# 2,064 three bed council houses in Dublin with only one occupant!



## Brendan Burgess (25 Oct 2018)

Karl Deeter and I have collected the occupancy data council houses in the 4 local Dublin local authorities.

Here is the summary





*Other data

*


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Oct 2018)

I don't know anyone who is renting privately who chooses to live in a 4 bedroom house on their own - they couldn't afford to. 
Most people I know who are renting privately can't afford to rent a one bed apartment and so they rent a room in someone else's house.
And I know people who own their own home who would like to live on their own, but they are struggling with their mortgage and their property tax  so they have to take in a lodger.

But these normal rules of sharing a scarce resource do not apply to council housing.

Once you get the house, you get it for life irrespective of your need and irrespective of your means.  Unless of course, you need a bigger house, in which you can apply to trade up.

At the very least,  53 of the people living on their own in 4 bedroom houses should swap with the 53 families living in overcrowded conditions.

But just as in the private sector, people who don't own their own houses and who can't afford to rent a house should rent a room in a house. 

Give people living on their own in houses with more than one bedroom 6 months to find friends or neighbours in the same circumstances and share with them. 

If they don't do so within 6 months, they will lose their home and they will be paid rent allowance and can find somewhere to rent. 

This way we can free up thousands of houses


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Oct 2018)

Any new council housing built in Dublin should be one bed units.  
Move the people who are occupying large houses into these one bed units to free them up. 

A complete ban on selling houses at a discount to tenants - but do allow them to be sold at market value. 

And a complete ban on successor tenancies. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Oct 2018)

How many houses could freed up through reallocation?

To each according to their needs, but no more.

We have 4,962 people living on their own in 12,379 rooms.

If they shared, that would leave 7,417 rooms free

which would be 2,703 two bed houses (5,406 rooms)
and 670 three bed houses (2010 beds)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (25 Oct 2018)

Here is an article we have in today's Indo about it.

*Comment: We cannot allow tenants to act as if they own houses*


----------



## Blackrock1 (25 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Karl Deeter and I have collected the occupancy data council houses in the 4 local Dublin local authorities.
> 
> Here is the summary
> 
> ...



this is a real proper scandal, i wonder how widely it will be reported.


----------



## Delboy (25 Oct 2018)

Great analysis, something that's lacking in this current 'housing crisis'. But I'm afraid this is largely going to be a non-runner. No one is going to force (or even attempt to talk to) Mrs Murphy out of her home where she's lived for the past 60 years, has ties to the community etc. Not going to happen.

There are several issues that are impacting the housing shortage in this country that aren't even up for debate.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Oct 2018)

With respect Brendan, while I dont disagree with the sentiment expressed, it is the legal and administrative quagmire that you would unleash that makes your suggestions inoperable.

I think this is the critical sentence in the piece

"_While it is important to respect individuals, accommodate special circumstance and be mindful of the needs of others"
_
Once you begin to dig into that just a little you will understand that compelling people to leave their _homes _(as that is what they are) will simply bring about revolt.

As a simple example, a couple with no kids, qualifying for social housing would be afforded a one-bed apt? If they start a family, presumably they move into a two-bed? If they have a second kid, will they have to move again? Third kid, fourth kid, and so forth, keep on moving.
Will their jobs, schools move with them?
What if, tragically, a family member dies will they have to move again into a smaller property?

This is just scratching on the surface of the quagmire that you would fall into with such a proposal.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Once you begin to dig into that just a little you will understand that compelling people to leave their _homes _(as that is what they are) will simply bring about revolt.



It's not theirs. It's a resource of the state to ensure citizens have shelter that has been assigned to them. They should have no ownership or entitlement rights beyond the state meeting that need, as it sees fit, making best uses of the resources it has available.
Should everyone on the council list be given a three bed house on the off chance they might have a family in the future? For life? Even as people sleep in the streets and in hotel rooms? Even as people who don't qualify for the council list struggle to save to move themselves from an apartment to a house?
The moral conclusion of your argument is that everyone in the state should be given a three bed house at 18, regardless of their means, wherever they want it.

But back to the real world...
If they have to keep on moving, they should keep on moving. If they aren't happy with that, pay for their own housing, at full market rate.
It's what people who live in the real world have to do, match their housing to what they can afford and what they need, rent, buy, sell, trade up, trade down, as family size goes up and down.

If the state is incapable of managing the stock effectively, then it should withdraw entirely from the direct provision of housing and conduct everything through the private sector.


