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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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/

[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.

boombang

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

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

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

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

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.

[Deleted User]

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

[Deleted User]

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

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

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!