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

Councillor gets social and housing sorted. Met with protests.

Horsebox9000

Seriously... I'm baffled by this
https://twitter.com/ohnofalafel/status/1191471042109284352

What do people think?

[url]

https://twitter.com/1GaryGannon/status/1191344958286041089[/url]

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Beta Ray Bill

seamus wrote: »

I don't see the issue tbh. I appreciate that it's frustrating, but there's no good reason why anyone should be entitled to buy where they grew up.

I agree with you. However, there are a huge number of people that do not agree with us.
And ultimately it comes down to numbers and votes (every 5 years).

I think on this too, it's not even that they cant live where they grew up, it's that they can live within 10km of where they grew up.
Hence as a result they have no social supports etc, which is why people resist it some much.

It's an exceptionally complicated issue to solve.

seamus wrote: »

Previous policies have been painfully weak, allowing developers to buy their way out of providing it.

Or joining together and dumping all their social housing obligations into one area.

171170

Scoundrel wrote: »

What always baffles me about debates like this is that there are people who are happy to be ripped off by private developers and banks and almost revel in the fact that they spend a huge % of their income just to have a have a place to sleep and go apoplectic with rage when people suggest that Government should build housing for all not scumbag speculators and profiteers.

I was quite happy to enrich the small builder who built my house and I'm far happier that he and his men were able to earn a few bob to raise their kids instead of allowing the politicians and officials responsible for building the National Childrens' Hospital to take over the building of "housing for all".

Every cent that governments spend comes, ultimately, from taxes, and I'm paying far too much tax as it is without pandering to the "free forever home" desires of the loonie left.

seamus

There's a lot of unreasonable talk on every side here.

Not everyone can afford to buy or build a house. They need to live somewhere, whether that's provided by public or private means.

Construction cannot take place on a one-off basis. You can't build every house using a small builder. It's doesn't scale, in any sense of the word.

Governments cannot be large developers. That doesn't scale either. They contract construction work out to private developers.

Thus, if housing need is to be addressed, it requires private building firms capable of producing large projects.

"Private developers" and "vulture funds" (i.e. Professional landlords) have become the new buzzwords of hate in this debate. But realistically without either of them, our housing crisis would be twice as bad; nothing getting built and rental properties owned by cowboy small landlords.

Fr_Dougal

seamus wrote: »

"Private developers" and "vulture funds" (i.e. Professional landlords) have become the new buzzwords of hate in this debate. But realistically without either of them, our housing crisis would be twice as bad; nothing getting built and rental properties owned by cowboy small landlords.

Reits are inflating rents. Granted the majority of them raise accommodation standards, but the rates they charge are higher than the norm. Private landlords are adjusting their rents accordingly.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

I don't see the issue tbh. I appreciate that it's frustrating, but there's no good reason why anyone should be entitled to buy where they grew up.

I'd disagree with this, I think there are many good social reasons for it, community, social networks etc that are very beneficial for the people themselves. The problem is you can't really put a number on it, although considering the spiralling cost of childcare maybe soon you can if you consider how much could be saved by having your school and grandparents nearby

Idbatterim

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

A foreva home should be free. Can’t be paying for your own house.

They don’t pay anyway. Sure they are given free money every week , everything is free! Paid for by the working poor living in **** situations themselves!

How many units did this estate originally comprise of ?

The left ranting and raving there aren’t enough homes. Then lose their minds when anything over four floors is permitted. The more units in a development, the more social and affordable you get as a result. True morons !

[Deleted User]

Why can't the state build the houses themselves? It can be done successfully, *if it's done properly*

I've always been a fan of the Viennese approach to housing and only a few months ago there was an exhibition on it in Dublin too. It would require a huge change in practices across society of course (it was achieved in the 20/30s in Vienna) but it is proven to work

In Vienna, forty-five percent of housing is classified as social or affordable, and people can earn as much as €53,000 a year and qualify for city-owned and subsidised apartments. Often ranked first in international quality of living scales, over the last 100 years the Austrian capital has developed a means tested cost-rental housing model, where rents are based on construction and maintenance costs instead of market fluctuations.

The scheme provides homes for around one in four people in the Austrian capital. Wiener Wohnen, the authority which manages more than 220,000 homes in Vienna, receives almost €500m annually from the city in subsidies, €212m of which it spends on building apartments. The scheme is funded by a property tax and the authority builds on average 7,000 apartments each year.

In contrast, there were just 4,251 social houses built in Ireland last year, comprising of 2,022 local authority builds and 1,338 delivered by approved housing bodies.

http://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/

Idbatterim

Yeah the Vienna model is excellent. Assume it would take a far bigger contribution from the Skangers receiving their free housing to finance it though ? That’s the thing , the sheer amount of resources I.e money they have didn’t on them , fcuks hundreds of thousands of working people !

