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

Right to a house?

PJW

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

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.

GhostyMcGhost

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/

James Brown

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.

NIMAN

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

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.

James Brown

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.

boombang

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.

[Deleted User]

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)

Tabnabs

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.

recedite

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.

recedite

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.

James Brown

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.

oceanman

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...

Owryan

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

Gavin "shels"

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

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.

recedite

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.

James Brown

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.

James Brown

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.

recedite

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.

c montgomery

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