Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Thread Closed  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
04-09-2016, 22:44   #1
Slydice
Registered User
 
Slydice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The administration place
Posts: 5,427
Homelessness on the rise

I saw we have this website:
http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/ho...elessness-data
Quote:
Official homelessness data is produced by local authorities through the Pathway Accommodation & Support System
Homelessness on the rise. I've done up two charts based on the totals they give.

Homelessness (Adults)


Family Homelessness


I'm guessing that the 4177 total Adults less the 1510 Family Adults leaves: 2,667 Adults (who not included in family numbers).

Homelessness Report July 2016
http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/defa..._july_2016.pdf
Quote:
The root cause of increased homelessness is the supply shortage across the housing sector, which in turn is a result of the recent economic collapse and the associated damage to the construction sector. Accordingly the long-term solution to the current homeless issue is to increase the supply of homes.
Attached Images
File Type: png July2016H.png (20.2 KB, 12076 views)
File Type: png July2016FH.png (14.7 KB, 12034 views)

Last edited by The_Conductor; 20-08-2018 at 07:34.
Slydice is offline  
(3) thanks from:
Advertisement
04-09-2016, 22:52   #2
Eric Cartman
Registered User
 
Eric Cartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kildare
Posts: 17,604
Id be really interested to see the root causes though.

People who have turned down any council property / HAP , should not be looked on as homeless.

People with alcohol, gambling or drug addiction problems should not really be on the figures either, they have other hurdles to battle to get a roof back over their heads.
Eric Cartman is online now  
04-09-2016, 23:11   #3
Slydice
Registered User
 
Slydice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: The administration place
Posts: 5,427
It was supply when I looked at Refusals last.

Housing waiting list size Versus Refusals
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...5&postcount=36
Slydice is offline  
04-09-2016, 23:29   #4
robp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slydice View Post
It was supply when I looked at Refusals last.

Housing waiting list size Versus Refusals
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...5&postcount=36
I don't think the housing waiting list is the same as homeless. What I would actually like to know how does Ireland compare internationally in homelessness frequency.
robp is offline  
05-09-2016, 00:10   #5
Mrs OBumble
Registered User
 
Mrs OBumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Galway
Posts: 17,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cartman View Post
People with alcohol, gambling or drug addiction problems should not really be on the figures either, they have other hurdles to battle to get a roof back over their heads.
Because they're not homeless???

There's one approach "Housing first" which argues that people with mental health issues (including addictions) need to be housed first, and then have their problems treated. And that if you treat the health problem, but them move the person into a new home, you can actually make the treatment go backwards.
Mrs OBumble is offline  
Advertisement
05-09-2016, 00:23   #6
myshirt
Registered User
 
myshirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: My House
Posts: 4,494
Is it correct that we set up our economy (mostly through borrowing which the current generation are paying off) to allow baby boomers and generation X to buy property at average wages even, but today we still permit them to focus on the more profitable side of the market only, ie working professionals, couples without kids, or room by room rentals to professionals in order to get more from the property.

Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.
myshirt is offline  
05-09-2016, 00:26   #7
athtrasna
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 11,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by myshirt View Post
Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.
I think you'll find that this is not a communist country and people are free to rent their properties (handing over the keys to something routinely worth in excess of 100 times the deposit) to whoever they want.
athtrasna is offline  
(105) thanks from:
AdamD, ahnowbrowncow, air, alan1963, Amalgam, anewme, ballyharpat, Bandana boy, BannerBoy1, bleary, Borderfox, BrokenWingz, Bushmanpm, bytheglass, b_mac2, c montgomery, claiomh solais, convert, Cookie_Monster, CrookedJack, CruelCoin, daisybelle2008, Damien360, deadlineday, DebDynamite, dexter_morgan, domrush, Encrypted Pigeon, Enduro, Eric Cartman, Essien, Flex, foxy06, fussyonion, fxotoole, garhjw, georgiecasey, howamidifferent, Immaculata, Indestructable, Islander13, Jamsiek, jayobray, JCX BXC, jimmycrackcorm, JohnMc1, johnnyskeleton, josephsoap, kal7, Kivaro, kurtainsider, limnam, LincolnHawk, Malari, maninasia, MayBea, Meeoow, Merowig, mirrorwall14, mitresize5, Moonbeam, MrBlack93, Mrs OBumble, mrslancaster, musiknonstop, newacc2015, No Opinion, Nomis21, nox001, ollie103, ongarite, pauliebdub, PCeeeee, Penny Tration, pilly, psinno, pwurple, quadrifoglio verde, Quandary, Raging_Ninja, rawn, RoyalMarine, s3ndnudes, Shedite27, Shelflife, snotboogie, Spleerbun, splinter65, SSr0, Sull_M, Super_Sonic, Taylor365, Tea-a-Maria, testaccount123, Teyla Emmagan, The Ging and I, thebiglad, The_Conductor, ThisRegard, Tin Roofer, tinkerbell, triple nipple, usernamegoes, Varik, Wigglepuppy
05-09-2016, 00:31   #8
goz83
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 7,831
My brother was granted the hap scheme. He was granted a figure to comfortably cover a 3 bed house/apt in north dublin. He rang a couple dozen places and none were interested in accepting the hap scheme. It was just for him and his son. Crazy! I don't understand why most landlords don't jump at this.
goz83 is offline  
Thanks from:
05-09-2016, 00:42   #9
cerastes
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by goz83 View Post
My brother was granted the hap scheme. He was granted a figure to comfortably cover a 3 bed house/apt in north dublin. He rang a couple dozen places and none were interested in accepting the hap scheme. It was just for him and his son. Crazy! I don't understand why most landlords don't jump at this.
How can you not get it? A host of problems, namely you could get stuck with a tenant who is anti social and can not be assured let alone assisted by the Hse/SW of any effort to get rid of them, infact if a tenant didn't pay their share,the SW cut off their contribution which they might be quite happy to do and the tenant could still not be gotten rid of, without being accused of being insulting, that's the tip of the iceberg and what encouraged but pushed me financially to get out of renting, has the govt\council added a house to fill that small gap, doubt it, and I believe it's been recreated many times over, and then you get someone saying landlords should be hammered, jeez
cerastes is offline  
Advertisement
05-09-2016, 00:48   #10
cerastes
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by goz83 View Post
My brother was granted the hap scheme. He was granted a figure to comfortably cover a 3 bed house/apt in north dublin. He rang a couple dozen places and none were interested in accepting the hap scheme. It was just for him and his son. Crazy! I don't understand why most landlords don't jump at this.
How can you not get it? A host of problems, namely you could get stuck with a tenant who is anti social and can not be assured let alone assisted by the Hse/SW of any effort to get rid of them, infact if a tenant didn't pay their share,the SW cut off their contribution which they might be quite happy to do and the tenant could still not be gotten rid of, without being accused of being insulting, that's the tip of the iceberg and what encouraged but pushed me financially to get out of renting, has the govt\council added a house to fill that small gap, doubt it, and I believe it's been recreated many times over, and then you get someone saying landlords should be hammered, jeez

What is disgusting is the govt aren't doing a damn thing about it, not in years, keep floating the responsibility onto individuals, even though we are skttig on a stockpile of housing, many have probably gone to rot by now, maybe by design, maybe some are in useless locations but that might appeal to someone waiting years, even then they might be able to afford a car to compensate for distance or regular private bus services to specific locations identified, but Nada, zilch,nothing but talk and then move onto the next topic.
cerastes is offline  
(3) thanks from:
05-09-2016, 09:36   #11
ThisRegard
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 27,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by myshirt View Post

Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.
And that opens a bunch of other problems. We'll be selling eventually. The option is there to keep and rent the current property, but we don't want the hassle, particularly if it comes to problem tenants. So the house will go on the market, out of reach from those who can't buy a house on their own.
ThisRegard is offline  
Thanks from:
05-09-2016, 10:11   #12
Michael D Not Higgins
Not President
 
Michael D Not Higgins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 6,589
Quote:
Originally Posted by myshirt View Post
Is it correct that we set up our economy (mostly through borrowing which the current generation are paying off) to allow baby boomers and generation X to buy property at average wages even, but today we still permit them to focus on the more profitable side of the market only, ie working professionals, couples without kids, or room by room rentals to professionals in order to get more from the property.

Time for some social rebalancing in favour of equality here. Very aggressively, landlords should be made take on social welfare tenants. Very aggressively.

