Who speaks for the taxpayer?

Purple said:
What's insane is doing nothing other than proposing throwing more and more money at the problem.
Click to expand...

So the proposal to assess and move people on will be administered how? By some voluntary organization? And the inevitable legal fees when the challenges arrive in court will be waived by the barristers and solicitors?
Instead, money is wasted on administration and legal fees - no thank you.

Purple said:
Do you think it's fair that your welfare dependent drug addict alcoholic should be given a family home in Rathmines because his parents were given that same home 30 years ago when there are homeless families in the area?
Click to expand...

No I don't think its fair, I never said it was - merely pointing out that your solution to move the aforementioned to Lucan is not fair either, is it?

Purple said:
Okay, so any policy that puts someones nose out of joint is pointless, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Now who is being obtuse!
If you cannot figure out that moving a drug addict from one area, Rathmines, to another, Lucan, will not lead to more perceptions of social injustice from the honest working people of Lucan, who pay their taxes and pay their mortgages etc, then there is no hope.

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threa...for-social-housing.204999/page-4#post-1529495

Post #78

Purple said:
So how do you propose we make it better (try to keep within the bounds of reality now)?
Click to expand...

Already answered that in previous thread
- build more houses,
- incentivize mobility by offering tax allowances or grants to downsize where applicable,
- include the cost of houses (and asset prices in general) to inflation calculations.
 
TheBigShort said:
- build more houses,
- incentivize mobility by offering tax allowances or grants to downsize where applicable,
- include the cost of houses (and asset prices in general) to inflation calculations.
Click to expand...
Who is going to pay for the extra houses?
Where will be build the "more houses", since they shouldn't be in Lucan or other areas in the outer suburbs?
Your guy in Rathmines; the place has no building land. Should we buy a small plot and build him a house for three quarters of a million or a million or should we house him and two other families in Lucan? Why does he get a house in Rathmines when working people from the area, even those on good incomes, can't afford to buy there? They have to move to places like Lucan! (And what have you got against Lucan anyway?)
When you find the money to pay for the houses you'll then have to find someone to build them. All of this will increase the cost of private housing as there will be even higher rates of labour cost inflation.
Should single people on social housing get 3 bedroom houses as well, just in case they might have a family in the future? If not should we build family homes in the same area in case they want to move into them later? Should we have banks of land in prime locations instead?

Your proposal is barmy as it doesn't take into account human nature and the problem that it will lead to more and more social housing which, to the economically literate, is unsustainable.
 
Purple said:
Who is going to pay for the extra houses?
Click to expand...

We can start with using the money that was to be used for administering the musical chair scheme.
After that, either raise taxes or borrow or a bit of both.



The Rathmines/Lucan example is yours, from the previous thread. And still you wont answer this one question – why should the good people of Lucan, who work hard and pay taxes, have to put up with a drug addict from Rathmines? That is what you suggested in you example. If you cant answer this one question on the suggestion you made, what hope answering anything else?


I can only fathom from all of this is that you are opposed to building more social housing? Instead, you think our housing policy should rely on the private sector, market forces, etc to sustain our housing stock?

That’s worked out really well over the last 20yrs hasn’t it?
 
You're doing it again. You need to let things go. You are dragging a silly point you made in a different thread into this one. I give out to my 8 year old when she does that sort of thing, telling her she's too old to go on like that now.


TheBigShort said:
I can only fathom from all of this is that you are opposed to building more social housing? Instead, you think our housing policy should rely on the private sector, market forces, etc to sustain our housing stock?
Click to expand...
Is that the only thing you can conclude from all of this? If so it explains a lot.

If we go with your idea of borrowing and taxing more, in an already overheating economy and in an already overheated construction sector, can you see that we will just end up with more and more social housing competing more and more with private housing at the construction phase? I'm in favour of social housing; I think we need lots more of it but I am not in favour of the way it is currently allocated and managed. I think the State's resources should be targeted at those who need them most. I think that the State should provide for those who cannot provide for themselves and I think they should provide what they need, not what they would like.
 
Purple said:
You need to let things go
Click to expand...

How convenient that is for you.
You claimed that my questions around the social housing question were answered. Clearly not, and obviously not to be....that's fine, I'll 'let it go' then, unanswered.


Not without merit, granted. The growth in the construction sector is in part due to the government building more social housing. That obviously takes time to come on stream.
So the State has opted for the option of building more social houses and not house re-allocation and/or assessments.

Purple said:
I'm in favour of social housing; I think we need lots more of it but I am not in favour of the way it is currently allocated and managed.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with this. What I disagree with are the proposals put here to 'improve' allocation and management, that is, 5yr assessments, employment status, occupancy rates etc.
My argument is that all of that will be a futile, cumbersome, costly and ultimately self-defeating exercise for a host of reasons.
I have never suggested that the system is 'fair' and certainly I have every sympathy for FTB's and working people in private rental who are being screwed. I have never offered or suggested that I have a panacea for the housing crisis. In fact I have stated many, many times that the issue is a complex one.

