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

maxsmum wrote: »

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.

I actually agree that people that work in front line services should get priority on social housing

maxsmum

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

I actually agree that people that work in front line services should get priority on social housing

I don't know how this isn't prioritised. If you work in town in public service, and you're below the income limit, these houses should be earmarked for you.
If you don't work, you don't get to live in town. Sorry Johnny, I don't care if you were born in the flats.
I know nurses who commute from Roscommon to Dublin because of living costs here. That's just mad.

Varik

For Dublin three in five council tenants are in arrears, that came out last July when the council start some mass evictions.

https://www.98fm.com/news/50-council-tenants-face-eviction-serious-rent-arrears-889146

Boggles

Varik wrote: »

For Dublin three in five council tenants are in arrears, that came out last July when the council start some mass evictions.

https://www.98fm.com/news/50-council-tenants-face-eviction-serious-rent-arrears-889146

Being in arrears does not mean you are not paying your rent.

Figures released to 98FM show 40 per cent of those in arrears owe less than 500 euro -- and fall into this category as soon as they're a week behind

You still owe the arrears, unlike the private rental market where landlords have very little comeback unless they go down the legal route.

That said people who are point blank refusing to pay there rent without a valid reason, this should be garnered at source.

Scoundrel

171170 wrote: »

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.

You're the only one suggesting that Government build housing would be free it has never been free and it never will be it's a nonsense argument given the amount of tax we pay the very least we should be demanding is housing and healthcare.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Who is struggling?

Seriously .

Varik

Boggles wrote: »

Being in arrears does not mean you are not paying your rent.

You still owe the arrears, unlike the private rental market where landlords have very little comeback unless they go down the legal route.

That said people who are point blank refusing to pay there rent without a valid reason, this should be garnered at source.

Someone being constantly late would put them in that 40% but it's up to 500, for some of them that's having 2 months of arrears at least. Since the amounts will differ and the cap is at 237.

25% owe more than 500 and less than 2000 (2-8 months) , and another 20% owe between 2000 and 7000 (8 months to 2.5 years). Again at the higher cap, so some in that could be double or triple those times.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

Being in arrears does not mean you are not paying your rent.

You still owe the arrears, unlike the private rental market where landlords have very little comeback unless they go down the legal route.

And what comeback do councils have the same as private landlords who have the RTB at least the council's don't

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Seriously .

You didn't read the article did you?

It's social and affordable homes, single people earning up to 53k qualify.

If you are earning 53k and paying 600 a month for a city centre home unless there is other circumstances, chances are you are not struggling.

The 600 is an average so you less if earn less or more the other way.

If the idea was adopted in accommodation pressure areas it would snapped up in a heart beat.

Gatling

Boggles wrote: »

It's social and affordable homes, single people earning up to 53k qualify.

Lol .....

But the thread isn't about the Vienna article and yes I read it ,

end of the road

maxsmum wrote: »

Yes and none of them need free or cheap housing in a prime city centre location.

they have every need as it saves the costs of implementation of services and supports they will need.
people and their supports come before prime locations.

maxsmum wrote: »

Nurses, guards, teachers working in the city should get priority for this housing.

they already do.

maxsmum wrote: »

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.

with respect that is your problem, not someone else's.
at least you are able to afford to buy, plenty won't have that ability.

Boggles

Varik wrote: »

Someone being constantly late would put them in that 40% but it's up to 500, for some of them that's having 2 months of arrears at least. Since the amounts will differ and the cap is at 237.

25% owe more than 500 and less than 2000 (2-8 months) , and another 20% owe between 2000 and 7000 (8 months to 2.5 years). Again at the higher cap, so some in that could be double or triple those times.

So 65% of people in arrears owe between 1 and 2000.

It's hardly insurmountable given we are dealing with a lot of low income families where one tiny unforeseen could cripple them.

Like I said the council need to be dealing with the píss takers who won't pay, deduction at source if the arrears go over a certain threshold or if no agreed payment plan has been put in place.

People will abuse a system if it is open to abuse.

Like a previous poster said, fix the system.

