# Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing



## Brendan Burgess

Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.

*Low paid workers should be given priority for social and affordable housing over those in receipt of social welfare.*

A responsible couple who wants to provide for themselves and their family, will hold off having children until they can afford them. If they can afford to buy a house it will probably be a long distance from where they were brought up and from where they work.  But those on social welfare do the opposite. They have children because they will be given priority on the housing list. And the more children they have, the higher they go on the list.

How can it be fair that people who pay their own way have to put off having children until they can afford to buy a house, while those dependent on the state have children early so that they will be allocated a house at the taxpayers’ expense?

People who are working, especially in low paid jobs, should be given the first choice of social housing close to their work or their community. If people are not working, they should be allocated housing wherever in the country it is available and cheap. Finish out some of those ghost estates and you could solve the homeless problem and reduce the taxpayers’ hotel bills in a few months.  People relying on the taxpayer to pay for their housing should not get better housing than the taxpayer who pays for their own home.

*Social housing should be recycled to those most in need *

Under the current system, social housing is like winning the National Lottery. Once you get allocated a social house, you get it for life. And you can usually pass it on to your children.

People in social housing should be reassessed every 5 years.

·  If they are not working, their house should be reassigned to someone who is working and they should be allocated housing wherever it is available.

·  If they were allocated a three bedroom house because they were a family of 5 and now it’s one person living on their own, they should be moved to smaller accommodation and the house should be freed up for a working family. Alternatively if someone is living on her own in a three bed house, she should find someone else on the social housing list to share the house with her.

·  When a tenant dies, the house should be allocated to the person highest on the housing list and not to their son just because he happens to be living there.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> This is when things get scary around here. The notion that we should live in a society that will uproot individuals and families purely on their current working status. Simply unworkable, but reprehensible more so



Reprehensible how?

Those who are beholden to society should have no choice with regard to where they live.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Reprehensible how?



See below



Gordon Gekko said:


> Those who are beholden to society should have no choice with regard to where they live.



If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society? Where do you get this nonsense from?
And why on earth should it have anything to do with where they live?
Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society?



No but if somebody cannot fund their own shelter requirements then they are reliant on others to fund same.  Again, this is absolutely basic stuff.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> See below
> 
> 
> 
> If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society? Where do you get this nonsense from?
> And why on earth should it have anything to do with where they live?
> Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?



There's a difference between a temporary period of bad luck, and laziness. My point is that those who CHOOSE to live off everyone else's hard work deserve no choice with regard to matters such as where they live.

It one of our problems in this country; a view has emerged that social welfare should provide some sort of gold plated lifestyle. It should not; it should not enable someone to take a holiday, buy a takeaway coffee, or go for a pint. It should be subsistence, no more and no less. That might stir society's underbelly into action.

The above has nothing to do with those who cannot work, e.g. the disabled or the elderly. They should receive benefits that enable them to live a full life.


----------



## ant dee

TheBigShort said:


> See below
> If someone loses their job, they are now 'beholden' to society? Where do you get this nonsense from?
> And why on earth should it have anything to do with where they live?
> Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?



Is it really such a bad idea? Could it not work with an appropriate / generous timeframe before their subsidised housing would be relocated?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> No but if somebody cannot fund their own shelter requirements then they are reliant on others to fund same. Again, this is absolutely basic stuff.



Except that wasn't the proposal. It simply said


Brendan Burgess said:


> Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. _Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply._



It didn't mention the ability or lack of, for funding shelter requirements, simply referenced 'those who are not working'. Obviously the exact detail of such a scheme would need to be outlined but there would be so many hurdles in its implementation as to make it unworkable, let alone undesirable.
For instance, how long do you have to unemployed before you are hauled away from your community? Does it apply to those facing eviction in private accommodation too? Does it apply only to those who choose not to work? Define 'choose' in this scenario. If I am an unemployed high skilled software engineer can I choose not to take up the vacancy at the car wash? Can an employer refuse to employ me too, or will they be banished to the wilderness also? How will the community that has to suddenly house all these non-working people feel about the scheme? What about families with kids in school, will there be sufficient school places available, with SNA if needed? Or is this scheme intended to foster a perpetual cycle of poverty? The list goes on....



Gordon Gekko said:


> There's a difference between a temporary period of bad luck, and laziness.



Yes, that difference would need to be defined. Your may consider a person to be having bad luck, someone else may consider them lazy.



Gordon Gekko said:


> My point is that those who CHOOSE to live off everyone else's hard work deserve no choice with regard to matters such as where they live.



See above comments.



ant dee said:


> Is it really such a bad idea? Could it not work with an appropriate / generous timeframe before their subsidised housing would be relocated?



What is the purpose behind moving people? Define the appropriate/generous timeframe?
What I am getting at is simply the unworkable nature of such a scheme, let alone anything else that I would think about it.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBS

Brendan can speak to his own proposals.  

I was simply trying to explain the obvious to you that if somebody cannot provide shelter for themselves then they are reliant on others.  You apparently had a difficulty with that simple concept.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> TheBS
> 
> Brendan can speak to his own proposals.
> 
> I was simply trying to explain the obvious to you that if somebody cannot provide shelter for themselves then they are reliant on others.  You apparently had a difficulty with that simple concept.



But where have I ever said otherwise?


----------



## odyssey06

Brendan Burgess said:


> Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.



In general, an excellent submission, great to see it in national newspaper.

Two minor suggestions to this specific point:
(1) This should apply to areas designated as RPZs.
(2) The state should not purchase any new private property in RPZs for use as social housing as this is contributing to increased prices for workers seeking to buy their own homes. Land may be purchased for development of new property.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> But where have I ever said otherwise?



I understood you were suggesting that people were not beholden to society simply because they could not afford to provide their own shelter.  No?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> I understood you were suggesting that people were not beholden to society simply because they could not afford to provide their own shelter.  No?



No I didn't suggest that at all. 



Brendan Burgess said:


> Those who are _*not working *_should be relocated to wherever in the country



To which I responded



TheBigShort said:


> The notion that we should live in a society that will uproot individuals and families *purely on their current working status.*



It was then followed by



Gordon Gekko said:


> Those who are beholden to society should have no choice with regard to where they live.



Which, in the context of the previous comments, I understood to be



TheBigShort said:


> If someone *loses their job, *they are now 'beholden' to society?



At no point did I refer to an individual's financial status.
But it's ok, the proposal itself doesn't appear to be backed by any detail which probably implies not much thought went into it.


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> No I didn't suggest that at all.



Well what exactly were you suggesting so?  

With the greatest of respect, your posts read like smartalecy undergraduate debating points.

Answer me this - do you think if somebody cannot afford to provide shelter for themselves, then the State should be entitled to house them wherever it sees fit?


----------



## Pinesky

The "untermenchen" could always be relocated to camps , fed very little and those that could do menial work kept alive . Probably the cheapest option for the Goverment but it was tried before and was followed by  the Nuremberg trials and everlasting odium and shame .


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Well what exactly were you suggesting so?



I've outlined it in the previous post, did you not read it?



Sarenco said:


> With the greatest of respect, your posts read like smartalecy undergraduate debating points.



I'm sorry you feel that way.



Sarenco said:


> Answer me this - do you think if somebody cannot afford to provide shelter for themselves, then the State should be entitled to house them wherever it sees fit?



Yes of course. But why do you keep bringing this up? The proposal was for people who aren't working. Instead of wasting time trying to deride my comments, it would be useful if you actually read them.
Answer me this - do you think that if someone is not working (as per the proposal) that the state can simply uproot them and house them to wherever they see fit?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

Pinesky said:


> The "untermenchen" could always be relocated to camps , fed very little and those that could do menial work kept alive . Probably the cheapest option for the Goverment but it was tried before and was followed by  the Nuremberg trials and everlasting odium and shame .



Godwin's Law once again...


----------



## Pinesky

Gordon Gekko said:


> Godwin's Law once again...


I think you are confusing the Final Solution with the Financial Solution .


----------



## Cervelo

The Final solution

Rule 1: you cannot be unemployed
Rule 2: You cannot be unemployed and live here
Rule 3: You cannot live


----------



## Sarenco

TheBS

I did read your posts but I still have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

Are you drawing a distinction between an independently wealthy person that loses their job and somebody that relies on that job to provide for themselves?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Are you drawing a distinction between an independently wealthy person that loses their job and somebody that relies on that job to provide for themselves?



Not making any distinction, just asking you a straight forward question similar in content to one you asked me, and which I answered.

Here it is again, don't concern yourself about the point I'm making, just try focus on the answering the question. I wouldn't have thought the answer to be hard



TheBigShort said:


> Answer me this - do you think that if someone is not working (as per the proposal) that the state can simply uproot them and house them to wherever they see fit?



See how you go this time?


----------



## Sarenco

Of course they can't! 

Is that the sum total of the point you are trying to make?!  How utterly banal.

If you read the proposal again you will notice that it related to social housing alone.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Of course they can't!
> 
> Is that the sum total of the point you are trying to make?!  How utterly banal.



No it is not the sum total of the point I am making, where did I say it was? Like I said in my previous post



TheBigShort said:


> don't concern yourself about the point I'm making,


----------



## Sarenco

TheBS

I've read your previous post - twice - and I still have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

I've asked you to clarify what you are trying to say on a number of occasions and you either can't or won't.  Let's leave it there.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> I've asked you to clarify what you are trying to say on a number of occasions and you either can't or won't. Let's leave it there.



Here is the substantive point, although at this juncture I don't expect you will understand. But who knows you might surprise me?

Brendan has put out pre-budget submission on "behalf of the Irish Taxpayer". He has addressed this to the Minister of Finance and published it in a national newspaper, so I assume he is serious about his proposals.
If so, I consider one of his proposals to be reprehensible, that is, the proposal which we have commented on - people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.

You have agreed with me that the State shouldn't be allowed to do this.

In any event, it is now my inclination that Brendans proposal was simply not thought out and the fine detail would probably fit on the back of an envelope. I could be wrong, perhaps there are detailed workings, costings etc on this proposal. Certainly I did initially think that that would be the case, upon reading the proposal this morning, and considering that it was addressed to the Minister of Finance and published in a national newspaper.
But my inclination is that this proposal has no real substance or merit, never had or never will and should never really be considered by anyone, let alone the Minister for Finance or the readership of a national newspaper.
That is my substantive point. Whether you understand that or not, is inconsequential now.
Let's leave it there.


----------



## ant dee

TheBigShort said:


> people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.


Question: Social housing tenants are staying in those homes for free are they not?


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> If so, I consider one of his proposals to be reprehensible, that is, the proposal which we have commented on - people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.



BS,

So you disagree with Brendan's proposal that people in social housing that aren't working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is readily available so that people that are willing and able to work can be prioritised.

Fine.  You could have just said that without all the hyperbole and trick questions.

I happen to think that Brendan's suggestion has some merit.  So, no, I don't agree with you.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> So you disagree with Brendan's proposal that people in social housing that aren't working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is readily available so that people that are willing and able to work can be prioritised.



I actually disagree with anyone who proposes that anybody, in any type of housing, should be relocated to any location in the country on account that they are not working. It's an insidious proposal and even more so if it targets particular groups in society.



Sarenco said:


> I happen to think that Brendan's suggestion has some merit.



That doesn't surprise me, you and some others.
Thankfully, the submission itself is of poor quality and unlikely to ever gain any traction.


----------



## Sarenco

You are obviously entitled to your opinion.  

However, taken to its logical conclusion, it means that somebody in one part of the country with poor employment prospects may be denied an opportunity to fulfil their potential.  Does that seem fair to you?

There are actually villages in rural Ireland that are crying out for inward immigration (so they can secure their schools, etc).  Would it be so "insidious" for Government policy to facilitate these initiatives?  Or should the "lottery effect" of current welfare policy always take precedence?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> However, taken to its logical conclusion, it means that somebody in one part of the country with poor employment prospects may be denied an opportunity to fulfil their potential.



How did you arrive at this? The proposal was to relocate individuals from social housing where to anywhere in the country where that individual was not working. This would facilitate social housing for an individual who was working. Here it is again, so we are clear



Brendan Burgess said:


> Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working _*should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available *_or can be built quickly and cheaply.



So an example might be an individual in say, Achill, isn't working. But there is a job at the car wash. But the individual won't work it. There is a social unit available in Ballsbridge. So the individual gets moved to Ballsbridge so that the person who ends taking the car wash job can avail of the vacant social unit in Achill.
Is that how this scheme would work? Or do you think it needs a bit of fine tuning before it will ever be taken seriously?



Sarenco said:


> There are actually villages in rural Ireland that are crying out for inward immigration (so they can secure their schools, etc). Would it be so "insidious" for Government policy to facilitate these initiatives?



In this manner yes, it certainly would be.
But you appear to have changed the terms of the proposal. What you seem to be offering now is that people would be moved to rural locations. This is different to being moved to _*wherever in the country social housing is available*_ . 

Seriously, if you want to continue arguing for this nonsense then go ahead. But like I said, it is not gaining any traction anywhere.


----------



## Sarenco

BS

I'm absolutely sure that Brendan did not envisage relocating people from Achill to Ballsbridge because they refused to take up a position in a car wash!

So it appears you do not have an objection to the principle but you are arguing that the proposal is not worded appropriately.

Fair enough.  That seems a bit childish to me but at least we now understand your argument.


----------



## TheBigShort

TheBigShort said:


> Simply unworkable, but reprehensible more so.





TheBigShort said:


> Where do you get this nonsense from?





TheBigShort said:


> Aside from the nonsense of it all,





TheBigShort said:


> Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?





TheBigShort said:


> What I am getting at is simply the unworkable nature of such a scheme, let alone anything else that I would think about it.





TheBigShort said:


> the proposal itself doesn't appear to be backed by any detail which probably implies not much thought went into it.





TheBigShort said:


> I consider one of his proposals to be reprehensible, that is, the proposal which we have commented on - people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.





TheBigShort said:


> But my inclination is that this proposal has no real substance or merit, never had or never will and should never really be considered by anyone, let alone the Minister for Finance or the readership of a national newspaper.





TheBigShort said:


> Whether you understand that or not, is inconsequential now.
> Let's leave it there.





Sarenco said:


> *So you disagree with Brendan's proposal t*hat people in social housing that aren't working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is readily available so that people that are willing and able to work can be prioritised.
> 
> Fine.





TheBigShort said:


> I actually disagree with anyone who proposes that anybody, in any type of housing, should be relocated to any location in the country on account that they are not working. It's an insidious proposal and even more so if it targets particular groups in society.



From which you have concluded;



Sarenco said:


> So it appears you do not have an objection to the principle


----------



## Sarenco

BS

A string of invective and rhetoric is not an argument.  It's just boring.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

odyssey06 said:


> In general, an excellent submission, great to see it in national newspaper.
> 
> Two minor suggestions to this specific point:
> (1) This should apply to areas designated as RPZs.
> (2) The state should not purchase any new private property in RPZs for use as social housing as this is contributing to increased prices for workers seeking to buy their own homes. Land may be purchased for development of new property.



Hi Odyssey

I missed that in all the noise. 

Excellent suggestion on RPZs. 

"Low paid workers in RPZs  should be given priority for social and affordable housing over those in receipt of social welfare".


----------



## mathepac

ant dee said:


> Question: Social housing tenants are staying in those homes for free are they not?


No they are not. All social housing tenants must make a minimum contribution to the LA of €25 per week depending on their household income. This is as well as making up any difference between the HAP the LA pays directly to the private landlord and the rental charged by the landlord.


----------



## Sarenco

BS,

A string of invective and rhetoric is not an argument.  It's just boring.


----------



## mathepac

Brendan Burgess said:


> People *relying on the taxpayer to pay for their housing should get better housing* than the taxpayer who pays for their own home.


This must be a typo Brendan, I think you meant "should not".


----------



## Brendan Burgess

odyssey06 said:


> (2) The state should not purchase any new private property in RPZs for use as social housing as this is contributing to increased prices for workers seeking to buy their own homes. Land may be purchased for development of new property.



The Minister announced that the state won't be buying any more social housing. The budget will be allocated to building instead. 

But it does show a big problem.

There is competition between public and private housing.  If the state buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds 1,000 social houses it prevents a private developer from supplying 1,000 houses to people working in Dublin.   

If the state builds 1,000 houses it will soak up all the available labour.  The private sector will have to pay more or import construction workers from Eastern Europe.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

mathepac said:


> This must be a typo Brendan, I think you meant "should not".



Hi mathepac

Thanks for that. Corrected now.

Maybe it was a Freudian typo. And I really believe the propaganda that people who don't pay for their houses should get better housing than those who do!

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> The Minister announced that the state won't be buying any more social housing. The budget will be allocated to building instead.
> 
> But it does show a big problem.
> 
> There is competition between public and private housing.  If the state buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds 1,000 social houses it prevents a private developer from supplying 1,000 houses *to people working* in Dublin.
> 
> If the state builds 1,000 houses it will soak up all the available labour.  The private sector will have to pay more or import construction workers from Eastern Europe.
> 
> Brendan



Brendan

With respect, it is this type of mindset that I think needs to be challenged. The underlying assumption here is that is that people living in social housing are not working. But simultaneously you argue that working people (low paid) should be prioritized for social housing.
You may actually consider this, many occupants of social housing are actually working, and in low paid jobs too.


----------



## Delboy

This is something I have long argued for when discussing the housing shortages/allocation of social housing. 

You rarely ever hear advocates for families where the one/both parents have to commute hours every day with the kids in bed before they leave and if lucky, they grab 30 mins with them in the evenings.
But you'll always hear the usual culprits in the media arguing that single mothers/unemployed/those on long term disability get first call on social housing in the areas in which they grew up. This is often in prime locations close to employment. They need to remain close to their family/friends networks we're told. 
But what about workers who have to move many miles from their families and take on large mortgages/high rents and then have the long commute...how do they survive without the close support networks? Do they even matter?

I don't think the proposal as worded will ever be implemented by any of the political parties in Ireland. It just won't happen. People in houses for many years will not be uprooted...the Irish Times/Kitty Holland would have a field day.
A right wing Govt could bring in a rule for new social housing tenants and being in X area for Y period of time with no job. But we've never had a right wing Govt in Ireland and I don't think we ever will.


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> But you'll always hear the usual culprits in the media arguing that single mothers/unemployed/those on long term disability get first call on social housing in the areas in which they grew up. This is often in prime locations close to employment. They need to remain close to their family/friends networks we're told.



Because it's their God given right don't you know? How else do you expect the cycle of dependency to be passed down to the next generation if they aren't close to their family and friends?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Delboy said:


> I don't think the proposal as worded will ever be implemented by any of the political parties in Ireland.



Hi Delboy

If no one articulates the issue publicly, it will certainly never be implemented.

I think that the first step is to make the argument. To call for it publicly.

Someone called me yesterday after seeing the article to say that he was sure that there was nothing in the article which Leo Varadkar would disagree with.  On reflection, he is probably right.  But people must shout as loud as the people on the other side of the argument.

I will be on Pat Kenny Tonight on TV3 this Wednesday at 10 pm. I don't know who else is on the panel, but I would expect to be in a minority of one.  I would also expect that those who will speak from the audience will be those calling for more money to be spent on housing people free of charge in a location of their choosing. It's unlikely that those who agree with me will be prepared to say it publicly and face the roasting they will get as a result.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> With respect, it is this type of mindset that I think needs to be challenged.



BS

My point is that the Glass Bottle Site should be made available to people working in Dublin.  Social housing in Dublin should be made available to people working in Dublin.  I have said this very clearly.

I want to encourage people to work and stop depending on social welfare.

No one who is not working in Dublin should be allocated social housing in the Glass Bottle Site or anywhere else in Dublin while there is a housing crisis in the city.

Brendan


----------



## Ceist Beag

Fair play Brendan, I think it's good to get this discussion going. There will be cases thrown at you where your suggestion is shown to be unfair but I think equally there are cases where your suggestion makes perfect sense. IMHO the discussion to date has not really been balanced so it is good that you are prepared to provide an argument which favours those who work and cannot afford the current rent levels in Dublin.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> My point is that the Glass Bottle Site should be made available to people working in Dublin. Social housing in Dublin should be made available to people working in Dublin. I have said this very clearly.



