I know. Where's Social Justice Ireland when you need them? I feel ashamed, although I'm part of the problem; I also moved away because I couldn't afford to buy in the area.
I feel like the guy who shot Bambi's mother...
Social Housing - Creating a monster
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
I feel like the guy who shot Bambi's mother...
I'd be straight onto Rich Boyd Barrett if I were you. Oh and get yourself a medical card to while your at it.
I give up. We have one proposition that it doesn't matter how much you earn. The state has a responsibility to provide you with a house in your selected location, and you get to keep it and pass it on to the next generation indefinitely.
Or there's the real world where reasonable people consider that it's their own responsibility to provide a house for themselves once they can afford it. And that you don't get to cherry pick the conditions to suit you. You get what you can afford where you can afford.
Or there's the real world where reasonable people consider that it's their own responsibility to provide a house for themselves once they can afford it. And that you don't get to cherry pick the conditions to suit you. You get what you can afford where you can afford.
I'll email him, thanks.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
As many times as it takes to explain how much a household of €21K will pay, as you have already agreed it wont be market rate. Im not looking for a detailed blueprint but some basic specific detail would help. If a household on €21k is not to pay market rate, why do you keep then saying they will?
Why will social housing household on €160K have their rent capped at €2000 - surely this flies in the face of everything you stand for?
The same reason as social housing tenant gets a job, works hard, pay rent and generally pays their own way. If they are paying taxes and a rent that is linked to their income (the Differential Rate Scheme) they are paying their way.
And a cohort earning even less.
You are avoiding the reality. People living in social housing do not, in the main, earn incomes high enough to buy or rent in the private market. The highest sector of unemployment is found with people living in unemployment blackspots in LA housing. LA housing can quite often be found in run-down areas, prone to high levels of crime, disorder, drugs abuse etc...these are not uncommon features. The quality of housing is often of sub-standard quality. So much so that last year Ireland was found in breach of EU law
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html
Here is some detail required to obtain LA housing;
https://www.housingagency.ie/housin...-housing/renting-from-my-local-authority.aspx
How much rent do I have to pay?
Local authority rents are based on a system called ‘differential rents’. This means that the amount of rent you pay depends on the amount of your total household income.
- If your income is low, your rent payment will reflect this and will be low.
- If your income increases so will your rent payment.
- The income of all household members is considered and rent calculations are adjusted accordingly.
- If your income or the income of anyone in your household changes, you must inform the local authority and rent will be adjusted upwards or downwards in accordance to the change.
Is there a tenancy agreement?
Yes. Once you accept accommodation you enter into a tenancy agreement with your local authority. The conditions of your tenancy are set out in detail in the Letting Agreement. It sets out the general rules and terms of the tenancy such as:
- use of the property as your principle home
- how the rent is calculated by reference to the Differential Rents Scheme
- repair and maintenance responsibilities
- how to deal with disputes, anti-social behaviour and it usually sets out the consequences of not abiding by the terms of the tenancy.
See above - if they have low incomes, they pay low rent. And as for your family with young children, you do realise that not every social home is suitable? You do realise that even if you evict a working woman, who raised a family, who pays her taxes, pays housing rent, that the home you want to evict her out of may not actually be suitable for the family in the hostel? Or do you think people and their families can just be herded to wherever suits?
What if the woman in the house by herself lives in Dublin, but the family in the hostel or hotel are located in Letterkenny, and one of the family is working in Letterkenny? Are you suggesting they give up their job in order to get the house to evict the woman who now ends up depressed living in a hostel, because of the housing crisis she is not able to find suitable accommodation (because she earns a low income) to get to her job everyday, so she then loses her job, and the family in the house are depressed because they cant get work and have been taken out of their community and the kids are upset.
Is this how it works? Everyone losing? Or can you guarantee it will be to benefit of everyone?
Here is some stats about housing in Ireland - there are over 200,000 vacant dwellings in the country. Primarily private owned. Where is the sense of 'social justice' that these people have? Why cant these homes be used to ease the homeless crisis?
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpub...sofpopulation2016-preliminaryresults/housing/
It was mentioned earlier in this thread that Cork City has a 50% refusal rate for social housing. Is this because people living in hostels, like family with children you keep relaying to , are turning down properties? Are you suggesting we evict working people because people in hostels and hotels are fussy?
Or is it because there lies within all of this a valid question of suitability? I mentioned it in the previous thread but you are all fixated on the blind notion that social housing policy is defined by a back-of-the-envelope calculations of income earnings and the number of available bedrooms. That is basically the depth of your knowledge in all of this.
Here is a little bit more detail that expands on the complexities of housing
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/soci/w14/text1_en.htm
Is there any concept that a working family, who after the economic crisis, lost their home, their business, their high standard of living, may....just may feel, that a LA house in a run-down estate, with drug dealers and crime gangs prevalent in the community, that this is not suitable for their children? That perhaps the hotel or hostel is preferential?
By the way, I havent been able to source figures yet but my understanding is that around 25%, or more, of LA housing is already over-crowded. So it really is going to be a hard job matching up your family in a hostel with suitable accommodation - as in reality, that is the case.
