Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.

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.
 
Last edited:

What would you do, given it's your makey-uppy scenario?
 
Firefly said:
What would you do, given it's your makey-uppy scenario?
Click to expand...

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?
 
TheBigShort said:
I would use the additional money provided by the government to house the homeless woman off the street.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, that is what I would do.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Firefly said:
I would then reallocate the house from the single woman to the family of 4
Click to expand...
Firefly said:
I would much rather a family with 4 children be living in a house than a hostel!!
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Firefly said:
I would consider whether one was working or not a factor in determining their need for social housing, not the only factor.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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


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..
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out.


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

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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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'.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Firefly said:
Then your scenario is completely bogus as HAP is an integral part of our public policy for the provision of housing!!!
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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..
Click to expand...

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?
 
TheBigShort said:
I never said I would prefer that. I would never have a preference for that.
Click to expand...

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.



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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

They don't. It's not theirs, it belongs to the council.


It's not theirs, it belongs to the council.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

Firefly said:
People have their homes reposessed if they cannot meet their repayments. Where's you sympathy for these people?
Click to expand...

Firefly said:
People leave their homes to take up employment elsewhwere, often abroad. Where's you sympathy for these people?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Firefly said:
It's not theirs, it belongs to the council.
Click to expand...

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?
 
TheBigShort said:
Anyway, I'm done with this topic.
Click to expand...

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

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