Idbatterim

Scoundrel wrote: »

You're the only one suggesting that Government build housing would be free it has never been free and it never will be it's a nonsense argument given the amount of tax we pay the very least we should be demanding is housing and healthcare.

Here the crux. This free housing you want , you mention taxes paid. By who ? Those in social housing who are massive drains on the taxpayer ?

There are a huge amount here with nothing but massive black holes on the state. The people paying for the kip are the one’s screwed and need more support. Not the only ones given a voice by the media , the wasters. Always the victims , never to blame

Boggles

Gatling wrote: »

Lol .....

But the thread isn't about the Vienna article and yes I read it ,

You kept referencing the article.

Also that made you laugh out loud?

[Deleted User]

Matt Barrett wrote: »

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

I grew up in social housing & while I'm not opposed to it at all, I believe social housing should stay property of the state.
Social housing is needed to house people who cannot house themselves for whatever reasons.
It should not be used to allow people to buy those houses at much reduced prices.
I say this as someone who grew up in it & my mother bought her council house.

Idbatterim

Varik wrote: »

Someone being constantly late would put them in that 40% but it's up to 500, for some of them that's having 2 months of arrears at least. Since the amounts will differ and the cap is at 237.

25% owe more than 500 and less than 2000 (2-8 months) , and another 20% owe between 2000 and 7000 (8 months to 2.5 years). Again at the higher cap, so some in that could be double or triple those times.

Guaranteed that sky , Vodafone , dominoes, jd sport are all up the money that the taxpayer or council is down !

The fact that thes parasites can’t manage their money shouldn’t be my problem , but it is , because I’m paying for it and it’s money I need. That I earned! If some of you lads have a chip on your shoulder about the legions of wasters here , start donating more money to the state ! The irony that its always those contributing nothing shouting for more for the wasters or wasters themselves is comedy !

The free housing is enough. Let them work for the rest! Oh let me guess, there aren’t enough “ jabs “ going in Dublin , ha ha, ha ha !

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

they already do.

Where do you get the idea that guards , nurses & teachers get priority in city social housing?

end of the road

maxsmum wrote: »

I don't know how this isn't prioritised. If you work in town in public service, and you're below the income limit, these houses should be earmarked for you.
If you don't work, you don't get to live in town. Sorry Johnny, I don't care if you were born in the flats.
I know nurses who commute from Roscommon to Dublin because of living costs here. That's just mad.

such people will always exist for many different reasons.

Boggles

bubblypop wrote: »

I grew up in social housing & while I'm not opposed to it at all, I believe social housing should stay property of the state.
Social housing is needed to house people who cannot house themselves for whatever reasons.
It should not be used to allow people to buy those houses at much reduced prices.
I say this as someone who grew up in it & my mother bought her council house.

The benefits of allowing people to purchase their social homes at an affordable price far out weigh the negatives.

Keeping 50-60 year old houses in council stock is a very expensive exercise, best practice is to replenish this stock with newer homes.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

Where do you get the idea that guards , nurses & teachers get priority in city social housing?

they would for affordable housing schemes would they not? that is what i am assuming the poster referred to rather then social housing.
social housing and affordable housing are often lumped together.

Idbatterim

Boggles wrote: »

The benefits of allowing people to purchase their social homes at an affordable price far out weigh the negatives.

Keeping 50-60 year old houses in council stock is a very expensive exercise, best practice is to replenish this stock with newer homes.

Sorry. Selling something way below market value to someone who has already paid next to nothing for decades , is good practice ?

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

they would for affordable housing schemes would they not? that is what i am assuming the poster referred to rather then social housing.
social housing and affordable housing are often lumped together.

There is no priority afforded to front line service employees

Scoundrel

Idbatterim wrote: »

Here the crux. This free housing you want , you mention taxes paid. By who ? Those in social housing who are massive drains on the taxpayer ?

There are a huge amount here with nothing but massive black holes on the state. The people paying for the kip are the one’s screwed and need more support. Not the only ones given a voice by the media , the wasters. Always the victims , never to blame

:rolleyes:this is absolute nonsense no one wants free housing just affordable state built housing in return for paying our tax yes there are perma dole wasters but they are a statistically insignificant amount of people. The private sector only build houses in order to make obscene profit often cutting corners to do so and successive governments have lazily dumped housing into their laps I'm arguing simply that in return for all the tax we pay the very least a government should do is provide housing for its people.