So between incomes that barely beat minimum wage, houses that are run-down and in breach of EU guidelines, unemployment blackspots, drug and criminal gangs prevalent in the community, your focus is on the (relatively few) €80,000K+ income earners who pay taxes, pays rent toward social housing, that they should be evicted for some other unfortunate family to be hurled into a community of welfare dependency? This is your answer to the housing crisis - based on notions of swathes of under-occupied gifted homes that are occupied by high income classes!!
Here is some detail you can study at your leisure at the effects of eviction
Social housing tenants are not immune to the negative effects just because they are social housing tenants.
Because they don't have to! They can stay where they are knowing well that they will continue to occupy council housing even if someone with a greater need is in emergency accommodation.
I'm happy it's called a home, just not with the permanency of it. Lots of people rent and have various "homes" in their lives.
If everyone living in social housing was assessed there could be many, many suitable house types available.
Very valid concern and they would be the first to go in my book and preferably an extended holiday in the Joy
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
So, unlike Purple, your issue isn't just with people who can "well afford to buy", your issue is with those who cannot afford a place of their own also? You think taking people out of social housing who can't afford to stay anywhere is a good idea so that people in emergency accommodation can be looked after? So the low paid workers who cannot afford anywhere else can presumably move into the emergency accommodation?
Yes, so what? I'm in my fifth home now, I intend to settle down now. I pay for it myself, but if it were social housing I don't think I could fathom many more changes.
Have you anything to back this up? Again, I ask you, Cork City has reported a 50% refusal rate in their offers of accommodation. I'm guessing suitability is a key factor here, particularly when it comes to employment opportunities.
I hate to put a pin in the bubble of your 5yr Plan - but a married couple, both working in low income employment, she a hairdresser, he a cleaner in a factory. They occupy a social house, earn €55k a year are in their mid 50's. They have two kids, 18yr old girl who has aspirations of being a model, 20 yr son apprentice mechanic. Both living at home in the social house all their lives. The son qualifies as a mechanic and now earning a wage decides with his girlfriend to move into together in private rental accommodation. They decide they want to stand on their own two feet, how good is that? The daughter, hired by a modelling agency gets a contract to work in England for six months.
Both kids have flown the nest.
You send your assessor around to the home as part of your State controlled 5yr plan. The assessor decides that this 3 bed terrace is not suitable anymore (too big) and that in the grip of a housing crisis others are more needy. The State assessor orders them to move to a more suitable 1 bed apartment, or buy a place of their own. Buying or renting in the private market is out of the question with today's prices and the banks won't give them a mortgage in their mid 50's on the incomes they have, or what mortgage they would give, wouldn't buy a garden shed in Killiney! The new apartment it's a little further away from where they work, but only two bus rides to and from new home to employment. The 3 bed is now occupied by a family with no income, two kids, but they are more needy!
Six months after the assessment circumstances have changed - the son has broken up with his girlfriend (not his fault, she dumped him) neither can afford the apartment on their own so they have to leave, the daughter discovered the modelling agency in the UK was not all that it was cracked up to be, broken dreams (stuff like this does happen).
Both the son and the daughter return home only to find that you, under your plan, have evicted their parents to a one bed apt. There is nowhere now for them to stay. The son is looking for alternative accommodation but by himself he is in the same boat as all the other first time buyers. The daughter has no income until offered a trainee hairdresser position for €8 ph. But as she has nowhere to stay, as her home has been taken, she and her brother qualify for social housing and in turn are placed in emergency accommodation.
The family that now occupy the house have no employment - why should they? They don't need to work, they have been gifted a free house by the taxpayer which they can stay in for the rest of their lives and the working family, the mother, father, son and daughter have all been rightly screwed. But what's worse is, the house next door to one they live in was also assessed. At the time of the assessment it was fully occupied, but six months on, the two children in that house flew the nest. It is now perfectly suitable for the working family to return home (albeit next door) and live together again. But as your plan is to assess the accommodation needs of each family every 5yrs, then this house won't be assessed for another 4.5 yrs - shame!
Great, I'm guessing you have another back of the envelope solution to the drug problem that has plagues Western societies for the last 50yrs or so. When you have all the drug dealers in prison come back and we can discuss how we can accommodate the homeless more.
If they are paying lower rents than their neighbour who is renting privately then they are being subsidised. I have no problem with that unless they can reasonably afford to pay the market rents. I don't like poor people subsidising richer people. I don't like welfare payments covering the cost of a holiday when they could be used to cover the cost of getting someone out of a hostel.
Same family; he inherits his parents home, the wife inherits her parents home and €70,000 in cash. they do up and rent out those homes, getting €2,000 a year for each. Their household income is now €103,000 a month. Their son gets a new girlfriend and they have a baby. Rather than live in one of his parents houses he goes on the housing list. The parents never pay the market rate for their council house.
Does that sound fair to you?
Good God you should consider writing a fantasy novel, you could make a fortune!
You're right though...let's leave things as they are...empty bedrooms in social houses whilst families live in hostels. Let's do our utmost to facilitate inter-generational dependency. After all, isn't this the real socialist utopia?
