but there is a process.

Houses aren't given for free. Homes (use to be commonly) are allocated to people based on need and they are charged rent based on their income.

So lets look at it; your whinge is regarding a minority out of work, who don't wish to work, who haven't for generations, who have a free house and avoided the authorities by continuously defrauding the state? How many of them do you think there might be?
Would you say they cause more or less problems for the housing crisis than a government using NAMA monies to back private developers, in turn assisting that house prices remain artificially high?

Jesus wept, if unemployment were a crime employers would be charged with aiding and abetting anytime they let any one go for mere profit margin reasons, but that might sour your workhouse utopia.

Galwayguy35 · 20-12-2017 7:43pm

In fairness i think Murphy is doing his best and that fella with the beard in the audience shouting at him just made himself look stupid.

I'm all for giving people a fair shake but none of the people in the programme seemed to want to make any effort to get themselves out of the situation they are in.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 7:45pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Mate Dublin 8 is an unemployment blackspot.

And what on earth does moving someone to Portlaoise achieve? And what about the residents of Portlaoise? I'm sure they will be thrilled to now that they are being used as a reciptical for Dublin's 'undesirables'.

Camps next :rolleyes:

FG/FF would have a great country going if it weren't for those pesky Irish.

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

In fairness i think Murphy is doing his best and that fella with the beard in the audience shouting at him just made himself look stupid.

I'm all for giving people a fair shake but none of the people in the programme seemed to want to make any effort to get themselves out of the situation they are in.

At what?

Eric Cartman · 20-12-2017 8:01pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

In fairness i think Murphy is doing his best and that fella with the beard in the audience shouting at him just made himself look stupid.

I'm all for giving people a fair shake but none of the people in the programme seemed to want to make any effort to get themselves out of the situation they are in.

This is the biggest problem, always with the hand out, no personal responsibility, no desire to try and pick themselves up. Always somebody else's fault.

Fann Linn · 20-12-2017 8:16pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This is the biggest problem, always with the hand out, no personal responsibility, no desire to try and pick themselves up. Always somebody else's fault.

Even people with two average wage incomes cannot afford to buy in Dublin. Perhaps the problem is that not enough industry \ work is located outside of the pale.

byhookorbycrook · 20-12-2017 8:30pm

The "homeless" list is hugely inflated. When I was younger, if you couldn't afford to rent, you stayed at home until you could work. When you were working, you rented and saved, and then if as house in an area was above what you could afford, you went somewhere you could afford. And you didn't have children unless you had somewhere to call home, even rented

"Homeless" now seems to include those who want to push themselves up a list. They leave home and declare themselves "homeless" and wait to be handed something . There was a case recently where a woman left Dublin and moved to Carlow.Demanded a house on arrival there ahead of everyone else on the waiting lisr, even though her parents already had a house and plenty space for her and her child. A tent appeared outside council offices and certain interests groups rowed in behind this."Friends" threatened council staff and gardaí were called, so then according to her, the gardaí were wrong too.Only wanted a house where she chose. Took the council to court for not giving her a house on the spot.If you were truly desperate and really homeless, wouldn't you take any place offered?

BloodBath · 20-12-2017 8:39pm

Is it not the norm of cities as they grow? The center becomes the business hub and home of the wealthy while the general population gets pushed to the suburbs. That's how most functional well designed cities operate.

The problem is Dublin's outskirts are already massive and the majority of these people want to stay central. In a house no less. A free apartment is not good enough it seems.

It's the same people who oppose high rise buildings in the city center because they grew up in houses around there and want it to stay that way. Sorry but it doesn't work that way and our government are bigger idiots for listening to it.

Yes people who work in low paying jobs in the city center should have affordable options to live near their workplace. Dublin city center and it's close surroundings should be devoid of bungalows. It should be at least all 5 story apartment buildings by now. Knock down the bungalows already.

Simply by upgrading the business and housing infrastructure in the center itself will free up thousands of properties in the suburbs and massively increase the central property locations. This development should have been ongoing for at least the last 20-30 years though.

Dublin is so far behind now. If we were going to be a tax haven for big multi nationals then there should have been agreements with these companies for the redevelopment of parts of the city center. They provide a good chunk of the financing for the development of high rise office buildings serviced by nearby high rise apartment buildings. In return they get a free lease agreement for part of the building and their tax haven but the property remains in ownership of the state.

James Brown · 20-12-2017 9:03pm

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

..

"Homeless" now seems to include those who want to push themselves up a list. They leave home and declare themselves "homeless" and wait to be handed something . T...

There is no new phenomena.
'Homeless' always had people trying to pull a fast one to get up the housing list. Citing a few stories to prove that it happens does not take away from the fact that numbers dependent on emergency accommodation are rising.

Now this means either the rate of fraud is increasing and we don't have proper vetting in place or the economy is not serving the public, hard as that may be to comprehend for any die hard FF/FG'ers.

Now the current government and previous government were/are of a mind that we have an actual crisis, not a fraud/criminal crisis and they're currently trying to down play it to spare their blushes. Aided and abetted by hyperbole and bluster about 'dem that want something for nothing' from the faithful.
So this line of anecdotal evidence regarding spongers etc. being in any way a major cause, just doesn't hold water.

It makes no sense to concentrate on this and ignore the government mishandling of the crisis. FF/FG policy is making it worse.

What about workers who can't pay rent without a tax payer dig out?
What about developers with their hands out, getting NAMA loans at rates more favourable than any financial institution is willing to offer?
These are the big issues here nobody seems willing to address.

Using scapegoats to cover bad management and unpopular policy seems to be the Fine Gael agenda.

boundlessSea · 20-12-2017 9:14pm

I think everyone has a right to safe, warm, hygienic accommodation that is reasonably comfortable but not a home as such, if a person cannot afford to rent accommodation for their sole use they should live in shared accommodation, the state is not responsible for ensuring that everyone has their own exclusive residence, the state should help people who need support but people must take responsibility for their own lives, the possibility of eventually being able to attain exclusive accommodation is an incentive for people to work.

Right to a house?

Comments