Social Housing - Creating a monster

[TheBigShort]

But you're okay with people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel.

No, I never said I was okay with it. But the reason they are in a hotel is because they cannot find suitable accommodation for their family. The reason they cannot find suitable accommodation is because there is not enough social housing, nor is there suitable private accommodation even if they are in a position to pay for it.

So just in case you haven't been listening, or paying attention, people who are earning incomes are also struggling to find accommodation. That is, they may well be able to afford in monetary terms to buy or rent a property, but because they have jobs in fixed locations, because they have children in schools, because they have childcare in place, because they have ties to their local community with a life outside of work, because they have elderly parents that they care for, …etc…etc... they cannot find anywhere suitable to buy or rent and end up living with mammy and daddy well into their thirties, or end up in a hostel, or a hotel.

Is it beyond your thinking, beyond your comprehension, beyond your own wit and intellect…that perhaps, if a working family occupying a social house, who may well be able to afford to buy or rent a property in monetary terms, may also experience the same problems as the working families living with mammy & daddy, or those families living in a hostel or a hotel when it comes to finding private rented accommodation or purchasing a private property?

No, I answered it.

You didn't, you answered my question with a presumption that others could answer and with a question of your own.

"Maybe the smart, professional, overworked and underpaid dedicated and selfless people working so hard in the RTB and Department of the Environment could come up with a mechanism for that or is the mantra in those places "It's hard to do the right thing so don't bother"?

So here is a question for you again, perhaps you could answer it yourself instead of hoping that others in the RTB or civil service would be able to do it for you - considering that they already have come up with a number of mechanisms for providing social housing and the rents applicable.

What is the mechanism that you would use to determine the appropriate ‘market rate’ for social house rents to be applied to tenants in those social houses, considering also the variable amounts of income earned by the tenants in those social houses.?

Because then we could end up in a farcical situation where someone ends up paying more than the market rent.

Ok so, cap it at open market rates. How on earth does this solve anything? And none of it makes sense anyway. If a 2 bed terraced hse in D1 is a €1,000 pm on the open market, it is €1,000 pm regardless of what you earn €20k or €100K. Are you suggesting a 2 bed terraced social house should apply the same criteria to its tenants, regardless of what they earn?
Perhaps, if you ever finally get around to answering the previous question we may be able to move on? To make it as easy as possible for you, should social housing tenants in D1 earning €20K pay the open market rate for rental properties in that area?

People who can't be bothered to work shouldn't get any council house.

Where would they live then? Hotel? Hostel? On the street?

In any case, people who 'couldn't be bothered' is your term. I have already provided you with a link to a paper showing that the poorest in society work on average, for a majority of their working lives.

Using the same scenario, except compare the working family to the unemployed family looking for work. Its the same result, the working family earning good income makes way for the unemployed (job-seeking) family in the social house. But then the working family has their income cut and cannot afford their new private rented accommodation and face eviction. Then you, and the rest of the "whats in it for me" club, will be on here saying how unjust it is that this working family are facing eviction while another family who aren't working are occupying free housing and not contributing. BB will then want them assessed and evicted to make way for the working family that occupied the house in the first place. And then none of you will say where the unemployed family will go to live.

Are you able to comprehend how stupid that is? Is there a modicum of the impracticalities, unfeasibility, resource wasting, of how time-consuming, how cumbersome, how futile the whole situation would be, dawning on you?

 

[TheBigShort]

I must say I am still flummoxed that a so-call socialist could have this view. There are families with children sleeping in emergency accommodation at the same time that there are people who could afford their own place occupying council houses with spare bedrooms.
The sense of entitlement is staggering. It's no wonder that the same outlook is present in all things union/work related.

Except I don't hold that view, so stop wasting time.

 

[Firefly]

Except I don't hold that view, so stop wasting time.

You do

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...or-social-housing.204999/page-13#post-1531098

 

[dereko1969]

So what? She is being refused the apartment. They can campaign to inherit the world for all anyone cares if she is not entitled to the apartment by virtue of the fact that she has a property of her own then she wont get it.
What this has to do with the OP I do not know.