----------



## mugsymugsy (25 Oct 2018)

Bedroom tax like the uk. Offer people chance to move to one bedroom and if they reject it then bedroom tax of x per room per week. I wouldn't be surprised if these under occupied houses either have undeclared people / rooms being rented out.


----------



## TheBigShort (25 Oct 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> It's not theirs



Its not their property but it is their _home. _



odyssey06 said:


> They should have no ownership or entitlement rights beyond the state meeting that need, as it sees fit, making best uses of the resources it has available.



And you think putting resources into a big game of social housing musical chairs will be resources put to good use?



odyssey06 said:


> Should everyone on the council list be given a three bed house on the off chance they might have a family in the future?



No. Never said they should. Its is an option, but I wouldn't advocate for that.



odyssey06 said:


> For life?



Nope.



odyssey06 said:


> The moral conclusion of your argument is that everyone in the state should be given a three bed house at 18, regardless of their means, wherever they want it.



You have made a giant conclusion there. Im merely asking how such a proposal would work in real-life. I dont think it could be done effectively.



odyssey06 said:


> But back to the real world...



This is the real world we are talking about it. Im not happy about things either. But im interested in finding plausible solutions. I do not think compelling people to move is workable for a plethora amount of reasons.

You seem to have disregarded what was written in the Indo.
Both Brendan and Karl admitted that "_While it is important to respect individuals, accommodate special circumstance and be mindful of the needs of others" 
_
they failed to elaborate on what this actually meant. Some examples might help? 
And then you will understand that the proposal is inoperable.



odyssey06 said:


> If they have to keep on moving, they should keep on moving.



Yes, _if _being the appropriate word. But how are you going to make someone move _if _they dont want to? And where will you move them too?



odyssey06 said:


> If they aren't happy with that, pay for their own housing, at full market rate.



People on low incomes cant pay full market rates. That's why they are in social housing.
Anyway, why would the State charge its citizens markets rates? The State has no business trying to profit from or exploit its citizens.



odyssey06 said:


> It's what people who live in the real world have to do,



Again, this is the real world we are talking about. We are looking for plausible solutions.



odyssey06 said:


> If the state is incapable of managing the stock effectively, then it should withdraw entirely from the direct provision of housing and conduct everything through the private sector.



The State did, to a great extent, withdraw from the provision of social housing. It cut funding to LA to build housing, sold 2/3 of its stock and more or less let the private sector build when and wherever it thought fight.
We are in the mess we are in now because the State abdicated its responsibility to provide housing.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Its not their property but it is their _home._


_
_
As is a property being rented by someone and paid for privately. It's not theirs. 



> And you think putting resources into a big game of social housing musical chairs will be resources put to good use?



I think Brendan's figures have shown without a doubt that we are not putting our resources to good use right now.
A three bed house let at a discount to a single occupant is an unjustifiable use of resources in a housing shortage.



> You have made a giant conclusion there. Im merely asking how such a proposal would work in real-life. I dont think it could be done effectively.



Either via a bedroom tax, or an allowance per person towards the rent. A single occupant in a three bedroom house would have to fund the difference and topup the allowance to the full market rent. Get rid of this nonsense where an adult family member, who hasn't lived in the property in years, 'inherits' the parent's council house, regardless of their current needs or income.



> Both Brendan and Karl admitted that "_While it is important to respect individuals, accommodate special circumstance and be mindful of the needs of others"_


_
_
Putting families in hotel rooms, while a single person takes up a whole 3 bed house, is not being mindful to the needs of others.



> Yes, _if _being the appropriate word. But how are you going to make someone move _if _they dont want to? And where will you move them too?



How is a private renter moved if they split from their partner and can no longer afford to rent a full house or apartment on their own?
The state moving people around would not be something that isn't experienced every day by people in the real world trying to make their own way in life.



> People on low incomes cant pay full market rates. That's why they are in social housing.
> Anyway, why would the State charge its citizens markets rates? The State has no business trying to profit from or exploit its citizens.



It's not profiteering or exploitation. By undercharging its renters, or under utilising its resources, it means less housing stock and less funds available to it in meeting the housing needs of citizens. If they can't pay the full market rates, they take the property that they state has deemed suitable for them. 
Just as the state deems what treatments and drugs are and are not covered under the medical card scheme.



> The State did, to a great extent, withdraw from the provision of social housing. It cut funding to LA to build housing, sold 2/3 of its stock and more or less let the private sector build when and wherever it thought fight.
> We are in the mess we are in now because the State abdicated its responsibility to provide housing.



