Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should we stop building social housing?

Options
  • 23-07-2019 5:54pm
    #1
    Balanadan
    Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭


    Why do some working people get free houses and others don't?


«134567

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,415 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Nobody gets a free house.


  • Options
    #3
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    As the poster above me said: no one gets a free house. And, if we stop building social housing, homelessness will skyrocket. Entire families consigned to the streets.


  • Options
    #4
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Who told you this OP? Some fella down the pub?


  • Options
    #5
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.


  • Options
    #6
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    kneemos wrote: »
    Nobody gets a free house.

    90 million in unpaid rents and arrears in social housing at present seems obvious people are getting free housing and can't or won't ever be evicted
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Yer Da sells Avon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭Yer Da sells Avon


    No, we should build more social housing - enough to ensure that any working person can afford to live a reasonable distance from where they work.


  • Options
    #8
    Schwanz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 898 ✭✭✭Schwanz


    More of course, it does more good in the long run for our country than the opposite.


  • Options
    #9
    Del2005
    Registered Users Posts: 18,940 ✭✭✭✭Del2005


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.

    They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.


  • Options
    #10
    Franz Von Peppercorn II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,398 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn II


    Gatling wrote: »
    90 million in unpaid rents and arrears in social housing at present seems obvious people are getting free housing and can't or won't ever be evicted

    We should deal with that too.


  • Options
    #11
    Lady Spangles
    Registered Users Posts: 434 ✭✭Lady Spangles


    Gatling wrote: »
    90 million in unpaid rents and arrears in social housing at present seems obvious people are getting free housing and can't or won't ever be evicted


    That's not a free house though, is it? They're obligated to pay rent and breaching their tenancy by not doing so. I'll admit I'm not sure how it works in the Republic of Ireland, but in the North (and the rest of the UK) tenants are certainly evicted for not paying their rent. Furthermore, if they're evicted for not paying rent on a council property, they're classified as "voluntarily homeless" and not eligible for any further help from the Housing Executive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    _blaaz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,646 ✭✭✭_blaaz


    Del2005 wrote: »
    They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

    Hardly much more misery than raising.families in hotel rooms,moving around every week or two?



    However bad them social housing estates were,whats going on now isnt sustainable


  • Options
    #13
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    This thread is going to be full of nuanced arguments.


  • Options
    #14
    Leg End Reject
    Registered Users Posts: 16,601 ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    I've no problem with social housing and there is a need for it. I think social housing in cities or areas with high demand should only be offered to working families.

    The long term unemployed dont be to a 5 min luas ride from Dublin city.
    https://forumofgames.com/index.php




  • Options
    #15
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    The reason why they stopped was because they were becoming sink estates with very high levels of crime. And this is also the reason why people didn't want these estates built beside their own.

    If they actually enforced law and order and evicted problem families, they would work again.


  • Options
    #16
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Del2005 wrote: »
    They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

    That was when most average people could afford to rent or buy a home on the private market, and social housing blocks were only for the seriously disadvantaged. That isn't the case anymore - most young people are unable to afford current rents as things stand, without making totally unacceptable sacrifices in other areas of their lives. As far as the quality of the homes themselves, I've toured many of them on Open House Days and while I agree that they have their flaws, they're a massive improvement on living on the streets or forking out €1,300 per month for a tiny bedroom with a kitchen shared between 40 people.


  • Options
    #17
    NoteAgent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭NoteAgent


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.

    Misery has been caused by government intervention. If taxes were lowered, this would incentivise more building of houses and thus fix the supply problem.

    Every government quango thats been set up to deal with something like this has been a complete and utter failure. The beauty of capitalism in this scenario is that there is a huge demand for houses. Just leave the private builders to it, lower taxes, lower regulation, etc and the houses will be built, house prices will drop due to increase in supply and the market should come back to equilibrium


  • Options
    #18
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Social housing isn't just for people on the dole, it's for anyone unable to afford housing at market rates which is a lot of working people too.


  • Options
    #19
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    That's not a free house though, is it? They're obligated to pay rent and breaching their tenancy by not doing so. I'll admit I'm not sure how it works in the Republic of Ireland, but in the North (and the rest of the UK) tenants are certainly evicted for not paying their rent. Furthermore, if they're evicted for not paying rent on a council property, they're classified as "voluntarily homeless" and not eligible for any further help from the Housing Executive.

