The Homelessness Crisis

whatismyname · 28-09-2015 06:17PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Another day, another story about our Homeless crisis:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/humanitarian-issue-as-1500-children-are-left-without-a-home-31563491.html

Last week it was a record 120 people sleeping rough in Dublin, this week we get a fuller picture that there are 700 Families AND 1,500 children in homeless accommodation in Ireland (are those children not part of the families in question?). The article states there is a 400% increase in demand for services and uses terms like 'humanitarian crisis' and 'probably the worst I have seen' (The CEO of Depaul Ireland).

Am I the only person who is thinking WTF? Only 120 people sleep rough and approximately 3,000 in temporary accommodation? I have never once seen anyone sleeping rough who wasn't a junkie, an alcoholic or mentally unstable and sometimes all three. As for the rest, it must be humiliating and extremely unsettling to have to move in and out of Hotels and Hostels or other temporary accommodation but a humanitarian crisis? Give me a break.

I really don't understand how, to you, how more than 700 families, of which there are over 1,500 children, equates to you as 'approximately 3,000 people in temporary accommodation... what am I missing here?

Uncle Ben · 28-09-2015 06:19PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Not when their in a sleeping bag no but if I was a betting man I know which way I would be betting. When they are up and about roaring and shouting in the street, drinking Linden Village, begging, fighting and generally being anti-social I draw what I believe to be reasonable conclusions.

And once again, I emphasize my point is that the numbers are a pinprick of the total population so why is it part of daily media headlines as if every second family was suffering and there were entire families living rough regularly.

80 families per month x 12 is almost a 1000 families. Take 4 per family equals 4000 people. A lot of homeless people for a wealthy country.

Notavirus.exe · 28-09-2015 06:22PM

120 people sleeping rough. The price of a decent house is about €50,000.

Where is all of our taxed money going?

Why are there numerous charities for poor people living in foreign countries?

If I won the lotto, I'd at least try to help some homeless people.

Galwayguy35 · 28-09-2015 06:23PM

biko wrote: »

In Galway there are now homeless sleeping n almost every doorway down shop street. It's a new thing and come winter it will get very very cold indeed.

Yeah and many of them refuse help that's offered, if an adult doesn't want assistance then that's their own look out after that.

Uncle Ben · 28-09-2015 06:26PM

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

120 people sleeping rough. The price of a decent house is about €50,000.

Where is all of our taxed money going?

Why are there numerous charities for poor people living in foreign countries?

If I won the lotto, I'd at least try to help some homeless people.

We're going to give away 1.5 billion approx in a pre election give away budget.
I'd prefer to see it all spent on a social housing project. That could be a 1916 commemoration.

Pink Lemons · 28-09-2015 06:26PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

When they are up and about roaring and shouting in the street, drinking Linden Village, begging, fighting and generally being anti-social I draw what I believe to be reasonable conclusions.

Most of the people I know, or know from them being around for years anyway, doing this are not homeless. Scruffy old bastards alright, but not homeless.

You can also see students doing the very same thing every night of the week around most colleges.

my teapot is orange · 28-09-2015 07:12PM

The thing I find most unethical is that for a person to access any of the benefits they might be entitled to they need an address. That means once they hit rock bottom and end up on the street, they're outside the system and there's no getting back in. They should be able to access social housing if they are expected to do anything to improve their lives, get jobs etc. It can't be that hard to administer some sort of identification system to prevent fraud.

Notavirus.exe · 28-09-2015 07:18PM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

We're going to give away 1.5 billion approx in a pre election give away budget.
I'd prefer to see it all spent on a social housing project. That could be a 1916 commemoration.

The government has plenty of money.

Would, you know, fair slavery help the homeless? I'm not trolling. I think it would be effective if the government built workhouses with apartments for the homeless (the real homeless, i.e. those sleeping rough). The homeless people could work in the workhouses to justify their free stay in the apartments and they could also get a weekly cheque. At the same time, the government can set up a programme for the homeless in order to help them start fresh in life.