Don’t pay lpt, management fees etc in their free house , anything breaks, ring the council. How did this swamp get to that point ?!

Many of these salt of de earth locals are nothing and will never be anything except parasites off the taxpayer. “ our land “ they’ll want to come into your home next and claim it in the name of the people!

Gatling

riffmongous wrote: »

http://www.newsfour.ie/2019/06/revolutionising-housing-with-vienna-model/

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

James Brown

lola85 wrote: »

Where do they build though?

Every development is been met by objections from the locals backed by local TDs.

Then when they bring in fast track planning they have people like Pat Kenny ranting on the radio about it.

Saint Anne’s.
Coolock.
Inchicore.
Clondalkin.

This crisis won’t be solved as there is too many obstacles by NIMBYS and red tape.

Where isn't the problem. Often, the people were moved out of 100% social housing estates under a promise of regeneration. Then a number of years later private developers are seemingly calling the shots and it's which offer the LA's go for, leaving, quite rightly, some very pissed off people expecting to be brought back in, as promised. There should be zero private builds on public land, especially land formally 100% social housing, during a prolonged worsening housing crisis. LA's/State should not be pandering to private millionaires.
If you are ever passing through Dublin go down Cork Street. It's wall to wall private apartment blocks with cookie cutter Spar or centra every few hundred yards. A dead zone community wise.

lola85

Boggles wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

60 million in arrears is DCC.

Beta Ray Bill

riffmongous wrote: »

I'd disagree with this, I think there are many good social reasons for it, community, social networks etc that are very beneficial for the people themselves. The problem is you can't really put a number on it, although considering the spiraling cost of childcare maybe soon you can if you consider how much could be saved by having your school and grandparents nearby

I know a person that brought his Mother over from Hungary to look after his kid in his 3 bed apartment.

Ended up saving a fortune.

I get what you're saying about the sense of community, however some aspects of social housing particularly HAP for single mothers have a severely damaging effect on community/family ties.

I know a few single mothers on HAP after their Ex's ****ed off and left them raising their kid(s) 5/6 days of the week.
It's a miserable and lonely existence, they have one night a week they can get out if they're lucky and have money. Some of them work part time when their kids are in school (hard to get this kind of work). They're not skangers etc, just normal people that haven't had a great run. They'd be lucky if they got to talk face to face to another adult in any given week.

I get they feel they need their own space, especially with kids. But for young mothers in particular, I genuinely feel they'd be better off living at home with their parents. Having on site/at home/on premises (or whatever you want to call it) support from family is very beneficial. It gives the woman a chance to get back on her feet, get a good job, go back to college, bit more free time, more money, etc.
I know a few single mothers that are living at home too, and there's absolutely no question that women living with their parents are far happier.

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

That's another huge issue, non-payment.
Private land lord is more likely to pursue money owned than the government is.

Boggles

lola85 wrote: »

60 million in arrears is DCC.

Did I say there wasn't arrears?

The vast majority of people in social housing pay their rents, the poster I was responding to has quite a history of generalization and hyperbole.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

The vast majority of people in Social Housing pay their rents.

Lol some people.

Not all of them no .

Still no a hope they would pay €600+ pm for an apartment then whatever for a 3 bed with front and back gardens

Idbatterim

Yeah as we have total spineless parties and an invertebrate as Taoiseach , trying to change the gravy train now would be problematic. Welfare should be frozen for years. Spend the money on far more worthy and needy areas !

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Still no a hope they would pay €600+ pm

Of course people would pay, they are affordable homes where you are allowed own one if you earn less than €53,000.

NasserShammaz

Gatling wrote: »

Kip of a place ,

Let me guess they wanted 100% social housing where people just stop paying rent

The people who lived there previously are under the mistaking impression they own the land because they were in the flats freeloading, now they think their poxy kids should be housed in the new development " so as to be close to their ma"

ask anyone in the area who the protesters are and they will tell you it's the same people who made the place a sh$whole in the first place.

Social housing for working poor not long term dole mongers

[Deleted User]

Gatling wrote: »

600 a month ,there would be riots if they brought that in here , they struggle to collect rents in social housing here as it is

I think you missed the point of the article, social housing is available for almost everyone earning up to 3,300 a month.

That's the average rent across everyone in the system, related to an original means testing. So "Six hundred euros is an average rent for a fifty-square-meter, two-bedroom apartment close to the city centre" is the equivalent in Dublin of people who are qualified professionals in a ****ty houseshare at the moment

Beta Ray Bill

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeah as we have total spineless parties and an invertebrate as Taoiseach , trying to change the gravy train now would be problematic. Welfare should be frozen for years. Spend the money on far more worthy and needy areas !