    Unfortunately down here it's the complete opposite local authorities won't make people homeless regardless how much you owe ,
    You have more chance of getting evicted if you deal drugs but even that's a stretch .

    The housing boards like cluid , circle ,tuath and a few others will evict for non payment of rents but that tenant will then have to housed by the local council .

    90 million is crazy considering how little rents they charge
    My local authority is owed 8 million alone
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #20
    Realtai
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭Realtai


    Balanadan wrote: »
    Why do some working people get free houses and others don't?

    To be fair, I was told that Wexford County Council is currently giving out houses to those who are working, instead of the ones on the council list who are in dire straits and have been on the list for years. Maybe the OP heard similar? I am not surprised if that is the case, they will get more rent off them. As well as that, there is a little bit of nepotism and "scratch my back, and I will scratch yours" going on there.

    However, once you pay your rent..its not free!

    The homeless association (I forget which one) said Wexford County Council were the worst council they had to deal with.


  • Options
    #21
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,011 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    There should be more social housing built.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    kneemos wrote: »
    Nobody gets a free house.

    If your landlord gives you money each week for not working but takes a small bit of it back as rent, that's not you paying rent imo.


  • Options
    #23
    Roger_007
    Registered Users Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    Tony EH wrote: »
    There should be more social housing built.

    There should always be an adequate supply of social housing. Unfortunately the term 'social housing' has become synonymous with ghettos to house people who want everything in life to be provided for them for free.
    Social housing should be housing provided to people whose means do not allow them to buy or rent houses on the open market. That said, it is important that agreed and fair rents are paid and evictions should ensue if they are not.
    There should be no sell-offs of social housing at knock-down prices to any tenant irrespective of how long they may have occupied the property. Properties should only be sold at full market value if they are to be sold at all.


  • Options
    #24
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Lady Spangles wrote: »
    That's not a free house though, is it? They're obligated to pay rent and breaching their tenancy by not doing so. I'll admit I'm not sure how it works in the Republic of Ireland, but in the North (and the rest of the UK) tenants are certainly evicted for not paying their rent. Furthermore, if they're evicted for not paying rent on a council property, they're classified as "voluntarily homeless" and not eligible for any further help from the Housing Executive.

    excellent series available on youtube re council housing in the UK. The fact you mention is emphasised in every programme. From private rental evictions more than council.

    But if there are children, the family will be found emergency accommodation by the council immediately.


  • Options
    #25
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,000 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Del2005 wrote: »
    They did a great job the last time the government did large scale home building, there's been misery for decades in most of the areas that they built.

    What do you suggest then?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #26
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,927 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    The reason why they stopped was because they were becoming sink estates with very high levels of crime. And this is also the reason why people didn't want these estates built beside their own.

    If they actually enforced law and order and evicted problem families, they would work again.

    Evicted them to where though?


  • Options
    #27
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,000 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    NoteAgent wrote: »
    Misery has been caused by government intervention. If taxes were lowered, this would incentivise more building of houses and thus fix the supply problem.

    Thats a complete con job. If taxes are lowered then public services get lowered and the taxpayer ends up paying MORE for public services.

    If taxes were lowered

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #28
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    OP we should certainly NOT be supplying housing for those who simply refuse to work or are involved in criminality.

    The issue is not social housing so much as who gets the housing imo.

    For example do I want a working family who can't afford a house to get one? - YES. Do I want a Margaret Cash and her brood to get one? - NO.

    Needs to be given to those who make the effort, not welfare queens or kings.


  • Options
    #29
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,415 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    If your landlord gives you money each week for not working but takes a small bit of it back as rent, that's not you paying rent imo.

    It's also not your house.


  • Options
    #30
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Social housing isn't just for people on the dole, it's for anyone unable to afford housing at market rates which is a lot of working people too.

    It's absolutely not. When I was unemployed I was told I couldn't go on the housing list because I was a single male living with my parent (who was struggling to pay for their house). Now I'm earning too little to afford rent in Dublin but too much to be eligible to be on the housing list. So I commute an hour and 15 mins each way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Leg End Reject wrote: »
    The long term unemployed dont be to a 5 min luas ride from Dublin city.
    why someone who has never worked a day in their lives gets the luxury of living in areas most working people could never live in is a mystery to me


Advertisement