If a private developer buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds a 1,000 private houses for profit, it prevents the State from supplying 1,000 social houses to low paid workers who should be prioritized for social housing (as per your actual proposal), in the midst of a housing crisis in the city.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> If a private developer buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds a 1,000 private houses for profit, it prevents the State from supplying 1,000 social houses to low paid workers who should be prioritized for social housing (as per your actual proposal), in the midst of a housing crisis in the city.


But the people who buy those houses, or rent them, will be working in Dublin. 
At the moment people from Dublin who work in Dublin have to live outside Dublin and commute for hours each way each day. That has a social cost on their children and a financial cost on the State in providing the transport infrastructure.
Do you think that a person from the same area who does not work should be given a house in that area or should they be given the house in the commuter belt?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> But the people who buy those houses, or rent them, will be working in Dublin.



Yes, but the topic is to prioritize social housing for low paid workers is it not?  Its not about private mortgaged or rented housing.
Brendan has argued the following

_"If the state buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds 1,000 social houses it prevents a private developer from supplying 1,000 houses *to people working* in Dublin." _

So if low paid workers are to be prioritized for social housing, then I'm assuming we have to build social housing? Those houses are then allocated to low paid workers who are in need of housing.
But Brendan seems on the one hand opposed to the State building 1,000 social houses as it prevents a private developer from supplying 1,000 houses to people _working_ in Dublin, but the other hand thinks low paid _workers_ should be prioritized for social housing in the midst of a housing crisis?!?!



Purple said:


> At the moment people from Dublin who work in Dublin have to live outside Dublin and commute for hours each way each day. That has a social cost on their children and a financial cost on the State in providing the transport infrastructure.





Purple said:


> Do you think that a person from the same area who does not work should be given a house in that area or should they be given the house in the commuter belt?



I understand the point but the practicalities of operating the proposal are simply unworkable. The proposal on the one hand suggests that low paid workers should be prioritized for social housing. Fair enough, but what happens if for some reason beyond the control of the low-paid worker s/he loses his job? Are they to be uprooted and sent away, with their families and kids? Who takes their place?

The problem with Brendans proposal is that there is an underlying assumption that those in receipt of social housing are all being gifted without having to contribute.

Here is a quote from his formal submission “Under the current system, social housing is like winning the National Lottery. Once you get allocated a social house, you get it for life. And you can usually pass it on to your children.”

What if you are a low paid worker in need of social housing, and your child works for low pay upon becoming an adult? These are the people that Brendan has identified that _should_ get social housing on the one hand, but on the other hand makes claims to effect that they have won the lottery upon receiving social housing and how unfair that is.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What if you are a low paid worker in need of social housing, and your child works for low pay upon becoming an adult? These are the people that Brendan has identified that _should_ get social housing on the one hand, but on the other hand makes claims to effect that they have won the lottery upon receiving social housing and how unfair that is.


 No, once you get social housing you are in it for life, no matter what income you have in the future. That's the point he is making. That, in my opinion, is fundamentally unjust.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, once you get social housing you are in it for life, no matter what income you have in the future. That's the point he is making. That, in my opinion, is fundamentally unjust.



What is wrong with that? These are the people he is purporting to prioritize for social housing. If I am working on a low-income, Brendan is advocating that I should be prioritized for social housing if needed. I spend the rest of my life in low-paid work, albeit a short period where I become unemployed through no direct fault of my own and, for that (from the submission)

_People in social housing should be reassessed every 5 years.

· If they are not working, their house should be reassigned to someone who is working and they should be allocated housing wherever it is available.
_
Not only that, but in the period that I was working, my family grew, my kids are at school, one in need of SNA. I'm also a volunteer at the local GAA or sports club.
But now my 5 yr assessment is approaching, and if I'm not working I will allocated housing "wherever"? As if there is an ample supply of social housing everywhere else in the country, with prospective employment opportunities and educational and social resources available.

The point is, the proposal is unworkable and has not been thought through.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> No, once you get social housing you are in it for life, no matter what income you have in the future. That's the point he is making. That, in my opinion, is fundamentally unjust.


And of course, it is also incorrect, one of the madder notions the crazy extreme right constantly drones on about, like the "Oh, they get it free don't they?" notion. "They" being social welfare recipients and "it" being social housing. See my post earlier in this thread and previous attempts to inform the uninformable.

Most new social housing available right now and for the foreseeable future will be provided by the private sector and security of tenure is a thing of the dim distant past. Unlike the tenants who have the LA as their landlord, the leases of the tenants of private landlords paid via HAP are governed by the rules set down by the RTB.


----------



## The Horseman

If not already done rents for social housing should bear some correlation to private sector rents and not based on the income of the family. Low paid workers yes should be housed, but what about those who are paying a mortgage but have to commute to work. I am referring to the normal workers and not the well paid ones.

If you don't pay your mortgage you run the risk of losing your home. Why should it be any different with Social Housing. If you can't pay the rent which is correlated in some way to local private rents then you need to move to somewhere that you can afford. Why should Social Housing tenants have a house for life without risk of losing same (even if their circumstances change) and the private home owner does not have that comfort until they finish paying a mortgage.


----------



## mathepac

I think as the original proposition is an ill-thought out attempt at social engineering, we need revisit the basics.

The whole idea is as usual Dublin-centric so let's start there as Stage 1 is missing completely.

Stage 1:- If you live in Dublin but don't work there, sell your home, or apply for social housing where you do work, and move there.

This will reduce travel-time and travel costs, reduce your mortgage or give you a nicer house for the same outlay, give you more social and family time, minimise your demands on the road/rail networks, reduce your carbon footprint and stop you cluttering up the metropolis for the important people who DO work there and MUST live there.


----------



## mathepac

The Horseman said:


> If not already done rents for social housing should bear some correlation to private sector rents and not based on the income of the family.


Where do you get this stuff from? All new social housing now and for the foreseeable future is and will be provided by the private sector; the rents are the same irrespective of the renter AND the social welfare recipients' contribution is graduated from €25 / week minimum contribution to the LA depending on income, PLUS the difference between HAP and the actual private landlord's rent.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> If not already done rents for social housing should bear some correlation to private sector rents and not based on the income of the family. Low paid workers yes should be housed



Considering this point you have just made and that it was reported last month that the private rental market is at all time highs, how much rent should a low paid-worker pay?


----------



## Easeler

I am very amused at this brendan trying to drive out all the misfits out of dublin where is he thinking of sending them, rats in a barrel comes to mind.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What is wrong with that? These are the people he is purporting to prioritize for social housing. If I am working on a low-income, Brendan is advocating that I should be prioritized for social housing if needed. I spend the rest of my life in low-paid work, albeit a short period where I become unemployed through no direct fault of my own and, for that (from the submission)
> 
> _People in social housing should be reassessed every 5 years.
> 
> · If they are not working, their house should be reassigned to someone who is working and they should be allocated housing wherever it is available.
> _
> Not only that, but in the period that I was working, my family grew, my kids are at school, one in need of SNA. I'm also a volunteer at the local GAA or sports club.
> But now my 5 yr assessment is approaching, and if I'm not working I will allocated housing "wherever"? As if there is an ample supply of social housing everywhere else in the country, with prospective employment opportunities and educational and social resources available.
> 
> The point is, the proposal is unworkable and has not been thought through.


So what if you are a plumber and set up your own company and are very successful, earning €200,000 a year. Should you be told to go buy your own house and free up the council house for someone who really needs it or should you be left there because you have more kids and volunteer in the local GAA club?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So what if you are a plumber and set up your own company and are very successful, earning €200,000 a year. Should you be told to go buy your own house and free up the council house for someone who really needs it or should you be left there because you have more kids and volunteer in the local GAA club?



Under Brendans proposal, its only if you are not working that you will be re-allocated to "wherever".


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> And of course, it is also incorrect, one of the madder notions the crazy extreme right constantly drones on about, like the "Oh, they get it free don't they?" notion. "They" being social welfare recipients and "it" being social housing. See my post earlier in this thread and previous attempts to inform the uninformable.


 Please don't start setting strawman arguments and attributing them to me. 
I have family in council houses who have lived there for over 30 years. They are very well off and could easily afford to buy their own home. Do you think it is right that they should keep a house which could house a homeless family? 



mathepac said:


> Most new social housing available right now and for the foreseeable future will be provided by the private sector and security of tenure is a thing of the dim distant past. Unlike the tenants who have the LA as their landlord, the leases of the tenants of private landlords paid via HAP are governed by the rules set down by the RTB.


 I have 4 children and I rent in the private sector. Luckily by landlord is a great guy but why should someone who doesn't work and pays only nominal rent get more security than me?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Under Brendans proposal, its only if you are not working that you will be re-allocated to "wherever".


That's not what I asked you.


----------



## mathepac

@Purple I quoted what you said and the rules are if you are not in receipt of designated social welfare payments, you have no right to the house. If the LAs aren't doing their jobs, tell them about the changed circumstances and get your family's houses assigned to people who genuinely need them.

On your second point, my point is they have no more security than you because their leases are governed by the same authority, the RTB. And rents paid by social welfare recipients are NOT nominal, they are income dependent and rent dependent; read my earlier posts or read the HAP literature to see what the MINIMUM payments are (for the 20th time).


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's not what I asked you.



True, but why you are directing the question at me I don't know? Surely you should be asking Brendan, as this topic is based on his submission? It would actually be interesting to hear his view, and yours now that you brought it up, on the matter.

But for the record, for my part, no absolutely not. No-one, even if they make a great success of their life, be uprooted from their community along with their family, against their will and on account of that success.


----------



## ant dee

Purple said:


> So what if you are a plumber and set up your own company and are very successful, earning €200,000 a year. Should you be told to go buy your own house and free up the council house for someone who really needs it or should you be left there because you have more kids and volunteer in the local GAA club?


Mathepac, could you please lay out for me an estimate on how much a high earner like above would be paying in a social housing?
In my opinion, since he is capable of supporting himself, he should either free-up the social housing or pay the State the normal market price for renting a property in that area.


----------



## Purple

mathepac said:


> @Purple I quoted what you said and the rules are if you are not in receipt of designated social welfare payments, you have no right to the house. If the LAs aren't doing their jobs, tell them about the changed circumstances and get your family's houses assigned to people who genuinely need them.
> 
> On your second point, my point is they have no more security than you because their leases are governed by the same authority, the RTB. And rents paid by social welfare recipients are NOT nominal, they are income dependent and rent dependent; read my earlier posts or read the HAP literature to see what the MINIMUM payments are (for the 20th time).


You quoted my post and wrote under it;


mathepac said:


> And of course, it is also incorrect, one of the madder notions the crazy extreme right constantly drones on about, like the "Oh, they get it free don't they?" notion. "They" being social welfare recipients and "it" being social housing. See my post earlier in this thread and previous attempts to inform the uninformable.


Where did I say; _"Oh, they get it free don't they?" notion. "They" being social welfare recipients and "it" being social housing._?

In the case I know about one family member is on disability. They are the tenant. Their son and his family live in the house. He grew up in the house and never moved out. Both he and his wife have good jobs. They drive expensive cars, go on multiple holidays every year etc. They are nice people and work hard but they shouldn't get a house from the State.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> But for the record, for my part, no absolutely not. No-one, even if they make a great success of their life, be uprooted from their community along with their family, against their will and on account of that success.


Fair play to you for answering. I disagree, I don't think the State should provide houses for rich people when poor people are homeless. I also think that the welfare system should be a hand up, not a hand out.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Fair play to you for answering. I disagree, I don't think the State should provide houses for rich people when poor people are homeless. I also think that the welfare system should be a hand up, not a hand out.




What would propose should happen in this scenario? Forced eviction?

It appears that if you are down on your luck with employment and career opportunities  the State should not provide you with a basic social need – housing, unless you are working, and don't even think about not working!
 But if you go to work, and make a success of that work, perhaps even breaking a chain of poverty, perhaps creating employment, perhaps contributing back into society far more than you will ever take out of it, then you should be punished for that success too?

Either or, Im not making a submission to the people of Ireland, Brendan is, perhaps you should ask him the same question? By way of raising the matter, adds weight to my assertion that this submission has not been thought out.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What would propose should happen in this scenario? Forced eviction?


 That's a tad emotive don't you think? How about a years notice?



TheBigShort said:


> It appears that if you are down on your luck with employment and career opportunities the State should not provide you with a basic social need – housing, unless you are working, and don't even think about not working!


 I don't think anyone is advocating not providing housing for people.



TheBigShort said:


> But if you go to work, and make a success of that work, perhaps even breaking a chain of poverty, perhaps creating employment, perhaps contributing back into society far more than you will ever take out of it, then you should be punished for that success too?


 That happens already; the State takes over half of any extra you earn and then 23% of what's left when you spend it. Do remember that only the top 10% contribute far more than they will ever take out. Do you think the top 10% should get social housing?



TheBigShort said:


> Either or, Im not making a submission to the people of Ireland, Brendan is, perhaps you should ask him the same question? By way of raising the matter, adds weight to my assertion that this submission has not been thought out.


 I don't follow that bit.


----------



## Leo

The Horseman said:


> If you don't pay your mortgage you run the risk of losing your home. Why should it be any different with Social Housing. If you can't pay the rent which is correlated in some way to local private rents then you need to move to somewhere that you can afford. Why should Social Housing tenants have a house for life without risk of losing same (even if their circumstances change) and the private home owner does not have that comfort until they finish paying a mortgage.



Unfortunately they're very little appetite in the LAs to pursue rent arrears regardless of the circumstances. Last year LA rent arrears climber over €65M nationally.


----------



## Delboy

LA's make for terrible landlords from the financial side of things. Arrears are massive, way ahead of the rates that Banks have seen during the crash.
They're also landed with the maintenance costs which the rents barely cover.


----------



## Purple

Here’s a scenario which outlines the injustice of the current system;

Joe and his brother were both born in Rathmines in the modest family home their parents bought in the 1970’s.

His brother went to college and always worked hard. He spent 5 years saving for a house with his girlfriend before they settled down and getting married. They couldn’t afford to buy in Rathmines but instead had to buy in Lucan. They have two young children. He works the city centre and she works in Portobello. They get the children up at 6am every weekday morning before spending an hour and a half commuting to crèche and work.  They have the same journey in the evening. They don’t get to see their extended family or childhood friends and have little social infrastructure around them. Their children don’t really know their grandparents.


Joe never worked, living on welfare with his girlfriend, who also never worked, and their 2 kids. Joe and his girlfriend have a moderate drug habit and are fond of the drink. They have a modest but nice council house in Rathmines. His mother looks after the kids during the day when he and his girlfriend are in the pub and the bookies.



I think it would be fairer if Joe and his gang were given a public house in Lucan and his brother got the house in Rathmines. I do understand that must make me a horrible person I just don’t know why.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> That's a tad emotive don't you think? How about a years notice?


 One years notice, is forcing someone to leave. Where will they go? Will they have to buy their own house? How much will they have to spend? Or will they have to take out a large mortgage? Will they have to move business premises too? That's actually a possibility also to continue to make their business viable.



Purple said:


> I don't think anyone is advocating not providing housing for people.



True, my err, just advocating forced evictions for unemployed social welfare recipients and relocations to random locations across the country.



Purple said:


> Do you think the top 10% should get social housing?



No, not if they don't need it. Do you think the top 10% have applied for social housing?



Purple said:


> I don't follow that bit.



Why not ask Brendan how he would deal with the scenario you raised of someone in social housing but makes €200,000 a year from a successful plumbing business.


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> LA's make for terrible landlords from the financial side of things. Arrears are massive, way ahead of the rates that Banks have seen during the crash.
> They're also landed with the maintenance costs which the rents barely cover.



Yip, which is why the state has stopped building social housing and is paying private landlords instead I would imagine.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> One years notice, is forcing someone to leave. Where will they go? Will they have to buy their own house? How much will they have to spend? Or will they have to take out a large mortgage? Will they have to move business premises too? That's actually a possibility also to continue to make their business viable.


Two years then. They can rent in the private sector or buy a house. That may involve taking out a large mortgage; welcome to reality for normal people. Do you think they state should subsidise usinesses by providing housing for the owner?


TheBigShort said:


> Why not ask Brendan how he would deal with the scenario you raised of someone in social housing but makes €200,000 a year from a successful plumbing business.


'cause I don't wanna. 
You have my permission to ask him if you wanna.


----------



## The Horseman

If a Social tenant is not paying their rent (even the differential rate) they should be evicted full stop. That's what happens in the private sector, no rent payment then you are evicted.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> If a Social tenant is not paying their rent (even the differential rate) they should be evicted full stop. That's what happens in the private sector, no rent payment then you are evicted.


and if their circumstances change and they can afford to buy a house they should be removed from the house and it should be given to someone who can't afford to pay their own way.
Neither scenario happens; once they are in they stay there.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> and if their circumstances change and they can afford to buy a house they should be removed from the house and it should be given to someone who can't afford to pay their own way.
> Neither scenario happens; once they are in they stay there.



If circumstances change then they should be offered to buy the house for the market value and the money from the sale is used to purchase another property to go into the Social's pool of properties.


----------



## cremeegg

mathepac said:


> @PurpleIf the LAs aren't doing their jobs,



Many Local Authorities have in excess of 20% rent arrears and some in excess of 30%, so I think it is fair to say that they are not doing their jobs.

Of course as public bodies, no one is ever held accountable for this.

From the annual report of DCC

_"During 2016, the City Council collected just over €74.5 million in rental income. While the situation with mortgage loan repayments is more difficult, the Council achieved a 65.3% collection rate which amounted to €23.4m with total arrears of €12.5m."_

[broken link removed]


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> If circumstances change then they should be offered to buy the house for the market value and the money from the sale is used to purchase another property to go into the Social's pool of properties.



I think part ownership should be built into social housing where some of the asset would transfer to the tenant over a period of years, even if it was free to the tenant. The estates would change for the better with those living in the houses taking more pride and care of the houses resulting in lower maintenance costs and lower crime. Don't ask me for the specifics, it's just an idea and it shouldn't cost the earth.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Here’s a scenario which outlines the injustice of the current system;



But which is actually separate to Brendans proposal.
Under Brendans proposal social housing should be prioritized for _low paid working_ people.
They will assessed every 5 yrs. And if they are not working they will be relocated. In your scenario;



Purple said:


> Joe never worked, living on welfare with his girlfriend, who also never worked



thus they are not the subject of Brendans proposal. Unless of course Brendan actually intended to include those who have never worked a day in their life. But therein lies more clarifications. As it stands, Brendan prioritizes low paid working people. They will be assessed every five years and if they are not working will be evicted from their homes and re-located to "wherever". In effect, he is lumping in hard working people who are trying their best to get by, but who may have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own, with those as described in your scenario.



Purple said:


> They couldn’t afford to buy in Rathmines but instead had to buy in Lucan.



Did they ever apply for social housing, if not, why not? If yes, what was the outcome of their application?



Purple said:


> I think it would be fairer if Joe and his gang were given a public house in Lucan



Why? Why should the good people of Lucan have to deal with the drug addicts and alcoholics of Rathmines?


----------



## cremeegg

Purple said:


> public house in Lucan



I didn't know they gave out public houses as well.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Here’s a scenario which outlines the injustice of the current system;
> 
> Joe and his brother were both born in Rathmines in the modest family home their parents bought in the 1970’s.
> 
> His brother went to college and always worked hard. He spent 5 years saving for a house with his girlfriend before they settled down and getting married. They couldn’t afford to buy in Rathmines but instead had to buy in Lucan. They have two young children. He works the city centre and she works in Portobello. They get the children up at 6am every weekday morning before spending an hour and a half commuting to crèche and work.  They have the same journey in the evening. They don’t get to see their extended family or childhood friends and have little social infrastructure around them. Their children don’t really know their grandparents.
> 
> 
> Joe never worked, living on welfare with his girlfriend, who also never worked, and their 2 kids. Joe and his girlfriend have a moderate drug habit and are fond of the drink. They have a modest but nice council house in Rathmines. His mother looks after the kids during the day when he and his girlfriend are in the pub and the bookies.



Some very lazy generalisations there Purple, I'm surprised at you. The commute from Lucan isn't that bad!


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan,

Don’t you think you need to clarify what you mean by “not working”.

Do you mean people who have not worked for a specific time period?

Are you referring to individual or household unemployment?