That's not a good idea.
There are a lot of people out there that genuinely need welfare.
Old
Sick
Disabled
People who've been left as a full time single parent
People who're going through a tough/difficult time in their career

I get that there are a huge amount of spongers.
But here's the thing; EVERYONE has a story as to why they ended up where they are.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Of course people would pay,

No they won't if they struggle to pay the bare minimum social housing rents what makes you think they will pay 2 or 3 times higher rents.

Claiming You know answers don't cut it

James Brown

The arrears is a red herring. The system not being policed properly is the issue not the system of social housing. My local FG TD was raised in Social housing as were the vast number of Irish people. Also HAP and emergency accommodation consists of working people too. It's not all junkies or single mothers who never worked a day.
Social and affordable housing is designed to assist people, the vast majority working but on low incomes, to have a roof over their head.
The sad and ironic thing is as we do away with social housing the tax payer gets the costly bill of subsidising rents to private landlords and companies. It's the very definition of cutting your nose to spite your face.

Idbatterim

The old would have tens of thousands stashed away and tell you they are on the breadline. They aren’t. Then yeah there are some unlucky cases , but at what point should I and many like myself have a reduced quality of life , to pay for other people’s mistakes or pure laziness ?

The redistribution of wealth from the working poor to the idle wasters is obscene and not witnessed anywhere else on this planet. It wouldn’t be tolerated! Take a look at welfare Britain series, for how our nearest national , a rich one , that wasn’t bailed out , see what they reckon it’s ok to live off on welfare over there ... a fraction of here !

Idbatterim

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The arrears is a red herring. The system not being policed properly is the issue not the system of social housing. My local FG TD was raised in Social housing as were the vast number of Irish people. Also HAP and emergency accommodation consists of working people too. It's not all junkies or single mothers who never worked a day.
Social and affordable housing is designed to assist people, the vast majority working but on low incomes, to have a roof over their head.
The sad and ironic thing is as we do away with social housing the tax payer gets the costly bill of subsidising rents to private landlords and companies. It's the very definition of cutting your nose to spite your face.

If their idea of social housing is to build more at massive expense , to then let people live in it free , to then offering them the chance to buy the house for virtually nothing , which is what happened and wouldn’t surprise me one bit of it did again !

Gatling

riffmongous wrote: »

I think you missed the point of the article, social housing is available for almost everyone earning up to 3,300 a month.

That's the average rent across everyone in the system, related to an original means testing. So "Six hundred euros is an average rent for a fifty-square-meter, two-bedroom apartment close to the city centre" is the equivalent in Dublin of people who are qualified professionals in a ****ty houseshare at the moment

I totally get the point ,but until they change the whole idea that those who make the least effort get the best choices and the cheapest rents , nothing will change the same for upsizeing and down sizing the Vienna model actually makes it easy where here we have older people living in multi room properties that could house a family but there is no where to go to suit their housing need now

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

If their idea of social housing is to build more at massive expense , to then let people live in it free , to then offering them the chance to buy the house for virtually nothing , which is what happened and wouldn’t surprise me one bit of it did again !

These same people would be housed in a private rental paid for by the tax payer.
It's really straightforward, do we want to build and rent out or do we want to buy and rent out or pay rents to vulture funds?
These people will not be going anywhere, social housing or not.

You get the option of buying your social housing rental after a number of years as a renter. You need be in good stead payments wise and you cannot flip the property for something like ten years after you purchase and if you decide to the council take most of any profit. The price is based on current market rates but you'd get a discount based on how long you paid rent there.
If a family are decades renting and are in a position to buy, I think that's okay.

The irony being every single person I know opposed to social housing, grew up in and now owns formally social housing.

Padraig Mor

Boggles wrote: »

Did I say there wasn't arrears?

The vast majority of people in social housing pay their rents, the poster I was responding to has quite a history of generalization and hyperbole.

No.....no they don't - in fact in some areas only a minority are paying. The majority of social tenancies in Dublin are in arrears for example. And arrears are skyrocketing all across the country as scroungers realise they won't be turfed out for not paying - hard to blame them TBH.

maxsmum

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

There are a lot of people out there that genuinely need welfare.
Old
Sick
Disabled
People who've been left as a full time single parent
People who're going through a tough/difficult time in their career

Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location. Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing. There is no inviolable right to be 'housed' where you grew up. I for one will never be able to buy a house where I grew up, let alone be given one.

Boggles

Padraig Mor wrote: »

No.....no they don't - in fact in some areas only a minority are paying. The majority of social tenancies in Dublin are in arrears for example. And arrears are skyrocketing all across the country as scroungers realise they won't be turfed out for not paying - hard to blame them TBH.

Well if it a "fact" you will have no problem offering evidence of your claims.

In your own time.

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

No they won't if they struggle to pay the bare minimum social housing rents what makes you think they will pay 2 or 3 times higher rents.

Who is struggling?

I think you need to back and read the article again, or maybe for the first time.