It needs to get efficient in its use of housing stock, or get out.


----------



## odyssey06 (25 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> As a simple example, a couple with no kids, qualifying for social housing would be afforded a one-bed apt? If they start a family, presumably they move into a two-bed? If they have a second kid, will they have to move again? Third kid, fourth kid, and so forth, keep on moving.



Dublin City Council already does this in assessing housing needs:
[broken link removed]

Scan to section *2.5 Assessment of Bedroom Requirement*


----------



## gnf_ireland (25 Oct 2018)

There has been lots of discussion on the need to get older people to downsize from their family homes to something more suitable for their needs - when they own their home and have paid for it
Surely it makes sense to have the same discussion for renters, whether social housing or private renters.

I understand people may not wish to move out of their 'homes', but in that case there needs to be a facility where there is some level of accommodation sharing. No single person should have the right to a 3 bed house, paid for by the state, when we are in the depths of a housing crises and there are families in emergency accommodation. 

And for the record, I would also be in favour of a 'bedroom tax' whereby if someone owns a property and there are unused bedrooms, there can be a level of a surcharge applied to the property tax. So lets say I am in a 4 bedroom house with only 1 person living there, the tax would apply to say 2 of the bedrooms (1 is reserved for as a guest room for example). This tax could be avoided by availing of the rent a room scheme!


----------



## RichInSpirit (26 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Any new council housing built in Dublin should be one bed units.
> 
> Brendan



The Government outlawed perfectly decent one bed room accommodation, the bedsit. 
That was the start of the Property Shortage.


----------



## odyssey06 (26 Oct 2018)

RichInSpirit said:


> The Government outlawed perfectly decent one bed room accommodation, the bedsit.
> That was the start of the Property Shortage.



Bedsits are always bad when they are called bedsits and run by private landlords. 
Whereas the same living arrangements in a state run family hub is a wonderful thing.


----------



## The Horseman (26 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Its not their property but it is their _home. _
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We don't have enough properties available at the moment. We wont have more properties in the short term for a number of reasons, not enough builders, plumbers etc, not enough serviced land etc.

It will take years to increase the supply whether people accept this point or not. We need to better utilize the stock we have.

It is morally wrong to have people living in properties with excess bed spaces while you have families in hotels/hubs etc.

Why is ok to allow a person stay in a property which is clearly to big for them while leaving families in unsuitable accommodation, why should the person in the property be treated better than the family. We don't have enough new properties coming on stream and no matter what you say it will take years to bring them on board.

You have made previous suggestions that the LA should engage the use of property managers to manage properties on behalf of the LA and would guarantee an agreed rent to the LA. Firstly this is an aspirational suggestion which does not solve the immediate situation ie (lack of supply). Secondly if the property managers where faced with the situation of under utilized properties as have been highlighted in findings by Karl Deeter and Brendan Burgess they would better utilize the existing available bed spaces.

The existing model is completely uneconomical, it is a waste of State resources in what is being hailed as a housing crisis. A crisis by its nature calls for steps outside the normal (for the good of society). I note that suggestions are being made to CPO properties, should the State not better utilize its existing stock of properties before it spends more money?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2018)

Delboy said:


> Not going to happen.
> 
> There are several issues that are impacting the housing shortage in this country that aren't even up for debate.



Hi Delboy 

I don't underestimate the difficulty of convincing politicians to do something like this. 

However, the first step is to publish the data which we have done for Dublin. 

The second step is to get the debate going.  That has started but it was lost in the discussion about the air bnb ban.  But we will raise it again. 

I think it should be part of the overall solution. 

I spoke to someone yesterday who told me about a couple   they knew in Cork who tried to trade down from their council house to a smaller house, but the council did not want to know. The council eventually agreed to put them on a transfer list, but apparently that means nothing as it never moves. 

So we could take the following approach in order 
1) Change councils so that those who do ask to trade down can be facilitated. 
2) Ask people to trade down from a 4 bed house to a one bed house or else ask them to take in people off the Housing List 
3) Tell them that they are trading down. 

In tandem with this... 
An absolute ban on selling houses at a discount.  If I lived in a 4 bed house which I could buy for 60% of its market value, I would not trade down. 
An absolute ban on successor tenancies. 
Start charging rent based on the size of the house. 

Brendan


----------



## Delboy (26 Oct 2018)

Brendan

I agree that this needs to be discussed and debated. But it'll be a short debate and then it'll be forgotten. Politicians will not touch certain matters around housing and this is one of them.

