"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Eric Cartman · 24-02-2020 8:51pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

particularly with the champagne socialist, what did he think the alternative was? cut spending by what? 20-30 billion a year? LOL! Even the mickey mouse welfare cuts and public service cuts were a drop in the ocean, imagine they had to balance spending! :rolleyes:

they could have so easily , just use the time to savage government spending and clear house of all the quangos, set us up for a recovering economy to best all and when the tax receipts started climbing cut taxes until it stayed matched and made us a haven for high earning professionals, but instead they kept spending and kept taxing and now Ireland is bleeding professionals and importing low skilled net detractors.

Idbatterim · 24-02-2020 8:58pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they could have so easily , just use the time to savage government spending and clear house of all the quangos, set us up for a recovering economy to best all and when the tax receipts started climbing cut taxes until it stayed matched and made us a haven for high earning professionals, but instead they kept spending and kept taxing and now Ireland is bleeding professionals and importing low skilled net detractors.

I agree about the problem with professionals and the marginal tax rate etc. They have put themselves into a serious and idiotic bind here. I cant way to see what happens over the next few years! Literally their obsession every budget is increase welfare and mainly buy off the pensioners. I cant wait to see what this budget brings, I dont think the money is there to waste any more. They have to do something about housing for the masses, this will cost. Health is a black hole. I dont know whats going on with public sector pay, but no doubt a review there isnt far away and the infrastructure here is a disgrace, they are going to have to start to committing the big sum, to at least the metro line, that they have skirted around for decades!

beejee · 24-02-2020 11:51pm

I don't blame people trying to get social housing whatsoever.

If, through their own mistakes or others, they've missed opportunities to make a better life, what are they supposed to do?

It's all well and good criticising them, but the cost of housing/rent is extortionate. Average person in Dublin is supposed to get their hands on 400k? Crazy stuff.

There are a few relatives of mine, working decent jobs in Dublin, decent money, and they're at their wits end with accommodation. If they had a chance to get social housing they'd bite the hand off you.

Desperation. That's the word. That's this country and it's supposed quality of life for many, desperate.

And before the old chestnut raises it's head, no, not all people have to live in Dublin. But "removing" less fortunate people (and the guaranteed few percentage that are genuinely lazy) into areas of even less opportunity is a plan a brainless ape would concoct. That's just another sneaky way to circumvent the main issue by lumping the problem onto others. A vain attempt to relieve pressure on yourself.

Idbatterim · 24-02-2020 11:53pm

beejee wrote: »

I don't blame people trying to get social housing whatsoever.

If, through their own mistakes or others they've missed opportunities to make a better life, what are they supposed to do?

It's all well and good criticising them, but the cost of housing/rent is extortionate. Average person in Dublin is supposed to get their hands on 400k? Crazy stuff.

There are a few relatives of mine, working decent jobs in Dublin, decent money, and they're at their wits end with accommodation. If they had a chance to get social housing they'd bite the hand off you.

Desperation. That's the word. That's this country and it's supposed quality of life for many, desperate.

look, I think the pittance of a rent they are expected to pay or dont pay is a disgrace. But they have put even hard working people into such fcuked positions, of course it makes sense to get a social house if you can! you have hit the jackpot if you get one!

Mongfinder General · 24-02-2020 11:55pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

I agree about the problem with professionals and the marginal tax rate etc. They have put themselves into a serious and idiotic bind here. I cant way to see what happens over the next few years! Literally their obsession every budget is increase welfare and mainly buy off the pensioners. I cant wait to see what this budget brings, I dont think the money is there to waste any more. They have to do something about housing for the masses, this will cost. Health is a black hole. I dont know whats going on with public sector pay, but no doubt a review there isnt far away and the infrastructure here is a disgrace, they are going to have to start to committing the big sum, to at least the metro line, that they have skirted around for decades!

Real interesting since every party on the left has a raging hard on for a higher social protection spend and higher marginal rate taxation.

jimmycrackcorm · 24-02-2020 11:56pm

BanditLuke wrote: »

Money well spent IMO.

