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

The Constitutional Right to a Home

suicide_circus

There is currently no specific law on the books that gives people a right to a home in Ireland.

In 2014 The Constitutional Convention voted to have the right to housing...“expressly stated” in the Constitution.

In 2017 the dail rejected a bill which sought to make housing a constitutional right.

What say you, After Hours?

What are the pros and cons? What difference would it make? What would be the attendant responsibility on the citizen on acquiring this new right? Would a right to a home be a right to a home in a preferred location?

Would it force the government to build a rake of social housing? Would it force the government to increase taxes? Would it make any practical difference to our housing crisis or would it just be a platitude?

A right to housing is already covered in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but this came after our Constitution so i'm not sure how that works.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

suicide_circus

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Ah South Africa, the Utopian land of human rights.

Maybe the OP needs to clarify here.
The right to housing... any roof over your head, which includes B & B's, short term rentals etc, is one thing.

The right to a home, which implies an apartment/flat/house for life / very long term periods is quite a different matter.
What if the tenants are anti-social, they would have zero consequences to their actions, couldn't be evicted out/moved

Well i cant really clarify as i'm not proposing the motion but my take on it is that a "home" differs from "shelter" in that it is very long term in nature and you hold the keys but i may be wrong.

suicide_circus

Tabnabs wrote: »

No constitutional right should come at the expense of other citizens.

Why should I have to pay for your "rights"?

because socialism.

Antares35

amcalester wrote: »

Has this been tested in the courts because it seems overly vague in terms what the government must do it achieve it.

I'm trying to remember back to first year law! As far as I can recall the provision for some socio-economic rights have been challenged, in particular, healthcare.

I know that here, there has been strong resistance to implying such rights into the constitution e.g. right to education (Sinnot v Minister for Education) and right to dignity and freedom (O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation). The general consensus is that such things are better provide for in legislation and the courts would not intervene as it would be a separation of power.

Constitutional provisions are, by necessity, vague in nature and there are different principles applied by the courts in interpreting provision e.g. as a living document which allows it to be interpreted in a flexible manner which reflects a society's changing culture and values.

amcalester

[Deleted User] wrote: »

and used their powers on local authorities to block planning at every possible opportunity

To be honest I don’t know much about that but judging by the candidates in my area, some of whom I went to school with, I’m not surprised.

facehugger99

amcalester wrote: »

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

A combination of money-trees and a 'tax da rich' strategy presumably.

the_syco

amcalester wrote: »

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

Robbing Post Offices Peter to pay Paul.

amcalester

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm trying to remember back to first year law! As far as I can recall the provision for some socio-economic rights have been challenged, in particular, healthcare.

I know that here, there has been strong resistance to implying such rights into the constitution e.g. right to education (Sinnot v Minister for Education) and right to dignity and freedom (O'Reilly v Limerick Corporation). The general consensus is that such things are better provide for in legislation and the courts would not intervene as it would be a separation of power.

Constitutional provisions are, by necessity, vague in nature and there are different principles applied by the courts in interpreting provision e.g. as a living document which allows it to be interpreted in a flexible manner which reflects a society's changing culture and values.

It's a long time since my constitutional law lectures as well, but I do understand the need for vagueness. My question was really enquiring if there are any real world examples on what the courts have decided the right to access actually means.

Does it require the state to pro-actively ensure that there are enough adequate houses for the population, or if the state can show that there are no state barriers in place is that where their obligation ends.

And, have the courts decided what this means, or even what the test is?

reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

Cina

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Yet thousands of apartments have been built and are occupied.........

Thousands?

There are a disproportionate number of apartments to houses in Dublin compared to other European cities. Far more estates with houses than apartment blocks being built here. Also more apartments are one or two beds that you could never really raise a family in.

In European cities they build massive apartment blocks with 3 or 4 beds, same footprint as houses, that people can easily raise a family in. Here an apartment is simply seen as a place to rent or a stepping stone to a house, or for people who can't afford a house.

TuringBot47

We should kill two birds with the one stone.

We need to plant more trees to address the environment crisis.
We need more houses to address the homeless/state dependent citizens.

Tree houses.
There, that's the answer.

The homeless can live like Ewoks on Endor.

AlanG

Former Observer wrote: »

The state of rental apartments in this country is abominable. Tacky places filled with cheap disposable furniture. We could learn a lot from the Germans and Americans on building generous, solid apartments with a bit of character that you furnish yourselves and could maybe call a home.

This is largely down to the instance up until recently of renting furnished apartments. In Germany most apartments don't even come with kitchen units yet alone furniture. You rent first and then you have to pay several thousand buy and plumb kitchen units. That is why many IKEA units are designed to be standalone rather than fitted kitchens.

gjim

Who exactly would be granted this right?

Citizens? There are 3m living outside of Ireland - can all of them pitch up and demand their "right"?

Residents? So any of 450m Brits and other Europeans - given their rights to reside here - could just pitch up and demand a "home"?

Or some new classification? Official definition of "most vulnerable in society" coming to a constitution near you...

Silly, stupid populism...

