Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.

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?
 
Delboy said:
I don't think the proposal as worded will ever be implemented by any of the political parties in Ireland.
Click to expand...

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
 
TheBigShort said:
With respect, it is this type of mindset that I think needs to be challenged.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Purple said:
But the people who buy those houses, or rent them, will be working in Dublin.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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".
 
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?

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