In the absence of feasible and realistic solutions to the housing crisis I would propose the following to go some way to reliving the crisis

-build more houses,
- incentivize mobility by offering tax allowances or grants to downsize where applicable,
- include the cost of houses (and asset prices in general) to inflation calculations.
 
Rent arrears ran from a low of approx 4% in Laois to a high of approx 29% in Louth.
Arrears approximated 20% in our cities which reflects the fact that although a sizable minority are in arrears the vast majority aren’t.
Brendan as usual when issues of social housing or welfare paints the blackest picture
 
Agreed, couldn't help notice how the arrears of €73m was zoomed in upon. No mention of the actul €435m being collected, or 85% of LA rents.
Considering the majority of LA housing is occupied by low-income families trying to make ends meet, this is quite a substantial contribution toward the cost of providing housing in the first place.
 


You seem to think the fact that 85% of people who are actually paying their rent is something we should be somehow happy with. People in LA housing are charged a differential rate based on income into to the household. A rate which the state has calculated as being fair and achievable and one which changes as your income changes.

With such a fair system of rent levels there should be no arrears or at least only a small amount of arrears. Based on the figs quoted 1 in 6 of LA tenants are in arrears.

Where is the incentive for those in arrears to bring their arrears up to date. Because we have this bizarre notion that people should be given accommodation where they want no matter what and there is an onus on the state to house people who may or may not pay their rent. At what point are the tenants held responsible and told they have make up the arrears or they will be evicted.

We have a problem with evictions both in the public and private sector where people can't or wont pay what's owed. Until this matter is resolved the housing problem wont be fixed. Council wont build properties because they can't evict and private landlords are leaving the sector in their droves because of the treatment they are receiving. The only landlords remaining are the institutional ones.
 
TheBigShort said:
Agreed, couldn't help notice how the arrears of €73m was zoomed in upon. No mention of the actul €435m being collected, or 85% of LA rents.
Click to expand...

Hi Shortie and Deise. I was shocked by the very high arrears in local authorities and admit I did lose sight of the fact that the majority of people do pay their rent. My position would be consistent though on mortgage arrears and rent arrears - those who consistently don't pay should be evicted.


And of course, this overall point remains valid.


Shortie does not want any change. Keep providing cheap (not free! ) social housing to people in their own community while forcing those who provide their own accommodation to live far removed from their community and work.

It should be the opposite. Those who are working, especially on low pay, should be give priority for social housing. And those who pay for their own housing should not be squeezed out by state.

Brendan
 

Far from it Brendan, I want to see fundamental change where as a society we strive to provide affordable housing for all, as far as is practicable. I just think you are over simplifying a very complex issue.
I dont agree that mass evictions in the private ownership/rental/LA sectors are the solution.
I will say that where someone is capable of paying but refuses to then fair enough, force an order to evict.
But I suspect that the vast majority of arrears in all of those sectors are a consequence of not being able to pay. The reasons for this can be numerous - failed business, over-borrowing, loss of regular work, pay cuts, addiction, depression, illness, brought about by loss of work, business closure etc.
It complicates when there are young families involved who could not possibly be responsible for the arrears, but would suffer the consequences.

After that, and assuming you are not proposing they walk the streets (I think Horseman has advocated this) then you face the issue of where to house the evicted. Im assuming you agree that hostels and hotels are wholly inadequate to house families on a long-term basis (cheaper for the State to keep them where they are, not to mention the stress and the cost of dealing with subsequent mental health issues later on).

You are proposing to move people and families around based on their employment status and the number of vacant bedrooms. Such a proposal will meet so many hurdles and obstacles in terms of protest, appeals, legal challenges, that it would ultimately cost more and end in failure.
Simple example, if I lived in a LA three-bed and my kids have flown the nest, I would resent the idea that I could be moved (to anywhere apparently) despite having paid my rent and paid taxes and having worked all my life (except for a 9 month spell when the company I worked for went bust after the crash. Im now retired) and raised a family. My family, themselves are educated and also working and paying taxes and have bought their own properties.

The other point is that people who are not working are supposed to be moved to less 'congested areas'.
The assumption is that LA's in less congested areas have the budgets and resources to house these people. Thats without even considering what employment opportunities there might be, educational opportunities etc.

Instead, the State needs to provide a stream of two and three bed apartments and townhouses suitable to meet the accommodation demands of the population. It can outsource this building program. The houses are to made available to low and middle income working people, this is good for business owners to have a ready supply of labour.
The private rental market needs to be reformed by requiring all landlords to register as corporate entities. Mortgages for such entities can be stretched over 100-150yrs, allowing for the landlord to provide affordable private rent, in quality accommodation, for those who it is not suitable to buy.
A real competitive rental market can be established against the private ownership market providing real options.
A tax rebate or grant to incentive mobility in both private and society housing where there is under occupancy.
These are some measures that can be undertaken that I think will relieve some of the pressure points in the housing sector.
 