Would the age or state of health of the unemployed person or household matter?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sophrosyne said:


> Brendan,
> 
> Don’t you think you need to clarify what you mean by “not working”.
> 
> Do you mean people who have not worked for a specific time period?
> 
> Are you referring to individual or household unemployment?
> 
> Would the age or state of health of the unemployed person or household matter?



I would add to that, are the individuals actively seeking work?
It must be remembered that in order to take up employment, a job offer must exist.
 The job offer should also be of reasonable suitability, and by that I mean that just because there is a vacancy at the local butchers doesn't mean that the unemployed hairdresser living in social housing must apply for the job or face losing their home.


----------



## mathepac

ant dee said:


> In my opinion, since he is capable of supporting himself, he should either free-up the social housing or pay the State the normal market price for renting a property in that area.


I have no issue whatsoever with this. I agree wholeheartedly with you and others making the same case. Make them pay the going rate, issue notice to quit, offer them the address of a mortgage broker. Refer to your LA housing officer or the council, you won't hear a peek (or a tweet) out of me. There is no defence for the indefensible.


----------



## mathepac

Purple said:


> They are nice people and work hard but they shouldn't get a house from the State.


Multipurpose response on my part read it again. I have no issue with your statement that I quote above.  I agree, no ifs ands or buts. Talk to the LA housing officer or your Councillor as I don't know these people and can't voice my dissatisfaction with the circumstances you so eloquently describe, as Miss Cotter would say to me in elocution classes in Ely Place all those years ago.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I can see why people would suggest this. But would it move families to places where its impossible to get work.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> I can see why people would suggest this.



I can't, can anyone explain why we want a society that evicted people and their families from their homes simply because they were out of work?


----------



## Sarenco

BS

I can't understand how we ended up with a society where some people expect to be housed for free, in an area of their choosing.  Can you explain why that is desirable?  I can't.


----------



## mathepac

Noone gets housed "for free" these days, please educate yourself about the cost to the tenant of social housing. If in an area of their own choosing means close to family there can be significant saving to the state by having family members operate as the primary carers rather than have LA/HSE deploy social workers, district nurses, etc.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> I can't, can anyone explain why we want a society that evicted people and their families from their homes simply because they were out of work?



Its not simply out of work, it long term out of work, and I assume those that refuse to work.  So its an incentive to work. Maybe. Not that I think it would work, its more like to cause more problems and cost more than its saves or solves.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> I can't understand how we ended up with a society where some people expect to be housed for free, in an area of their choosing. Can you explain why that is desirable? I can't.



Who are these people that you speak of? How many are there? And what has it got to do with the vast majority of people in social housing that go to work everyday, but if Brendan got his way, would be evicted from home if they ever became unemployed?


----------



## Delboy

Well, the Irish Times didn't like your your suggestion one bit, Brendan. Really surprised by that 
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...-kenny-s-nation-a-chilling-scenario-1.3220902


> So a radical suggestion from financial pontificator [broken link removed] – roughly, that “working families” be prioritised for social housing in Dublin, and reviewed regularly, while the unemployed are banished to the sticks – is something “some people will not like”.
> Actually, everybody hates it. Burgess has been retained as our Thatcherite piñata, with so little self-awareness his retort to the challenge of living on social welfare is to say “I’d go out and get a job.” Presumably as a pantomime villain.


If your not careful, the only station that will have you on will be Newstalk!


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> Its not simply out of work, it long term out of work, and I assume those that refuse to work.



Well, according to the proposal low paid workers would be prioritized for social housing. But then be assessed every 5 years. If they are not working then, they are out. If they have started a family, then Brendan thinks they are irresponsible.



AlbacoreA said:


> So its an incentive to work. Maybe. Not that I think it would work, its more like to cause more problems and cost more than its saves or solves.



My brother is long-term unemployed, 2yrs, fork lift driver, 59yrs, had a bad injury to his leg. He has put on weight and not very mobile. Finding it hard to compete against younger guys for jobs.
Fortunately, he already owns his own home. But if he were living in a social house (as a low paid worker), under Brendans scheme, he and his family would be evicted to "wherever".
I think you are right, it won't work.


----------



## Sarenco

mathepac said:


> Noone gets housed "for free" these days, please educate yourself about the cost to the tenant of social housing.



Check out the level of rent arrears in the various local authority areas and the (practically non-existent) level of evictions.  

In practice, there are plenty of people that are currently being housed for free.


----------



## Delboy

Sarenco said:


> Check out the level of rent arrears in the various local authority areas and the (practically non-existent) level of evictions.  In practice, there are plenty of people that are currently being housed for free.


And also the peppercorn rents that some pay. This is then used as an argument against those who say houses are free for some


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Check out the level of rent arrears in the various local authority areas and the (practically non-existent) level of evictions.



After you have evicted someone where will they go, on the street?
Also the fact that you have acknowledged  'arrears' proves there are payments to be made.
Funny that I don't think the same mentality applies to private housing where mortgages are in arrears? I mean, what a cheek, why should they get their houses for free?


----------



## Sarenco

TheBigShort said:


> After you have evicted someone where will they go, on the street?



BS

Do you think a local authority tenant should be evicted if they fail to make their rent payments?  If not, why not?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> BS
> 
> Do you think a local authority tenant should be evicted if they fail to make their rent payments?  If not, why not?



No I don't think they should be evicted. If they fail because of lack of income, what good is it to evict? 
Do you think that they should be evicted? If so, where will they go?


----------



## Sarenco

BS

Why would any local authority tenant bother paying their rent if there is no penalty for not doing so?

Where would they go following their eviction for non-payment of rent?  Wherever there is available public housing.


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> Where would they go following their eviction for non-payment of rent? Wherever there is available public housing.



So you would evict them from public housing for non-payment of rent, only to house them in public housing?
Can't you see the waste of resources here?



Sarenco said:


> Why would any local authority tenant bother paying their rent if there is no penalty for not doing so?



Because like most people, they have a have a sense of duty to pay what they owe.


----------



## AlbacoreA

I can't see how any of it would work really...

Saw this and thought of this thread. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4884490/Ex-council-house-Cornish-coast-sells-1-4m.html

I wonder do people think there is some sort of gold mine of housing somewhere.


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> I can't see how any of it would work really...
> 
> Saw this and thought of this thread.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4884490/Ex-council-house-Cornish-coast-sells-1-4m.html
> 
> I wonder do people think there is some sort of gold mine of housing somewhere.



Good one. I can't really see the £1.4m value in it myself but there is a lot property funds with cheap QE money trying to find places to put it. I'm not saying that is the case here, but the price seems nuts.

But it's a good point you made, you could house someone in some disadvantaged backwater, then 10yrs later, a big US multinational lands by and the value quadrupled. Before you know Brendan and the gang are demanding your eviction again!


----------



## Sarenco

BS

If a tenant fails to make rent payments in an area with good employment opportunities, wouldn't it make sense to allow somebody else to avail of those employment opportunities?

That would be good for our economy - the active participants in which ultimately pay for public housing.

The level of rent arrears in each of Dublin's local authority areas would suggest that a "sense of duty" is insufficient to motivate a very significant number of tenants to pay their rent.

Incidentally, do have any sympathy for people that are currently in a "disadvantaged backwater" (your phrase)?


----------



## TheBigShort

Sarenco said:


> If a tenant fails to make rent payments in an area with good employment opportunities, wouldn't it make sense to allow somebody else to avail of those employment opportunities?



You are changing the terms of Brendans proposal. He doesn't differentiate between those who are out of work but continue to pay rent, and those out of work who don't pay rent.

If there is a job going in the car wash, in ballyjamesduff, evict a unemployed person in social housing for the person who will work the car wash and give them the social housing?




Sarenco said:


> That would be good for our economy - the active participants in which ultimately pay for public housing.



It would terrible for our economy, aside from the costs of implementing the scheme, the costs associated with the inevitable appeals, protests and legal fees, would be a drain on the resources of the economy.
On top of that Ireland's reputation as a democratic republic would be severely tarnished. Ireland would undoubtedly see itself before the European court of Human Rights and ECJ - is there any comparable scheme implemented by any other European country, ever?



Sarenco said:


> Incidentally, do have any sympathy for people that are currently in a "disadvantaged backwater" (your phrase)?



I have every sympathy for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.
The notion that we should build social housing in their communities to accommodate unemployed people would only reinforce that disadvantage, fostering a permanent cycle of poverty.


----------



## AlbacoreA

It's unworkable. Unless you move to a economic and social model like the States.

 If you offered an incentive to move world that work?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Sophrosyne said:


> Brendan,
> 
> Don’t you think you need to clarify what you mean by “not working”.
> 
> Do you mean people who have not worked for a specific time period?
> 
> Are you referring to individual or household unemployment?
> 
> Would the age or state of health of the unemployed person or household matter?



Hi Sop

My view is as follows: 

Social housing should not be given for life - it should be reviewed every 5 years.   If someone would no longer be on the priority list at that stage, then they should no longer get housing. 

People who work should be given priority over those who don't work. 

I am open to discussion on these issues.  You might think it should be every 3 years, someone else every 8 years.  

If someone has not worked for years and they are living in an area where there are plenty of jobs, then they should be moved and the house should be allocated to someone who is working in those jobs. This is better than having someone on social welfare living in Dublin while someone else lives in Longford and commutes every day. 

I don't propose that someone who has a review of their housing on 30 June, who loses their job on 29th June should be relocated. 

But if someone gets a job on 29th June and is allocated housing on 30th June, and quits on 1 July and doesn't work again until a few days before the next 5 year review, they should not be allocated housing in their area of choice. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> It's unworkable. Unless you move to a economic and social model like the States.
> 
> If you offered an incentive to move world that work?



Such as?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Guys

I wouldn't get hung up over whether it's free or not, or whether they pay their rent or not. 

The reality is that social housing is very cheap for those who have it, whether they are working or not.  

By the way, as part of the criteria for allocating housing, I would include the payment record and any record of anti-social behaviour.

I was speaking to someone yesterday, who lives in an apartment block. The apartment next door was rented out on HAP. They just threw their rubbish out the window onto the ground below.  This would rule them out of any social housing in my book. It would not solve the problem of the rubbish being thrown out of a rented property, but it would tell people that to get priority on social housing they had to behave reasonably. 

We have an entitlement culture. Some people feel entitled to social housing wherever they want to live and high levels of social welfare payment and feel no need to offer anything in return, even just normal neighbourliness. 

Brendan


----------



## The Horseman

Brendan Burgess said:


> Guys
> 
> I wouldn't get hung up over whether it's free or not, or whether they pay their rent or not.
> 
> The reality is that social housing is very cheap for those who have it, whether they are working or not.
> 
> By the way, as part of the criteria for allocating housing, I would include the payment record and any record of anti-social behaviour.
> 
> I was speaking to someone yesterday, who lives in an apartment block. The apartment next door was rented out on HAP. They just threw their rubbish out the window onto the ground below.  This would rule them out of any social housing in my book. It would not solve the problem of the rubbish being thrown out of a rented property, but it would tell people that to get priority on social housing they had to behave reasonably.
> 
> We have an entitlement culture. Some people feel entitled to social housing wherever they want to live and high levels of social welfare payment and feel no need to offer anything in return, even just normal neighbourliness.
> 
> Brendan



Completely agree Brendan. We do indeed have an entitlement culture. Case in point my niece and her partner are both working full time and can't afford to buy in their local area where as a property was recently rented for €1650 per month via the HAP. The tenant is a single mother mid twenties with two children. When asked about the rent she stated I am entitled to €1800 on the HAP.

Where exactly is the justice in this!


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I have every sympathy for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.
> The notion that we should build social housing in their communities to accommodate unemployed people would only reinforce that disadvantage, fostering a permanent cycle of poverty.


So we should build social housing for low paid working people in those areas then, yes?
That's what Brendan is proposing.
There are many socially deprived areas which are much closer to jobs than the Dublin commuter belt.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Social housing should not be given for life - it should be reviewed every 5 years



Fair enough, we will work with that and see how we go.



Brendan Burgess said:


> If someone would no longer be on the priority list at that stage, then they should no longer get housing.



This doesn't really make sense. Firstly, because they have been assigned a house they of course are no longer on the priority list.
But if you mean that they have advanced in their careers to a point that they ordinarily wouldn't be classed as in priority need of house, therefore evicted, then this would be cause for chaos.
The incentive would be, not to take the promotion at work, not to advance the career for fear of being evicted. In the event that someone who does advance their career and is subsequently evicted, then they need to find a home (perhaps their family too?). In doing so, they may quit their job for a vacancy in their new locality. If an economy is growing, employers may find it hard to find the right people to employ in the first instance, without having to consider a state run project of eviction!



Brendan Burgess said:


> People who work should be given priority over those who don't work.



Fine, but if someone who works, subsequently loses their job, what is the criteria for qualifying for eviction? For instance, if I'm unemployed but can show that I am actively seeking work, will that count for anything?
How about evicting employers from their homes if they don't employ me? 



Brendan Burgess said:


> If someone has not worked for years and they are living in an area where there are plenty of jobs, then they should be moved and the house should be allocated to someone who is working in those jobs.



Moved where?



Brendan Burgess said:


> This is better than having someone on social welfare living in Dublin while someone else lives in Longford and commutes every day.



So move them to Longford? But there is a large theme park development creating hundreds of jobs there. But you want people who don't work to move there? 



Brendan Burgess said:


> But if someone gets a job on 29th June and is allocated housing on 30th June, and quits on 1 July and doesn't work again until a few days before the next 5 year review, they should not be allocated housing in their area of choice.



Will there be any consideration as to _why _a person is long-term unemployed? Mental illness, physical disability for instance? Or poor educational background? Abusive childhood? 
What if the person is a qualified carpenter, but there is a downturn in the construction industry, and jobs are hard to get? Should the carpenter be expected to fill the vacancy at the local hairdressers? Just to avoid an eviction?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> This doesn't really make sense. Firstly, because they have been assigned a house they of course are no longer on the priority list.
> But if you mean that they have advanced in their careers to a point that they ordinarily wouldn't be classed as in priority need of house, therefore evicted, then this would be cause for chaos.
> The incentive would be, not to take the promotion at work, not to advance the career for fear of being evicted. In the event that someone who does advance their career and is subsequently evicted, then they need to find a home (perhaps their family too?). In doing so, they may quit their job for a vacancy in their new locality. If an economy is growing, employers may find it hard to find the right people to employ in the first instance, without having to consider a state run project of eviction!


The logical conclusion to that is that our social welfare system is a poverty trap.
Do you think that's a good thing?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The logical conclusion to that is that our social welfare system is a poverty trap.
> Do you think that's a good thing?



The point I made was in the context of Brendans proposal being implemented. I agree, a poverty trap it certainly would be.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> So we should build social housing for low paid working people in those areas then, yes?



I agree, we should.



Purple said:


> That's what Brendan is proposing.



He is not, he has not suggested building social housing. He has suggested prioritizing social housing for low paid workers through a process of assessment that will be implemented by eviction where appropriate.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> The point I made was in the context of Brendans proposal being implemented. I agree, a poverty trap it certainly would be.


No, my point is that our whole welfare system is a poverty trap.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> He is not, he has not suggested building social housing. He has suggested prioritizing social housing for low paid workers through a process of assessment that will be implemented by eviction where appropriate.


Would you be in favour of prioritising low paid working people over people who aren't working when selecting them for housing in a particular location?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> No, my point is that our whole welfare system is a poverty trap.



You may think so, fair enough, that is your view. But this is about Brendans proposal. Would Brendans proposal enforce that poverty trap or alleviate any element of it?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Would you be in favour of prioritising low paid working people over people who aren't working when selecting them for housing in a particular location?



No, the practicalities of such a scheme would be unworkable, chaotic and ultimately resource draining. If there is a demand for social housing (as a consequence of excessive prices in the private market), I would be in favour of building social housing.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> You may think so, fair enough, that is your view. But this is about Brendans proposal. Would Brendans proposal enforce that poverty trap or alleviate any element of it?


Maybe we should start another thread on this subject.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Maybe we should start another thread on this subject.



To save that, perhaps you could just answer the question I asked you about Brendans proposal?


----------



## AlbacoreA

I think a poverty trap is a very likely outcome of this proposal. Its far more likely than with the current system as a whole. The latter though is a different topic.


----------



## AlbacoreA

TheBigShort said:


> Such as?



I don't really now. How can you incentivize people to move to an unattractive location for many reasons.


----------



## Purple

Purple said:


> Maybe we should start another thread on this subject.


Fair enough. I think it would alleviate it by encouraging people to work.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Fair enough. I think it would alleviate it by encouraging people to work.



That's interesting , because only short while ago after I made a comment referring to one the terms of Brendans proposals you said this;



Purple said:


> The logical conclusion to that is that our social welfare system is a poverty trap.



Perhaps, just a random off-topic blurt?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> That's interesting , because only short while ago after I made a comment referring to one the terms of Brendans proposals you said this;
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps, just a random off-topic blurt?


Yes, so Brendan's proposal is a small step in the right direction in the overall context of the existing welfare system.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Yes, so Brendan's proposal is a small step in the right direction in the overall context of the existing welfare system.



How so? How would it operate? How much would it cost to operate? Would people be allowed to appeal decisions to evict them? What would human rights organisations have to say about such a system? Is there a comparable system anywhere else in Europe, now or ever?
If workers have to work to stave off the threat of eviction will employers be compelled to employ them? Will any consideration be given to the suitability of employment? Or can hairdressers expect unemployed plumbers and bricklayers to be sending in their CV's looking for work? Will any consideration be given to the reasons as to _why _someone is long-term unemployed? Illness or disability for instance?
Not only all that but if I understand Brendans proposal, then someone who has have advanced in their careers to a point that they ordinarily wouldn't be classed as in priority need of house, will also face the threat of eviction. So its not even limited to people who are not working, but it is also extended to working people who actually advance in their careers!!
The incentive would be, not to take the promotion at work, not to advance the career for fear of being evicted. In the event that someone who does advance their career and is subsequently evicted, then they need to find a home (perhaps their family too?). In doing so, they may quit their job for a vacancy in their new locality. If an economy is growing, employers may find it hard to find the right people to employ in the first instance, without having to consider a state run project of eviction also!


----------



## Purple

TBS, do you think it is satisfactory that a single person on a high income can be living in a 3 or 4 bedroom family home provided by the State while there are homeless families in hotels? 
Do you think it is fair or equitable that the taxes of low paid earners go towards providing that house? 
Do you think it is fair that the low paid worker can't afford to live in that area where he or she works and so has to commute for an hour or more each way each day?

Brendan's proposal also addresses that unfairness. 
I don't think we should tolerate that sort of injustice because fixing it, or just improving it a bit, is bothersome for the State and it's offices.


----------



## AlbacoreA

This is just another avoiding building more housing stock. 

Secondly if we are looking at it in purely monetary terms, value for tax payer money. if it costs more to run than it saves then whats the point...


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> TBS, do you think it is satisfactory that a single person on a high income can be living in a 3 or 4 bedroom family home provided by the State while there are homeless families in hotels?



No it is not satisfactory. I propose that if someone who is afforded social housing and subsequently advances in their career to earn a high income that, upon assessment, the householder can start to begin to pay a reasonable contribution to the cost of providing that house.

I also propose that if the economy of a country sees a demand for social housing, as is the case in Ireland today, that we should get on and start building those houses instead of this half-baked idea of evicting people



Purple said:


> Do you think it is fair or equitable that the taxes of low paid earners go towards providing that house?



No more or less fairer than the taxes of the high income occupant that contributes towards the provision of that house.
But are you confirming that Brendans proposal is also to evict working people who have made a decent life for themselves? This would a be a step further than his initial proposal which was only to evict non-working people?



Purple said:


> Do you think it is fair that the low paid worker can't afford to live in that area where he or she works and so has to commute for an hour or more each way each day?



No I don’t think its fair, but I don’t see anything in Brendans proposal that actually fixes the issue. In fact all it does is exacerbate the housing crisis.



Purple said:


> Brendan's proposal also addresses that unfairness.



No it does not, see my questions in post #125


----------



## TheBigShort

AlbacoreA said:


> This is just another avoiding building more housing stock.
> 
> Secondly if we are looking at it in purely monetary terms, value for tax payer money. if it costs more to run than it saves then whats the point...