At the moment it's a piss poor lip service from our laws. I'd hammer, and I mean truly hammer any landlord who believes they've some god given right to focus on the "less riskier" side of the market only.
Why should the private sector be dealing with the government's lack of social housing? Why should they be punished for not wanting to deal with it?

There's already laws preventing discrimination for renting and now social welfare recipient is one of the discrimination criteria. If you want to go more aggressively to get private landlords to take social welfare tenants, then you need to have some assurances for the landlord.

Firstly, any damage above wear and tear should be covered by the DSP. The payments should be automatic to the landlord with any top up payment made to the DSP so the landlord doesn't have to chase the tenant for it. Eviction proceedings on non-payment should be expedited in some way, e.g. bypassing RTB and going straight to court for eviction. Only after those changes would landlords agree to any forced acceptance of social welfare tenants.

Time and again we get the same issues on the forum about problem tenants, both private and social welfare. The difference is that the private tenants usually have a job and there are earnings that can be chased on any damage or unpaid rent. If you chased a welfare tenant through the court, they'd shrug their shoulders and say they have no money. You'd be lucky to get a €5 a week docked from their benefit payment.
Michael D Not Higgins is offline  
05-09-2016, 10:36   #13
Eric Cartman
Registered User
 
Eric Cartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Kildare
Posts: 17,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs OBumble View Post
Because they're not homeless???

There's one approach "Housing first" which argues that people with mental health issues (including addictions) need to be housed first, and then have their problems treated. And that if you treat the health problem, but them move the person into a new home, you can actually make the treatment go backwards.
The reason most addicts are homeless is due to either not paying to stay in their homes or being kicked out by partner / family for stealing to fund the addiction. By all means, we should be running support centres and supervised, isolated accomodation for these people , but to count them on the general homeless figures is a mistake.

Giving a heroin addict a house is just going to see a house destroyed (selling wiring, copper pipe, fireplace etc..)
Eric Cartman is online now  
05-09-2016, 10:44   #14
Michael D Not Higgins
Not President
 
Michael D Not Higgins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 6,589
I'd also hasten to add, if the private landlords are forced to rent to welfare tenants, you're left with nothing for the private renters. If we take the homeless figures above and say there's 1130 families and 2667 adults and each family gets a rental at the highest possible RA limit (1300/month) and each adult gets a shared house at the highest amount (430/month), there's not enough sharing places available in the whole country below the max limit for Dublin so we'll have to take those 1539 and put them in rentals (660/month max) which leaves you with 809 people who are still homeless. Let's say they're all couples and take up couples rentals (900/month max), now we've housed them all.

That took 2265 private rentals out of the entire country's available stock of 3315 (2/3 of the total) and all of the sharing stock below 430/month (roughly half of the total). The remaining private rentals on the market are sharing rooms above 430/month and private rentals above 1300/month. Is that fair on the private renter?
Michael D Not Higgins is offline  
(3) thanks from:
05-09-2016, 10:59   #15
_kookie
Registered User
 
_kookie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael D Not Higgins View Post
Why should the private sector be dealing with the government's lack of social housing? Why should they be punished for not wanting to deal with it?

There's already laws preventing discrimination for renting and now social welfare recipient is one of the discrimination criteria. If you want to go more aggressively to get private landlords to take social welfare tenants, then you need to have some assurances for the landlord.

Firstly, any damage above wear and tear should be covered by the DSP. The payments should be automatic to the landlord with any top up payment made to the DSP so the landlord doesn't have to chase the tenant for it. Eviction proceedings on non-payment should be expedited in some way, e.g. bypassing RTB and going straight to court for eviction. Only after those changes would landlords agree to any forced acceptance of social welfare tenants.

Time and again we get the same issues on the forum about problem tenants, both private and social welfare. The difference is that the private tenants usually have a job and there are earnings that can be chased on any damage or unpaid rent. If you chased a welfare tenant through the court, they'd shrug their shoulders and say they have no money. You'd be lucky to get a €5 a week docked from their benefit payment.
I would go further and have it so that the local authority are responsible for the rent plus penalties until such a time that the property is handed back to the owner in the same condition that it was given to them. Local authority should be responsible for the behaviour of their tenant and the removal of them if necessary, and should bear the whole cost of a trouble making tenant. That would make landlords feel a bit safer, but unfortunately wouldnt do much for the poor neighbors of the trouble makers while the loval authority try to remove them.
_kookie is offline  
Thread Closed

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search