Ironic though. If we didn't undertake the bailout, we wouldn't have been able to pay those billions of welfare either.

beejee · 24-02-2020 11:59pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

look, I think the pittance of a rent they are expected to pay or dont pay is a disgrace. But they have put even hard working people into such fcuked positions, of course it makes sense to get a social house if you can! you have hit the jackpot if you get one!

That's just it.

This housing situation is a disgusting joke, and make no mistake, the joke is on most of us, working, unemployed, homeless, chancers, children, children's children, pensioners... We're all in it up to our necks.

ThunbergsAreGo · 25-02-2020 7:53am

beejee wrote: »

And before the old chestnut raises it's head, no, not all people have to live in Dublin. But "removing" less fortunate people (and the guaranteed few percentage that are genuinely lazy) into areas of even less opportunity is a plan a brainless ape would concoct. That's just another sneaky way to circumvent the main issue by lumping the problem onto others. A vain attempt to relieve pressure on yourself.

Yet it's ok for working people (and I realise those in social housing work) to move out of Dublin and have massive commutes, and pay massive rents, and have less security with regards to tenancy.

That's not a dig at social housing or people in it, the system just seems to be a problem. We aren't that big a country, only being able to housed in specific areas seems very inefficient.

Politelymad · 25-02-2020 11:03am

The system badly needs to split the working poor from the non working.

Those who have never worked and are of working age with no health issues should be moved out of the cities.

If we build housing units in ones and twos in the various towns and villages of the country where land is much cheaper you provide employment for smaller builders who can't do giant developments. You also avoid the kind of concentrations of social housing which caused Ballymun type problems.

All of this would reduce demand within the cities on housing and transport. In addition once people are placed there is a beneficial side effect of moving social welfare money out of Dublin and enabling the better use of local facilities like schools, shops, etc.

Finally the whole business of people refusing offers should be done away with. Keep the medical grounds for the likes of wheelchair users but the 'it's not near me mam' should never have been humored in the first place. Take what your offered or do without.

GreeBo · 25-02-2020 11:31am

vriesmays wrote: »

Of course they're lower than the UK/USA - they have the best universities, we have yellow pack ones.

No, they are lower because they are heavily subsidized.
In 2008 it was ~10k per student, in 2018 it dropped to half that.

end of the road · 25-02-2020 11:46am

Politelymad wrote: »

The system badly needs to split the working poor from the non working.

economies of scale are going to be required for such a system, so there will in all likely hood be areas where a split won't actually be viable. in fact a split at all may not be viable. i would expect the various criteria do cause as much of a split as is possible already anyway.

Politelymad wrote: »

Those who have never worked and are of working age with no health issues should be moved out of the cities.

that is not going to be viable.
for a start massive investement in the supporting infrastructure to make that work properly will be required, that will be expensive and would ultimately not be spent on.

Politelymad wrote: »

If we build housing units in ones and twos in the various towns and villages of the country where land is much cheaper you provide employment for smaller builders who can't do giant developments. You also avoid the kind of concentrations of social housing which caused Ballymun type problems.

you also end up having to as i said, provide massive infrastructure to cater to 1 off and 2 off housing. that is definitely not viable, we are struggling to do it as it is . + the smaller builders would earn more by being subcontractors to the bigger ones i would expect.

Politelymad wrote: »

All of this would reduce demand within the cities on housing and transport. In addition once people are placed there is a beneficial side effect of moving social welfare money out of Dublin and enabling the better use of local facilities like schools, shops, etc.

it actually wouldn't really in the long run as those people will be replaced.
as social wellfare people move in to the more rural areas, there will be people leaving for the cities where the opportunities are, so ultimately you end up with the same thing as ballymun etc in the long run. a bit more spread out, but ultimately the same issues.
that is why it has not been done, and likely won't be. at least if there is any sense.