But your other point about the transfer list and it not moving is interesting. On another thread there is a discussion about outsourcing the management of social housing to private letting agents.  Something like house transfers/transfer list be given to letting agents could work too as in my experience of working in several areas of the Public Service, the staff in the Local Authorities are the worst by far of any ps/cs. They are indifferent at best, inept at worst. 

So take all aspects of housing management away from the LA's and let the private letting agents at it but manage them tightly and carefully so that they don't become too eager to move people around especially if it's a transaction based contract they are rewarded under.


----------



## The Horseman (26 Oct 2018)

Delboy said:


> Brendan
> 
> I agree that this needs to be discussed and debated. But it'll be a short debate and then it'll be forgotten. Politicians will not touch certain matters around housing and this is one of them.
> 
> ...



I can almost guarantee you the outsourcing of the transfer list will not happen. At the first sign of it the Unions will object as its "taking work away from our members". We see this all the time be it the Luas, Dublin Bus etc. Outsourcing to a single entity does not work as they can dictate conditions (which is one of the reasons why 10% of Dublin Bus routes are now serviced by another bus company).  

The State can't manage projects (how often do we hear of cost overruns on capital projects for example).


----------



## noproblem (26 Oct 2018)

Is it possible that many of those houses that say there's only 1 occupant have rented out the other rooms on the quiet? There's an undercurrent of the black economy hard at work in that section of society that could teach or lecture any expert from the social services department, but a blind eye is shown by the powers that be. One video doing the rounds at the moment has a man counting out €300,000.00 in cash on a makeshift table with no problem showing his face or whatever, he has €50,000.00 rings, more valuable watches, etc, etc. If you don't believe me I can very easily put the video up here if allowed and I have no doubt at all that this person is living in social housing paid for by me and you and working people. Yet, if anyone says one word about those people then God help you. It beggars belief what's going on in this country.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Oct 2018)

I would say that some of them do have paying tenants. 

Others probably have their daughters and their grand children living with them, but they are also registered as homeless so that they can get a place of their own. 

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (26 Oct 2018)

Thing is, should those people be registered as homeless at all?


----------



## luckystar (26 Oct 2018)

Part of the problem is just that brendan. Traditionally grown up child with a child of 2 of their own 'went on the list' and was grand at home until a suitable place arose. Then became the 'going homeless' to get bumped up the list. Numbers went up dramatically


----------



## losttheplot (26 Oct 2018)

More people like this lady. Lived in the 4 bed house for 40 years and moved to a new apartment, freeing the house up for a family.


https://www.thejournal.ie/downsizing-social-housing-3456397-Jun2017/?amp=1


----------



## VBiz74 (27 Oct 2018)

I live in an old estate where the houses are regularly coming onto the market as their owners are passing,  these houses were being snapped up by the council, ripped apart and then upgraded to the highest level. Over the past 10 years at least 5 of these houses have been given to single people, 1 of them to a taxi driver who now has lodgers. The house next door was assigned to a young girl and her child,  about 2 months later her partner who also drives a taxi has moved in and they keep horses,  and park a horse box on the footpath, blocking the road. Another house was assigned to a single lady, she never lived in it, would come up a couple of times a week,  turn on lights , put rubbish in the bins, cut grass etc, eventually after about 8 years, the house was taken back and reassigned to another single person.  These are all family homes and really should house families,  yet only 1 of these houses has a child living in it. The council are wholly to blame for this nonsense. But so long add they get their rent on time they don't actually care.


----------



## Sophrosyne (28 Oct 2018)

While nether agreeing or disagreeing with the principles of your proposals, I am thinking of the logistics.

Local Authorities would have to carry out periodic reviews in respect of *each and every *tenancy*. *I don’t know how many LA tenancies there are countrywide.

How often would the reviews have to be conducted?

If under-occupancy were to be established, then matching appropriate alternative accommodation would have to be found in *each* case, which may not necessarily be one-bedroomed accommodation.

Given changing needs, accommodation requirements may change several times, sometimes within a relatively short time span.

Would LAs have the resources?

Would there be a sufficient stock of suitable alternative accommodation?


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> People on low incomes cant pay full market rates. That's why they are in social housing.


 People in council houses never pay market rents, even if they can afford it.


----------



## Purple (30 Oct 2018)

Sophrosyne said:


> While nether agreeing or disagreeing with the principles of your proposals, I am thinking of the logistics.
> 
> Local Authorities would have to carry out periodic reviews in respect of *each and every *tenancy*. *I don’t know how many LA tenancies there are countrywide.
> 
> ...


