We will have to change legislation before we can change policy but in the interests of a socially just society we should do so.
It is damaging to the fabric of society to see people exploiting their fellow citizens like that.
I'm glad to see that you agree that the "In all cases there must be no suitable alternative accommodation available" clause is nonsense
and, as Brendan and others have pointed out, it is the norm for people to inherit their parents social house.
The person living in a house that is bigger than they need, which is being provided by their fellow citizens, when they can afford to buy or rent their own home; that is the person doing the exploiting.Who is exploiting who?
I never agreed any such thing.
Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.I would say the norm is that people succeed tenancy of the property where there is no suitable alternative accommodation.
Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.If there is no suitable alternative accommodation, you can hardly expect someone to be moved to unsuitable alternative accommodation?
Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law? We're looking for the same standard in this scenario.Go ahead, as long as the legislation is 'socially just', no problem there.
The person living in a house that is bigger than they need, which is being provided by their fellow citizens, when they can afford to buy or rent their own home; that is the person doing the exploiting.
Are you familiar with the concept of the "Reasonable Person" in law?
I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that there only needs to be a small improvement in the utilisation of our current social housing stock to make big inroads into the homelessness problem.How many are we actually talking about here? And in the context of resolving the housing crisis, what impact will shifting these people out have?
See here.Enlighten me.
I grew up in social housing in Dalkey. My parents were poor as church mice, and economic conditions were grim for much of my upbringing. However, all the children of the family were financially very successful (eventually). The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for us , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances. Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money and make a massive difference between working to pay the rent and considerable financial comfort.If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?.
I have, on more than one occasion, pointed out that there only needs to be a small improvement in the utilisation of our current social housing stock to make big inroads into the homelessness problem.
If I lived in a social housing unit in Dalkey or just off St. Stephen's Green in Dublin why on earth would I ever move out?
I used to live near Christchurch in Dublin. The Iveagh Buildings behind my apartment were far bigger and better than my home. If I lived there why would I ever move out?
I work with lots of guys from Cabra. They generally stay in the area no matter what they earn. Why would they move out of their council houses?
See here.
I grew up in social housing in Dalkey. My parents were poor as church mice, and economic conditions were grim for much of my upbringing. However, all the children of the family were financially very successful (eventually). The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for us , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances. Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money and make a massive difference between working to pay the rent and considerable financial comfort.
So if the tenant buys the house and later buys another house to live in and rents out the old house is that former tenant no longer one the the "ordinary working people" but rather a "private profiteers" extracting "extortionate rents"?I totally agree that housing that is provided for those less well-off should not be sold to private profiteers so that they can extract extortionate rents for ordinary working people who otherwise could have utilized the house and at least lived in relative financial comfort.
He pointed out that his father bought the house at a significant discount. That means that the asset is no longer in private ownership. Did you miss that bit?But it is interesting to note that even though you grew up in social housing, none of you 'inherited' the house for life. Instead, and I'm just assuming here, that upon your financial success that you left home and bought your own place. I was under the impression that folk like you (as in tenants of poor economic background) stayed in the social housing for life, regardless of how much income you earned.
So if the tenant buys the house and later buys another house to live in and rents out the old house is that former tenant no longer one the the "ordinary working people" but rather a "private profiteers" extracting "extortionate rents"?
He pointed out that his father bought the house at a significant discount. That means that the asset is no longer in private ownership. Did you miss that bit?
So what is he in your eyes?
You may laugh now but when the revolution comes...I shudder to think. Six of us now own nine houses between us, but only one of those is making filthy lucre from rental.
The purchase of the family home from the council for a knock-down price in the early 1980s -- while brilliant for us , and for my Dad in retirement -- was probably a bonus that we shouldn't have had, and could have helped someone else in more straitened circumstances.
Now these ex-corpo houses sell for stupid money
Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?
You mean you need to ask why anyone would buy a house at a deep discount to market value as has happened in the past? You really need to ask that question???
Question you really need to ask is why people who can afford to buy the house even at a deep discount are in LA housing and not privately renting or buying like the majority of people......
Everyone posting, with the exception of you it seems, agreed with that summation ages ago. If you can't see why such a setup makes the homelessness problem worse then there's not much point in continuing to talk about it.Im not sure what the last few comments are about or why im being quoted? Just to re-cap on what was said previously.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I took from the above comment that Dub_nerd considers, that while beneficial to his family, that social housing should not be sold to tenants at 'knock-down' prices only for the beneficiaries to profit later?
Instead social housing should remain in public ownership for the benefit of those who cannot afford to buy or rent in the private market?
Correct me if im wrong.
Again, just my interpretation, but 'stupid money' sounds like a euphemism for profiteering? And if my interpretation of the quote is correct, then the Dub_nerd is against the profiteering of social housing that were sold at 'knock-down' prices to tenants?
But hey, that is just my interpretation.
But more interestingly, the Dub_nerds post points to a reality that where people who do occupy social housing and progress in their careers/lives to earn good incomes, that in general they do vacate social housing and do buy for themselves.
Not only that, they didnt 'inherit' the house, instead the house was bought and sold for profit (im assuming his father then had to buy/rent in the private market)?
Which begs the question, if children 'inherit' their parents social housing, why would they buy the house if the option to live in it for a lifetime is there and their kids will inherit it?
Everyone posting, with the exception of you it seems, agreed with that summation ages ago. If you can't see why such a setup makes the homelessness problem worse then there's not much point in continuing to talk about it.
Correct. Do you agree in principle that this should be so?Your whole mantra is about getting those who occupy social housing but who can well afford to buy/rent their own housing that they should vacate the social housing.
Does that mean nobody should ever leave a any house in the absence of suitable accommodation? If not then why should Social Housing Tenants be different?Ive been saying you cannot compel people to leave in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation.
Yes they do.High income earners do not occupy social housing.
Exactly.Im sure there are some exceptions,
I don't know but given that there are 150,000 social housing units in the country even if it's 2 in every 1000 tenants that would free up 300 houses, house 300 homeless families and save the State over a €100,000,000 in houses that they would not have to build. Think of all the pay rises they could give to Public Servants with that money!but how many are we actually talking about?
There will be the same amount of people in social housing but more people in social housing that actually need it. It would also make the system fairer and therefore more legitimate to the public at large.And compelling them to move will have what impact?
Done.Perhaps you might actually answer these questions directly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?