Politelymad wrote: »

Finally the whole business of people refusing offers should be done away with. Keep the medical grounds for the likes of wheelchair users but the 'it's not near me mam' should never have been humored in the first place. Take what your offered or do without.

the refusals is a non-issue, take what your offered or do without isn't viable for everyone.

thegetawaycar · 25-02-2020 1:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

economies of scale are going to be required for such a system, so there will in all likely hood be areas where a split won't actually be viable. in fact a split at all may not be viable. i would expect the various criteria do cause as much of a split as is possible already anyway.

that is not going to be viable.
for a start massive investement in the supporting infrastructure to make that work properly will be required, that will be expensive and would ultimately not be spent on.

you also end up having to as i said, provide massive infrastructure to cater to 1 off and 2 off housing. that is definitely not viable, we are struggling to do it as it is . + the smaller builders would earn more by being subcontractors to the bigger ones i would expect.

it actually wouldn't really in the long run as those people will be replaced.
as social wellfare people move in to the more rural areas, there will be people leaving for the cities where the opportunities are, so ultimately you end up with the same thing as ballymun etc in the long run. a bit more spread out, but ultimately the same issues.
that is why it has not been done, and likely won't be. at least if there is any sense.

the refusals is a non-issue, take what your offered or do without isn't viable for everyone.

While I agree with most of that, the last point is simply incorrect, the refusal IS an issue, other than health issues if you are being supported by the tax payer then you go where you're put. If you want a say on where you are put then you pay for your own.

I've said it many times but social housing in Dublin should mostly be for those who need to be there and are providing a public service eg. teachers, nurses and gardai. The payments should be based on the wages (circa 20%), taken directly from the pay packet and the housing should be retained by the council forever.

riclad · 25-02-2020 2:26pm

You can buy a 1 bed apartment for 150k or less. not every one needs to live in a 3 bed house .

https://www.daft.ie/dublin-city/property-for-sale/?s%5Bmxp%5D=150000

vriesmays · 25-02-2020 8:01pm

Eco pod for €20K.

Liamo57 · 25-02-2020 8:19pm

I bet none of them work and they all probably smoke and their contribution to the Exchequer is nil as is their past generation and their offspring. These people are no good to any society. They are all leeches and parasites. Get up off yer hole's and work.

BanditLuke · 25-02-2020 8:34pm

Liamo57 wrote: »

I bet none of them work and they all probably smoke and their contribution to the Exchequer is nil as is their past generation and their offspring. These people are no good to any society. They are all leeches and parasites. Get up off yer hole's and work.

Go have a lay down and rest your head Liamo.

Feisar · 25-02-2020 8:44pm

BanditLuke wrote: »

Go have a lay down and rest your head Liamo.

Care to expand on your position?

end of the road · 25-02-2020 9:01pm

Liamo57 wrote: »

I bet none of them work and they all probably smoke and their contribution to the Exchequer is nil as is their past generation and their offspring. These people are no good to any society. They are all leeches and parasites.

yeah, yeah, sure.

Liamo57 wrote: »

Get up off yer hole's and work.

work where? what employer would employ those people if they are as you claim? none with any sense i would expect.

GreeBo · 25-02-2020 10:26pm

end of the road wrote: »

that is not going to be viable.
for a start massive investement in the supporting infrastructure to make that work properly will be required, that will be expensive and would ultimately not be spent on.

Why do you need massive infrastructure?
It's not like these people will be commuting anywhere.

I don't think anyone is suggesting building houses in fields, but there have to be options between a field and the city centre.

end of the road · 25-02-2020 10:51pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do you need massive infrastructure?
It's not like these people will be commuting anywhere.

I don't think anyone is suggesting building houses in fields, but there have to be options between a field and the city centre.

you don't know that they won't need to get around.

quite simply, infrastructure would be needed to insure the areas can cope, and to prevent the issues of last time we simply threw people together and left them to their own devices.
the current option of housing people where the supports for them are available is the only option and i would imagine, the cheapest, otherwise there would have been a change.

Gatling · 25-02-2020 11:44pm

end of the road wrote: »

quite simply, infrastructure would be needed to insure the areas can cope, and to prevent the issues of last time we simply threw people together and left them to their own devices.
t

The ballymun excuse is long gone , different times

end of the road · 25-02-2020 11:57pm

Gatling wrote: »

The ballymun excuse is long gone , different times

it's not an excuse. the fact regeneration had to happen shows this.
correct it's different times hence similar is unlikely to happen again, different times over all does not prevent history from being repeated however.

Helgagirl · 26-02-2020 12:06am

I would just like to make the point that Children's allowance is payable to everyone who has a child, not just people who are on social welfare. To the people saying that it should be stopped after the first child, a lot of people working and paying these exorbitant rents would be affected by that too. And it isn't as easy to get a disability allowance as the opinion here stated, there are stringent application processes that you have to qualify for to be eligible for it.