Last edited:

So what do you propose for those who don't pay their rent and are in properties that others need and would be only to happy to pay the rent!
 
The Horseman said:
So what do you propose for those who don't pay their rent and are in properties that others need and would be only to happy to pay the rent!
Click to expand...

Like I said, if some are able to pay rent but choose not to, then invoke an eviction (taking into account also the legitimate refusal to pay rent due to dire need of renovation).
If they are not able to pay rent, then reasons as to why they cant and all the other circumstances of family, schooling, employment prospects, re-housing or relocation options (hostel or hotel even?), would have to be factored before any decision could be made here.
Just to point out, if there are prospective tenants out there who are 'only too happy to pay' then I assume you are talking about people who already have accommodation with the means to pay, and not people who are housed in hostels or hotels without the means to pay?
In such circumstances, evicting a person or family for others who already have accommodation will only exacerbate the homeless crisis.
 
Sarenco said:
Sorry but the law does not recognise "dire need of renovation" as a legitimate ground for non-payment of rent.
Click to expand...

Admittedly im not too au fait with the law concerning the grounds upon which not to pay rent.
But refusal to pay can be a likely prospect where a landlord is failing to provide adequate repairs. So if a bedroom window is cracked, posing a danger to children, or if there is faulty plumbing etc a tenant may take it upon themselves to refuse to pay (to the benefit of prospective future tenants too I would say) until the property is fixed.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irelands-social-housing-in-breach-of-european-law-461411.html
 
TheBigShort said:
So if a bedroom window is cracked, posing a danger to children, or if there is faulty plumbing etc a tenant may take it upon themselves to refuse to pay (to the benefit of prospective future tenants too I would say) until the property is fixed.
Click to expand...
Nope. The tenant can lodge a complaint with the RTB but they must continue to pay their rent.
 
Sarenco said:
Nope. The tenant can lodge a complaint with the RTB but they must continue to pay their rent.
Click to expand...

Yeh, great, I get legal obligation to continue to pay...but that may not stop some tenants taking it upon themselves to refuse to pay.
As the link attests, Ireland is in breach with its provision of social housing.
The scenario was put about what to do with social housing tenants who dont pay while others would only be "too happy to pay" for;

Some of the conditions described regarding sewage invasions, contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould etc, go to the core of adequate housing, raising serious concerns from the perspective of both habitability and access to services, in particular, the high number of residents in certain estates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions

The point being, evicting people who dont pay, or because they are unfortunate to be out of work, or because they have a spare bedroom or two is a simplified proposal to resolve a complex issue.
Its the point I keep trying to hammer home. Housing is not commodity to be simply bought and sold for profit alone, rented or leased to whoever will pay and then those who cant pay will simply have to do without.
It is a fundamental societal need to develop a civilised society which requires planning and resources that go far beyond someones employment status or vacancy rates or even ability to pay.
 

My home, which I rent, had mold problems. I bought some spray and made sure the kids opened the windows frequently; Problem solved.
We also had a rat problem. The landlord called in Rentokill; problem solved.
When the back door wouldn't close properly I fixed it.
When one of the kids broke a pane of glass in the back door I replaced it.
When the fridge broke my landlord replaced it.
When my daughter's bedroom needed painting I painted it.
When the curtain rail fell down I put it back up.
When the back garden was overgrown I fixed it. I put in a deck and my landlord paid for the materials.
I work fulltime and so if I was unemployed there's lots more I could do around the house.

People need to get up off their arses and take just a tiny little bit of responsibility for their own home (even if they don't own it) and stop going to the RTB for issues that a home owner would just fix themselves. I don't think my landlord should have to replace a kettle or a toaster or a microwave. He's renting me a house, not becoming my mammy.
 
Purple said:
My home, which I rent, had mold problems. I bought some spray and made sure the kids opened the windows frequently; Problem solved.
Click to expand...

Persistent mould was the problem listed above, not always as easy as spray and ventilate, particularly if it gets into brickwork.

Purple said:
We also had a rat problem. The landlord called in Rentokill; problem solved.
Click to expand...

What happens if the landlord doesn't call im Rentokill?

Purple said:
When one of the kids broke a pane of glass in the back door I replaced it.
Click to expand...

Too right.
But if I was moving into a property, or offered social housing with cracked windows, I would respectfully ask the landlord or LA to replace them first. I dont think that would be unreasonable.

Purple said:
When the fridge broke my landlord replaced it
Click to expand...

Lucky you, the point is about landlords not fixing or replacing things
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register