Cordell

Having a right to a home simply means that you cannot be wrongfully prevented to own/occupy one and that's as long as you do it legally. So, basically, it means nothing. In no case it means that you are entitled to one.

Antares35

amcalester wrote: »

It's a long time since my constitutional law lectures as well, but I do understand the need for vagueness. My question was really enquiring if there are any real world examples on what the courts have decided the right to access actually means.

Does it require the state to pro-actively ensure that there are enough adequate houses for the population, or if the state can show that there are no state barriers in place is that where their obligation ends.

And, have the courts decided what this means, or even what the test is?

I have no idea!:o

Wheeliebin30

Just tell me when I can stop paying my mortgage and live for free in my house.

I’d happily vote for SF if that’s the case!!

BattleCorp

If there is a constitutional right to a house, why should I bother my hole working and paying off my mortgage. I'll just get one for free.

the_syco

Cina wrote: »

Thousands?

There are a disproportionate number of apartments to houses in Dublin compared to other European cities.

Most apartment blocks in other european cities aren't so low.

gjim wrote: »

Who exactly would be granted this right?

Everyone. And SF thinks that the rich people & corporations will magically pay for it.

[Deleted User]

BattleCorp wrote: »

If there is a constitutional right to a house, why should I bother my hole working and paying off my mortgage. I'll just get one for free.

Because it's an asset that you can sell when you retire, and downgrade to a smaller home and have a bit of a lump sum to enjoy your retirement?

Anyway, any of the vocal critics look at what Finland did, and address that?

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's an asset that you can sell when you retire, and downgrade to a smaller home and have a bit of a lump sum to enjoy your retirement?

Anyway, any of the vocal critics look at what Finland did, and address that?

The Finns are paying over 51% in income tax on earnings.

Good luck getting the Irish to pay that.

klaaaz

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Just tell me when I can stop paying my mortgage and live for free in my house.

I’d happily vote for SF if that’s the case!!

FFG have allowed people especially the entitled wealthy to live mortgage free since 2007.

TuringBot47

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The Finns are paying over 51% in income tax on earnings.

Good luck getting the Irish to pay that.

We already do.
Certainly the squeezed middle classes do.

Direct income tax (41%), then USC and PRSI on top of that.
Certainly not far from 50% and that's not including all the stealth taxes, property tax, government "levies" on your electricity and gas bills, etc...
And the robbery of private pension funds a few years ago, skimming a percentage off private personal pension funds each year.

suicide_circus

klaaaz wrote: »

FFG have allowed people especially the entitled wealthy to live mortgage free since 2007.

as i asked in the other thread, who do you want to see in government instead of FFG?

BattleCorp

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The Finns are paying over 51% in income tax on earnings.

Good luck getting the Irish to pay that.

Between PAYE, PRSI, USC etc, I'm certainly paying that on a portion of my wages.

Fr_Dougal

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's an asset that you can sell when you retire, and downgrade to a smaller home and have a bit of a lump sum to enjoy your retirement?

Anyway, any of the vocal critics look at what Finland did, and address that?

What if you live in a one bedroom apartment? Hard to downgrade from that.

BattleCorp

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

What if you live in a one bedroom apartment? Hard to downgrade from that.

Ah yea, it's easy. A 1 bedroom apartment in a more sh1t area.

TuringBot47

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

What if you live in a one bedroom apartment? Hard to downgrade from that.

A one bed apartment in Dublin city centre could be "downgraded" to a 3 bed house within the extended commuter belt. Depends on your priorities, family friendly locations etc

Cabaal

Former Observer wrote: »

The state of rental apartments in this country is abominable. Tacky places filled with cheap disposable furniture.

All items are disposable,
I'd imagine a lot of landlords opt for ikea furniture, to be fair there's very little wrong with it.

Only snobs look down on ikea.

Cabaal

Deleted User wrote: »

Finland did a pretty good job

https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

People in Finland pay wayyyy more tax then Ireland.
People in Ireland want solutions solved but are not prepared to pay for it, as such we can't copy Finland.

Our tax burden on national average wage is approx 27%, by comparison Finland its 42%.

TuringBot47

Cabaal wrote: »

People in Finland pay wayyyy more tax then Ireland.
People in Ireland want solutions solved but are not prepared to pay for it, as such we can't copy Finland.

Our tax burden on national average wage is approx 27%, by comparison Finland its 42%.

The ones who don't work, or are only taxed at the lower rate of 20% are expecting all these things.

While the people PAYING 50% tax don't get the benefits and have to fund their own house, health insurance, pension (including working until 68) etc..

Seth Brundle

Antares35 wrote: »

I don't think there should be a right to ownership of a property, but I think there should be a right to adequate shelter.

Define your interpretation of "adequate shelter"

The Tetrarch

amcalester wrote: »

No, its nonsense from Sinn Fein as usual.

And, lets not forget the SF have repeatedly reduced the LPT thereby reducing the funds available to local government to tackle homelessness while also repeatedly calling for more funding from central government.

Just where do they thing those funds are going to come from?

I see a Sinn Fein election poster with "Fighting for You".
I thought they had stopped fighting.

Give out free houses sounds good.
Free houses and free cars sounds better.
Free houses, free cars, free money even better.