My idea may be unrealistic or already in place, but I can see it working.

KomradeBishop · 28-09-2015 07:36PM

The problems that cause addiction and related homelessness aren't so straightforward - a lot of this is down to something as basic as having a lack of connection with other people, because society can be monumentally shít in this regard, and it's not that difficult for people to 'fall of the edge', and develop a great difficulty connecting with others again:
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/28672-everything-you-think-you-know-about-addiction-and-the-war-on-drugs-is-wrong

The root problem with this is: What is so wrong with society overall, that people can develop such a loss of connection with people, that they get stuck on-heroin/homeless?
Why is there no help for this exact/specific problem, for helping people recover? It's not a mental health problem (though it can be exacerbated by mental health issues).

Deise Vu · 28-09-2015 07:56PM

whatismyname wrote: »

I really don't understand how, to you, how more than 700 families, of which there are over 1,500 children, equates to you as 'approximately 3,000 people in temporary accommodation... what am I missing here?

700 X 2 = 1,400 plus 1,500 = 2,900. What am I missing here? Are you going to tell me there are whole families of adults who can't combine their dole / rent allowances etc into an acceptable home?

Deise Vu · 28-09-2015 08:02PM

Uncle Ben wrote: »

80 families per month x 12 is almost a 1000 families. Take 4 per family equals 4000 people. A lot of homeless people for a wealthy country.

I don't understand why you are breaking this down into months. Depaul Ireland's own figure is that there are roughly 3,500 needing permanent accommodation. I am assuming a lot of these people are a long time homeless. If this is a constantly evolving figure and we are talking about people being 'homeless' for a very short period then it becomes an absolute farce to describe it as a humanitarian crisis and to devote massive media coverage to it.

JustTheOne · 28-09-2015 08:04PM

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

120 people sleeping rough. The price of a decent house is about €50,000.

Where is all of our taxed money going?

Why are there numerous charities for poor people living in foreign countries?

If I won the lotto, I'd at least try to help some homeless people.

A 100 million is spent each year on homelessness.

These was a woman on Vincent Browne saying a homeless fella handed back the keys he got for a new apartment from the council.

It's a lot more complex than buying them a house and sticking them in it.

Some of these people don't want help just like the fella who died who sold 2 houses to fund a habit and refused accommodation the night he died.

People really need to educate themselves more before blaming the government for every little thing in this country.

Ellie2008 · 28-09-2015 08:04PM

asherbassad wrote: »

So you can see sleeping bag in a doorway with someone clearly inside the bag and you can tell just by looking that the person is a drug addict, alcoholic and / or mentally unstable?

That's some fucking skill you have there mate.

I thought the "mentally unstable" part was the best sure we have doctors who can't agree on that and this guy can tell from a glance at that person. Also what does "mentally unstable" even mean, dangerous, suicidal, depressed?! I thought at least in relation to the latter two we were becoming more enlightened as a society!

Ellie2008 · 28-09-2015 08:22PM

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

The government has plenty of money.

Would, you know, fair slavery help the homeless? I'm not trolling. I think it would be effective if the government built workhouses with apartments for the homeless (the real homeless, i.e. those sleeping rough). The homeless people could work in the workhouses to justify their free stay in the apartments and they could also get a weekly cheque. At the same time, the government can set up a programme for the homeless in order to help them start fresh in life.

My idea may be unrealistic or already in place, but I can see it working.

"Fair slavery" I would have thought that was somewhat of an inherent contradiction. And a workhouse no less with all it's connotations of deprivation, shame, sickness and death. Would everyone know where it was just so we could endure plenty of stigma?! How we've progressed in 200 years!

These people may be considered the dregs of our society but any half decent society looks after the most vulnerable.

P.S. I actually don't think your idea is all that bad but you might want to look on what language you couch it in. On a purely practical note I'm not sure how much a serous addict could work I wouldn't expect them to have the will, energy or concentration.

whatismyname · 28-09-2015 11:46PM

Deise Vu wrote: »

700 X 2 = 1,400 plus 1,500 = 2,900. What am I missing here? Are you going to tell me there are whole families of adults who can't combine their dole / rent allowances etc into an acceptable home?