26-02-2020 4:20am

Helgagirl wrote: »

I would just like to make the point that Children's allowance is payable to everyone who has a child, not just people who are on social welfare. To the people saying that it should be stopped after the first child, a lot of people working and paying these exorbitant rents would be affected by that too. And it isn't as easy to get a disability allowance as the opinion here stated, there are stringent application processes that you have to qualify for to be eligible for it.

Why is being a junkie a disability?

corks finest · 26-02-2020 7:41am

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Why is being a junkie a disability?

Or an alcoholic

Wanderer78 · 26-02-2020 7:41am

Niner leprauchan wrote:

Why is being a junkie a disability?

Can a drug addict function normally?

Graces7 · 26-02-2020 7:54am

thegetawaycar wrote: »

While I agree with most of that, the last point is simply incorrect, the refusal IS an issue, other than health issues if you are being supported by the tax payer then you go where you're put. If you want a say on where you are put then you pay for your own.

Why? Why should needing help obliterate your humanity? it is bad enough needing help without this antediluvian thinking; the thinking that created the workhouses. "To each according to his need" includes social and other needs.

We are all and each " supported by the tax payer " in some way; that is what taxes are for, to provide services for everyone.

There is no shame in asking for the help that is there to be sought. None at all.

If a house if offered that is eg in a bad area? And yes too far away from family? Family ties matter. And we are allowed to refuse anyways .

I stayed off the housing list as there are places I could not live in. For many reasons. We had to be on the list to get RA then so I listed more remote areas.

26-02-2020 11:39am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Can a drug addict function normally?

They can function fine when they are stealing from shops and mugging you. it's not a disability to deliberately make yourself unable to function.

It's an addiction, not a disability

GreeBo · 26-02-2020 11:52am

end of the road wrote: »

you don't know that they won't need to get around.

Why do they need to "get around"?
For what exactly? Commuting to their non existent job?

The people we are talking about here are the long term welfare recipients, in some cases its generational. Housing them in the desirable locations that have infrastructure that they dont need is a waste of resources.

end of the road · 26-02-2020 3:09pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do they need to "get around"? For what exactly? Commuting to their non existent job?

The people we are talking about here are the long term welfare recipients, in some cases its generational. Housing them in the desirable locations that have infrastructure that they dont need is a waste of resources.

because they need to get around. why or where is none of our concern, once it doesn't involve going somewhere to break the law.
the fact they are long term wellfare recipients won't change that reality.

housing people where the infrastructure and supports they will need are is not a waste of resources, but a sensible use of resources and tax payer's money, because it saves the need to spend money on the implementation of infrastructure and supports in areas that are declining because humanity has decided that increased urbanisation is the way to go.

.

Helgagirl · 26-02-2020 3:45pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Why is being a junkie a disability?

Why do you assume I was referring to people with drug addictions just because I mentioned disability allowance. People have genuine reasons to apply for this through being disabled (and I don't mean because of drugs or alcohol) where maybe they either can't find or are unable to work because of a disability. If you are trying to imply I am a drug addict then I hate to disappoint you, because I neither drink, smoke or take any drugs other than a paracetemol!
I find your comment to be extremely insulting to all the people living with a disability.
Having gotten onto this forum to try to keep informed about current topics I am now thinking it's one of the worst decisions I ever made because I can live without the hate and nastiness.

26-02-2020 4:32pm

Helgagirl wrote: »

Why do you assume I was referring to people with drug addictions just because I mentioned disability allowance. People have genuine reasons to apply for this through being disabled (and I don't mean because of drugs or alcohol) where maybe they either can't find or are unable to work because of a disability. If you are trying to imply I am a drug addict then I hate to disappoint you, because I neither drink, smoke or take any drugs other than a paracetemol!
I find your comment to be extremely insulting to all the people living with a disability.
Having gotten onto this forum to try to keep informed about current topics I am now thinking it's one of the worst decisions I ever made because I can live without the hate and nastiness.

You said it's very stringent and difficult to obtain disability benefit. I asked if that's the case, how can drug addicts get disability.

