Who speaks for the taxpayer?

It would appear, from Dublin city council that housing succession between spouses and relatives will only occur if;


In all cases of claims for succession to tenancy it will be necessary that the applicant(s) have been included in the family household details for rent assessment purposes for the requisite period(s) as outlined above. No application will be considered where this condition is not complied with.

In all cases, there must be no alternative suitable accommodation available to the applicant(s) for succession of tenancy.

So in the absence of alternative suitable accommodation, where do the evicted go? Hostels, Hotels, the streets?
 
Last edited:

I did not suggest a free market for profit business you did. I simply suggested the costs of providing the accommodation should be reflected in the rent. if the State already own the land then there is no land cost and only the only initial cost is the build cost. But sure hey lets give everybody a house for life charge them rent, below the build costs of the property and let somebody else pick up the tab.

Is this not the way the world should work, let somebody else pay?
 


The reference to the "golden handshake" is the grant you want to give them. I would ask who is going to pay for this? oh hold on its the taxpayer again! so not only have people been subsidized by the tax payer with accommodation throughout their life you are suggesting we give them another subsidy.

You suggest that the cost would be much lower than forcibly evicting people from their properties. So if people don't want to leave local authority housing even if the property is too big for them they should be allowed stay no matter what.

I am well aware of the requirements of setting up an running a company. A company is there to make profit, why do you think it will provide quality accommodation at affordable prices. You seem to think a company should have a social responsibility not to make a profit to meet your criteria. Why bother going into business then if you take all the risks and don't benefit on the returns.

Housing is in the hands of amateur landlords but this is changing as I see ex rental properties being sold on a daily basis. So yes these properties are being sold to FTB but what you fail to realize is that for every rental property sold you reduce the number of bed spaces available in the rental market. A lot of the properties would have more than two adults living in them when rented and they are now housing two adults when purchased. But sure hey make the landlords life a misery, remove bed spaces from the rental market there are plenty of available places to buy or rent (oh wait sorry there are not).
 

She would stay where she is until she has finished college, got a job and started earning money and then it would be re-assessed and if she didn't take advantage of being in third level to get employment because she knew she would lose the 'social house', she should lose the social housing and be put at the back of the housing list..If that means her going into emergency accommodation so another single mother with young children living in a hotel can take her two bed apartment in the centre of Dublin, then so be it. The State has already paid for her to go to college. It has provided her with social housing until she is an adult. A 19 year old certainly shouldn't be told she has a property in D1 on hugely subsidised rent for life and will also probably even be given an opportunity to buy the property at a discount in the future. Just because her mother needed help at one stage of her life. What's so difficult about that?
 
Sunny said:
She would stay where she is until she has finished college,
Click to expand...

And if she has to repeat a year or two? Or if she decides to change course mid-way to pursue a different career, and then finishes with a Masters degree and all in all is six or seven years on college, is that ok?

Sunny said:
got a job and started earning money
Click to expand...

What if, upon leaving college, say like in 2008, it coincides with the deepest economic recession where employers are virtually battening down the hatches and not taking on any or few graduates. How does that effect matters? Will she need to send copies of job applications to the Ministry of Housing Assessment? Copies of rejection letters?
Or should highly educated worker be compelled to take any work that is on offer? A job at the pizza parlour for instance? Would the pizza parlour owner have a say in who he employs?

Sunny said:
then it would be re-assessed and if she didn't take advantage of being in third level to get employment because she knew she would lose the 'social house', she should lose the social housing and be put at the back of the housing list..
Click to expand...

What does 'didn't take advantage' mean? Turn down high paying employment as her skills and qualifications could ordinarily command? Is that a real-life issue? Highly educated people turning down prospective careers with good pay - just to stay in a LA flat?


Nothing, except in reality she will only succeed in staying in the housing if there is no alternative suitable accommodation.
If there is alternative suitable accommodation, she will move there as per the Dublin city council rules.
If she does progress in college to obtain a high level of skills, in all probability, she will most likely want to afford a place of her own and perhaps meet a partner and start a family. Exactly how many well-paid professionals like teachers, judges, barristers, doctors, chemists, engineers etc do you actually know that come from LA housing and continue to live in LA housing upon establishing well-paid careers?