Maybe we should try before spending over €5.5 billion adding more housing stock. Given that we have so few net financial contributors in society already is it fair to ask the few hundred thousand who pay for the rest of us to fork out thousands or tens of thousands more?
This issue makes the HSE look efficient.


----------



## Sophrosyne (30 Oct 2018)

Purple said:


> Maybe we should try before spending over €5.5 billion adding more housing stock.


 
This doesn't answer the question though.

Everything is great in theory.


----------



## Magpie (31 Oct 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I
> 
> At the very least,  53 of the people living on their own in 4 bedroom houses should swap with the 53 families living in overcrowded conditions.



Absolutely we do need to get people to downsize and free up family properties, but to expect people to leave the homes they have been in for years or decades and move just like that, its not that simple. Lots of other councils do much better at it, one London borough offers attractive incentives to tenants to downsize for example


----------



## mugsymugsy (31 Oct 2018)

Ah yes we need to now give incentives to people that have had years of discounted rent and where tenancies can be passed on whilst private owners pay market rates.

Seriously if you are being housed by the government for life within reason accept what you are given. 

I think people live in different universes and expect so much from the state. We have people who are reliant on the state and welfare to pick up the tab. Those with genuine sick / health / old people i have no issue with the state supporting them and in fact wish they got more - everyone else cop on.


----------



## Magpie (31 Oct 2018)

That's simply not how it works, and to be honest, I'm glad. Living in social or council housing does not mean you do not have an pride in or feeling for your home or your environment, and don't deserve to be treated badly while being told to be grateful. 

Think it about as real people instead of statistics. Would you really tell a widow in her 70s who has lived 50 years in her council house, reared her family, paid her rent, tended the garden and decorated countless times that you've decided she has to instantly shift herself away from everyone she knows, friends family and support networks, to move into a one bed flat across the city to make room for another family? 

Bearing in mind she has a legal contract and rights as a tenant anyway which means you don't currently have any right to make her, anyway.


----------



## Leo (31 Oct 2018)

Magpie said:


> Would you really tell a widow in her 70s who has lived 50 years in her council house, reared her family,



Has she only just finished rearing her family recently?


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Oct 2018)

Magpie said:


> That's simply not how it works, and to be honest, I'm glad. Living in social or council housing does not mean you do not have an pride in or feeling for your home or your environment, and don't deserve to be treated badly while being told to be grateful.
> Think it about as real people instead of statistics. Would you really tell a widow in her 70s who has lived 50 years in her council house, reared her family, paid her rent, tended the garden and decorated countless times that you've decided she has to instantly shift herself away from everyone she knows, friends family and support networks, to move into a one bed flat across the city to make room for another family?
> Bearing in mind she has a legal contract and rights as a tenant anyway which means you don't currently have any right to make her, anyway.



I don't think anyone has suggested overnight moves, but we have to get away from the idea that council house is yours for life, even being passed onto next generation, regardless of your needs, who else is on the waiting list, and the next generation's current means.

What if she didn't tend the garden and treated the place like a kip? It's irrelevant really because it's not her house. It's where she lives.

You seem to be forgetting the real people in bedsit homeless hubs or hotels\B&Bs, that could be in that house. They're being told there's no council house for them. They're being instantly shifted around right now. There's currently a 7 year waiting list for Dublin City Council because they are not using the council houses they have at their disposal to maximally house those on the waiting list.

If we're ok to prioritise that we don't want to shift a single person from a council house because of their longevity there, then we have effectively decided to prioritise that over the people in homeless hubs \ hotels etc.


----------



## Sophrosyne (31 Oct 2018)

Karl Deeter and Brendan Burgess have the bones of an idea, which if done _properly_, has the potential to free up a certain amount of larger properties for families.

But at the moment it is just an accountancy exercise because there are unsubstantiated presumptions of the viability of direct swaps.


----------



## Magpie (31 Oct 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> irrelevant really because it's not her house. It's where she lives.



It's her HOME. In the same way yours is. It's not just where she lives.



> You seem to be forgetting the real people in bedsit homeless hubs or hotels\B&Bs, that could be in that house. They're being told there's no council house for them. They're being instantly shifted around right now. There's currently a 7 year waiting list for Dublin City Council because they are not using the council houses they have at their disposal to maximally house those on the waiting list.
> 
> 
> If we're ok to prioritise that we don't want to shift a single person from a council house because of their longevity there, then we have effectively decided to prioritise that over the people in homeless hubs \ hotels etc.



