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

sf housing proposals

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    timmyntc
    Registered Users Posts: 6,848 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    rightmove wrote: »
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/tenants-with-a-history-of-bad-behaviour-would-not-be-blacklisted-under-sinn-feins-new-housing-plan-39548392.html

    There are significant powers already available to local communities to ensure that, for example, where tenants in rental properties aren't behaving, the landlord can be held accountable and can be fined €20,000 by the Residential Tenancies Board,” he said.

    Have the RTB ever issued any such fines against landlords (because of tenant's behaviour?)
    And what is a landlord supposed to do if tenant isn't "behaving" - is it not incredibly difficult & time consuming to evict legally due to RTB?


  • Options
    #3
    daheff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,843 ✭✭✭daheff


    why does it become the landlords responsibility to police the unruly tenants?


    Surely this is a gardai/courts issue rather than the landlord


  • Options
    #4
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    Sinn Féin is making public accommodation the keystone of its alternative Budget proposals, slashing the capital costs of houses by building them on land which would continue to be owned by the State.
    I'm guessing they'll CPO the land from "greedy landowners"?
    “A Sinn Féin government would undertake the largest public house-building programme in the history of the State,” Mr Ó Broin said, hiring private builders at a 5-to-6pc margin to construct on State land.

    The move would immediately cut out of the cost of the land and also the 15pc that a private developer would add to the sale price, along with the builders’ margin.
    Will they be paying the builders minimum wage?

    =-=

    Where will this magic money come from?


  • Options
    #5
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    The State's housing budget seems to be 2.5bn this year, so there's money there.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/budget-includes-100m-increase-for-homeless-services-and-hap-1.4044244

    Those builders on office construction sites won't be too busy soon and will be looking for work. By all reports, the commercial rental sector is significantly down in terms of levels of activity.


  • Options
    #6
    DubCount
    Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭DubCount


    What ever became of personal responsibility? A tenant has a rave and the answer is not to put them on a social housing black list, but in stead fine the landlord - thats going to keep them in line !! They'll be thinking twice about hosting another rave when they cant be evicted for anti-social behavior.

    Not sure why SF have such a hang up about private LLs. Current government policy is going a fine job of driving them out. Registered private tenancies with the RTB fell 5.3% from 2016 to 2019. That was before there was downward pressure on rents in 2020. By the time SF get into power, there'll be very few LLs for them to be hung up about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    handlemaster
    Registered Users Posts: 6,003 ✭✭✭handlemaster


    SF just pull stuff from the leftist crazy convention and don't really care. Its all about getting votes. And votes they will get because people don't do the maths


  • Options
    #8
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Its a complete and utter waste of time holding landlords responsible for the actions/inactions of tenants- if the landlord has no/manner/means of forcing the tenant to modify their behaviour- nor have they any means of ending the tenancy and getting the tenant out of there in an expeditious manner. In fact I'd go as far as calling it stupid. People need to be held accountable for their actions. Not allowing a landlord to properly vet prospective tenants on GDPR grounds- and then insisting that they are responsible to the community for them- and responsible to the tenants who really don't give a rats arse- is completely pointless and meaningless.

    People need to be held properly responsible for their actions- and giving tenants carte blanche to abdicate those responsibilities onto their landlord- is a complete cop-out.

    If tenants (or anyone else) behaves in an anti-social manner towards those in their neighbourhood- there should be proper and swift implications for their actions.


  • Options
    #9
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    SF will get the money ey for all this from the free money trees that grow in the back gardens of the current free houses that so many people enjoy already.
    Problem solved!


  • Options
    #10
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    SF will get the money ey for all this from the free money trees that grow in the back gardens of the current free houses that so many people enjoy already.
    Problem solved!

    Thats the money aspect.
    What about enforcing manners on people who behave in an antisocial manner towards their neighbours- such as the student open-house down in Cork that the landlord Facthna Murphy is being legally held responsible for?
    The old SF response- is to give a single warning to people- and if they continue- to send enforcers around with baseball bats to beat the crap out of them- and if they still persist- shoot them in the kneecaps. I think those days are behind us- however, there is an element in SF who'd be only too happy to provide such a service to neighbourhoods under siege.

    People need to be held responsible for their actions- and simply pointing at a landlord and going- its your problem la-la-la....... isn't going to solve anything.


  • Options
    #11
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Anti social welfare tenants are immune from any effevtive legal punishment.

    The only thing they are afraid of is losing their ill gotten scrounge money.
    And the government hasnt got the guts to put them out on the road where they belong, not as long as they can tax working people to the bone to pay for these wasters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    The_Conductor
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 32,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭The_Conductor


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Anti social welfare tenants are immune from any effevtive legal punishment.

    The only thing they are afraid of is losing their ill gotten scrounge money.
    And the government hasnt got the guts to put them out on the road where they belong, not as long as they can tax working people to the bone to pay for these wasters.

    However- if you say that out loud- you'll have strips torn off you.
    In the event of a genuine inability to pay a financial implication for their actions- there should be an alternate punishment- such as proper community service which would be supervised and enumerated. If they fail to complete this- then you go for custodial sentences- it doesn't have to be for a long duration- just enough to spell out the consequences of their actions to them. If we're jailing people for not paying their TV licenses- I'd argue that antisocial behaviour is significantly worse and should be punished in a far harsher manner.


Advertisement