Basically the point is, as its always been, that for every scenario of what 'should be' and 'should not be', a series of obstacles, conditions, exceptions will be found by those not willing to leave as to drag any such housing assessment policy into a costly administrative and legal quagmire.
 
TheBigShort said:
And if she has to repeat a year or two? Or if she decides to change course mid-way to pursue a different career, and then finishes with a Masters degree and all in all is six or seven years on college, is that ok?
Click to expand...

Yes. She is in full time education. Don't need to be clever to make that distinction


She does what every other graduate needs to do. She tries to find a job. She emigrates. She gets assistance from the State. And no, she doesn't need to send letters to anyone. Surely one part of the civil service i.e. unemployment services can tall to another i.e. housing agency and confirm that this person has engaged with the agencies and is looking for employment. No issue with her staying put then. Again, not rocket science and you don't need a 1000 case workers. They could use blockchain!

I lost my very decently paid job in the recession. I spent 6 months working with 20 year old kids doing work experience earning 12 euro a hour doing menial office work for a technology company rather than go on the dole before something came along. If I can do it, why can't she? What's special about her?


Yes. It happens. You do know there are whole studies on the dangers of barriers to return to work and dependency and fear of losing social welfare is one of them.


I have no idea how many there are. You are making the point so you tell us. My issue is that at the moment, a 19 year old would inherit a local authority house for life if she chooses. If someone handed me a house at 19 and said don't worry, you will always have this house no matter how much you earn or circumstances change, then I would probably not be as incentivised as I should be.



That's your view but you have done nothing but drag up stupid examples and then change them and then change them again and then change them again. There will always be some cases more complicated than others but the case of 19 year old girl whose single mother recently died does not represent the majority of cases in LA housing. Anyway, I am done with going down rabbit holes. You made so many posts in the past day on this, it is impossible to respond so will leave it to others.
 
Last edited:

Great, its a not-for-profit business. And all we are really talking about here is the build cost, thereafter the maintenance costs.
There are a considerable amount of social housing units that were built in '50s, '60's. The build cost of these houses would not have been anymore than €10,000. LA tenants are paying on average, circa €3,500 per annum.
The cost build of those houses have been paid for a multiple times over.
 

The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs. I can guarantee you nobody was paying €3500 on a house in the 50's and 60's as rent.

I will have to agree with Sunny that you are dragging up ridiculous justifications for your viewpoint and I too am finished going down your rabbit holes.
 
Sunny said:
Yes. She is in full time education. Don't need to be clever to make that distinction
Click to expand...

Thats good to know.

Sunny said:
She does what every other graduate needs to do. She tries to find a job.
Click to expand...

Duh!

Sunny said:
She emigrates.
Click to expand...

Good God!
I don't think you have a basic concept of the issue at all.
I can only assume that you are not in favour of the State compelling its educated workforce to emigrate?
If so, then lets see if you can manage what to do in the 'stupid' instance of where someone of their own free will chooses not to emigrate?

Sunny said:
If I can do it, why can't she? What's special about her?
Click to expand...

You are totally devoid of understanding the basic point of compelling somebody to do something and allowing someone, of their own free will to choose to do something.
Nobody directly forced you to do menial work. You choose to do it because it was a better option to welfare dependency.

Sunny said:
Yes. It happens. You do know there are whole studies on the dangers of barriers to return to work and dependency and fear of losing social welfare is one of them.
Click to expand...

Sunny said:
I have no idea how many there are. You are making the point so you tell us.
Click to expand...

I don't know either, but im guessing its zero, or very close to it. In which case wasting valuable time and resources pursuing high income LA tenants to make way for those who need LA housing more is pretty futile and stupid isnt it?

Sunny said:
My issue is that at the moment, a 19 year old would inherit a local authority house for life if she chooses.
Click to expand...

Dont let the truth get in the way of your agenda. Their is no 'inheritance' as that requires the transfer of ownership.
There is a succession of occupancy, but in accordance with DCC, in order to qualify for a succession of occupancy;

In all cases of claims for succession to tenancy it will be necessary that the applicant(s) have been included in the family household details for rent assessment purposes for the requisite period(s) as outlined above. No application will be considered where this condition is not complied with.

In all cases, there must be no alternative suitable accommodation available to the applicant(s) for succession of tenancy.