I'm not forgetting anyone. Do we need to free up larger homes for overcrowded families? Yes, of course. That much is obvious. Do we do it by treating long term good tenants like they don't matter, like they are only entitled to shelter and not homes? No, we do not. 

It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the housing crisis that people who have no experience of it do not understand. You think its all a numbers game and that people should be happy and grateful for a bed of some sort. It doesnt work like that, people need secure HOMES, where they can live and contribute fully to society. And with that comes a way to treat people.


----------



## Andy836 (31 Oct 2018)

Magpie said:


> That's simply not how it works, and to be honest, I'm glad. Living in social or council housing does not mean you do not have an pride in or feeling for your home or your environment, and don't deserve to be treated badly while being told to be grateful.
> 
> Think it about as real people instead of statistics. *Would you really tell a widow in her 70s who has lived 50 years in her council house, reared her family, paid her rent, tended the garden and decorated countless times that you've decided she has to instantly shift herself away from everyone she knows, friends family and support networks, to move into a one bed flat across the city to make room for another family? *
> 
> Bearing in mind she has a legal contract and rights as a tenant anyway which means you don't currently have any right to make her, anyway.



Yes.


----------



## odyssey06 (31 Oct 2018)

Magpie said:


> It's her HOME. In the same way yours is. It's not just where she lives.



No it isn't. It's hers if she pays the mortgage on it and owns it. The state owns it to provide shelter to those in need. It is where she lives. Fundamental difference.



> It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the housing crisis that people who have no experience of it do not understand. You think its all a numbers game and that people should be happy and grateful for a bed of some sort. It doesnt work like that, people need secure HOMES, where they can live and contribute fully to society. And with that comes a way to treat people.



People don't need to be given a house for life at below market rent to achieve that - without regard to their current room needs or how many other people are on waiting list \ in hotels \ hubs etc.  There are lots of people living and contributing fully to society in rented accomodation with 6-12 months security. Against that, there are 7000 people in hubs and hotels with zero security.
Security does not require rights of virtual ownership of a property for you and your descendents in perpetuity. That's a fantasy and if that's what it takes to end a homeless crisis, then (a) it's not a crisis and (b) it will never end.
People don't need to be treated to a free house at other's expense.


----------



## Bronte (1 Nov 2018)

Magpie said:


> That's simply not how it works, and to be honest, I'm glad. Living in social or council housing does not mean you do not have an pride in or feeling for your home or your environment, and don't deserve to be treated badly while being told to be grateful.
> 
> Think it about as real people instead of statistics. Would you really tell a widow in her 70s who has lived 50 years in her council house, reared her family, paid her rent, tended the garden and decorated countless times that you've decided she has to instantly shift herself away from everyone she knows, friends family and support networks, to move into a one bed flat across the city to make room for another family?
> 
> Bearing in mind she has a legal contract and rights as a tenant anyway which means you don't currently have any right to make her, anyway.


This is precisely what my mother and aunt did. One because of business debts and the other to make good use of the proceeds to live off.  My grandparents, who owned their home could not mind it in old age, they didn't even go upstairs for about 20 years, in Dublin, and confined themselves to their bedroom, and living room. The front room was spotless as it was never used.


----------



## Bronte (1 Nov 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I don't think anyone has suggested overnight moves, but we have to get away from the idea that council house is yours for life, even being passed onto next generation, regardless of your needs, who else is on the waiting list, and the next generation's current means.
> 
> What if she didn't tend the garden and treated the place like a kip? It's irrelevant really because it's not her house. It's where she lives.
> 
> ...


One of my social welfare tenants moved out, he moved into a friends two bed apartment, which he got as he was so long on the housing list. My tenant moved in to mind it as the 'owner ' was heading off to South Africa for a year.


----------



## odyssey06 (1 Nov 2018)

Bronte said:


> One of my social welfare tenants moved out, he moved into a friends two bed apartment, which he got as he was so long on the housing list. My tenant moved in to mind it as the 'owner ' was heading off to South Africa for a year.



God forbid we interfere with such a system!


----------



## Purple (5 Nov 2018)

Bronte said:


> One of my social welfare tenants moved out, he moved into a friends two bed apartment, which he got as he was so long on the housing list. My tenant moved in to mind it as the 'owner ' was heading off to South Africa for a year.


You're a fascist, that's your problem. Isn't that right Fintan O'Toole?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Nov 2018)

I just watched Karl Deeter arguing this with Brid Smith on TV3 AM this morning. 