Exactly. I thought the whole point of Brendans proposal was to reduce State expenditure. Instead all he has done is create more schemes, more administration without one reference to how much all of this would cost or what the savings would be (if any).


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> Would people be allowed to appeal decisions to evict them? What would human rights organisations have to say about such a system?



Is it a human right to never be evicted from housing? Even if alternative housing is offered? What about those paying their own way? Do they have the human right to never be evicted?


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Is it a human right to never be evicted from housing? Even if alternative housing is offered? What about those paying their own way? Do they have the human right to never be evicted?



No, I wouldn't imagine it is a human right never  to be evicted. But I would consider a government policy that evicts people purely on their working status, as presented here, to be a form of persecution.
I would consider that a life free from State persecution a human right.
As for those 'paying their own way', they have entered into a private agreement between themselves and the bank. The terms of that agreement are known. Should a person be evicted under the terms of the private agreement, the State will/should assist in providing shelter. It shouldn't make that shelter conditional on somebody's employment status.


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> It shouldn't make that shelter conditional on somebody's employment status.



Why?


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Why?



Why shouldnt it? The State is committed to providing secure private shelter for all those that can't afford to buy a home of their own. The concept of imposing a condition such as your working status to prioritize shelter is discriminatory in nature.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Why shouldnt it? The State is committed to providing secure private shelter for all those that can't afford to buy a home of their own. The concept of imposing a condition such as your working status to prioritize shelter is discriminatory in nature.



The responsibility of the State maybe to provide you with secure accommodation be it private or social, it is not however the States responsibility to provide this accommodation where you want the accommodation to be. If you need to rely on State support and you are not making any effort to better yourself to eventually no longer need State housing support then you can't choose. I accept the old and sick should be excluded from this situation but not those who make no effort to improve their lot.

The State and by extension the Social system is there as a safeguard not a way of life.


----------



## TheBigShort

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Here is a link to UN Declaration of Human Rights to which Ireland is a signatory. Obviously it's not legally binding and the articles can can be interpreted in different ways, but I would hazard a guess that Brendans proposal may come into conflict with a few, at least, of the articles.


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> Why shouldnt it? The State is committed to providing secure private shelter for all those that can't afford to buy a home of their own. The concept of imposing a condition such as your working status to prioritize shelter is discriminatory in nature.



Brendan said the following: "If people are not working, they should be allocated housing wherever in the country it is available and cheap." 

They will still have accommodation. There is no mention of people not having 'secure private shelter'. 

Discrimination happens all the time. Those with kids are prioritised (positive discrimination) for housing. Why can't those with jobs be on the receiving end of positive discrimination?


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> it is not however the States responsibility to provide this accommodation where you want the accommodation to be.



No it's not, but the proposal isn't about that. It about evicting unemployed people from their homes on the basis that they are unemployed.



The Horseman said:


> If you need to rely on State support and you are not making any effort to better yourself to eventually no longer need State housing support then you can't choose.



We are not talking about people who are not making any effort to better themselves. We are talking about people living in social welfare houses, who lose their job, will be facing eviction under Brendans proposal.



The Horseman said:


> I accept the old and sick should be excluded from this situation but not those who make no effort to improve their lot.



Well at least you have added some exclusions, unlike Brendan. I would add to that people who have a track record of employment. People who have qualifications but are operating in a tight labour market. People attending college. People actively seeking work etc.


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Brendan said the following: "If people are not working, they should be allocated housing wherever in the country it is available and cheap."



And you said



The Horseman said:


> I accept the old and sick should be excluded from this situation



And I said;



TheBigShort said:


> I would add to that people who have a track record of employment. People who have qualifications but are operating in a tight labour market. People attending college. People actively seeking work, etc.



And if you put all those people together, the pool of people living in social housing that could actually be subject to this scheme is so small as to render it meaningless.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> Well at least you have added some exclusions, unlike Brendan. I would add to that people who have a track record of employment. People who have qualifications but are operating in a tight labour market. People attending college. People actively seeking work etc.



These exclusions are for the genuinely sick and that the old are relocated into more appropriate accommodation (eg a one bed property when children have left the family house and not retaining a three bed house when only one person a couple remain in the property).


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Discrimination happens all the time. Those with kids are prioritised (positive discrimination) for housing. Why can't those with jobs be on the receiving end of positive discrimination?



I'm all for building social housing and prioritizing people on low and middle incomes. I'm simply opposed to the concept that if any of them subsequently lose their jobs that they will then be subject to possible eviction.


----------



## TheBigShort

The Horseman said:


> These exclusions are for the genuinely sick and that the old are relocated into more appropriate accommodation (eg a one bed property when children have left the family house and not retaining a three bed house when only one person a couple remain in the property).



I would accept that there is good reason to re-accommodate elderly people in smaller and more suitable accommodation, but not against their will.
But to relocate them 'anywhere' in the country is absurd. They should be left in their communities if they want.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I'm all for building social housing and prioritizing people on low and middle incomes. I'm simply opposed to the concept that if any of them subsequently lose their jobs that they will then be subject to possible eviction.


Fair point. I agree. It needs to be more detailed than just having a job or not having a job at a given moment.


----------



## The Horseman

To be fair to all sections of society the rent for Social housing should be tied into the rental costs of the area in question and not just the income of the household. The tenant should make a contribution reflecting the local rental costs. if you tie the rent to the local area then the change in the family make up will encourage downsizing when appropriate. I don't accept that Social Housing tenants should be insulated from the changing rental levels that private renters must face.

Nor do I accept that Social Housing tenants should have accommodation for life in their desired location. Mortgage holders if they can't afford the mortgage will need to downsize/relocate to areas they can afford, why should Social Housing tenants be any different?

I will again reiterate that the sick and the old should be excluded from the above situation and dealt with more sympathy.

With the above in place those who refuse to work will be forced to relocate to those areas they can afford. This should result in people taking some form of personal responsibility and therefore being rewarded in some way for same.


----------



## Sophrosyne

Are there any up-to-date statistics on unemployed households?


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> Nor do I accept that Social Housing tenants should have accommodation for life in their desired location.



A relation of mine qualified for a newly built social house in Cork in an ok location (not the best but far from the worst) as she was a single mother. The kids are now grown up and to be fair are doing well for themselves. Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest. She could easily live in a 1 bed apartment and free up her house for a homeless family.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> A relation of mine qualified for a newly built social house in Cork in an ok location (not the best but far from the worst) as she was a single mother. The kids are now grown up and to be fair are doing well for themselves. Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest. She could easily live in a 1 bed apartment and free up her house for a homeless family.


What's most surprising is the utter lack of a social conscience by tenants of public housing who occupy homes they don't need or take/keep a home when they have the means to provide one for themselves. I hope none of them ever complain about corrupt politicians, high salaries, protest about water charges etc. 
Some people just have no integrity.


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> What's most surprising is the utter lack of a social conscience by tenants of public housing who occupy homes they don't need or take/keep a home when they have the means to provide one for themselves. I hope none of them ever complain about corrupt politicians, high salaries, protest about water charges etc.
> Some people just have no integrity.



Yip. Sad to say the person would fall firmly into this group of people.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> A relation of mine qualified for a newly built social house in Cork in an ok location (not the best but far from the worst) as she was a single mother. The kids are now grown up and to be fair are doing well for themselves. Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest. She could easily live in a 1 bed apartment and free up her house for a homeless family.



While I understand the sentiment, the practicalities of this are simply not realistic in the absence of a sustained social housing program.
For instance, considering this woman raised children as a single mother, presumably in the same locality? Is there a 1 bed apartment in the locality available? What condition is it in? Assuming 20yrs + raising kids, is it unreasonable to expect that she may not want to leave her community? Plenty of us do leave our communities at some point in our lives, typically when we are younger and setting up home for the first time. Is it unreasonable to expect that when we raise a family we become part of the community?   What disruption would this cause in her current employment if she had to move?
Does she have to buy the 1 bed apt? Or is it social housing too? Is there any consideration that where she lives is her home - as distinct from being simply a house. Why can't private occupiers of houses (where kids have flown the nest) not be compelled to sell up and downsize?
I do think there is scope to assess a person's disposable income and apply a reasonable rate for the accommodation. But expecting people to leave their homes on account of additional space becoming free is not realistic. Compelling them to leave is cause for conflict.


----------



## ant dee

But she doesn't need the help from the State anymore, no dependant kids and she is working. 
So, a better solution would be to have her pay the market rent if she wants to keep living there.
If she can't afford it, well... she will have to move away, probably a smaller apartment nearby. Or further away if there is nothing nearby, why not?
A lot of people can't afford to live by themselves in a 3-bed house, we are not giving them a social house each!


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> But she doesn't need the help from the State anymore, no dependant kids and she is working.



How did you figure that? It hasn't been stated what her income is. If she is a low paid worker, Brendans proposal is to prioritize her for social housing. And again, new conditions of Brendans proposal appear to be adopted - that is, working people are also targeted for eviction. The initial proposal was only to target those that were not working.



ant dee said:


> So, a better solution would be to have her pay the market rent if she wants to keep living there.



I agree that there is scope to assess disposable income and apply a reasonable rate. I would be opposed to applying the 'market' rate to social housing as that would effectively defeat the purpose of providing social housing in the first place.



ant dee said:


> If she can't afford it, well... she will have to move away, probably a smaller apartment nearby. Or further away if there is nothing nearby, why not?



Again, what would be the point in providing social housing if the occupants couldn't afford to pay the rent? If you can't afford the rent, then you are the person in need of social housing. See the title of this topic.




ant dee said:


> A lot of people can't afford to live by themselves in a 3-bed house, we are not giving them a social house each!



That is true, but just because everyone is not getting social housing doesn't mean that no-one should get social housing.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> If she is a low paid worker, Brendans proposal is to prioritize her for social housing. And again, new conditions of Brendans proposal appear to be adopted - that is, working people are also targeted for eviction. The initial proposal was only to target those that were not working.



Everyone in social housing should be assessed every 5 years. 

If she were assessed tomorrow, she should be treated the same as a single woman of the same age without any dependents. 

As she is working, she would get priority over someone who is not working. 

As she is single, she would not be getting a three bedroom house. 

If there is a suitable one bed apartment available she could move there. 

If not, she should identify two other people who qualify for social housing who will share the house with her, and she could be left there. 

But it is not fair to people on the housing list that she occupies a three bed house on her own.

Brendan


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> But expecting people to leave their homes on account of additional space becoming free is not realistic.



Why is it not realistic? It's realistic that someone who pays for their own housing may have to move when they can't afford the area they are in. Why not social housing? Why can they not be re-assessed? 


TheBigShort said:


> Compelling them to leave is cause for conflict.



Again, why is this a problem? Why would those in social housing have cause for conflict if they have to leave whereas supporting themselves don't have the same option?


----------



## ant dee

TheBigShort said:


> How did you figure that? It hasn't been stated what her income is.


Well, we don't have to focus on an individual case. From the description 'Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest.' lets assume she would no longer qualify for social housing if she were to apply now, for argument sake.

And I see Brendan explained some points better, just above.


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> As she is single, she would not be getting a three bedroom house.



I agree, that an initial assessment would deduce this. But is there no consideration that she may have lived in the house for 20yrs plus? Is there any consideration of her preferences to continue living in her community? 



Brendan Burgess said:


> If there is a suitable one bed apartment available she could move there.



What about other single low paid workers in need of housing?



Brendan Burgess said:


> If not, she should identify two other people who qualify for social housing who will share the house with her, and she could be left there.



I'm sorry but this is simply preposterous. Imagine a working person, who has raised kids on her own, probably for 20yrs plus being told you have to move or share your house as digs with other people. Do you have any sense of the dignity of the individual? Let alone the occupant having now to share with non-family, why should those on the waiting list expect to have to share with other non-family?
As a temporary solution perhaps, while housing is being built to meet demand, but as a permanent arrangement it is not practical or desirable.



Brendan Burgess said:


> But it is not fair to people on the housing list that she occupies a three bed house on her own.



Unless they are not working of course, isn't that right? A family of four with no employment income should expect to be treated less favourably than a single working person in a three bed house?

The problem with social housing is that not enough housing has been built. The reason more and more people are waiting for housing is that their incomes, whether in employment or not, is insufficient to  for them to purchase their own home. More and more are being forced to rent, which in itself is at record highs. As rents go up, far in excess of incomes, more and more will apply for social housing.
The housing crisis has nothing, or very little, to do with this or that person occupying this or that house. It has to do with a failed public policy that out-sourced a nations housing needs to the private market, which in turn operates, understandably, on it's want to make profit and not for any social need.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> But is there no consideration that she may have lived in the house for 20yrs plus?
> 
> Is there any consideration of her preferences to continue living in her community?
> 
> What about other single low paid workers in need of housing?



None. Those who are beholden to society to support them have no rights in terms of where they live.

None. She cannot afford to have preferences.

As an alternative, she should be compelled to take other single low paid / homeless people into the State's house.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> None. Those who are beholden to society to support them have no rights in terms of where they live.



She is no more beholden to society than you are. 



Gordon Gekko said:


> None. She cannot afford to have preferences.



Says who? What sort of simplistic view is this? 



Gordon Gekko said:


> As an alternative, she should be compelled to take other single low paid / homeless people into the State's house.



I think you should be compelled to do the same. Fair is fair.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> She is no more beholden to society than you are.
> 
> 
> 
> Says who? What sort of simplistic view is this?
> 
> 
> 
> I think you should be compelled to do the same. Fair is fair.



There is a slight difference...I am a net financial contributor to society. I have earned the right to live where I want and live with who I want.

You seem to think it's callous for society to look after people and house them, but just not with spare bedrooms and exactly where they want to live.

I want to live on Vico Road or Sorrento Terrace but I can't afford to; should society facilitate that?


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> As she is single, she would not be getting a three bedroom house.
> 
> If there is a suitable one bed apartment available she could move there.



This would appear to confirm that it is not only unemployed people that would face eviction but also working people.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> This would appear to confirm that it is not only unemployed people that would face eviction but also working people.



You seem to be missing the point; someone in State-funded accommodation should work within the constraints of what's available. Someone who's funding their own accommodation should face no such restrictions.

It's quite simple really.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> There is a slight difference...I am a net financial contributor to society. I have earned the right to live where I want and live with who I want.



No you are not. You are a consumer and a polluter like the rest of us.
We all have the right to live, we all earned the right to live.
We all have the right to live with who we want to. Implied in that is also the right not to live with who we don't want to. 
Of course, reality dictates that that is not always the case, but it is the State obligation to adopt and implement policies of what we want and need, and not of what we don't want and don't need.
We don't need a policy that forces people to live with another based purely on their socio-economic status. It is undignified and would be subject to mass resistance, depleting resources, legal challenges, international condemnation.



Gordon Gekko said:


> You seem to think it's callous for society to look after people and house them, but just not with spare bedrooms and exactly where they want to live.



You are missing the point. There are some 80,000 on housing lists. They are not there because of widespread occupation of unemployed single people in three bed houses. The practicalities of implementing such a scheme to evict people, firstly on their employment status, then on their personal status would be a huge resource burner.
The scheme has also been exposed that it is not only targeting unemployed people, but also working people. 



Gordon Gekko said:


> I want to live on Vico Road or Sorrento Terrace but I can't afford to; should society facilitate that?



No, why should it? Are you suggesting that there are under occupied social housing units there?

I thought you said that you already lived where you wanted to?



Gordon Gekko said:


> I have earned the right to live where I want and live with who I want.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> You seem to be missing the point; someone in State-funded accommodation should work within the constraints of what's available. Someone who's funding their own accommodation should face no such restrictions.
> 
> It's quite simple really.



That is a simple view indeed. Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing? 
If there is a housing crisis, what has owning your own home (I'm being generous here, most houses are still the property of the banks) or not owning your own home got to do with anything?
If there are spare bedrooms in a house (regardless of who owns it) why shouldn't they be offered out to people and families who need shelter?


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?


If they are funding their own accommodation they are probably paying taxes and therefore contributing to housing those using social housing. 

Should they pay taxes and also house people in their own homes?


----------



## PGF2016

TheBigShort said:


> We don't need a policy that forces people to live with another based purely on their socio-economic status. It is undignified and would be subject to mass resistance, depleting resources, legal challenges, international condemnation.



Plenty of people who work and pay for their own accommodation live with others. Don't hear much international condemnation. Why should those in social housing be afforded an extra luxury?


----------



## ant dee

The State should cut down on spending and after that cut down on taxes.
The State should also cut down on tenancy regulations and more landlords will enter the market.
Individuals should take care of themselves more and rely on the State less.
Build more social houses sounds nice but who is going to pay for all that debt? 

Not that any politician would do such things, how are you going to get the people's votes if you don't 'bribe' them with freebies...


----------



## TheBigShort

PGF2016 said:


> Plenty of people who work and pay for their own accommodation live with others. Don't hear much international condemnation.



Is it public policy to have increasing numbers of adults and families co-habitating with each other?


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> The State should cut down on spending and after that cut down on taxes.



That is a broad spectrum statement. Unless you are specific about where the cuts are to be made its hard to agree/disagree with this view.



ant dee said:


> The State should also cut down on tenancy regulations and more landlords will enter the market.



That is fine if you believe this but again specifics would be needed to agree/disagree.



ant dee said:


> Individuals should take care of themselves more and rely on the State less.



They do, in general. But from time to time, everyone, will at some point rely on the State and state provisions. Some will rely more than others, but none of us can say at any given time, with absolute certainty, who that will be.



ant dee said:


> Build more social houses sounds nice but who is going to pay for all that debt?



What debt? Build a block of 10 apartments for €100,000 a unit in the right location and you have can have an asset worth €2m.




ant dee said:


> Not that any politician would do such things, how are you going to get the people's votes if you don't 'bribe' them with freebies...



What are you talking about? Haven't you been paying attention? More and more people, because of rising rents, unaffordable mortgages are being left without a home. Families are being put up in hotels. Is this the way you want our society to operate? What sort of damage, or insecurity does this cause with young children caught up in this mess?


----------



## Sophrosyne

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi Sop
> 
> My view is as follows:
> 
> Social housing should not be given for life - it should be reviewed every 5 years. If someone would no longer be on the priority list at that stage, then they should no longer get housing.
> 
> People who work should be given priority over those who don't work.
> 
> I am open to discussion on these issues. You might think it should be every 3 years, someone else every 8 years.
> 
> If someone has not worked for years and they are living in an area where there are plenty of jobs, then they should be moved and the house should be allocated to someone who is working in those jobs. This is better than having someone on social welfare living in Dublin while someone else lives in Longford and commutes every day.
> 
> I don't propose that someone who has a review of their housing on 30 June, who loses their job on 29th June should be relocated.
> 
> But if someone gets a job on 29th June and is allocated housing on 30th June, and quits on 1 July and doesn't work again until a few days before the next 5 year review, they should not be allocated housing in their area of choice.
> 
> Brendan



Thanks for your reply Brendan, but I still don’t see where you are going with this or what the net benefit would be to the State.

I agree with some of your sentiments. For instance, in relation to social housing, there should be a zero tolerance clause regarding persistent anti-social or indeed criminal behaviour. There is no excuse for it. It devastates neighbourhoods and destroys lives. It also deters people from accepting social housing in areas where it exists.

As regards the rest of your proposal, I think it needs to be fleshed out in order to inform further discussion. 

In particular, when you say "unemployed" what do you mean?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

TheBigShort said:


> What debt?



The money borrowed to build the apartments. It does have to be paid back and interest must be paid on it.





TheBigShort said:


> Build a block of 10 apartments for €100,000 a unit in the right location and you have can have an asset worth €2m.



If a private landlord built them, they would have an asset which they could charge a market rent on or sell. 

But when a local authority builds social housing, they actually have a liability.  The rent does not cover the cost of collecting it, and they have to maintain the buildings. 

It's why they reckoned they were better off selling them to the tenants at big discounts. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> The money borrowed to build the apartments. It does have to be paid back and interest must be paid on it.



What about your concept that you raised in another thread to deal with mortgage arrears where the principal never has to be paid back? Perhaps the State could adopt that model of funding (which is actually what most governments do).
But then again that would conflict with your other submission to pay down debt.



Brendan Burgess said:


> But when a local authority builds social housing, they actually have a liability. The rent does not cover the cost of collecting it, and they have to maintain the buildings.
> 
> It's why they reckoned they were better off selling them to the tenants at big discounts.