Boggles

Idbatterim wrote: »

Sorry. Selling something way below market value to someone who has already paid next to nothing for decades , is good practice ?

That isn't how it works.

Anyway do you think or boom bust housing market is good practice?

[Deleted User]

Boggles wrote: »

The benefits of allowing people to purchase their social homes at an affordable price far out weigh the negatives.

Keeping 50-60 year old houses in council stock is a very expensive exercise, best practice is to replenish this stock with newer homes.

Not when there are not enough social houses it doesn't.
There are huge amounts of single people who bought their council houses cheap & now live alone in 3 bed houses.
Would make more sense for those people to rent a social house for an long as they need to, until such a time as they can afford their own home.
If they stay in social housing for their whole life, they get downsized to an appropriate residence at their needs change.

Ronaldinho

Boggles wrote: »

That isn't how it works.

How does it work Boggles?

James Brown

Idbatterim wrote: »

Sorry. Selling something way below market value to someone who has already paid next to nothing for decades , is good practice ?

Rent is based on income. The whole point is they pay next to nothing if they earn next to nothing.

You can't buy if you are in arrears or have a history of non-payment.

The discount below market is calculated based on how many years you payed rent there. People who lived in properties built in the 30's and 40's for decades, got offered a discount on current market value. I would guess in many cases the council made any money spent in construction back a number of times over.

lola85

Scoundrel wrote: »

:rolleyes:this is absolute nonsense no one wants free housing just affordable state built housing in return for paying our tax yes there are perma dole wasters but they are a statistically insignificant amount of people. The private sector only build houses in order to make obscene profit often cutting corners to do so and successive governments have lazily dumped housing into their laps I'm arguing simply that in return for all the tax we pay the very least a government should do is provide housing for its people.

Do you mean housing for everyone?

Why should some people have to buy off a private developer and be fleeced as you say while others don’t?

Housing for everyone provided by the government I’m all for.

I’d personally have a lot more money in my pocket each week.

Boggles

bubblypop wrote: »

Not when there are not enough social houses it doesn't.
There are huge amounts of single people who bought their council houses cheap & now live alone in 3 bed houses.
Would make more sense for those people to rent a social house for an long as they need to, until such a time as they can afford their own home.
If they stay in social housing for their whole life, they get downsized to an appropriate residence at their needs change.

Like I all ready explained it's best practice for the council to replenish housing stock, newer for older.

Retro fitting 50-60 year old houses is very expensive as in on going maintenance, if the tenant is merely renting the council is responsible for this maintenance.

Also areas of social housing where they can be anti social behavior will organically rise out of that if more people start to own their own homes.

It's not just the cost, it's the value.

The benefits completely out weigh the negatives.

Anyway AFAIK they have stopped the scheme which is a pity.

lola85

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yeah, but that never happened ever in the history of the Irish state.

You can't buy if you are in arrears or have a history of non-payment.

The discount below market is calculated based on how many years you payed rent there. People who lived in properties built in the 30's and 40's for decades, got offered a discount on current market value. I would guess in many cases the council made any money spent in construction back a number of times over.

The 2016 Incremental Tenant Purchase Scheme was introduced under the Housing (Sale of Local Authority Houses) Regulations 2015, and came into effect on 1 January 2016.

To qualify for the scheme, you must have:

***Been getting social housing support for at least a year***

An annual income of at least €15,000 per year. (Your annual income can be a combination of your gross income from wages and your income from some social welfare payments. You will not qualify if your income is only from social welfare payments.)
You may be able to get a local authority mortgage.

You will get a discount of 60%, 50% or 40% off the purchase price of the house. The level of the discount depends on your income. An incremental charge, equivalent to the discount, will be placed on the house. Over a specified period of years, this charge will reduce to nil in annual increments of 2% of the total value of the house, unless you resell the house or breach the conditions of sale during this specified period.