She said she had loads of constituents who would trade down if there were somewhere "safe, secure and cozy in their locality". 

Personally, I don't think that people living on their own in three bed houses should be allowed to be so choosy as private renters and private owners can't. 

But let's just take her positions as reasonable. 

Then we should completely stop building anything other than one bed apartments in Dublin until we have built enough to move these 2,000 people into them. That means we would get 2,000 two bed, three bed and four bed houses for the price of 2,000 two bed apartments. 

Brendan


----------



## noproblem (20 Nov 2018)

Is it possible there's are a hell of a lot of council tenants sub-letting their houses/apartments? Lone tenant has a 3bd house but let 2 rooms to others, same with apartments. I'd be amazed if it's not happening on a large scale in the bigger towns and cities because it is certainly happening everywhere else and a blind eye seems to be the councils attitude. Nice earner too, tax free.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2018)

Are council tenants allowed to avail of the rent a room scheme?


----------



## Palerider (20 Nov 2018)

Of course it's happening, the rent a room relief is very appealing.

A UDC bought my first house, a 3 bed, in 1995 at a cost of around €50k, I was glad to get it, what followed....

Family moved in, Council upgraded Windows from alum single glazed which I installed ( all the rage at the time ) to pvc double, changed the front door, no idea about internal upgrades.

A couple of years pass by and I see the house on the property price register sold at a massive discount to market.

I moaned about it on AAM at the time I saw it as I do not understand the logic in arms of the State acquiring properties to house people requiring housing only to gift them to their tenants at less then market short years later, how's about gift tax for the purchasers, yeah right, don't get me started.

Tis only the mugs get mortgages on their own homes.


----------



## RETIRED2017 (20 Nov 2018)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I just watched Karl Deeter arguing this with Brid Smith on TV3 AM this morning.
> 
> She said she had loads of constituents who would trade down if there were somewhere "safe, secure and cozy in their locality".
> 
> ...


Not going to work  no point in building 2000 two bed apartments for people who already have a  house We already seen how this will play out  down in Tipperary,

Dublin need to come up with a system to build homes for the increasing number of people who work to supply it with the services required on the average Industrial wage,

We need to get started on building a system to supply these people with homes and start suggesting  options that we know will work ,

Most of the people who are stopping this from happening  live in big houses with lots of spare bedrooms Safe secure and cozy who spend there time stopping the required expansion in building in Dublin at present,


----------



## Palerider (20 Nov 2018)

Most of the people who are stopping this from happening  live in big houses with lots of spare bedrooms Safe secure and cozy who spend there time stopping the required expansion in building in Dublin at present,[/QUOTE]

Please elaborate, any builder as we all know needs a large site to build multi family homes or apartments to get scale, the land area has to be suitable, pass planning considerations and tends to be at a premium decided by the market not by Brian and Doris now retired after a family reared and a lifetimes contribution to the system in their cozy 4 bed in Dublin 6.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2018)

Palerider said:


> not by Brian and Doris now retired after a family reared and a lifetimes contribution to the system in their cozy 4 bed in Dublin 6


I agree but if Brian and Doris had 3 or 4 kids and an income on the upper end of average then there's a good chance that they were never net contributors to the system and now receive their State pension which they may have contributed to but certainly haven't paid for so, in effect, they are now living off the taxes their grandchildren pay.  
Let us  not pretend that the older generation somehow supported themselves while the millenials are all infantilised freeloaders. The opposite it closer to the truth.


----------



## Palerider (20 Nov 2018)

Purple said:


> I agree but if Brian and Doris had 3 or 4 kids and an income on the upper end of average then there's a good chance that they were never net contributors to the system and now receive their State pension which they may have contributed to but certainly haven't paid for so, in effect, they are now living off the taxes their grandchildren pay. .



Ah here !!, If any citizen has the required number of paid contributions then they have met all conditions and have paid for their pension, what other measurement is equitable, Brian and Doris with their 2/3/4 kids are the averages joes, we need their kids to contribute as employees for the State to survive into the future, it is the wheel of life, we're all on it.

Some people advocate for the averages joes who have contributed into their retirement age to downsize from suburbia and clear the site for some magic multi family homes to be created, not me, we still have some property rights left.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2018)

Palerider said:


> Ah here !!, If any citizen has the required number of paid contributions then they have met all conditions and have paid for their pension, what other measurement is equitable, Brian and Doris with their 2/3/4 kids are the averages joes, we need their kids to contribute as employees for the State to survive into the future, it is the wheel of life, we're all on it.
> 
> Some people advocate for the averages joes who have contributed into their retirement age to downsize from suburbia and clear the site for some magic multi family homes to be created, not me, we still have some property rights left.