I'm detecting a shift in your position here, or perhaps the detail coming to the fore. 
You would appear now, not only to target unemployed people for eviction, but also target working people for eviction if they don't use up any additional capacity in their homes for others waiting on social housing list.
Not only that, I could be wrong here, but it appears that with more and more people and families being squeezed out of private ownership and rental markets due primarily to rising rents and prices, your solution to the housing crisis is not to build more housing but to move people around and pack them into houses based on existing capacity?


----------



## Brendan Burgess

I was answering your very specific questions as you did not seem to understand the concept of debt and assets. 

My mortgage is a debt until I repay it. 

On your point about shifting my position, I often develop my position.  I make suggestions. Others give feedback. Some of it is valid, and I adapt the proposals accordingly. Do you not? 

Nothing at all that you have said has caused me to alter the fundamental principles that low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing and that social housing should be recycled to those most in need. 

Your principle seems to be that once you get housing from the state, you have a right to keep it forever, irrespective of your housing needs, your income or your working status.  

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> I was answering your very specific questions as you did not seem to understand the concept of debt and assets.
> 
> My mortgage is a debt until I repay it.



True, but the value of your house, that is the price it could obtain on the market (regardless if it is on the market or not) is an asset. Isn't that correct?



Brendan Burgess said:


> On your point about shifting my position, I often develop my position. I make suggestions. Others give feedback. Some of it is valid, and I adapt the proposals accordingly. Do you not?



Of course, and my feedback has been that this is an unworkable, resource draining proposal at best. I have asked for more detail on how it would work in terms of how long do you have to be unemployed before you are considered for eviction? What about mental and physical disability? What about those actively seeking, but no getting work (you do accept that in order to find work there has to a job offer?). Any consideration for suitability of employment? Or when I go to the barber's can I expect Bob The Builder to trim my moustache? 
The only additional detail to emerge here is that it is not only unemployed people that will be evicted, but working people also if they don't put up others in their spare capacity without any concept of how this is such an undignified way for a society to organise itself, particularly if they are going to work and contributing like everyone else.




Brendan Burgess said:


> Nothing at all that you have said has caused me to alter the fundamental principles that low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing and that social housing should be recycled to those most in need.



I'm not suggesting that low paid workers should not be prioritized. I am suggesting that should they become subsequently unemployed through no fault of their own they should not be subject to eviction, or 're-cycling' to use your phrase, on that condition alone.





Brendan Burgess said:


> Your principle seems to be that once you get housing from the state, you have a right to keep it forever, irrespective of your housing needs, your income or your working status.



Nope. I have clearly said that where a person's fortunes improve that there should be scope to charge reasonable rates for the accommodation.
Where someone's fortunes disprove, ie they lose their job through no fault of their own, I would be opposed to your proposal.


----------



## ant dee

I am afraid I am not qualified to answer with specifics and offer a better debate. I simply, and strongly, believe that the less the State does ( assuming we also get to pay less tax!), the better off we will all be as a society.



TheBigShort said:


> More and more people, because of rising rents, unaffordable mortgages are being left without a home



If we remove all those rent pressure zones and absurd tenant protections we have, more landlords would bother renting their properties and that would reduce the rents.
But, we live in a democracy, and who will get voted if they speak for the landlord?


About the social housing, we have to be more effective with what we have, no matter if we spend more money to build more or not. There is a lot of grey in moving social tenants around, like you mention. Many things to take into consideration and there should be different weight factor on them.
But we have to reassess social tenants, at the very least have them pay reasonable rates if they can afford it. And in a case of one working adult living alone in a 3-bed social house, it should be market rate or get downsized.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> For instance, considering this woman raised children as a single mother, presumably in the same locality? Is there a 1 bed apartment in the locality available? What condition is it in? Assuming 20yrs + raising kids, is it unreasonable to expect that she may not want to leave her community?



We have a shortage of social housing and we have homeless families. These are the facts, resources are limited and will take years to fix.  Do you think it is fair that a single person who is working and has enough disposable income to drive a nice car, go on foreign holidays and all the rest gets to have a house paid for by everyone else when there are families living on the streets?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are missing the point. There are some 80,000 on housing lists. They are not there because of widespread occupation of unemployed single people in three bed houses. The practicalities of implementing such a scheme to evict people, firstly on their employment status, then on their personal status would be a huge resource burner.



Emotive term there. They wouldn't be evicted, they would be rehoused somewhere more appropriate. As for it being a huge resource burner, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented....after all, people living on the streets would benefit so that's worth it in my book.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?
> If there is a housing crisis, what has owning your own home (I'm being generous here, most houses are still the property of the banks) or not owning your own home got to do with anything?
> If there are spare bedrooms in a house (regardless of who owns it) why shouldn't they be offered out to people and families who need shelter?



*And that people is the problem with socialism and communism right there.* 

No consideration for private property. 

I wonder would the poster offer up spare rooms in their own house?


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> I am afraid I am not qualified to answer with specifics and offer a better debate. I simply, and strongly, believe that the less the State does ( assuming we also get to pay less tax!), the better off we will all be as a society.



That is ideological position that covers a broad spectrum of issues. For sure there are good examples to support your view, but also good examples against your view.



ant dee said:


> If we remove all those rent pressure zones and absurd tenant protections we have, more landlords would bother renting their properties and that would reduce the rents.



Implying that landlords are now hoarding their properties and not letting them out at all? I haven't seen any evidence that would indicate that this is a significant issue.



ant dee said:


> But, we live in a democracy, and who will get voted if they speak for the landlord?



Isn't there 33% of Ministers or Dail Deputies who are registered landlords? Either or, that is a sizeable presence at the seat of power and decision making.



ant dee said:


> There is a lot of grey in moving social tenants around, like you mention. Many things to take into consideration and there should be different weight factor on them.



I hope Brendan takes on board your feedback.



ant dee said:


> But we have to reassess social tenants, at the very least have them pay reasonable rates if they can afford it.



That was my proposal, I hope Brendan takes on board your feedback.



ant dee said:


> And in a case of one working adult living alone in a 3-bed social house, it should be market rate or get downsized.



I disagree. Applying market rates is what drives people for the need of social housing. While I understand the sentiment here, the _practicalities _of implementing such a scheme are simply not realistic. The prospect of the State getting tied up in appeals, legal fees, administration, etc will outweigh any potential benefit by a country mile.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> They wouldn't be evicted, they would be rehoused somewhere more appropriate.



evict
ɪˈvɪkt/
_verb_

expel (someone) from a property, especially with the support of the law.
"a single mother and her children have been *evicted from* their home"
Most people who are evicted are re-housed. In hostels, hotels, social housing. It is still eviction.



Firefly said:


> We have a shortage of social housing and we have homeless families.



So build more houses. 



Firefly said:


> Do you think it is fair that a single person who is working and has enough disposable income to drive a nice car, go on foreign holidays and all the rest gets to have a house paid for by everyone else when there are families living on the streets?



No I don't think it is fair. I have said, repeatedly, that there should be scope to charge reasonable rates for the accommodation if disposable income permits it.



Firefly said:


> As for it being a huge resource burner, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented...



True, but it should always be a consideration. In this instance it is obvious to me that the state will be tied up in appeals, legal fees,protests, administration etc and the costs will outweigh the benefits (if any) as to be a waste of time.




Firefly said:


> after all, people living on the streets would benefit so that's worth it in my book.



No they wouldn't. If they are on the streets, I'm assuming that they are not working? If they are not working, they are not prioritized under Brendans submission. 
The easiest thing would be to house at least one person in the house that your lady friend was earmarked for. But that wouldn't work either, as your lady friend is working she would be prioritized for that home, leaving the people on the streets anyway, so no improvement there.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> *And that people is the problem with socialism and communism right there.*
> 
> No consideration for private property.
> 
> I wonder would the poster offer up spare rooms in their own house?



And clearly you didn't understand where I was going with the point.
For the record, no I wouldn't offer up a spare room in my house. Because, like most, I value my privacy and security. There is a hotel close to me that houses two adults and a child. I have two spare bedrooms. Should I be compelled to house them?
Is living in my house adequate accommodation for them live in, considering there is already two adults and a child living there? Is it a long-term healthy situation to house two families (who don't know each other) in a four bed house?

Once you have answered those questions, we can decide if the house being a privately owned house, or a social house makes any difference to the answers.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And clearly you didn't understand where I was going with the point.
> For the record, no I wouldn't offer up a spare room in my house. Because, like most, I value my privacy and security. There is a hotel close to me that houses two adults and a child. I have two spare bedrooms. Should I be compelled to house them?


No, It's your house and your private property. It should be entirely up to you



TheBigShort said:


> Is living in my house adequate accommodation for them live in, considering there is already two adults and a child living there? Is it a long-term healthy situation to house two families (who don't know each other) in a four bed house?


Probably not for both questions. Again, it's your house and your private property. It should be entirely up to you.



TheBigShort said:


> Once you have answered those questions, we can decide if the house being a privately owned house, or a social house makes any difference to the answers.


I have answered the questions. Whether a house is privately owned or socially owned does and should make a difference. The owners should have the right to how it's used.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Probably not for both questions.



Whether someone lives in private property or social housing they are entitled to privacy. They are entitled to some level of dignity in their private lives.
While reality dictates that this is not always possible (refugee camps, asylum detention centres being extreme examples), the State is obliged to pursue policies that foster the rights of its citizens to a dignified manner. It should not pursue a policy that diminishes those rights. That is why private rooms in hotels and hostels are used for families instead of imposing families in on top of each other and the chaos that would eventually ensue.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Whether someone lives in private property or social housing they are entitled to privacy. They are entitled to some level of dignity in their private lives.
> While reality dictates that this is not always possible (refugee camps, asylum detention centres being extreme examples), the State is obliged to pursue policies that foster the rights of its citizens to a dignified manner. It should not pursue a policy that diminishes those rights. That is why private rooms in hotels and hostels are used for families instead of imposing families in on top of each other and the chaos that would eventually ensue.



See post 163. Plenty of private homeowners need to rent out rooms to pay their mortgage. Should they have their mortgages paid for?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> See post 163. Plenty of private homeowners need to rent out rooms to pay their mortgage. Should they have their mortgages paid for?



That is a private arrangement arranged between private individuals. That is not public policy.
People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> That is a private arrangement arranged between private individuals. That is not public policy.
> People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State.



Exactly. But you asked:

_Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing? 
If there is a housing crisis, what has owning your own home (I'm being generous here, most houses are still the property of the banks) or not owning your own home got to do with anything?
If there are spare bedrooms in a house (regardless of who owns it) why shouldn't they be offered out to people and families who need shelter?_


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Exactly. But you asked



Yes, what is your point?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, what is your point?



On one hand you ask:
_"Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?" _

and in the next breadth declare that:
_"That is a private arrangement arranged between private individuals. That is not public policy.
People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State."_

So which is it?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> So which is it?



Oh I get it, you think that when I asked



Firefly said:


> Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?"



That you thought I was advocating that people in private accommodation should be compelled to house others? I wasn't. I was asking the question to another poster who believes those in social housing are beholden to society. I don't think people should be compelled to house others regardless of their status as owner occupiers or social housing tenants.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Oh I get it, you think that when I asked
> 
> 
> 
> That you thought I was advocating that people in private accommodation should be compelled to house others? I wasn't. I was asking the question to another poster who believes those in social housing are beholden to society. I don't think people should be compelled to house others regardless of their status as owner occupiers or social housing tenants.



Thanks for clarifying.

My thoughts are that the owner of the property should decide how it's used. For people who own their own homes they can decide to rent out a room if they like. Likewise the owner of social housing (the council) should be able to decide to do the same.

Do you agree?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> For people who own their own homes they can decide to rent out a room _*if they like.*_



That's it. As owners they can let out the whole house if they want, or they can live there and let out a spare room _if they like._
What they can't typically do is let out a house to someone and then expect that person to accept other occupants to move as if and when required...Unless that is something they would like to do.
Ditto social housing, if someone is prepared to accept new occupants into their home then fine. But if not, their should be no compulsion by the State on any party to have to accept to live with strangers in the privacy of their own home.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> That's it. As owners they can let out the whole house if they want, or they can live there and let out a spare room _if they like._
> What they can't typically do is let out a house to someone and then expect that person to accept other occupants to move as if and when required...Unless that is something they would like to do.
> Ditto social housing, if someone is prepared to accept new occupants into their home then fine. _But if not, their should be no compulsion by the State on any party to have to accept to live with strangers in their own home._



What if the State decides to re-let the house to more than one person? Or to someone else? Should they, as the owners of the property not be able to do so?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> What if the State decides to re-let the house to more than one person? Or to someone else? Should they, as the owners of the property not be able to do so?



And evict the current tenant(s)? No, I don't think that should be allowed. What security of tenure does that provide anyone? On what basis would that be desirable?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> And evict the current tenant(s)? No, I don't think that should be allowed. What security of tenure does that provide anyone? On what basis would that be desirable?



Then the owner (the council) should offer council houses on a lease basis which would allow it to not renew at the end of the term just like owners of every other property can. Why should it be any different than if a private landlord decides to not renew a rental agreement with one of their tenants??


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Then the owner (the council) should offer council houses on a lease basis which would allow it to not renew at the end of the term just like owners of every other property can. Why should it be any different than if a private landlord decides to not renew a rental agreement with one of their tenants??



Yep you could do that, but on what basis would a lease not be renewed?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yep you could do that, but on what basis would a lease not be renewed?



Anything the owner decides within the law, just like any other lease agreement. Do you agree?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Anything the owner decides within the law, just like any other lease agreement. Do you agree?


Obviously within the law, but it would also have to be in line with public policy. So set out the public policy, as Brendan has done in his submission.
On what basis would a lease not be renewed?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Obviously within the law, but it would also have to be in line with public policy. So set out the public policy, as Brendan has done in his submission.
> On what basis would a lease not be renewed?



That would be up to the owner (the council). For example, the council could look at my relative's situation and determine that a more needy family would be better suited to living in the 3bed house. It could then communicate to my relative that it is not renewing the lease and offer my relative something else (if it has it) or advise my relative to rent their own place.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> That would be up to the owner (the council). For example, the council could look at my relative's situation and determine that a more needy family would be better suited to living in the 3bed house.



Assuming your relative would have a right to appeal? Particularly if it is not defined what constitutes a 'more needy family'. For instance, this family would need to have someone employed as per Brendans proposal otherwise they wouldn't be classed as more 'needy'. Alternatively, some one say a family with no income is actually a more needy family, that children should be prioritized. 
Where do you stand on the issue of 'more needy' and the right to appeal?



Firefly said:


> It could then communicate to my relative that it is not renewing the lease and offer my relative something else (if it has it) or advise my relative to rent their own place.



And if your relative does not earn enough to rent her own space ( considering the record highs in the rental market), is that a factor in determining whether to renew a lease. What if the consequences of this decision meant that your relative had to also give up her job and seek employment elsewhere? Has consideration been given to her employer who may also have their business disrupted?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Assuming your relative would have a right to appeal?



As per every other rental / lease agreement, I would think not.Why should it be different for someone living in a social house to someone renting from a private landlord?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> As per every other rental / lease agreement, I would think not.Why should it be different for someone living in a social house to someone renting from a private landlord?




Because it is public policy to provide adequate shelter for everyone, to provide education, opportunity, health care, decent employment, decent income, etc...etc...

Private policy is for each and everyone to decide for themselves. If private rental tenants accept being evicted at the end of a lease, that is their business. I don't agree with it, but it's not my decision. 
On the other hand, in a democracy, we all have a say in shaping public policy if we want to. That is why Brendan made his submission, to shape public policy. I would be totally opposed to his views, I think at best, not thought out, at worst unconstitutional.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Private policy is for each and everyone to decide for themselves. If private rental tenants accept being evicted at the end of a lease, that is their business. I don't agree with it, but it's not my decision.



It's not evicted, it's a non-renewal of a lease. Ditto for commercial property. I see you don't agree with this which again I refer you to my underline sentence about socialism and communism having no regard for private property.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> On the other hand, in a democracy, we all have a say in shaping public policy if we want to.



I agree and think the council should get to decide who lives in their property by how they them decide. At present if you get a council house it's seem to be yours for life and I find this repugnant.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> It's not evicted, it's a non-renewal of a lease. Ditto for commercial property. I see you don't agree with this which again I refer you to my underline sentence about socialism and communism having no regard for private property.



You are asking to apply the same standards of the private market to public policy. Why? What is the point of social housing policy if it should simply be thrown out to the same standards as applied in the private market?
The whole purpose of social housing is to house the sector of the population that cannot afford to house themselves due to low incomes. But it appears that you want to open this sector of the housing market to the private market? 
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a housing shortage. Working people and families cannot afford private housing or private rental. Your proposal is to open the housing sector entirely to the private market? The private market has failed to provide adequate standard of housing for the population.
In any case this is a debate that has gone way off track. The question you were asked is, in terms of a public housing policy, what criteria determines whether a lease is renewed or not?
In Brendans proposal, the occupants need to be working, if not, they are out. What is your criteria?



Firefly said:


> I agree and think the council should get to decide who lives in their property by how they them decide.



They do.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> At present if you get a council house it's seem to be yours for life and I find this repugnant.



Why? The proposal here is to prioritize social housing for low paid workers. Yet if they receive social housing for life, you find it repugnant? Why are low paid workers being prioritized so?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Why? The proposal here is to prioritize social housing for low paid workers. Yet if they receive social housing for life, you find it repugnant? Why are low paid workers being prioritized so?


You are being deliberately obtuse.
The point firefly is making is that whether they end up as really high earners, or never work, or all their kids move out of a 4 bedroom house, or one adult kid ends up living there on their own they will still keep the house.

I agree with him; I also find that repugnant.
I think social housing should be allocated to those who need it most, not those who need it most at a particular time and then never reassessed. You seem to think that once someone gets a public house they should have it forever, no matter what their needs or the needs of those who are more vulnerable.
You are okay with the scenario I outlined in post 69. I think that just wrong.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State.



They should if they themselves are beholden to the State vis a vis housing.

Such a person is not entitled to assert their preference with regard to where they live and with whom they live.


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> They should if they themselves are beholden to the State vis a vis housing.
> 
> Such a person is not entitled to assert their preference with regard to where they live and with whom they live.



I think the best solution to those "beholden to the state" would be to bring back the Workhouses. Why were they ever abolished in the first place? Their return would address not only the social housing issue but provide a deterrence to those who might turn to any form of "state handouts". They would also, of course, provide considerable moral satisfaction to us taxpayers who would have to pay towards their upkeep:


_"In 1832 a Royal Commission on the Poor Law was established. It identified three central principles: there should always be an incentive for people to choose work over relief; poor relief could be dispensed only in workhouses; and there should be a central board to ensure uniformity.

 Workhouses were deliberately constructed to be so bleak so as to be a deterrence. Families were to be broken up, barely adequate meals were provided, food poisoning was common and the workhouses were overseen by a master “who liberally dispensed beatings or spells in solitary conferment to those accused of misdemeanours”
_
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...ualidness-created-the-welfare-state-1.3214232_
_


----------



## Gordon Gekko

It's easy to be facetious.

Do you think that someone who needs to be housed by the State should be able to nitpick over the property's location or size?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> You are being deliberately obtuse.



I've been waiting patiently for someone to actually put some detail into how this proposal would work. There has been nothing forthcoming.
I have asked would there be consideration as to _why _a person is long-term unemployed? Physical or mental disorder? Downturn in economy that adversely affects a particular industry, say construction workers? Any consideration for suitability of employment? Or someone actively seeking work but with no success?
These are reasonable questions. Why no answers?
There are at least another dozen questions relating to the actual administration of such a scheme, the costs, the legal challenges, the criteria for determining who and who isn't 'most in need' etc which I have asked and still no answers.
A single person working with a low income is to be prioritized. A family with no income is not to be prioritized. Apparently children of unemployed people are less needy than a childless working adult.
A low income earner, assessed every five years, continually working throughout his life is identified as a priority. He should get social housing. But on the other hand, as long as he earns a low income, he will get that house or apartment for life, isn't that repugnant too? I don't expect a straight answer.



