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
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Trigger Happy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,080 ✭✭✭Trigger Happy


    Social housing is needed for those who need assistance with the cost of accommodation.

    Not for those who expect it and are unwilling to help themselves.


  • Options
    #33
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,545 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Leg End Reject wrote: »

    The long term unemployed dont be to a 5 min luas ride from Dublin city.

    They have to get to the four courts/children's court and drug clinics though? That's what the red line was built for.


  • Options
    #34
    99problems1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 391 ✭✭99problems1


    Why are they getting NEW houses? Why don't they buy second hand houses and put them in there?


  • Options
    #35
    lola85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭lola85


    It’s bonkers.

    Never ever should people who are not working be given a NEW house for 40 euro a week in the area of their choice when working people have to buy and commute an hour away from where they would like because they can’t afford it.

    Absolute BONKERS!!!

    Unfortunately a monster has been created and it can’t be stopped now.

    Oh by the way if you’re receiving money for doing nothing as the journal.ie today has shown that there is many people and using a tiny amount to pay your rent then sorry but that house is free.


  • Options
    #36
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Social housing is needed, that's the society we live in. However, I don't think social housing should take up prime real estate. Those who are unemployed, long term, should not be housed in areas where working people could benefit from. I also don't think it's a good idea to build social housing estates. Some conflicting opinions in there, which I don't have the answers for.

    I don't know anything about city planning or anything like that, but I do know that it is incredibly unfair for workers to be forced to commute 60 - 90 minutes while the unemployed are living in the center of the city.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    99problems1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 391 ✭✭99problems1


    A house is the biggest cost to someone in their lifetime.

    I could live like a king if I only had to pay 500 quid a year for a new house. It's as good as free.


  • Options
    #38
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,545 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    99problems1 wrote: »
    I could live like a king if I only had to pay 500 quid a year for a new house. It's as good as free.

    That's the country we live in unfortunately.


  • Options
    #39
    El_Bee
    Registered Users Posts: 933 ✭✭✭El_Bee


    If you live in a house where the rent is paid through HAP or social welfare, then how is it not free? the cost to you is zero.


  • Options
    #40
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    GarIT wrote: »
    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.

    I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.


  • Options
    #41
    Paulzx
    Registered Users Posts: 1,967 ✭✭✭Paulzx


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.


    ..............and priority for social housing should be focused on those people who work but will never afford or qualify for a mortgage. There's thousands of people who work long hours for minimum wage and make a contribution to society. All brand new social houses should be targeted at these type of people. They will pay rent and also bring their families up in an environment where work and having a job is expected.

    People who have never worked a day in their lives should be at the bottom of the pile for housing


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    The One Doctor
    Registered Users Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭The One Doctor


    99problems1 wrote: »
    A house is the biggest cost to someone in their lifetime.

    I could live like a king if I only had to pay 500 quid a year for a new house. It's as good as free.

    Nobody pays that for social housing. The absolute minimum payment is €32.50 per week. Bills are the tenant's responsibility.

    Another Journal.ie/Indo shill. Expect to see an article shortly.


  • Options
    #43
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,971 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    Roger_007 wrote: »
    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.

    Only with morons.

    The vast majority of people who are in or have been in social housing don't fit that bill.


  • Options
    #44
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,897 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    The thing is what can we actually do with the likes of Ms Cash? Weve no choice but to house them. The only real way to stop people like her existing is through education and better social services and that wont be happening any time soon.


  • Options
    #45
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,971 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    99problems1 wrote: »
    A house is the biggest cost to someone in their lifetime.

    But, it absolutely should NOT be what it costs today. Housing "markets" have been allowed to get completely out of control in this neo-lib boom and bust bogus type of "economy".

    Nobody should be hocked into an incredible level of debt for the majority of their lives just to put a modest roof over their heads. A debt that a huge number of people will struggle to finance and no modest three up two down should cost a half a million Euro.

    We are heading for a really serious problem, when all of the 30 something mortgage holders now who are struggling to pay for their house find that it's impossible later in life because they can't find work due to their age.


  • Options
    #46
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.

    I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing that social housing is available to anyone unable to afford housing. It is available to some people, particularly those with children. And there is a gap in Dublin between earning to much to be eligible for social housing and earning too little to afford rent.


  • Options
    #47
    Thelonious Monk
    Registered Users Posts: 13,897 ✭✭✭✭Thelonious Monk


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/settled-residents-should-lose-right-to-object-to-traveller-accommodation-experts-say

    Hopefully this will see more social housing for travellers too lol


  • Options
    #48
    GarIT
    Registered Users Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭GarIT


    Paulzx wrote: »
    ..............and priority for social housing should be focused on those people who work but will never afford or qualify for a mortgage. There's thousands of people who work long hours for minimum wage and make a contribution to society. All brand new social houses should be targeted at these type of people. They will pay rent and also bring their families up in an environment where work and having a job is expected.

    People who have never worked a day in their lives should be at the bottom of the pile for housing

    I was just thiniking that number of weeks PRSI paid in your whole life should be added onto the "time on the waiting list" factor.


  • Options
    #49
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    nly mugs pay rent in a council house

    It is more certainly free

    Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional


  • Options
    #50
    Balanadan
    Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    biko wrote: »
    Who told you this OP? Some fella down the pub?

    A man in the street told me actually, m8.


  • Options
    #51
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I work in housing. I work directly with people on the council housing lists and many of them are working. People in social housing all over the country work.

    Yes and if you're a working couple with kids earning over 36k (between you) you dont qualify.


    Youd be doing well to get much of a house for about 100k.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,886 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    The market actually isn't truly capable of producing all our needs, this is particularly evident in housing and accommodation in general, government lead initiatives such as social housing are critical in filling this void.