You failed to answer but then get faux insulted. Grow up, it's a harsh world outside.

Helgagirl · 26-02-2020 5:22pm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You said it's very stringent and difficult to obtain disability benefit. I asked if that's the case, how can drug addicts get disability.

You failed to answer but then get faux insulted. Grow up, it's a harsh world outside.

You didn't ask' how' drug addicts can get a disability allowance, what you said was 'Why is being a Junkie a disability?' that doesn't have the same meaning! I never mentioned anything about drug addicts in my original post. There are protocols involved in applying for disability allowance that was the point I was trying to make,it isn't just that you apply for it and it's handed to you regardless. I don't make up the rules nor did I say I agreed with drug addicts receiving it! Possibly drug addicts end up with mental health problems from taking drugs, which would mean they fit the criteria for getting it,this is just a suggestion and I am not condoning drug taking, or disability allowance being given to drug addicts! My point was that there are very sweeping judgements made on here constantly and the other point I was trying to make was about Childrens Allowance, it is paid to everyone who has a child, if you read some comments on here you would think it is only given to people who are on social welfare. And also I am not on social welfare, before you throw that at me! I know it's a harsh world out there, but I don't think coming onto forums being horrible to each other is the way to make it any better. I not 'faux insulted' I am insulted not just by your comment, but by every comment that assumes because a person lives in social housing they have their hand out, are spongers, have free houses, are all lazy, drug addicts, and all the other nasty things that are being said here. My family lives in social housing and we are none of the above. If the people paying exorbitant rents were offered social housing how many of them would refuse?

Idbatterim · 26-02-2020 6:45pm

GreeBo wrote: »

Why do they need to "get around"?
For what exactly? Commuting to their non existent job?

The people we are talking about here are the long term welfare recipients, in some cases its generational. Housing them in the desirable locations that have infrastructure that they dont need is a waste of resources.

exactly! all they need is their expensive tv package and an area with multiple fast food delivery options! simple creatues! oh and I forgot a pub!

Antares35 · 26-02-2020 8:57pm

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, yeah, sure.

work where? what employer would employ those people if they are as you claim? none with any sense i would expect.

Yeah because they CAN'T get a job. That's why they dont work... right.

smurgen · 26-02-2020 9:03pm

Is this woman who rang liveline the rich persons equivalent to Margaret Cash?

https://twitter.com/evelynharte/status/1232424975438512128?s=19

end of the road · 26-02-2020 9:43pm

Antares35 wrote: »

Yeah because they CAN'T get a job. That's why they dont work... right.

yes, that is exactly the reason.
employers don't tend to take on people who fit the description of that particular poster.
of course this is all hypothetical, as the poster is describing people as he described them, from what i can see based on nothing.

Gatling · 26-02-2020 11:25pm

Here's another one man trying to inherit his mothers council house after she passed away,this particular house is part of estate for OAPs

http://www.echo.ie/news/article/man-62-faces-eviction-by-county-council

Eric Cartman · 26-02-2020 11:38pm

Gatling wrote: »

Here's another one man trying to inherit his mothers council house after she passed away,this particular house is part of estate for OAPs

http://www.echo.ie/news/article/man-62-faces-eviction-by-county-council

To be fair I can see that lads argument in this case, its a 1 bed, in a development for OAP's and he's on the cusp of becoming one with almost no chance of gaining employment, the administrative cost of moving him out of there and shuffling him to hostels etc.. would be a complete waste of resources. Its not like he's been taking up an additional property that could be useful for many others. Its theoretically the smallest, most suitable place to put him and would keep him from potentially taking up an apartment in a town from somebody who may actually need it (as small a portion of the housing list as that is)

Gatling · 26-02-2020 11:46pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

To be fair I can see that lads argument in this case, its a 1 bed, in a development for OAP's and he's on the cusp of becoming one with almost no chance of gaining employment, the administrative cost of moving him out of there and shuffling him to hostels etc..