Purple said:


> The point firefly is making is that whether they end up as really high earners, or never work, or all their kids move out of a 4 bedroom house, or one adult kid ends up living there on their own they will still keep the house.



I have clearly stated on a number of occasions that if someone earns a high income then there is scope to assess disposable income and apply a reasonable rate for use of the property.



Purple said:


> not those who need it most at a particular time and then never reassessed



Yes, but the criteria for reassessment in Brendans proposal is based on whether someone is working or not! Yet, apparently, unemployed person, with perhaps a family, must expect to move on!
Where to? From Rathmines to Lucan? Or Lucan to Rathmines? Or both, as assuming the transfer of housing can work both ways? In which case, what is the bloody point of this nonsense?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> The point firefly is making is that whether they end up as really high earners,



I've addressed that by saying there is scope to assess disposable income and apply a reasonable rate for the accommodation. Acknowledging the taxes that that high earner contributes to the economy. But you have the example of a plumber earning €200,000 a year but didn't acknowledge the possible disruption to his business if forced to move. Would that be a consideration before moving someone on?




Purple said:


> or never work,



You gave the example of your drug addict friend from Rathmines, bizarrely proposing that he and his drinking girlfriend should move to Lucan.
Again no answer as how you actually think that would solve anything.



Purple said:


> or all their kids move out of a 4 bedroom house,



Again, no consideration for anyone who is tied to the community, watched their children grow up and made a home for themselves. Perhaps working all that time and contributing to local sports and cultural club's etc. 
There is a point actually, someone who volunteers for social services, or local sports club's or youth club's...Is that considered as work? Or does it have to be paid work.
I'm not expecting any straight answers at this point.



Purple said:


> or one adult kid ends up living there on their own they will still keep the house.



Are they working? Is that their home? 
In fairness however, you may have identified a particular scenario where an assessment of the property and it's occupant may be subject to review. All you need to do now is identify the swathes of 3 and 4 bed social houses that are occupied through out the country by lone occupants and put them under assessment and put that with the cost/benefit analysis and see how you get on. 
Well done, but my guess it would be vastly more beneficial to build more housing.


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> It's easy to be facetious.




I assure you that I did not get where I am today by being facetious. The whining and whinging of the parasitic class is only going to get worse - louder and more grating - the more we try to appease the ungrateful wretches with handouts and so called "supports". It is time to get serious and look to what worked in the past. Of course we have to be humane and no one should be deliberately starved to death. Everyone in genuine need should get porridge and a roof over their heads - but certainly not any central heating or they will only sit down and start to enjoy it. And what would that lead to? Breeding, inevitably, and the whole cycle being repeated again and again. When are we going to shout "STOP".


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Such a person is not entitled to assert their preference with regard to where they live and with whom they live.



Here is a link to the citizens information detailing the processes and rules for applying for social housing.
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/e...ing/applying_for_local_authority_housing.html


----------



## TheBigShort

Early Riser said:


> And what would that lead to? Breeding, inevitably, and the whole cycle being repeated again and again. When are we going to shout "STOP".



This is an important point actually. Back in famine days in Ireland and the subsequent 100yrs or so, they only thing keeping the population going was the large Catholic families enduring poverty and hardship.

This, for some reason brings Brendans submission on this topic to mind again



Brendan Burgess said:


> A _responsible_ couple who wants to provide for themselves and their family, will hold off having children until they can afford them





Brendan Burgess said:


> But those on social welfare do the opposite. They have children because they will be given priority on the housing list. And the more children they have, the higher they go on the list.





Brendan Burgess said:


> social housing is like winning the National Lottery



All those Sun island and private jet ad's are misleading. Really what the lotto is about is a 2 bed terraced house in Coolock. That's what winning is all about.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> You are asking to apply the same standards of the private market to public policy. Why? What is the point of social housing policy if it should simply be thrown out to the same standards as applied in the private market?



I never mentioned anything about standards. I am saying the owner of the property should get to decide to whom it is leased / rented to.



TheBigShort said:


> The whole purpose of social housing is to house the sector of the population that cannot afford to house themselves due to low incomes. But it appears that you want to open this sector of the housing market to the private market?
> In case you hadn't noticed, there is a housing shortage. Working people and families cannot afford private housing or private rental. Your proposal is to open the housing sector entirely to the private market? The private market has failed to provide adequate standard of housing for the population.



Again, I never mentioned that.




TheBigShort said:


> In any case this is a debate that has gone way off track. The question you were asked is, in terms of a public housing policy, what criteria determines whether a lease is renewed or not?



That should be up to the owner of the property, in this case the council. If they determine that a more needy recipient of housing exists compared to someone currently living in a council house they should be able to terminate the current lease (with notice) and let the house to the more needy person / family.

Just like social welfare, social housing should IMO be a safety blanket to help people in hard times. It should not be a life choice where once you get a council house you get to keep it for life. This just results in dependency all over again. You should always be better of working and you should always be better of getting your own place to live.





TheBigShort said:


> In Brendans proposal, the occupants need to be working, if not, they are out. What is your criteria?



I don't have a criteria although I do like Brendan's proposal. I would ultimately leave it up to the council to decide who should get a council house.



TheBigShort said:


> They do.



Only at the start. But once someone gets a council house they're there for life.


----------



## The Horseman

Firefly said:


> I never mentioned anything about standards. I am saying the owner of the property should get to decide to whom it is leased / rented to.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I never mentioned that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That should be up to the owner of the property, in this case the council. If they determine that a more needy recipient of housing exists compared to someone currently living in a council house they should be able to terminate the current lease (with notice) and let the house to the more needy person / family.
> 
> Just like social welfare, social housing should IMO be a safety blanket to help people in hard times. It should not be a life choice where once you get a council house you get to keep it for life. This just results in dependency all over again. You should always be better of working and you should always be better of getting your own place to live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a criteria although I do like Brendan's proposal. I would ultimately leave it up to the council to decide who should get a council house.
> 
> 
> 
> Only at the start. But once someone gets a council house they're there for life.




I completely agree with all of the above sentiments. Social Housing should be reassessed each five years. Also tenants should be if not already doing so should be required to make a contribution towards the maintenance of the property for damage outside of normal wear and tear.


----------



## Firefly

The Horseman said:


> I completely agree with all of the above sentiments. Social Housing should be reassessed each five years. Also tenants should be if not already doing so should be required to make a contribution towards the maintenance of the property for damage outside of normal wear and tear.



I agree. If the property is let go to rack and ruin they should find themselves lower down on the list for the next house. I think maintenance costs are a primary reason the provision of social housing is via private landlords...the council would be hammered with upkeep costs.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> Really what the lotto is about is a 2 bed terraced house in Coolock. That's what winning is all about.



What's wrong with a 2 bed terraced house in Coolock?

It's perfectly fine for many decent hardworking people; why should those who are beholden to society have the right to turn their noses up at what's perfectly fine?

The sense of entitlement amongst some of the welfare class is breathtaking.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> As per every other rental / lease agreement, I would think not.Why should it be different for someone living in a social house to someone renting from a private landlord?





Firefly said:


> I never mentioned anything about standards. I am saying the owner of the property should get to decide to whom it is leased / rented to.



You implied with above comments.
You want the council to be able to determine who gets to live where and for how long in properties that they own, oblivious to the fact that that is exactly what they already do. There difference between private landlords and council landlords, is that private landlords will shape their decisions generally based on a profit motive - hence the record rise is private rental market.
The council will shape their decisions based on _public __policy._  If you search through any council website it will provide detailed information on the criteria applied in deciding on who gets a council house. Believe me, they are a lot more in-depth and considered than Brendans proposal which is based solely on the simplistic criteria of the occupant having a job.
For instance, under Brendans proposal, would any consideration be given for the mental and physical well being of a person and the necessary supports available in any proposed re-housing?
It's a simple question.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> What's wrong with a 2 bed terraced house in Coolock?



You are so easy to bait!

There is nothing wrong with a two-bed terraced house in Coolock, whoever said there was? 
I just don't expect the national lottery to be using it to sell lottery tickets anytime soon do you?
Brendan said getting a social house is like winning the national lottery, I disagree.


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> The sense of entitlement amongst some of the welfare class is breathtaking.



You hit it on the head right there, Gordon. And people in our class (I am assuming here that you are as classy as me) have every entitlement to let them know just how breathtaking their sense of entitlement is. Anyone who says otherwise is a snowflake.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The council will shape their decisions based on _public __policy._  If you search through any council website it will provide detailed information on the criteria applied in deciding on who gets a council house.



I am not talking about who gets a house _initially_, I am talking about who gets to _keep living in the house regardless of changes in their circumstances_. This is what we are talking about. That the council should be able to review those in social housing and if it decides someone else has a greater need they should get priority.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I am not talking about who gets a house _initially_,



Can you stay on topic, see title of topic.



Firefly said:


> I am talking about who gets to _keep living in the house regardless of changes in their circumstances_.



Yes, for instance, a father who is suffering from chronic depression brought on as a consequence of the death of his only son from a drug overdose and can't hold down a steady job.
Is there any consideration for this man and the rest of his family before being re-housed on the criteria of simply not having a job?




Firefly said:


> That the council should be able to review those in social housing and if it decides someone else has a greater need they should get priority.



Like you said, the council, being owners of property, should get to decide who lives where and for how long.
They already do, based on detailed and in-depth criteria derived from public policy.
Brendan, it would appear, wants to change public policy set on two main points - are the occupants working,
- is there extra capacity to house more people.
I'm simply saying, that any public policy set for social housing will need greater scrutiny, analysis and understanding of the impacts of moving people around.

I.e it needs a lot more thought.


----------



## ant dee

TheBigShort said:


> Brendan, it would appear, wants to change public policy set on two main points - are the occupants working,
> - is there extra capacity to house more people.
> I'm simply saying, that any public policy set for social housing will need greater scrutiny, analysis and understanding of the impacts of moving people around.
> 
> I.e it needs a lot more thought



I don't think Brendan wants to abolish the public policy already in place. Simply adding those points to the existing policy , along with a reassessment, would make council housing more efficient.


----------



## TheBigShort

ant dee said:


> I don't think Brendan wants to abolish the public policy already in place. Simply adding those points to the existing policy , along with a reassessment, would make council housing more efficient.



Taking it at face value, fair enough, but probably minded to review the opening post?



Brendan Burgess said:


> Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.



All I'm asking is there any consideration for other factors, such as, _why _a person is not working? 
You would appear to suggest that of course other factors would have to be taken into account. In which case the submission is, at the very least, lacking detail. 
That detail has been slow to emerge, so I have come to the conclusion that this proposal, addressed to the Minister of Finance, published in national newspaper, promoted live on national airwaves, on 'behalf of the Taxpayer', was never seriously considered to begin with.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Can you stay on topic, see title of topic.



This is on topic - we are talking about the ability of the council to reallocate social housing. 



TheBigShort said:


> Like you said, the council, being owners of property, should get to decide who lives where and for how long.
> They already do, based on detailed and in-depth criteria derived from public policy.



Can you show me examples of where social houses given to people were later given to someone else?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Can you show me examples of where social houses given to people were later given to someone else?



Yes, my grandparents lived in a social house. They died, the council gave it to someone else.

Can you now answer my question please?



TheBigShort said:


> a father who is suffering from chronic depression brought on as a consequence of the death of his only son from a drug overdose and can't hold down a steady job.
> Is there any consideration for this man and the rest of his family before being re-housed on the criteria of simply not having a job?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, my grandparents lived in a social house. They died, the council gave it to someone else.



Oh for God's sake, I mean someone still alive . I thought that was pretty obvious.



TheBigShort said:


> Can you now answer my question please?


Up to the council. I would imagine a single mother with mental issues living on the streets with 4 kids who are being abused should be higher up than the unfortunate in your example, but again, that would be up to the council to decide. And they should be able to decide, they should be able to reallocate their housing stock to those in greatest need.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Oh for God's sake, I mean someone still alive . I thought that was pretty obvio



Yes, my other grandparents. When they bought their own house. The council gave the house to someone else.



Firefly said:


> I would imagine _*a single mother with mental issues living on the streets with 4 kids who are being abused should be higher up than the unfortunate in your example,*_ but again, that would be up to the council to decide. And they should be able to decide, they should be able to reallocate their housing stock to those in greatest need.



I agree (in bold), but could you stick to the question I asked you? 
Would there be any consideration given to the man and his family other than an assessment of his working status, before being moved?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, my other grandparents. When they bought their own house. The council gave the house to someone else.



Well they bought their own house! To the council that's the same as dying. I would also include emigration in this little category you are adding to. As usual you are going circular on this and verging on trolling.




TheBigShort said:


> Would there be any consideration given to the man and his family other than an assessment of his working status, before being moved?



Council's decision.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Well they bought their own house! To the council that's the same as dying. I would also include emigration in this little category you are adding to. As usual you are going circular on this and verging on trolling.



Death, purchase of own home, emigration, transfer on health grounds, transfer on family size, probably a dozen other reasons why people vacate their homes and are given to somebody else.
If you are inferring examples of evictions, then no I don't have any examples, thankfully. Although I would imagine incidences of anti social behavior, criminality may lead to evictions.



Firefly said:


> Council's decision.



I know that, that is how social housing policy works. Those most in need are prioritized. Most in need is derived from public policy. The council's make the decisions, which you support, but oppose if that decision is one you don't like - like keeping someone in their own home for life. A council decision, that you think is their prerogative, but repugnant nonetheless.

I was talking about would any consideration be given under Brendans proposal to people with mental or physical disability? I thought that was obvious?
So for 3rd time, can you give a straight answer?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Those most in need are prioritized.



Maybe to get the house to begin with but not thereafter and that is the point I and others are making. If you get a council house baring killing someone you get to keep it for life regardless of your future circumstances. That's the central point here. The council can and should be able to reallocate housing so that all of those who are in most need are continually catered for.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I was talking about would any consideration be given under Brendans proposal to people with mental or physical disability? I thought that was obvious?
> So for 3rd time, can you give a straight answer?



It's Brendan's proposal, why don't you ask him? On a personal level, I think consideration should be given yes, but if this person is the deemed the least in need person on the list and someone of more need comes along and there is only 1 house available, I think those in most need should get the house. Who would you give the house to?


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> You are so easy to bait!
> 
> There is nothing wrong with a two-bed terraced house in Coolock, whoever said there was?
> I just don't expect the national lottery to be using it to sell lottery tickets anytime soon do you?
> Brendan said getting a social house is like winning the national lottery, I disagree.



Managing to obtain a home free of charge whilst the majority toil to purchase one? 

That is akin to winning a lottery.


----------



## Firefly

I am going to summarise my view on this as I've had enough.

Those working should be given a priority for social housing close to their employment. I wouldn't deem this to be the only factor in deciding which council house they should be given, but it should be a strong factor.

The council should be able to reallocate its houses to those deemed in most need on a continual basis. That way those in most need are continually facilitated.

Getting a council house should be like drawing the dole...it should not be for someone in the long term, rather a safety net. You should always be better of working and you should always be better off getting your own place.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> On a personal level, I think consideration should be given yes,



Great, finally getting somewhere. I think so too. In fact so do council's, it is public policy to do so.
Brendans proposal is quite explicit, if you are not working after assessment, you are being moved.
So either he sticks with his blunt instrument public policy, which you stated you support, or he outlines in greater detail how his proposal would work in practice. I have outlined a number of issues, by no means exhaustive, to consider. If there are changes to be made, then perhaps he should have given more thought to the proposal?




Firefly said:


> but if this person is the deemed the least in need person on the list and someone of more need comes along and there is only 1 house available, I think those in most need should get the house. Who would you give the house to?



The person most in need, and you?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> The person most in need, and you?



So you agree then if there is someone living in a council house but someone else is deemed to have greater need, then the person in greater need should get the house. IE the council should be able to re-allocate it's own housing stock.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> So you agree then if there is someone living in a council house but someone else is deemed to have greater need, then the person in greater need should get the house. IE the council should be able to re-allocate it's own housing stock.



Another, but typical, misrepresentation. This is what you asked



Firefly said:


> if this person is the deemed the least in need person on the list and someone of more need comes along and there is only 1 house *available*,



If somebody is already living in a home it is not available.
You are right, this is tiresome. It would help if you stayed on topic (Brendans proposal), understood the difference between public policy and private sector interests, asked questions in a form of words that reflects your actual thinking, gave straight answers to questions instead of continuously diverting, and stopped misinterpreting answers to questions that were not actually asked.


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Managing to obtain a home free of charge whilst the majority toil to purchase one?
> 
> That is akin to winning a lottery.



You should apply to national lottery headquarters. They could really do with a marketing manager like you.


----------



## Gordon Gekko

TheBigShort said:


> You should apply to national lottery headquarters. They could really do with a marketing manager like you.



Note my use of the term "a lottery" rather than "the Lottery"...


----------



## TheBigShort

Gordon Gekko said:


> Note my use of the term "a lottery" rather than "the Lottery"...



Doh! You got me there alright!

But back on topic, note the lottery reference in Brendans submission 



Brendan Burgess said:


> Under the current system, social housing is like winning the National Lottery.


----------



## Early Riser

Gordon Gekko said:


> Managing to obtain a home free of charge whilst the majority toil to purchase one?
> 
> *That is akin to winning a lottery*.



Gordon, I am a bit taken aback by your apparent suggestion that anyone's life circumstances could in any way be likened to a lottery. We need to be careful - next thing there will be some suggesting that some in our class owe their circumstances to chance as well. Whereas you and I know that it is by wilful goodness of character, spotless virtue, endless endeavour and carefully nurtured intellectual prowess that we got to where are today. Chance and luck had nothing to do with it.

Nor has the luck of the lottery anything to do with where the "welfare class" find themselves. They could easily have chosen to be one of us. Instead they chose the paths of moral degeneracy, fecklessness, lewdness, laziness, indolence, addiction, drunkenness, mental instability,illness, infirmity, illiteracy, criminality and every other deviancy. Don't you agree? How we deter such degenerates is beyond me - given that in the past we have tried the Workhouses, the Magdelene Laundries, The Lunatic Asylums, The Industrial Schools and all to no avail. Any more suggestions?

All I am sure about is this - luck or lottery has nothing to do with it. We chose virtue and goodness and God chose us.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> If somebody is already living in a home it is not available.



I've lost count of the number of times myself and others are trying to make the same point - the council should be able to evaluate those living in social housing to determine if there is someone else more in need of the house and reallocate the house to the most needy.




TheBigShort said:


> It would help if you stayed on topic (Brendans proposal),



This is very much on topic - look at Brendan's line in bold in the opening post:

*Social housing should be recycled to those most in need *



TheBigShort said:


> understood the difference between public policy and private sector interests,



I think I do understand. Private landlords are most interested in a financial return, the council most interested in providing social housing to those in most need. Being able to recycle council houses to those in most need would achieve this.




TheBigShort said:


> asked questions in a form of words that reflects your actual thinking, gave straight answers to questions instead of continuously diverting, and stopped misinterpreting answers to questions that were not actually asked.



Nobody else on this forum besides yourself has ever had a problem understanding my points. Maybe it's you that needs to take time and read the proposals a bit better.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I've lost count of the number of times myself and others are trying to make the same point - the council should be able to evaluate those living in social housing to determine if there is someone else more in need of the house and reallocate the house to the most needy.



Ok, simple scenario. A shortage of public housing has been identified as a consequence of record high rents and rising house prices, putting pressure on low income earners and the unemployed.

A family, with four kids, lose their home on foot of falling into arrears on the mortgage and are currently housed in emergency accommodation in a hostel. The father is an unemployed civil engineer actively seeking work. Although there is a vacancy at the car wash to wash cars, he has refused to apply for the job. The mother lost her job at the computer parts factory that closed down. She applied for the car wash job but the employer did not yet offer her the post.

A working family, four kids, with one (low) income earner living in a social house. One earner, works as a maintenance officer at the local hospital.

A single woman, living in a three bed- social house, after her kids have flown the nest, but is working in the local supermarket.

Another family 4 kids, no income earner as the factory closed down, living in a social house.

A single woman, long-term unemployed, living on the street.

A working couple, no kids, living at home with parents, cant afford to buy or rent, and have to travel from Mullingar to Dublin City Centre every day.

