Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

They do.
 
Firefly said:
At present if you get a council house it's seem to be yours for life and I find this repugnant.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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?
 
Purple said:
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Purple said:
The point firefly is making is that whether they end up as really high earners,
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
It's easy to be facetious.
Click to expand...


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".
 
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".
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Brendan Burgess said:
social housing is like winning the National Lottery
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.


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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
TheBigShort said:
Really what the lotto is about is a 2 bed terraced house in Coolock. That's what winning is all about.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Gordon Gekko said:
What's wrong with a 2 bed terraced house in Coolock?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gordon Gekko said:
The sense of entitlement amongst some of the welfare class is breathtaking.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Firefly said:
I am not talking about who gets a house initially,
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register