It is the sense of entitlement of the daughter of the council tenant and some of my neighbours that someone without a housing need should be entitled to inherit a council house whilst owning another property nearby. It is the fact that they were shocked that the council would enforce these rules, which to me seems to indicate that the council may have ignored their own rules on numerous previous occasions. It also seemed to me to indicate that these people were putting down a marker to the council that they wouldn't accept it in their own cases as well.
I really didn't think the point I was raising was that difficult to fathom. You might also rein in the personal attacks on other users here, calling someone a "twit" isn't on.

 

[TheBigShort]

You do

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...or-social-housing.204999/page-13#post-1531098

here is my view from that discussion -

"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."

 

[TheBigShort]

It is the sense of entitlement of the daughter of the council tenant and some of my neighbours that someone without a housing need should be entitled to inherit a council house whilst owning another property nearby.

Believe me, you don't have to travel too far around here to get a sense of entitlement. There are posters on here who believe that because they are 'net contributors' to society that they someone have a greater say in public policy that others who are 'net recipients'. Others just believe that because they pay any income tax at all, that those taxes pay for all the public services in the State and therefore have a sense of entitlement to lecture others of what is the greater good.
Having a sense of entitlement is one thing, actually imposing that sense is another.

It is the fact that they were shocked that the council would enforce these rules,

So they wont be imposing that sense of entitlement then? Isnt that a good thing? Just because some people who own their own private property have a sense of entitlement to council property doesn't mean they will get it, and that is the case here isn't it?

which to me seems to indicate that the council may have ignored their own rules on numerous previous occasions.

Or that they have a presumption, like you do now, that the council may have ignored their own rules in the past. The reality is most likely the opposite.

I really didn't think the point I was raising was that difficult to fathom.

Its not. A person with their own private property has a presumption that she can "inherit" social housing that was allocated to her now deceased mother (and presumably not to her). She cant.

You might also rein in the personal attacks on other users here, calling someone a "twit" isn't on.

Yeh, fair enough, I don't like going down that road. But I wouldn't just lay out the personal attacks to just anyone, Purple has form in that regard laying out the abuse to me personally also.

 

[Firefly]

here is my view from that discussion -

"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."

This is getting ridiculous, you're arguing with yourself now! You provided a scenario in the other thread yourself.

I asked:

"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?"

You replied:
"Yes, that is what I would do."

Honestly, I think you are quite happy to argue with anybody over anything at this stage. Time for a new hobby I think fella

 

[Purple]

No, I never said I was okay with it. But the reason they are in a hotel is because they cannot find suitable accommodation for their family. The reason they cannot find suitable accommodation is because there is not enough social housing, nor is there suitable private accommodation even if they are in a position to pay for it.

So just in case you haven't been listening, or paying attention, people who are earning incomes are also struggling to find accommodation. That is, they may well be able to afford in monetary terms to buy or rent a property, but because they have jobs in fixed locations, because they have children in schools, because they have childcare in place, because they have ties to their local community with a life outside of work, because they have elderly parents that they care for, …etc…etc... they cannot find anywhere suitable to buy or rent and end up living with mammy and daddy well into their thirties, or end up in a hostel, or a hotel.

Is it beyond your thinking, beyond your comprehension, beyond your own wit and intellect…that perhaps, if a working family occupying a social house, who may well be able to afford to buy or rent a property in monetary terms, may also experience the same problems as the working families living with mammy & daddy, or those families living in a hostel or a hotel when it comes to finding private rented accommodation or purchasing a private property?

Wow, that was a long way of rebutting something I didn't say.

I said "people who have a good income and can well afford to buy their own home keeping a council home that is needed by a family currently living in a hotel"
What part of that do you not understand?

Do you think the State should provide subsidised housing for everyone who can't afford a home where they grew up and have family connections? What about all the people who grow up in Dalkey, Killiney, Foxrock and Mallahide? If they have family connections there, get married and start a family and move in with a one set of parents and have their kids in school should the State provide them with a home in those areas?