There are only three social houses, and one hostel room, as occupied above. The government has promised to, but not yet delivered, to build more social housing. Considering Brendans proposals, it is your job to decide who is most in need, who gets to live where, also bearing in mind the social house to be built wherever it is cheapest to build the house.
The government announced that they will provide the funding for emergency accommodation so that no-one has to live on the street.

How does your decisions fit with Brendans proposal that

_Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply._


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Ok, simple scenario. A shortage of public housing has been identified as a consequence of record high rents and rising house prices, putting pressure on low income earners and the unemployed.
> 
> A family, with four kids, lose their home on foot of falling into arrears on the mortgage and are currently housed in emergency accommodation in a hostel. The father is an unemployed civil engineer actively seeking work. Although there is a vacancy at the car wash to wash cars, he has refused to apply for the job. The mother lost her job at the computer parts factory that closed down. She applied for the car wash job but the employer did not yet offer her the post.
> 
> A working family, four kids, with one (low) income earner living in a social house. One earner, works as a maintenance officer at the local hospital.
> 
> A single woman, living in a three bed- social house, after her kids have flown the nest, but is working in the local supermarket.
> 
> Another family 4 kids, no income earner as the factory closed down, living in a social house.
> 
> A single woman, long-term unemployed, living on the street.
> 
> A working couple, no kids, living at home with parents, cant afford to buy or rent, and have to travel from Mullingar to Dublin City Centre every day.
> 
> There are only three social houses, and one hostel room, as occupied above. The government has promised to, but not yet delivered, to build more social housing. Considering Brendans proposals, it is your job to decide who is most in need, who gets to live where, also bearing in mind the social house to be built wherever it is cheapest to build the house.
> The government announced that they will provide the funding for emergency accommodation so that no-one has to live on the street.
> 
> How does your decisions fit with Brendans proposal that
> 
> _Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply._



What would you do, given it's your makey-uppy scenario?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> What would you do, given it's your makey-uppy scenario?



I would use the additional money provided by the government to house the homeless woman off the street.

It may be made up, but they reflect real life scenarios and situations, including your relative who occupies a house by herself.

If you can't offer advice, based on Brendans proposal, with the limited scenarios above, what hope is there with 80,000 on the waiting list?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I would use the additional money provided by the government to house the homeless woman off the street.



So you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> So you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?


What would you do?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> What would you do?



Can you please confirm first, that you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Can you please confirm first, that you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?



Yes, that is what I would do. I accept it's not ideal but I'm not here to make any proposals or submissions to government on behalf of anyone. So if you don't agree with me that is fine. 
Brendan has made a proposal, which you support, so I'm wondering how you would deal the scenarios outlined, based on his proposal?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, that is what I would do.



Wow. With respect, that's the sort of entitlement culture that has this country in the place it's in.

Since you asked, I would (obviously) also use the additional money provided by the government to house the homeless woman off the street.

I would then reallocate the house from the single woman to the family of 4. I am the first to say I am not sure of the process here but as you say the council reallocate houses when people die, buy their own place, or are anti-social. Like you I admit it is not ideal, but I would much rather a family with 4 children be living in a house than a hostel!!

Just to add, I am totally gobsmacked that you would rather a family with 4 children live in a hostel and at the same time see a single woman in a 3 bed house.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I would then reallocate the house from the single woman to the family of 4





Firefly said:


> I would much rather a family with 4 children be living in a house than a hostel!!



So you would prioritize the family of four, despite having no income, no job, over a working person for social housing. Kinda flies in the face of Brendans proposal that you said you support, doesn't it?

Just to remind ourselves of the proposal


Brendan Burgess said:


> Low and middle paid workers _*must be given priority*_ for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.



And where would you house the woman who, despite raising kids by herself, still gets up and goes to work? Don't tell me you would consider putting a working woman into emergency accommodation to facilitate a family with no income, and where the father turned down gainful employment? 
Isn't that the entitlement culture there too?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> So you would prioritize the family of four, despite having no income, no job, over a working person for social housing. Kinda flies in the face of Brendans proposal that you said you support, doesn't it?


Not to split hairs, but I would consider whether one was working or not *a* factor in determining their need for social housing, not the *only* factor. I don't believe the argument was to throw anyone out of a house, but to allocate those social houses near employment centres to those actually working.

No way would I leave a family of 4 in a hostel and someone living on their own in a 3 bed house. That is totally unjust and unfair to me and as someone so clearly on the left I would have expected a lot more.



TheBigShort said:


> And where would you house the woman who, despite raising kids by herself, still gets up and goes to work?


She would definitely not stay in a 3 bed house whilst a family with 4 children are in a hostel anyway. The woman in question would definitely be worse off, no doubt about that, but it's social housing at the end of the day...there for the most needy. Given that the woman is single and working I would probably think she would be entitled to HAP or one of the other grants to get something more suitable. By all means give her plenty of notice and help finding somewhere more suitable, but to leave her in a 3 bed house with a family of 4 children in a hostel is just not going to fly with me I am afraid.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I would consider whether one was working or not *a* factor in determining their need for social housing, not the *only* factor.



Yes, I agree. I think I have implied that on several occasions. I think I mentioned that the proposal was short on detail. I think I mentioned, health considerations, job suitability, current employment conditions etc.
I'm glad you recognize that there are more factors to consider other than a person's employment status. Brendan has asked for feedback on his proposal, I'll will pass this on.




Firefly said:


> I don't believe the argument was to thrown anyone out of a house, but to allocate those social houses near employment centres to those actually working.



Yes, the woman is working in a supermarket for instance. Many years ago, when she had children to raise, she was allocated the house...and continued working.
Now she is going to get turned out and put in emergency accommodation as there is no suitable accommodation available (hence the term housing crisis).
If it was my mother, I would not move out of the home if it meant what you are proposing.
There is no HAP accommodation available in the scenario offered.
Welcome to the real world, suitable accommodation doesn't just drop from the sky.



Firefly said:


> No way would I leave a family of 4 in a hostel and someone living on their own in a 3 bed house. That is totally unjust and unfair to me and as someone so clearly on the left I would have expected a lot more.



That is fine, perhaps I'm not as left as you think I am? On the other hand, you complain about the entitlement culture, yet now you are all for accommodating a family who are on social welfare, no job, turning down employment opportunities.
A bit of a bloody lefty now aren't we? Here is what Brendan said about these people, which you support



Brendan Burgess said:


> A responsible couple who wants to provide for themselves and their family, will hold off having children until they can afford them. If they can afford to buy a house it will probably be a long distance from where they were brought up and from where they work. But those on social welfare do the opposite. They have children because they will be given priority on the housing list. And the more children they have, the higher they go on the list.





Firefly said:


> The woman in question would definitely be worse off, no doubt about that, but _it's social housing at the end of the day._.



Good God...What is that supposed to mean? That those who are dependent on it are of a lesser value to those who don't?
So what if it is social housing or any other housing? People have a right to live in a dignified manner,they have a right to privacy and a right to live a life free from government persecution.
What you are proposing is that people living in social housing should live there lives on the basis that at any given time they could be evicted for someone 'more needy'.
You may contribute taxes to build social housing,but I also contribute taxes that facilitates the building of private housing. This is done through planning authorities, building regulations, health and safety standards, public roads and utilities, like street lighting, road repair, treating your waste. All of which require my taxes and which private households avail of. 
So the housing crisis can be fixed if we compel private households to house those on the waiting list where they have spare capacity.
Or perhaps, most households wouldn't like the idea of having their privacy disrupted? Do you honestly think it's any different to working people living in social housing?





Firefly said:


> The woman in question would definitely be worse off, no doubt about that, but it's social housing at the end of the day...there for the most needy.



Again, showing complete misunderstanding of the concept of public policy. Public policy aims to set out the systems that aim to improve the lives of citizens, not deliberately and knowingly make them worse.



Firefly said:


> Given that the woman is single and working I would probably think she would be entitled to HAP or one of the other grants to get something more suitable.



There is no HAP in the scenario. There is limited supply of accommodation. You had to choose with what was available.
You chose to evict a working person from her home. The only available accommodation was the emergency accommodation of the no income family.
What you did, flies in the face of Brendans proposal which you have wasted so much time defending and supporting.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I'm glad you recognize that there are more factors to consider other than a person's employment status. Brendan has asked for feedback on his proposal, I'll will pass this on.



Knock yourself out.



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, the woman is working in a supermarket for instance. Many years ago, when she had children to raise, she was allocated the house...and continued working.
> Now she is going to get turned out and put in emergency accommodation as there is no suitable accommodation available (hence the term housing crisis).
> If it was my mother, I would not move out of the home if it meant what you are proposing.
> _*There is no HAP accommodation available in the scenario offered.*_
> Welcome to the real world, suitable accommodation doesn't just drop from the sky.



Then your scenario is completely bogus as HAP is an integral part of our public policy for the provision of housing!!!




TheBigShort said:


> That is fine, perhaps I'm not as left as you think I am? On the other hand, you complain about the entitlement culture, yet now you are all for accommodating a family who are on social welfare, no job, turning down employment opportunities.


I take your point and turning down job opportunities should lead to reductions in the dole but that's for a different discussion



TheBigShort said:


> A bit of a bloody lefty now aren't we?



You'll be surprised to note ( and part of me is embarrassed to admit it) but I do share some beliefs more associated with the left than the right such as being against zero-hours contracts, but in the main, I believe where possible people should support themselves unless they cannot do so, rather than choose not to do so.




TheBigShort said:


> Good God...What is that supposed to mean? That those who are dependent on it are of a lesser value to those who don't?


Never said that and don't believe it.



TheBigShort said:


> So what if it is social housing or any other housing? People have a right to live in a dignified manner,they have a right to privacy and a right to live a life free from government persecution.


I agree however in your narrow scenario that's not really possible is it? Someone is going to lose out - you would rather a family with 4 kids live in a hostel and a single woman live in a 3 bed house...think about that for a while. 



TheBigShort said:


> What you are proposing is that people living in social housing should live there lives on the basis that at any given time they could be evicted for someone 'more needy'.


A bit dramatic. I have said before that people should be assessed every x years. But, in essence yes...just like the dole, I think social housing should be a safety net for people in times of difficulty, not a life choice and you should always be better off getting your own place. I get the impression from you that once someone gets a social house it's theirs for life. Hence the situation we have with families in hostels. How you can square that one away is beyond me.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Then your scenario is completely bogus as HAP is an integral part of our public policy for the provision of housing!!!



Yes, and there is so much of it to go around that there is actually no housing crisis!



Firefly said:


> Someone is going to lose out



The nature of a housing crisis.



Firefly said:


> you would rather a family with 4 kids live in a hostel and a single woman live in a 3 bed house..



I never said I would prefer that. I would never have a preference for that.
But faced with the situation laid out, I would not turn someone's life upside down through eviction, and house them in emergency accommodation on the basis that they have a spare room or two and in favor of a family that lost their own home.
I take it you understand that losing your home is stressful? Just because you never had the chance to afford your own home (God, it's hard to believe that this topic is about prioritizing low income earners for social housing!) that losing your home is not any less stressful for people in social housing.
All you have done is compound a stressful situation.

I have a better title for this topic - Families with Children should be Prioritized for Social Housing regardless of their Employment Status over Low Paid Working people with a Spare Bedroom or Two!

Just a slight tweak there, what do you think? Do you think Brendan will go for it?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> I never said I would prefer that. I would never have a preference for that.



I asked:
_Can you please confirm first, that you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?_


You replied:
_Yes, that is what I would do._


This in any man's language is a preference for one option over another.

Socialism at it's best....pretending to represent the most needy but in reality wanting to preserve the status quo.




TheBigShort said:


> But faced with the situation laid out, I would not turn someone's life upside down through eviction, and house them in emergency accommodation on the basis that they have a spare room or two and in favor of a family that lost their own home.
> I take it you understand that losing your home is stressful? Just because you never had the chance to afford your own home (God, it's hard to believe that this topic is about prioritizing low income earners for social housing!) that losing your home is not any less stressful for people in social housing.
> All you have done is compound a stressful situation.



Firstly, nobody is saying someone would turn up at the door and kick people out. The proposal was to evaluate people every x years and serve plenty notice and even help people to get something more suitable

People move all the time:
People renting private accomodation need to up sticks if the landlord decides to terminate the lease. Where's you sympathy for these people?

People have their homes reposessed if they cannot meet their repayments. Where's you sympathy for these people?

People leave their homes to take up employment elsewhwere, often abroad. Where's you sympathy for these people?

I contend that the limited social housing we have should be given to those in most need and not to remain with the status quo which is what you would choose.

The next time you see a report of a family with children living in a hostel have a think about my relative in her 3 bed house who could easily afford their own place.

How you can square that one away is beyond me.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> But faced with the situation laid out, I would not turn someone's life upside down through eviction, and house them in emergency accommodation *on the basis that they have a spare room or two* and in favor of a family that lost their own home.



They don't. It's not theirs, it belongs to the council.



TheBigShort said:


> I take it you understand that losing your home is stressful? Just because you never had the chance to afford your own home (God, it's hard to believe that this topic is about prioritizing low income earners for social housing!) *that losing your home is not any less stressful for people in social housing.*
> All you have done is compound a stressful situation.



It's not theirs, it belongs to the council.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I asked:
> _Can you please confirm first, that you would leave the family with 4 kids (exhibit 1) in a hostel and the leave single woman (exhibit 3) in a 3 bed house?_
> 
> 
> You replied:
> _Yes, that is what I would do._



Yes and I went on to explain my position, if dealing with the situation as laid out I would take a particular course of action. I explained it is not ideal, but that it would at least not compound the human misery of losing your home.
Your choice was to compound the misery.



Firefly said:


> The proposal was to evaluate people every x years and serve plenty notice and even help people to get something more suitable



Yes and you have agreed that a person's employment status is not the only factor to be considered when evaluating. Which is what I've been pointing out all along. Which is why I am critical of this submission.
Perhaps you could outline other factors to be considered before moving people out of their homes to new locations? 



Firefly said:


> People renting private accomodation need to up sticks if the landlord decides to terminate the lease. Where's you sympathy for these people?





Firefly said:


> People have their homes reposessed if they cannot meet their repayments. Where's you sympathy for these people?





Firefly said:


> People leave their homes to take up employment elsewhwere, often abroad. Where's you sympathy for these people?



I have every sympathy for these people. Its not an ideal world is it? So why would you compound the misery by adopting a policy that shifts people out of their homes? 
The attitude here is, "because I don't get x entitlement then no-one should get it".
Rather my view is how can design a society and economic system that as far as practical, shares those rights and entitlements amongst everybody.
For instance, if I repaid half my mortgage but fell on hard times and couldn't make any more payments, why do we allow a system that permits the bank to take 100% ownership of the house? Even if I can't make the repayments, I should still have a stake in the share value of that house. 

Anyway, I'm done with this topic. The submission carries no weight and between yourself and various others, you have more or less confirmed that it couldn't work on the basis of a person's employment status alone.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> It's not theirs, it belongs to the council.



It's not their house, it's their _home. _You need to learn the difference.
Just because someone never had the chance to afford to own a house, doesn't make it any less stressful if they lose their home, does it?


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Anyway, I'm done with this topic.



So am I, but there is a family with children sleeping in a hostel tonight and a social house with empty rooms and you would keep it that way. Interesting viewpoint on life you have there.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> What is the point of social housing policy if it should simply be thrown out to the same standards as applied in the private market?





TheBigShort said:


> It's not their house, it's their _home. _You need to learn the difference.
> Just because someone never had the chance to afford to own a house, doesn't make it any less stressful if they lose their home, does it?


I lost my home because my landlord couldn't pay his mortgage and the bank repossessed the house.
I had to find alternative accommodation for my children and me.
Imperfect and all that it is why should the tenancy rights of those who do not provide for themselves be better than those who are in the private rental sector?  Just as those who do not work should not be better off than those who do the bar should be set by standards in the private rental sector and those living in housing provided the state should not have better terms and conditions in their tenancy agreements.


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> I lost my home because my landlord couldn't pay his mortgage and the bank repossessed the house.
> I had to find alternative accommodation for my children and me.



Purple, You have identified one of the reasons why the rental sector in is so dysfunctional and why we are are so obsessed with home ownership rather than long term rental.The system needs to be reformed to provide fixity of tenure to tenants who are living up to their obligations. The difference between a house and a home has to be recognized. The solution here is to provide better security for good tenants. You and your family should not have been penalised because of your landlord's difficulty with the bank.

In case of any doubt, I also agree that reform of the system needs to strengthen the rights of landlords (public and private) in addressing "bad" tenants.


----------



## Purple

Early Riser said:


> The solution here is to provide better security for good tenants. You and your family should not have been penalised because of your landlord's difficulty with the bank.


 If I as a tenant can walk away from my tenancy agreement with little or no notice or penalty then my landlord should be able to do the same. If my tenancy rights are to be strengthened then so should by obligations.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I lost my home because my landlord couldn't pay his mortgage and the bank repossessed the house.
> I had to find alternative accommodation for my children and me.
> Imperfect and all that it is why should the tenancy rights of those who do not provide for themselves be better than those who are in the private rental sector?



I totally agree, why should they have better tenancy rights than you. Your rights should match their rights. You should have greater security of tenure.
Just because somebody owns a property, shouldn't mean they can treat those that occupy it in whichever they see fit.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If I as a tenant can walk away from my tenancy agreement with little or no notice or penalty then my landlord should be able to do the same. If my tenancy rights are to be strengthened then so should by obligations.



Great, what do you propose?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> I totally agree, why should they have better tenancy rights than you. Your rights should match their rights. You should have greater security of tenure.
> Just because somebody owns a property, shouldn't mean they can treat those that occupy it in whichever they see fit.


Great, what do you propose?


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> Great, what do you propose?


Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.


Completely agree. Although how you enforce the buy out payment against the tenants is another issue.


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> If I as a tenant can walk away from my tenancy agreement with little or no notice or penalty then my landlord should be able to do the same. If my tenancy rights are to be strengthened then so should by obligations.



As referred to in my post, I think reform means also strengthening landlord rights (and means to vindicate rights). That does not mean that the obligations on both sides should be exactly the same.


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.



With the right to extend the tenancy for another 5 yrs if you wish to stay, based on the same terms & conditions?


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> Make tenancies more like commercial leases. If you sign a 5 year tenancy you have to stay there for 5 years or buy your way out at an agreed price and with an agreed notice period.



Do you reckon that this would lead to a better functioning rental market ? Do you reckon it would worsen or alleviate the housing crisis?


----------



## Purple

Early Riser said:


> Do you reckon that this would lead to a better functioning rental market ? Do you reckon it would worsen or alleviate the housing crisis?


The only thing that will alleviate the housing crisis is the efficient construction of more houses.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> With the right to extend the tenancy for another 5 yrs if you wish to stay, based on the same terms & conditions?


I don't know. What do you think?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> I don't know. What do you think?



Absolutely, I think security of tenure is the priority here, acknowledging the right of the landlord to protections also.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> With the right to extend the tenancy for another 5 yrs if you wish to stay, based on the same terms & conditions?


If you want that in a private lease you sign a 10 year lease with a break clause after 5 years. You also agree when rents can be reviewed.


----------



## Firefly

Early Riser said:


> As referred to in my post, I think reform means also strengthening landlord rights (and means to vindicate rights). That does not mean that the obligations on both sides should be exactly the same.



Can you please point out that post?


----------



## TheBigShort

Purple said:


> If you want that in a private lease you sign a 10 year lease with a break clause after 5 years. You also agree when rents can be reviewed.



That's great, but I'm angling from the point of view that it may not always be feasible or reasonable for a tenant to plan that far ahead. So in the end I suppose, you end up signing one-year leases with the right to renew after each year. This is also transferable to any new owner of the property so ask to protect against evictions like you highlighted.


----------



## The Horseman

TheBigShort said:


> That's great, but I'm angling from the point of view that it may not always be feasible or reasonable for a tenant to plan that far ahead. So in the end I suppose, you end up signing one-year leases with the right to renew after each year. This is also transferable to any new owner of the property so ask to protect against evictions like you highlighted.


And hence the need for an agreement for an early exit charge. If you sign a yearly lease then both parties to the lease can choose if they sign another.

However the reality is that current leases are not worth the paper they are written on with the anti landlord stance taken by the Govt and society in general!