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Unfortunately when it's obvious that the futility of your proposals cannot sink in, then the Ladybird explanation needs to be used.
What empty rooms are you talking about? 25% of social housing is already over-crowded and in Cork City the refusal rate by those in homeless and emergency accommodation is at 50%. Do you think it's because they are fussy, or would it have something to do with the sub-standard accommodation being offered that Ireland has been found in breach of by the EU this year?
When it comes to fantasising, it's clear you have next to zero knowledge on the subject nor are you even prepared to do a little bit of background checking before spouting off about Stalinist type solutions.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
How can the son, girlfriend and new baby live in one of the inherited houses when they are already occupied in the private rental market? Are you suggesting that multiple families live in the same house?
Which means 75% isn't and of that 75% I am sure that there are spare bedrooms wouldn't you think? Lots of people whose kids have flown the nest with spare bedrooms, even in your example above!
SO the children of wealthy families should get social housing. Then when that son's parents die he'll live in a house provided by the State, paying subsidised rent, while renting out the three houses he owns. Do you think that's fair?
It IS obvious at this stage...you're just too far gone.
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 724
You appear to believe that people should take no responsibility for the circumstances they find themselves in. If I can give a brief synopsis of the above to explain my position.
As part of the allocation of social housing people are advised that your housing needs are assessed every 5 yrs to consider both over and undercrowding. If the property is to big for you then you know when you got the property in first place that your situation will be assessed every 5 yrs and you could and would be moved if the property is no longer suitable.
I thought you example of the son breaking up with his girlfriend and the daughter wanting to be a model was comical to say the least. Life sucks, we all have problems, life never turns out the way we want.
On a slightly separate all be it relevant topic the who concept of differential rent needs a serious overhaul. Why is the differential rate charged not tied in some way to the prevailing local rents and not just the income of the household. It is unfair to have two properties paying the same rent simply because of the income of the households are the same where one property is located in an area that has a lot of amenties and the other has none but both are charged the same rent simply because the household income is the same.
Also, there should be a min rent charged which relates to the property type and location. If the differential rate is the only method of charging rent and you have one person living in a three bed property and they are paying rent based on the differential model do you think this is fair on those looking for accommodation. After all we do have a housing shortage!
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Im sure there are spare rooms. But you cant devise a housing policy based on the narrow prism of a persons income nor how many spare rooms a household has. There are too many other intrinsic, complex and variable factors to consider that will impede any such system from working properly – such as current employment location, employment opportunities, healthcare, access to education other social services, the condition of the property, community ties, crime levels in the location of social house (perceived or real). These factors are pertinent to the viewpoint of the existing tenant and the prospective tenant in emergency accommodation.
And despite the made-up scenario I gave, things do like that do occur – when the young ones leave the nest, sometimes they do return. Sometimes it takes a number of attempts before they finally establish themselves outside of their home. I left home when I got my first job in Tallaght, I rented digs with three others. When I changed jobs for a job in city centre I returned home to my parents on the northside for another 12 months. I moved to Australia, I was offered a sponsorship to stay and work permanently. My then girlfriend wasn’t offered a sponsorship. We returned to Ireland and again we moved back to my parents to save a deposit for a house in Dublin.
How would have all of that worked out for me, working and paying taxes, if having moved out my parents were then evicted to a 1 bed apartment? Truth is, I probably wouldn’t have left home at all in the first place. I would have stayed in the house with my girlfriend insuring that I would have somewhere to live long-term.
Your proposal puts a block on mobility, a barrier to risk-taking, imposes increased hardship, uses up more State resources than could ever be possibly saved – (nevermind the administration, but the mental healthcare costs associated with eviction would spiral) would get tied up in legal challenges.
When you start dictating to citizens where and when they can live, you are only a short hop and jump away from then dictating where and when they should work. And in that instance, welcome to Stalins USSR!
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Where have I ever said that people should take no responsibility. In the scenario I provided, the working family and their children took the responsibility of getting up and going to work, to taking risks - moving to England to pursue a dream career.
The family that subsequently took their home take no risks, take no responsibility - but hey, they are more needy! This is the system that is being proposed. And if you are convinced that it is futile, then perhaps point to me to the similar system operating anywhere in the Western world. Or do you think that in the pages of AAM that a ground-breaking realization has just occurred that no other civilized and modern society in the democratic world has thought of yet?
So, if I don't want to lose my home (I'm funny about things like that) upon assessment day, my kids come to visit (luggage in hand) and I explain to the assessor they have moved back in, no room at the inn here - see you in 5yrs! What do you do then?
So just get on with it then and stop moaning about the housing crisis as if any of you really care.
That's brilliant so it is!
The Horseman
Registered User
- Messages
- 724
So you are saying that we should just leave people in properties with spare rooms on the odd chance the children who have flown the nest might want to come back. At what point does this end, should we allow people keep empty bedrooms on the off chance that grandchildren may or may not need a room on the odd occasion?
By adopting the existing social housing model your are actually dictating to non social housing people ie those who are purchasing their homes and those who are privately renting. So by your logic it is not okay to dictate to social housing tenants but it is okay to dictate to non social housing people by simply doing nothing for them but looking after the social tenants at all costs!