  • Options
    #53
    greenttc
    Registered Users Posts: 927 ✭✭✭greenttc


    one thing I cannot understand is why social housing that was built and given to people years ago was allowed to become private housing. people got their "free house" and then eventually bought the house for pittance and now those houses are being sold for hundreds of thousands giving the children of the original owners a nice profit off what was originally public money.

    why were they not kept as social housing and we could be moving new people into them right now instead of having to build new houses for people on social housing lists. is that not the more economical way to do things?

    I can think of several estates where social housing is going for almost half a million. look up houses in Mulvey park and Columbanus and Rosemount all in or close to Dundrum, all social housing which is now making a tidy profit for families. yes dundrum is a highly desireable place to live and i get the argument that it should go to people working in the area but these were already designated as social they should have just remained as so, this would have solved the need to rebuild and would have meant that there was social housing dotted around a wealthy enough area promoting integration


  • Options
    #54
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 18,971 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    greenttc wrote: »
    one thing I cannot understand is why social housing that was built and given to people years ago was allowed to become private housing.

    Because we followed the Thatcherite model.


  • Options
    #55
    lola85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭lola85


    greenttc wrote: »
    one thing I cannot understand is why social housing that was built and given to people years ago was allowed to become private housing. people got their "free house" and then eventually bought the house for pittance and now those houses are being sold for hundreds of thousands giving the children of the original owners a nice profit off what was originally public money.

    why were they not kept as social housing and we could be moving new people into them right now instead of having to build new houses for people on social housing lists. is that not the more economical way to do things?

    I can think of several estates where social housing is going for almost half a million. look up houses in Mulvey park and Columbanus and Rosemount all in or close to Dundrum, all social housing which is now making a tidy profit for families. yes dundrum is a highly desireable place to live and i get the argument that it should go to people working in the area but these were already designated as social they should have just remained as so, this would have solved the need to rebuild and would have meant that there was social housing dotted around a wealthy enough area promoting integration

    FF sold off all the social housing stock.

    They sure know how to buy votes.


  • Options
    #56
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,386 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    If the house is 'free' because according to boards nobody in social housing works how did they get mortgages to buy the social housesing in the first place its a conundrum.


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    this is where we actually need a sticky on what terms means

    "nobody gets a free house" would, in my new imagined era, see a warning that reads "people whose only income is social welfare dont pay towards their housing and quite obviously their housing is therefore provided for free, dont quibble at this statement again"

    "all social housing/social welfare/expenditure on social transfer is theft" would see a warning stating "social transfers, costs incurred to prevent poverty and destitution and to ensure a basic safety net from hunger, lack of healthcare, homelessness, lack of education etc are a feature of modern life. dont make such a uselessly broad statement again"

    "homelessness" would be defined as rough sleeping and would also have to be used only in circumstances where the systems in place had been engaged with and the qualifying behaviours followed. anyone with a roof over their head, or who had rendered themselves homeless by their own choices, would not qualify for the term


    cmon boards, elect me to clean up the nonsense terms allowed that cause the endless debates. we'll have the place sorted by Friday


  • Options
    #58
    Deebles McBeebles
    Registered Users Posts: 5,754 ✭✭✭Deebles McBeebles


    On your first point alone, Snoop, you got my vote.


  • Options
    #59
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,997 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    They have to get to the four courts/children's court and drug clinics though? That's what the red line was built for.

    that wasn't what it was built for. it was built because the population grew to an extent that a railbased transport solution was needed to provide public transport for the population along the corridor.
    99problems1 wrote: »
    Why are they getting NEW houses? Why don't they buy second hand houses and put them in there?

    a mix of both is used.
    lola85 wrote: »
    It’s bonkers.

    Never ever should people who are not working be given a NEW house for 40 euro a week in the area of their choice when working people have to buy and commute an hour away from where they would like because they can’t afford it.

    Absolute BONKERS!!!

    Unfortunately a monster has been created and it can’t be stopped now.

    Oh by the way if you’re receiving money for doing nothing as the journal.ie today has shown that there is many people and using a tiny amount to pay your rent then sorry but that house is free.

    the house is not free but subsidized. there are no free houses in ireland.
    people buying out of the city is something that exists all over the world and will never change more than likely.
    Nataly Colossal Curler wrote: »
    Social housing is needed, that's the society we live in. However, I don't think social housing should take up prime real estate. Those who are unemployed, long term, should not be housed in areas where working people could benefit from. I also don't think it's a good idea to build social housing estates. Some conflicting opinions in there, which I don't have the answers for.

    I don't know anything about city planning or anything like that, but I do know that it is incredibly unfair for workers to be forced to commute 60 - 90 minutes while the unemployed are living in the center of the city.

    it is perfectly fair and is how the housing market works. all workers living in the city is not achievable and is never going to be, even if all unemployed were thrown out to wherever, which in itself isn't workable.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #60
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Paulzx wrote: »
    ..............and priority for social housing should be focused on those people who work but will never afford or qualify for a mortgage. There's thousands of people who work long hours for minimum wage and make a contribution to society. All brand new social houses should be targeted at these type of people. They will pay rent and also bring their families up in an environment where work and having a job is expected.

    People who have never worked a day in their lives should be at the bottom of the pile for housing

    And that is starting to happen. One housing body that has built housing for people who meet traditional social housing requirements are now building for those who don't qualify for social housing but dont earn enough to get a mortgage. Long overdue and hopefully others will follow suit.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    I don,t think any dublin city council apartments were sold,
    may be due to problems with insurance .
    EG who would be responsible for maintenance or repairs ,
    in an apartment block.
    If half the units were owned by the tenants .
    And half by dublin city council .

    Maybe some empty blocks with no tenants were sold ,i don,t know .
    Some social housing units are owned and managedd by charitys .


Advertisement