I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just pointing out that this is the best time ever to be retired; they have a better pension than their parents and a far better one than their children or grandchildren will ever have. They have contributed to their pension but come nowhere near paying for it and as a cohort they are no harder working then their children.

My point is simply that pensioners should be grateful for those younger people who are carrying them and apologetic for the utter mess their generation made of running the country. Thankfully our children, these millennials, are harder working, more honest and more tolerant than my generation (40's and 50's) and by the same measures my generation is better than those who are now retired.

We should all be apologising to those starting out for the homelessness crisis which we caused by tolerating and participating in corruption, incompetence and and selfishness and then selling their future down the river to bail ourselves out when things came crashing down instead of taking our medicine.


----------



## PMU (20 Nov 2018)

Purple said:


> I agree but if Brian and Doris had 3 or 4 kids and an income on the upper end of average then there's a good chance that they were never net contributors to the system and now receive their State pension which they may have contributed to but certainly haven't paid for so, in effect, they are now living off the taxes their grandchildren pay.


Come off it! Of course they contributed.  Data on historic tax contributions from Revenue https://revenue.ie/en/corporate/information-about-revenue/statistics/receipts/receipts-taxhead.aspx show that personal income tax (i.e. PAYE) is an average of 24% of total tax revenues. (It's more if you include USC). Only VAT contributes more. And it was more, i.e. up to 32% of all revenues in the 1990s. So, as PAYE taxpayers, Brian and Doris contributed more to tax revenues than all other types of taxation, except for VAT.  And Brian and Doris don't have to be high earners. In Ireland at the average wage PAYE taxpayers pay income tax at the higher band.


----------



## Purple (20 Nov 2018)

Because of the very high allowances we have only the top 30% of earners are net contributors. 
Look at your own IBEC link, it shows that the rich pay a massively disproportionate amount of tax. Then look at PRSI contributions, allowing for the fact that PRSI covers far more than pensions, and calculate what sort of pension fund you'd need to have to pay for the OAP. Unless they paid about €150 a week in PRSI then they didn't fund their own State pension.


----------



## noproblem (20 Nov 2018)

Purple said:


> Because of the very high allowances we have only the top 30% of earners are net contributors.
> Look at your own IBEC link, it shows that the rich pay a massively disproportionate amount of tax. Then look at PRSI contributions, allowing for the fact that PRSI covers far more than pensions, and calculate what sort of pension fund you'd need to have to pay for the OAP. Unless they paid about €150 a week in PRSI then they didn't fund their own State pension.




 I read your posts and was fuming, absolutely angry, but then had a think about it, then a really good think again about what you said. Know something? Hate to say it, but you're damn right and my wife and myself are about to enter the retired section of society, me from the private sector, she from the public sector, and we'll do bloody well from the next 20 or so years if we get that far. Yes we worked, paid into what was required but should get back multiples of that figure. Then again, as a thank you to the young people you mention as paying for us today, our generation will probably be leaving them quite a bit of wealth which we were never left. So, I guess it's a bit like the saying, what comes around goes around. Swings and roundabouts and all that mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## Thirsty (20 Nov 2018)

Getting back to the topic and off the pensions question.

I'd agree with the removal of the discounted sales from social housing and the 'inheritance' of a tenancy.  Both are inherently inequitable.  

I would not agree with shifting people around like pawns on a chess board.  The one thing you can be certain of is that elderly tenants will die, so the 'problem' is self-limiting - provided you remove the 'tenancy inheritance'.

I believe we should look at the Singapore model for house purchase where employees are allowed to take a lump sum from their pension (or mandatory savings scheme), provided it is used towards the purchase of a home.  Homes (known as Utility Flats) were built in the thousands and made available to purchase.  Although it's not all a garden of roses, as a solution to the then housing crisis, it was considered hugely successful.


----------



## Purple (21 Nov 2018)

Thirsty said:


> I would not agree with shifting people around like pawns on a chess board. The one thing you can be certain of is that elderly tenants will die, so the 'problem' is self-limiting - provided you remove the 'tenancy inheritance'.


I don't think anyone is talking about moving them around like pawns on a chessboard. 
Limited term tenancies after which time needs are assessed. That's what people are talking about.


----------