Not at all.

Not all of those families may have two parents. Some of those families may have no kids at all. Some may have several. The maths has many, many possibilities of which you are just concluding one to be accurate.

And on the subject of can't combine their dole / rent allowance etc, if only it was that black and white. As simple as 'can' and 'cannot'. I'm glad for anyone in the world for whom things are so black and white, though.

Deise Vu · 29-09-2015 09:36AM

whatismyname wrote: »

Not at all.

Not all of those families may have two parents. Some of those families may have no kids at all. Some may have several. The maths has many, many possibilities of which you are just concluding one to be accurate.

And on the subject of can't combine their dole / rent allowance etc, if only it was that black and white. As simple as 'can' and 'cannot'. I'm glad for anyone in the world for whom things are so black and white, though.

Why are you trying to make this complicated? Read the link in the OP. Depaul's own figures are 3,500 people and the CEO has never seen anything like this before. They have had a 400% increase in demand for their services. (On a side issue I presume Depaul Ireland are St Vincent De Paul - do charities get re-branding makeovers these days too?)

While it is unfortunate for the people involved this is not significant in overall population terms and certainly far from a humanitarian crisis. In fact it demeans people who are genuinely in poverty around the world to describe living temporarily in a hotel as a humanitarian crisis. And that is my point, why does this issue get acres of newsprint and hours of TV coverage when it is almost a total non-event?

JustTheOne · 29-09-2015 09:43AM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Why are you trying to make this complicated? Read the link in the OP. Depaul's own figures are 3,500 people and the CEO has never seen anything like this before. They have had a 400% increase in demand for their services. (On a side issue I presume Depaul Ireland are St Vincent De Paul - do charities get re-branding makeovers these days too?)

While it is unfortunate for the people involved this is not significant in overall population terms and certainly far from a humanitarian crisis. In fact it demeans people who are genuinely in poverty around the world to describe living temporarily in a hotel as a humanitarian crisis. And that is my point, why does this issue get acres of newsprint and hours of TV coverage when it is almost a total non-event?

60,000 in England in temporary accommodation.

They have a worst situation than us.

corner of hells · 29-09-2015 10:28AM

Deise Vu wrote: »

Why are you trying to make this complicated? Read the link in the OP. Depaul's own figures are 3,500 people and the CEO has never seen anything like this before. They have had a 400% increase in demand for their services. (On a side issue I presume Depaul Ireland are St Vincent De Paul - do charities get re-branding makeovers these days too?)

While it is unfortunate for the people involved this is not significant in overall population terms and certainly far from a humanitarian crisis. In fact it demeans people who are genuinely in poverty around the world to describe living temporarily in a hotel as a humanitarian crisis. And that is my point, why does this issue get acres of newsprint and hours of TV coverage when it is almost a total non-event?

I haven't seen the de Paul report , but when a charity uses the term demand for their services or accessing their services , it means anything from someone using a drop in service for advice right up to someone being assisted around housing.

Most low threshold charities offer a range of services from info. and advice right up housing.

conorhal · 29-09-2015 10:52AM

Throught the 30's an 40's when this country didn't have an arse in it's trousers we built thousands of social houses. Then in the 90's county counsels almost entirely stopped building them. This was down to a purely ideological shift, DeValera had placed a strong emphasis on social housing, by the late 90's however government was determined to offload as much of the governments public responsibilities into the private sector as it did for refuse collection etc. Instead tax incentives were created (section 23) that encouraged private landlords into the market and the RAS scheme was born to pay them to house public tennents in private housing.
The housing crisis can only be fixed by the governmet reversing this policy and returning to a policy of providing public housing directly instead of shirking it's responsibility to it's citizens.

biko · 29-09-2015 11:11AM

When I help the poor they call me a saint.
When I ask why there are poor people they call me a communist.

steddyeddy · 29-09-2015 11:20AM

It always amazes me that people think there's some degree of choice in ending up in poverty or homeless. Whether people like it or not personal circumstances and upbringing, variables out of people's control are the largest determinant.