Wasn't this the Idea behind stopping people inheriting social housing , plenty of others have been evicted in the same circumstances ,
Personally I think he should have been evicted sooner he obviously wasn't homeless before moving into property

Eric Cartman · 26-02-2020 11:52pm

Gatling wrote: »

Wasn't this the Idea behind stopping people inheriting social housing , plenty of others have been evicted in the same circumstances ,
Personally I think he should have been evicted sooner he obviously wasn't homeless before moving into property

I re read that and it says he moved in in 2015 but never says when she did. The way it read was as if he had been there the entire time with her (which im sure is no accident on the journos part) , but if he was somewhere else 5 years ago and is only there now then I agree. Lifetime live at home adult children being turfed out at 62 years of age would be a disgrace but if he's gaming it for the house then he can jog on.

Antares35 · 27-02-2020 12:52am

end of the road wrote: »

yes, that is exactly the reason.
employers don't tend to take on people who fit the description of that particular poster.
of course this is all hypothetical, as the poster is describing people as he described them, from what i can see based on nothing.

Many people dont want to be employed, and many other people cannot accept this.

end of the road · 27-02-2020 3:24am

Antares35 wrote: »

Many people dont want to be employed, and many other people cannot accept this.

there are a small number of such people yes.

Deebles McBeebles · 27-02-2020 2:21pm

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

I would say its an unacceptably large number personally but its all relative. I am speaking exclusively about the people who would sleep on the floor if there was work in bed, not about people who actually need state assistance.

Antares35 · 27-02-2020 4:28pm

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

I'd disagree.

zell12 · 28-02-2020 2:16pm

The Sinnotts, who are renting with the help of the HAP in Kilmore Co Wexford, have six kids aged between 3 and 18
Family-of-eight on housing waiting list for 12 years hit out at 'inconsistency' in policies
Wexford family of eight tell of struggle to get suitable council house

Idbatterim · 28-02-2020 2:27pm

this bull**** below is from the mirror article. What will it cost the council to knock that partition? twenty thousand :rolleyes: let them have the bloody house! you know what? sell it to them if they can actually pay for it! I am on the fence about selling off expensive housing, but if you are virtually giving them away for free with a pittance rent, selling probably does make sense!

It has four bedrooms but the council plans on knocking down a partition wall in the front room, making it a three-bed house which the council said is not big enough to house the family.

Lyndsey said: “The housing officer for this area told us if the partition passed their standards they would leave it as a four-bed house and if not they would remove it.

“If it passes we are top of the list for a four-bed house. However, the council engineer has assessed this house and has said they are removing the partition and turning the front room back into a single room which would mean we could not take the house.

BanditLuke · 28-02-2020 2:30pm

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

It's a tiny percentage alright but people like to paint everyone with the same brush.

batman_oh · 28-02-2020 2:31pm

end of the road wrote: »

there are a small number of such people yes.

The highest number of entire families were nobody can be bothered working in the EU though. In a country with some of the lowest unemployment and highest benefits for doing nothing but lobbing out kids.

Who'd have thunk it

Idbatterim · 28-02-2020 2:51pm

batman_oh wrote: »

The highest number of entire families were nobody can be bothered working in the EU though. In a country with some of the lowest unemployment and highest benefits for doing nothing but lobbing out kids.

Who'd have thunk it

it is obscene, but makes such sense. Say you work, you have to commute, usually by car or public transport, if you have kids childcare is a rip off, if you need housing, you can sit in a social house and get it as good as free. the system is totally fcuked! Whats the alternative for many? a life of misery working for **** money etc...

Many would be far better off just letting the totally fcuked system just pay them to sit around, it makes sense. Its the system that is crazy!

The cost of putting a roof over your head and child care has gone up hugely. Wages havent. You would swear they dont want people to work in this country. Its a massive problem, when the media and then the spineless politicians think " we have to do everything for de vulneable" while if you arent working, you are deemed secure, happy out. These people that then used to vote FG etc, thinking they represented hard workers, have been betrayed. Why? because FG spent far more time looking after those that would never vote for them, for optic purposes, rather than represent those who put them there! Pathetic stuff!

That varadkar rat and his side kicks, were too scared to go onto RTE etc and confront claire byrne etc, about why they wouldnt have increased welfare and would have instead rewarded workers. Given they wont make any decisions or actually lead, I am surprised they get out of bed in the morning, if they lived in bed, they wouldnt even have to make a decision on what to wear!

"None of our children on the list are getting these houses"

Comments