 

[Purple]

Ok so, cap it at open market rates. How on earth does this solve anything? And none of it makes sense anyway. If a 2 bed terraced hse in D1 is a €1,000 pm on the open market, it is €1,000 pm regardless of what you earn €20k or €100K. Are you suggesting a 2 bed terraced social house should apply the same criteria to its tenants, regardless of what they earn?
Perhaps, if you ever finally get around to answering the previous question we may be able to move on? To make it as easy as possible for you, should social housing tenants in D1 earning €20K pay the open market rate for rental properties in that area?

See you really aren't listening.

• You said that you think that rents should be tied to income, increasing as incomes go up.
• I asked you if there should be a cap on the rents or should they just continue to increase as the tenants income increases.
• You said they they should not be capped and asked me at when level they should be capped.
• I replied that they should be capped at market rates.

So my position is that rents should be tied to income, increasing as income increases until they get to the market rate. You think they should just keep increasing.

 

[Purple]

Where would they live then? Hotel? Hostel? On the street?

Let them live in hostels or the street. I don't care. The social safety net should be for people who can't provide for themselves, not those who won't. Given that that's a small minority, or a non-existent one in your view (in your world only rich people are dishonest) I don't see why you keep bringing it up.

 

[Purple]

Then you, and the rest of the "whats in it for me" club, will be on here saying how unjust it is that this working family are facing eviction while another family who aren't working are occupying free housing and not contributing.

That's right, because you are a socialist and therefore morally superior to the rest of us. Anyone who disagrees with you isn't motivated by a contrary view of what's best for society in general and the socially marginalised in particular, no they are just selfish.
Maybe if you came down out of that rarefied air and got close enough to us inferior types to actually read and listen to what other posters said you might be able to grasp that other people can hold different opinions without being bad people.

 

[Seagull]

I find the idea that someone should be permanently entitled to social housing because it was needed at some stage completely incomprehensible. How does this differ from a suggestion that someone should keep the dole regardless of how much they earn? Social housing is supposed to be there for people who need it, not people who want it, or can't be bothered to pay for things they can afford

 

[T McGibney]

The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.

It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.

 

[TheBigShort]

This is getting ridiculous, you're arguing with yourself now! You provided a scenario in the other thread yourself.

I asked:

"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?"

You replied:
"Yes, that is what I would do."

Honestly, I think you are quite happy to argue with anybody over anything at this stage. Time for a new hobby I think fella

Of course you conveniently omit from that discussion that when it was asked of you where the working woman would live (in the context of there only being limited options to accommodate - a charateristic of a housing crisis) you answered, lamely, where she would not live!

 

[The Horseman]

The other, more general, problem (I may have voiced it earlier in this thread or elsewhere on these forums - if I did, apologies) on social housing is that the ballooning cost of it is becoming impossible for governments to sustain.

It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

100,000 new units would barely meet demand but would cost €25 billion, before a cent is added to reflect site cost, contingencies ,inflation etc.

This is the point the Govt does not want to provide social housing but is unwilling to actually come out and say it. Hence the reason for the Approved Housing Bodies etc, these are bodies funded by the State who can raise additional finance if they need.

The beauty of this from the Govt's perspective is that if a tenant needs to be evicted for any reason it is the Approved Housing Body doing it and not the State! so the politicians are not held responsible and they will no doubt fight for the tenant not to be evicted.

I think the old model of Social housing is gone and security of tenure in a specific house indefinitely will become a thing of the past within the near future.

 

[Firefly]

It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

Never mind the maintenance costs..

 

[The Horseman]

Never mind the maintenance costs..

I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs. If you get a council house now even a second hand one they are brought up to current building reg's (including insulation etc) and most achieve high BER ratings while if you purchase a property privately and you want to meet current building regs you have to do everything yourself (which is extremely expensive).

 

[Firefly]

I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs.

Which is why I believe schemes like the HAP are introduced - it outsources both the provision and maintenance of social housing to the private sector.

 

[Delboy]

Never mind the maintenance costs..

And the very high levels of rent arrears

 

[The Horseman]

Which is why I believe schemes like the HAP are introduced - it outsources both the provision and maintenance of social housing to the private sector.

Exactly and this is a dangerous game as the number of landlords leaving the market is increasing because of HAP and the other anti landlord policies.

I really feel sorry for anybody looking for accommodation either to buy, rent or social housing!