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> The only thing that will alleviate the housing crisis is the efficient construction of more house



Perhaps, but there are ways to make it worse. Anyway my question was genuine rather than rhetorical, although I admit it may have sounded that way.

Going back to the original point of this thread, I don't think that Brendan's proposal is workable or that it would be helpful. I found TheBigShort's examples very helpful in this regard. That doesn't mean that I am against reform or change in principle or that there are not problems in the existing system. As we should know from past experience, changing the system can just as easily make things worse as better (no matter how well intentioned). A letter writer in today's IT on a different matter quotes Lord Eldon:"Reform! Reform! Aren't things bad enough already?"

By all means we should make proposals and tease them out. I do not think that those in social housing are beholden to society. As members of a democratic society we are all part of the Social Contract, which means we all have to give up some of our natural freedoms for the sake of security and social cohesion. We are all beholden to society.Everybody gains something and loses something from this. Thankfully, the conditions of the contract can be changed democratically and we can all suggest and campaign for "improvements". While ideally such improvements are to the advantage of everyone, more usually they constitute advantage for one vis a vis another - fair enough.

As for Brendan's proposal - I would not support it as is but I am glad he made it.


----------



## Early Riser

Firefly said:


> Can you please point out that post?



Firefly, perhaps it wasn't explicit enough but I think it was implied here:



Early Riser said:


> In case of any doubt, I also agree that reform of the system needs to strengthen the rights of landlords (public and private) in addressing "bad" tenants.


----------



## Purple

TheBigShort said:


> That's great, but I'm angling from the point of view that it may not always be feasible or reasonable for a tenant to plan that far ahead.


That's fine but the landlord shouldn't be subject to terms to which the tenant is not.


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> That's fine but the landlord shouldn't be subject to terms to which the tenant is not.



In principle, why not ? In any contract the terms binding the parties do not have to be mirror images of each other. They can be quite different. If we want to move towards more professional (rather than casual) landlordism there would seem to be merit in this. The landlord buys /builds the investment property for long term rental. He/she is not going to move it to another location. The renter may have to move. The renter should be tied to certain conditions to protect the landlord but not necessarily a 5 year lease.


----------



## Purple

Early Riser said:


> In principle, why not ? In any contract the terms binding the parties do not have to be mirror images of each other. They can be quite different. If we want to move towards more professional (rather than casual) landlordism there would seem to be merit in this. The landlord buys /builds the investment property for long term rental. He/she is not going to move it to another location. The renter may have to move. The renter should be tied to certain conditions to protect the landlord but not necessarily a 5 year lease.


If you want certainty you have to give it as well.


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> If you want certainty you have to give it as well.


 Yes, the terms of the contract should give certainty to both sides. But they do not have to be mirror images of each other.


----------



## The Horseman

Early Riser said:


> In principle, why not ? In any contract the terms binding the parties do not have to be mirror images of each other. They can be quite different. If we want to move towards more professional (rather than casual) landlordism there would seem to be merit in this. The landlord buys /builds the investment property for long term rental. He/she is not going to move it to another location. The renter may have to move. The renter should be tied to certain conditions to protect the landlord but not necessarily a 5 year lease.




This may work when the landlord is a professional landlord who have purchased the property specifically for the long term. How you do you see this working for the small/accidental landlord. Surely the terms for both parties of a small/accidental landlord and tenant should be the same (ie equally protective of both sides).


----------



## Early Riser

The Horseman said:


> This may work when the landlord is a professional landlord who have purchased the property specifically for the long term. How you do you see this working for the small/accidental landlord. Surely the terms for both parties of a small/accidental landlord and tenant should be the same (ie equally protective of both sides).



I accept your point. My opinion, though, is that we need to move towards a more professional rental market. I think this would be better for society, for the economy and for the housing market. How we manage the transition I do not know.


----------



## Purple

Early Riser said:


> My opinion, though, is that we need to move towards a more professional rental market. I think this would be better for society, for the economy and for the housing market.


 What brings you to that opinion?
My landlord is a small time operator but is an excellent landlord.
I like the idea of the odd house here and there being rented rather than blocks or estates where every unit is rented. That's not going to continue to be the case if every landlord is a large company.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> What brings you to that opinion?
> My landlord is a small time operator but is an excellent landlord.
> I like the idea of the odd house here and there being rented rather than blocks or estates where every unit is rented. That's not going to continue to be the case if every landlord is a large company.



I don't think either professional nor non professional landlords should dominate the market. Both are needed however the Govt's intervention in the market is scaring both off. With the constant changes landlords both professional and small time landlords will not invest (for the long term) because they don't know what scheme the Govt will come up with next.

I often wonder why if it is so easy and profitable to be a landlord why there are so many vacant properties in Ireland. Surely if it was so easy and with the incentives the Govt are offering to bring a property up to rental standards people are not jumping at the chance of making "easy" money. 

I understand the a lot of the Approved Housing Bodies have leased property for 20yrs and don't actually own them, are we looking at a housing crisis in 20yrs time when the leases come up for renewal?


----------



## Early Riser

Purple said:


> That's not going to continue to be the case if every landlord is a large company



It doesn't necessarily have to be a large company. 



Purple said:


> My landlord is a small time operator but is an excellent landlord.



Great, but not all are (nor are all tenants, lest I be accused of leaving this out). And have you security of tenure or could you face eviction again through no fault of your own ?


----------



## Purple

It's too hard to get a bad tenant out. It's too hard to get paid if they stop paying. It's too hard to get tenants to cover the costs of damage to a property. Landlords get taxed on turnover, not profit. Those are the reasons why landlords leave the market. It doesn't matter though; the property doesn't cease to exist, someone else moves in. The net impact on the housing shortage is zero.


----------



## Purple

Early Riser said:


> Great, but not all are (nor are all tenants, lest I be accused of leaving this out). And have you security of tenure or could you face eviction again through no fault of your own ?


 Not all companies are good to deal with either. I have as good a level of security as anyone else paying rent in the private sector. I would have more options if so much of my income wasn't being taken to provide housing for people who choose not to work.


----------



## The Horseman

Early Riser said:


> It doesn't necessarily have to be a large company.
> 
> 
> 
> Great, but not all are (nor are all tenants, lest I be accused of leaving this out). And have you security of tenure or could you face eviction again through no fault of your own ?




Can I suggest then if someone wants security of tenure (for a long period) then they look for accommodation with a professional landlord who in all certainty would not be selling properties individually (assuming they own a block of apartments) but would sell them to another institutional investor so your landlord is changing but you are still in the same property.

If you only want a property to rent for a short period then you can rent either from a professional landlord or a small/accidental landlord.


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> Can I suggest then if someone wants security of tenure (for a long period) then they look for accommodation with a professional landlord who in all certainty would not be selling properties individually (assuming they own a block of apartments) but would sell them to another institutional investor so your landlord is changing but you are still in the same property.
> 
> If you only want a property to rent for a short period then you can rent either from a professional landlord or a small/accidental landlord.


Why not legislate that the tenant isn't impacted by the sale of the property, just like a business lease?
Landlords wan't the property for their use or their families use? Tough luck! The resident has a contract which entitles them to reside there until the contract is up.


----------



## Early Riser

The Horseman said:


> I often wonder why if it is so easy and profitable to be a landlord why there are so many vacant properties in Ireland.



Perhaps, Purple supplies at least part of the reason here:



Purple said:


> It's too hard to get a bad tenant out. It's too hard to get paid if they stop paying. It's too hard to get tenants to cover the costs of damage to a property



I fully agree with increasing the rights of landlords in regard to the above - and making the system of enforcing such rights more efficient. But that does not mean that the rights and protections for tenants cannot be equally increased and protected.



Purple said:


> Those are the reasons why landlords leave the market. It doesn't matter though; the property doesn't cease to exist, someone else moves in. The net impact on the housing shortage is zero.



I don't know about the housing shortage but I think it affects the rental and housing markets. The rental market is too insecure. It is too difficult for people too feel that a rental property is a "home". Everyone wants to get on the "property ladder". Then they are stuck in one place with a mortgage. Will the market then increase, stagnate or fall - leaving negative equity?


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Why not legislate that the tenant isn't impacted by the sale of the property, just like a business lease?
> Landlords wan't the property for their use or their families use? Tough luck! The resident has a contract which entitles them to reside there until the contract is up.



In the future yes this could be done but I would be against it for existing small time landlords. You have devalued the property and your potential market to sell it ie owner occupiers would not want to buy it.


----------



## Firefly

Early Riser said:


> My opinion, though, is that we need to move towards a more professional rental market.



How would you define that?


----------



## Firefly

Purple said:


> Why not legislate that the tenant isn't impacted by the sale of the property, just like a business lease?
> Landlords wan't the property for their use or their families use? Tough luck! The resident has a contract which entitles them to reside there until the contract is up.



I would be strongly in favour of this. Just because a property changes hands shouldn't mean those renting it should be forced out.


----------



## Firefly

Early Riser said:


> Firefly, perhaps it wasn't explicit enough but I think it was implied here:



Thanks, I was mixing your posts up with those from TheBigShort


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> Thanks, I was mixing your posts up with those from TheBigShort



Not the first either is it that you have mixed up our posts? In fact, one of your previous posts had to be deleted by the moderator because you were speculating that  Early Riser and me are the same person.
Or if you are in no way speculating, then you must have poor attention span which explains why you need so many clarifications.


----------



## Firefly

TheBigShort said:


> Not the first either is it that you have mixed up our posts? In fact, one of your previous posts had to be deleted by the moderator because you were speculating that  Early Riser and me are the same person.
> Or if you are in no way speculating, then you must have poor attention span which explains why you need so many clarifications.



It must be nice all the same to have someone else who agrees with you on nearly everything!


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> In the future yes this could be done but I would be against it for existing small time landlords. You have devalued the property and your potential market to sell it ie owner occupiers would not want to buy it.


Rent caps have done the same thing. This is about broad public policy, it will negatively impact on some landlords but basically it's a case of tough luck; the greater good has to be served and it's not some breach of a basic human right. It will also lead to fewer casual landlords who are really just investors  looking for someone to cover their mortgage until they can flip their property.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> It must be nice all the same to have someone else who agrees with you on nearly everything!



No different to yourself I'm sure



Firefly said:


> Well I tell you something, Brendan's views are pretty much in line with my own (a few differences but not much) and if someone was to run for election with this as their only mandate they would get my (and a lot of others I would imagine) vote.



Tbh, I don't know what Early Risers views are on a lot of issues, so I wouldn't know if s/he nearly agrees with me on nearly everything.


----------



## Early Riser

TheBigShort said:


> Tbh, I don't know what Early Risers views are on a lot of issues, so I wouldn't know if s/he nearly agrees with me on nearly everything.



I agree with this.


----------



## The Horseman

Purple said:


> Rent caps have done the same thing. This is about broad public policy, it will negatively impact on some landlords but basically it's a case of tough luck; the greater good has to be served and it's not some breach of a basic human right. It will also lead to fewer casual landlords who are really just investors  looking for someone to cover their mortgage until they can flip their property.



So you are happy for the investor to take the "hit" and just "suck it up". The same investor who has tried to plan for the future so they are not a burden on the state.

Public policy is to house people who can't afford to do so. This is the State's responsibility. But sure hey lets just go out to the magic money tree and pick another few euro's off it because lets give it to those who want everything without working for it.


----------



## Delboy

Meanwhile, out on the street

https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/0925/907271-social-housing/


> The seventy nine new social housing units  unveiled in Dublin today will be ready to move into within weeks...
> ...
> There are 34 families still living in the original flats who will move into their new homes by the end of October.
> 
> They have been waiting for the regeneration project that has taken nearly 20 years to come to fruition facing delays caused by detenanting, funding and planning as well as the economic downturn.


Top location. Roughly 5 minutes walk to Ranelagh or Stephen's Green


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> Top location. Roughly 5 minutes walk to Ranelagh or Stephen's Green



This is good news.


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> Meanwhile, out on the street
> 
> https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2017/0925/907271-social-housing/
> 
> Top location. Roughly 5 minutes walk to Ranelagh or Stephen's Green



Whilst it is welcome news for those on a waiting list, I would be very surprised if there was a rush by private house buyers to buy in a development where over half the units (79+15+58) are likely to be social units. The cynic in me says that the council will end up buying the lot and paying way more than it should for them had it contracted the build from the start. Having said that though it is a positive development.


----------



## TheBigShort

Firefly said:


> I would be very surprised if there was a rush by private house buyers to buy in a development where over half the units (79+15+58) are likely to be social units.



Why would you think that? Why would anybody refuse an opportunity to buy where there are social units?


----------



## Purple

The Horseman said:


> So you are happy for the investor to take the "hit" and just "suck it up". The same investor who has tried to plan for the future so they are not a burden on the state.
> 
> Public policy is to house people who can't afford to do so. This is the State's responsibility. But sure hey lets just go out to the magic money tree and pick another few euro's off it because lets give it to those who want everything without working for it.


This would mainly effect private tenants who are paying their own rent. Social Housing tenants already have lifetime tenancies.


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> Why would you think that? Why would anybody refuse an opportunity to buy where there are social units?


I think you can work that one out or are you just being facetious


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> I think you can work that one out or are you just being facetious



The only thing I can think of is pure snobbery. But please don't tell me we have a housing crisis on the basis of pure snobbery?


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> You rarely ever hear advocates for families where the one/both parents have to commute hours every day with the kids in bed before they leave and if lucky, they grab 30 mins with them in the evenings.





Delboy said:


> But what about workers who have to move many miles from their families and take on large mortgages/high rents and then have the long commute...how do they survive without the close support networks? Do they even matter?


----------



## Delboy

TheBigShort said:


> The only thing I can think of is pure snobbery. But please don't tell me we have a housing crisis on the basis of pure snobbery?


Nothing to do with snobbery in the majority of cases. But I suspect you know that


----------



## TheBigShort

Delboy said:


> Nothing to do with snobbery in the majority of cases. But I suspect you know that



So if has nothing to do with snobbery, and I'm glad you corrected me on that, what has it got to do with?
Why would there not be a rush of private house buyers in the middle of a housing crisis, to purchase units in the city centre at 'affordable' rates?
I take into account the working families you identified who have had to move far away.

My guess is that these units will be snapped up.


----------



## Delboy

Delboy said:


> Well, the Irish Times didn't like your your suggestion one bit, Brendan. Really surprised by that
> https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/...-kenny-s-nation-a-chilling-scenario-1.3220902
> 
> If your not careful, the only station that will have you on will be Newstalk!


Alice Leahy (Homeless campaigner) on Newstalk with Pat Kenny now. She has just said that Brendan was very brave to say what he did on that TV show and she felt it was a very balanced programme that cut through a lot of the PC garbage around this subject. She was gushing about you!

She has said a lot of things on the show this morning that will upset the more Liberals amongst us:
- non nationals are getting precedence in a lot of cases despite not being long in the country. 1 EU national who had just arrived was given an apt in Sth Co Dub recently and this nearly caused WW3 amongst others on the housing list who became aware of it
- people are deliberately making things look worse than they are i.e. sleeping in cars and contacting 'sympathetic journalists' who then give them coverage in the national media
- Local Authorities are responding to this media coverage by dealing quickly with those people ahead of everyone else to get the story shut down
- A lot of people are getting accommodation that shouldn't be let near a social house as they are incapable of living in open society (without a host of supports) due to addiction issues amongst other problems. They are causing massive disruption in housing estates/apt blocks and making life hell for ordinary citizens

The piece on the show started with a Mother who has just had her 5th child and has spent the past 8 years on the housing list. She wants accommodation in Dublin near her mother. I didn't get the start of the show but I think 1 of the kids has health issues also.
A lot of texters were asking why someone would continue to have kids when they were in effect homeless. And that living close to your family was not an option for a lot of Irish people who had to move to find work.

I found it a very candid piece on the homeless/accommodation issue in Ireland. Not something you hear very much in whats normally a very 1 sided debate.


----------



## Firefly

Delboy said:


> The piece on the show started with a Mother who has just had her 5th child and has spent the past 8 years on the housing list. She wants accommodation in Dublin near her mother. I didn't get the start of the show but I think 1 of the kids has health issues also.
> A lot of texters were asking why someone would continue to have kids when they were in effect homeless.



Was thinking the same thing myself!


----------



## Brendan Burgess

Delboy said:


> She has just said that Brendan was very brave to say what he did on that TV show and she felt it was a very balanced programme that cut through a lot of the PC garbage around this subject. She was gushing about you!



Hi Delboy

Thanks for pointing that out. I must listen back to it. 

I have been very surprised at the number of people who have contacted me to say how much they agree with what I said and welcome the fact that someone is prepared to say it in public.  

But it's great to hear a homeless campaigner saying it.  She will probably be described as "Thatcherite" or "like Enoch Powell" for daring to challenge the conventional view on the topic. 

Brendan


----------



## TheBigShort

Brendan Burgess said:


> Thanks for pointing that out. I must listen back to it.



I wouldn't get too excited Brendan. The contributor commended how balanced the TV program. That you were brave to say what you said, in the context that it is not PC.
I took from it that she is of the view that in order to find sustainable solutions to housing, everyone needs to be heard. She fell someway of endorsing what you said. 
When the issue of 'disrupters' came up she was asked where do you put them live? She didn't answer other than to say they needed more supports and seemed to imply not to move them.
A texter suggested sending them to Roscommon with the Syrian refugees. What the good people of Roscommon have done to deserve 'disrupters' I don't know?
"To Hell or Connacht"? as Kenny referred.


----------



## Firefly

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have been very surprised at the number of people who have contacted me to say how much they agree with what I said and welcome the fact that someone is prepared to say it in public.



It came up in my work place and everyone was saying you were right too. I think it's one of those things that people are nearly afraid to say/admit publicly but believe in strongly all the same. That's why I think Leo is hitting the nail on the head saying he wants to support those who get up early in the morning. He's not saying explicitly who he is referring to but we all know!


----------



## Early Riser

Delboy said:


> Alice Leahy (Homeless campaigner) on Newstalk with Pat Kenny now. She has just said that Brendan was very brave to say what he did on that TV show and she felt it was a very balanced programme that cut through a lot of the PC garbage around this subject. She was gushing about you!





TheBigShort said:


> I wouldn't get too excited Brendan. The contributor commended how balanced the TV program. That you were brave to say what you said, in the context that it is not PC.



I haven't heard the program yet  so it is good to get these two (somewhat disparate) accounts. I must say, though, that I find Alice Leahy to be the most consistently creditable spokesperson on homelessness in our media.


----------



## ClubMan

I found Alice Leahy's message to be quite confusing.
She started off by saying that the interview with the mother of five was "very powerful" and should be played to all local authority councillors.
She didn't seem to clarify why and for what reason.
Later she did seem to offer some opinions somewhat in line with what Brendan has been arguing for.
But a lot of her comments were very anecdotal and at one stage she said that statistics tell us nothing. 
She did mention the term "homeless industry" a couple of times in what seemed to be a slightly disparaging way - which is odd coming from somebody in the homeless industry.
I wasn't that convinced by what she had to say as much as I could understand it.
And I wouldn't place much stock in her praise of other commentators such as Brendan.


----------



## TheBigShort

Early Riser said:


> I haven't heard the program yet  so it is good to get these two (somewhat disparate) accounts. I must say, though, that I find Alice Leahy to be the most consistently creditable spokesperson on homelessness in our media.



I'm not that familiar with her tbh. But she came across as someone somewhat progressive with acute knowledge of the issue.
She was particularly praiseworthy of the woman (Edel) interviewed at the start with 4(5?) kids living at home with parents, 8yrs on the waiting list. The interview is quite powerful, as she attests to.


----------



## ClubMan

Well, as I said, I thought that she was unclear, vague, used a lot of anecdotal stories as evidence and dismissed outright the utility of doing any quantitative analysis ("statistics") in this area.
The opening interview was powerful alright - but not in the same way to everybody!
Many people questioned why somebody eight years homeless would have five kids during that time and seem to expect to be handed a home close to their parents.
Alice also seemed critical of organizations such as the local authorities and services ("wrap around services"?) without offering any clear ideas/solutions that I could identify.
She did allude to personal responsibility on the part of people looking for housing but for some reason seem to give the woman at the start a free ride on that front.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

As this has gone a fair bit off track with new issues, I will close this thread. Please start a new thread for new issues.

Brendan


----------