Tiddlypeeps · 29-09-2015 11:35AM

conorhal wrote: »

Throught the 30's an 40's when this country didn't have an arse in it's trousers we built thousands of social houses. Then in the 90's county counsels almost entirely stopped building them. This was down to a purely ideological shift, DeValera had placed a strong emphasis on social housing, by the late 90's however government was determined to offload as much of the governments public responsibilities into the private sector as it did for refuse collection etc. Instead tax incentives were created (section 23) that encouraged private landlords into the market and the RAS scheme was born to pay them to house public tennents in private housing.
The housing crisis can only be fixed by the governmet reversing this policy and returning to a policy of providing public housing directly instead of shirking it's responsibility to it's citizens.

I dunno, when the government were handling all the social housing themselves in order to be in any way cost efficient they needed to build housing estates or flats. This resulted in large parts of the city being occupied solely by people of low socio-economic status. Areas like the old Ballymun and Tallaght were the result of this sort of planning. Dumping the poor all together in one area often results in high crime and high instances of anti social behaviour.

The big issue is that over the last few years building residential properties in the city ground to a halt because of the recession. No new builds means no new social housing. Building has picked up again, but it will take time to correct itself. I'm not sure if the rate of building is currently enough tho, if the government are to take any action it should probably be to encourage new residential builds.

Also with regards to RA keep in mind that it can be a much more efficient system (assuming there are actually landlords willing to accept it). If someone receives RA it is because they are currently below the poverty line for whatever reason, once that person is above the poverty line again they no longer receive RA. With council housing if you give someone below the poverty line a house you can't really take it back even when the family are back in a healthy financial situation. The issue isn't with RA itself it's with the lack of landlords accepting it, and that is down to the shortage of properties available. If the landlord has the option of choosing between and RA tenant and and non RA tenant the choice is easy, with less demand for properties the landlords wouldn't be able to afford to be so choosey.

steddyeddy · 29-09-2015 11:38AM

I actually think Dublin should build high rises. I don't see why this shouldn't be an option.

RDM_83 again · 29-09-2015 12:24PM

my teapot is orange wrote: »

The thing I find most unethical is that for a person to access any of the benefits they might be entitled to they need an address. That means once they hit rock bottom and end up on the street, they're outside the system and there's no getting back in. They should be able to access social housing if they are expected to do anything to improve their lives, get jobs etc. It can't be that hard to administer some sort of identification system to prevent fraud.

Thats not actually completely true, I think to access the Homeless dole you need to simply have stayed in a hostel for a week so most you would see are claiming some sort of benefits AFAIK.
Call into the dole office at Christchurch/James Gate and you can see it.
If your foreign though you might end up locked out of these benefits though.

conorhal · 29-09-2015 12:40PM

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I dunno, when the government were handling all the social housing themselves in order to be in any way cost efficient they needed to build housing estates or flats. This resulted in large parts of the city being occupied solely by people of low socio-economic status. Areas like the old Ballymun and Tallaght were the result of this sort of planning. Dumping the poor all together in one area often results in high crime and high instances of anti social behaviour.

The big issue is that over the last few years building residential properties in the city ground to a halt because of the recession. No new builds means no new social housing. Building has picked up again, but it will take time to correct itself. I'm not sure if the rate of building is currently enough tho, if the government are to take any action it should probably be to encourage new residential builds.

Also with regards to RA keep in mind that it can be a much more efficient system (assuming there are actually landlords willing to accept it). If someone receives RA it is because they are currently below the poverty line for whatever reason, once that person is above the poverty line again they no longer receive RA. With council housing if you give someone below the poverty line a house you can't really take it back even when the family are back in a healthy financial situation. The issue isn't with RA itself it's with the lack of landlords accepting it, and that is down to the shortage of properties available. If the landlord has the option of choosing between and RA tenant and and non RA tenant the choice is easy, with less demand for properties the landlords wouldn't be able to afford to be so choosey.

