Does Owen Keegan have a point re homeless?

I thought he meant Dublin is a draw for surrounding counties

He is responsible to Dublin ratepayers but must spend some of that along with exchequer money on homeless services for anyone who presents themselves

Maybe other counties should up their game

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Owen Keegan ‘jokingly’ said that the only way to solve the homeless crisis is to stop providing beds. Does he have a point? Are people so reliant on the nanny state that they’re unable or unwilling to help themselves?
It can be frustrating to read some cases and you wonder why some homeless, especially if they’re unemployed, cannot move to an area where accommodation is more readily available. After all, we hear of nurses and teachers etc., moving to other countries to source employment and lifestyles they desire.
There will always be genuine cases that need support, but I cannot help feeling that some are just taking the p***.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/fury-after-dublin-city-council-14012757

He is 100% correct and I applaud his bravery to be one of the few voices willing to stand up and speak the truth on Irish media. Welfare has evolved from a last ditch safety net to instead be a viable career and lifestyle choice.

Many of the homeless here have chosen to be homeless as part of a long term life plan. For the young of the "welfare class" 3-4 years going through "homelessness" is just as much part of their welfare "career" path as spending 3-4 years going to college is part of a normal career path for the young of working and middle classes.

The young woman who was then interviewed on Sean O'Rourke's show who admitted she turned down an apartment proves that. She turned down a 1 bed apartment because it wouldn't be suitable for her in a few years when her son was older. No sense of her seeing it as a temporary stepping stone to something better. No concept of going to college and getting a job and saving for a house like most people have to. No. She wanted a forever house now that would sustain her and her family through a life on welfare and that was the limit of her ambition and desire.

If her and her ilk were told to like it or lump it then we'd find the level of homelessness would plummet. In that respect Mr Keegan is absolutely correct and seems to be the one person in the civil service conscious of not wasting taxpayers money.

He's 100% right, but will get dog's abuse from the usual crowd for his honesty.

Fr McVerry will no doubt be along soon to lambast him.

Red_Wake wrote: »

He's 100% right, but will get dog's abuse from the usual crowd for his honesty.

Fr McVerry will no doubt be along soon to lambast him.

Surely not the Fr McVerry of the McVerry Trust that spends, what is it, 14 million of taxpayers money ?

I suppose putting some of your employees through colleges doesn't come cheap these days. :rolleyes:

"Staff training & Supervision" costs in 2017 came to €174,781

"Staff costs" were €14,489,502

He may have a point about a certain type of feckless person that is overly reliant on homelessness services, but I can't imagine too many people would settle for life on a camp bed in a sweaty, smelly room with dozens of men or women sleeping beside you. Nobody wants to raise their family in a hotel room either.

jmayo wrote: »

Surely not the Fr McVerry of the McVerry Trust that spends, what is it, 14 million of taxpayers money ?

I suppose putting some of your employees through colleges doesn't come cheap these days. :rolleyes:

"Staff training & Supervision" costs in 2017 came to €174,781

"Staff costs" were €14,489,502

https://www.pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

That's actually shocking. Page 23

14 Million on Staff Costs out of 24 Million.

How many houses would you get for that.

Been saying it for years as long as people's choices to live long term in hotels free of charge ,then the so called homeless crisis will keep growing .

It's the governments fault for allowing it ,it should be stopped

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

https://www.pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

That's actually shocking. Page 23

14 Million on Staff Costs out of 24 Million.

How many houses would you get for that.

Maybe 50!

touts wrote: »

Mr Keegan is absolutely correct and seems to be the one person in the civil service conscious of not wasting taxpayers money.

He's not a civil servant.

touts wrote: »

He is 100% correct and I applaud his bravery to be one of the few voices willing to stand up and speak the truth on Irish media. Welfare has evolved from a last ditch safety net to instead be a viable career and lifestyle choice.

Many of the homeless here have chosen to be homeless as part of a long term life plan. For the young of the "welfare class" 3-4 years going through "homelessness" is just as much part of their welfare "career" path as spending 3-4 years going to college is part of a normal career path for the young of working and middle classes.

The young woman who was then interviewed on Sean O'Rourke's show who admitted she turned down an apartment proves that. She turned down a 1 bed apartment because it wouldn't be suitable for her in a few years when her son was older. No sense of her seeing it as a temporary stepping stone to something better. No concept of going to college and getting a job and saving for a house like most people have to. No. She wanted a forever house now that would sustain her and her family through a life on welfare and that was the limit of her ambition and desire.

If her and her ilk were told to like it or lump it then we'd find the level of homelessness would plummet. In that respect Mr Keegan is absolutely correct and seems to be the one person in the civil service conscious of not wasting taxpayers money.

He is 100% correct and I applaud his bravery to be one of the few voices willing to stand up and speak the truth on Irish media.

He's not '100%' correct, and there is no bravery to be applauded, in fact he is simply covering up for his and his council's ineptitude. Do tell how you've arrived at the conclusion that he is speaking the 'truth'?

Welfare has evolved from a last ditch safety net to instead be a viable career and lifestyle choice.

On what evidence do you make this assertion?

Many of the homeless here have chosen to be homeless as part of a long term life plan.

Again sorry to be a pain but accuracy is important in these matters. How many is 'many'? Then of the 'many' how do you know they made this 'choice' to be homelessness?

For the young of the "welfare class" 3-4 years going through "homelessness" is just as much part of their welfare "career" path as spending 3-4 years going to college is part of a normal career path for the young of working and middle classes.

Again, more wild assertions - but I must challenge you to provide some evidence for these 'deep' socio-economic insights?

The young woman who was then interviewed on Sean O'Rourke's show who admitted she turned down an apartment proves that.

So one woman in one case proves your wild assertion above, seriously? :rolleyes:

No sense of her seeing it as a temporary stepping stone to something better.

Perhaps but did it occur to you that she turned it down because once she takes it, she'll be stuck there and won't be able to use it as a stepping stone?

No concept of going to college and getting a job and saving for a house like most people have to.

What makes you think she hasn't been to college, plans to go when she's more on her feet? As for saving for a house - how exactly do you see that happening, you are aware that many, many people in reasonably well paid jobs can't afford a house?

She wanted a forever house now that would sustain her and her family through a life on welfare and that was the limit of her ambition and desire.

That's a bit of an extrapulation from one interview - the state should provide decent accomodation as it used to do and as states all over Europe have done for generations - what exactly is your objection to this?

It's some what interesting that you made no critique of government housing policy, no critique of the millions in tax breaks to REITs, the land giveaway to the private sector to then build unaffordable houses, instead you're blasting one woman on a radio programme and making sweeping allegations of thousands of people like her.

This is his point and it's true

At a more general level, with families in homeless accommodation, in some cases do decide to stay in emergency accommodation because they think they have a better prospect of accessing permanent local authority housing and they make a choice that they will stay in emergency accommodation rather than avail of housing systems payment in the rental sector while they queue up for permanent social housing.

"There are still people who are close enough to the top of the housing list and they choose to wait in temporary homeless accommodation, pending getting an offer of permanent local authority housing."

he's perfect right

People who are too "unwell" (to use Joe Duffy's euphemism for "junkie") to have the mental capacity to maintain a household are not in the same boat as a woman whose husband just died and she couldn't pay the mortgage.

people with a temporary or permanent condition that make them unable to look after themselves need to be a separate category.

then the career welfare class are another category again. they're ability to refuse accommodation based on xyz preferences is a slap in the face to working people who have to rent/buy where ever there means allow all while paying for the benefits and services of the first group.

Lol at building unaffordable houses.. fairly stupid business model you'd have to think