I'd say ghettos, just like the current housing crisis, were created due to the (typical) lack of joined up thinking by government.

There was supposed to be some joined up thinking in the private sector approach, 20% of private sector built housing was supposed to be allocated as social housing.
Of course we all know what happened next, the government decided that instead of providing the 20%, the builders could simply bung a wad of cash at the co-co's to do with as they pleased instead. Naturally that money was wasted by councillors on 'shiny things' but certiantly not spent on social housing. So what happened wa, the co-co's stopped building social housing and the private sector paid them not to use private housing and thus zero social housing was built. To get around this we got the rent allowance scheme to pay private landlords to house people on the housing list. And then the crash hit and available housing got scarce, hence where we are now.

So, if what you suggest as a polution is ever going to work, it would require that 20% rule to be strictly enforced. That would require tax breaks to builders such as VAT and development levy derrogations (which would be deeply unpopular with voters and the optics would look bad for government) and of course it would also require the county councils to then buy those properties once complete (at cost in return for the tax breaks).
The problem as you point out is supply and it will be for years so I can't see how the government can avoid a mass building program.

corner of hells · 29-09-2015 12:43PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats not actually completely true, I think to access the Homeless dole you need to simply have stayed in a hostel for a week so most you would see are claiming some sort of benefits AFAIK.
Call into the dole office at Christchurch/James Gate and you can see it.
If your foreign though you might end up locked out of these benefits though.

Whether you are homeless or not you are entitled to some sort of welfare , staying in hostel for a week is unusual , most beds are six month STAs or one night only .

You must register as homeless in your local authority area , city centre or wherever , your assessed for a housing need , males go to Oisin house and women and kids I think Gardiner street.

Once you satisfy HRC you can claim , initially its supplementary welfare or emergency needs then assessed for JSA , JSB or disability.

corner of hells · 29-09-2015 12:43PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Thats not actually completely true, I think to access the Homeless dole you need to simply have stayed in a hostel for a week so most you would see are claiming some sort of benefits AFAIK.
Call into the dole office at Christchurch/James Gate and you can see it.
If your foreign though you might end up locked out of these benefits though.

Whether you are homeless or not you are entitled to some sort of welfare , staying in hostel for a week is unusual , most beds are six month STAs or one night only .

You must register as homeless in your local authority area , city centre or wherever , your assessed for a housing need , males go to Oisin house and women and kids I think Gardiner street.

Once you satisfy HRC you can claim , initially its supplementary welfare or emergency needs then assessed for JSA , JSB or disability.

zeffabelli · 29-09-2015 12:46PM

Grayson wrote: »

But the point is that Dublin is very expensive. They could actually get a great place down the country for a fraction of what you'd pay in Dublin. A lot of the stories that we see are families that are homeless in Dublin because they can't afford the rent in Dublin or are unable to find a place that will take rent allowance in Dublin. I was looking a Dundalk on Daft last year. It's cheaper to rent a house there than a one bed in most of Dublin. The Dublin rental market is horrible for both the employed and unemployed. Many move outside Dublin. It just seems bad to call yourself homeless when the government will provide adequate resources for you and your family to live somewhere that's a bit cheaper.

The system is set up as such that the powers that be, social welfare, housing etc, wont let you do this....

You can only get assistance with housing in the country you are already in.

Uncle Ben · 29-09-2015 01:31PM

zeffabelli wrote: »

The system is set up as such that the powers that be, social welfare, housing etc, wont let you do this....

You can only get assistance with housing in the country you are already in.

Too true. You can only qualify for council accommodation in Galway city for example if you have a direct connection to it either through family or occupation.

Datallus · 29-09-2015 02:36PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I actually think Dublin should build high rises. I don't see why this shouldn't be an option.

Because..............homelessness is caused by lack of houses?

:pac:

What?

The Homelessness Crisis

Comments