If you cant understand what the above means then stop wasting my time.
 
Last edited:
The Horseman said:
The build costs now are at least €150k for a standard three bed semi in Dublin due to the current building regs. I can guarantee you nobody was paying €3500 on a house in the 50's and 60's as rent.
Click to expand...

Dont pretend that you understand business but cannot understand basic maths and english.
Nobody was paying €3,500 in 50s or 60s. But they are paying it now...on properties of cost builds of no more than €10,000.
The cost of new builds today of €150k (as per your post) and rents of €3,500 will be repaid after 45yrs, all things remaining equal. And most likely, a lot sooner.

If you cant figure that much im done with the Ladybird lessons.
 
TheBigShort said:
If you cant figure that much im done with the Ladybird lessons.
Click to expand...

If you can't post anything without insulting people's intelligence which you have done in two successive posts, I would suggest you find a forum that better meets your needs as a person of superior intelligence. I for one have better things to do. I accused you of going down rabbit holes using stupid abstract examples that are constantly changing to suit your argument. I didn't accuse you of a lack of comprehension or understanding. I would reply to your post above but debate and discussion is not the same as insulting. If you want to engage in the latter, then you are on your own.
 

Having reviewed some of your posts when they are created and edited I can only deduce you are trolling just to get a rise out of people. When you are presented with reasoned arguments you divert the topic with obscure situations just to get a response and then when you don't like the response you get you resort to insults.

I can assure you I am well capable of understanding business and events that happen in peoples lives, the mistake I made was thinking I was engaging with somebody who was willing to have a reasoned discussion and respect others opinions.

All I would ask is that you never enter politics or have any power to make any decisions that impact on the wider society. if you do please let me know so I can leave Ireland because I would dread the idea of somebody with your attitude making policy decisions which would impact on me and my family.
 
Sunny said:
you have done nothing but drag up stupid examples
Click to expand...

The Horseman said:
you are dragging up ridiculous justifications
Click to expand...


Sunny said:
If you can't post anything without insulting people's intelligence
Click to expand...



You didn't post an intelligent post. You posted a stupid example about emigration.
I didn't give stupid examples, I gave simple examples, of which there are innumerable amounts. That, for the purposes of demonstrating the absolute pointlessness of what you and others propose.
If you dont get that much, there is little hope.
Best I can offer is go find a similar system to what you want in the Western world.
 

You can use all the little faces you like. And you talk about other people and ladybird books.

It doesn't change the fact that you spend your time coming up with simple cases that you then complicate and you then complicate even more. Your 'simple' example of a 19 year old girl in third level education living in a 2 bed LA house with a single mother recently deceased' turned into a 19 year old girl going on complete 7 years of third level education before graduating at the same time as an massive economic crash that means no graduates can find work and this now 26 year old woman has no alternative accommodation because I am guessing that she was unfortunate to be born into a single parent family but also had no extended family were able to help her out or she hasn't met anyone. You then say that this really intelligent person shouldn't even think about taking any old job because she is better than that so she should be encouraged to wait until her opportunity to shine comes along. God forbid she would have to work in pizza shops paying over the minimum wage. (You have posted similar in other threads. I remember something about hairdressers or something. Really need to stop looking down your nose at where people work)

You then get your knickers in a twist about emigration like the suggestion is that she goes off in a famine ship instead of like thousands and thousands of young teachers, nurses, doctors, engineers, builders etc etc who chose to go and build a life for themselves if they couldn't get an opportunity in Ireland. God forbid that young people should have to do that. No, easier to start ranting about me making our young people leave the bosom of this amazing country. Give me a break.

Not one person here would suggest a 19 year old be kicked onto to the street so your example was stupid. Suggesting that the 26 year masters level graduate keep her two bed apartment while a single mother is living in a hotel with her two toddler children is equally as stupid. Oh and before you ask, we are in a huge recession remember. No jobs and the country is bankrupt. There is no money to build new social houses to house the woman and the two kids. (Hey, I can make up scenarios too)

You then post some ridiculous simplistic post about the State or so called professional landlord building a cost for X and getting the money back over 45 or 100 or 150 years at the average rent of €3000 per year or €250 per month. If you really need me to point out the flaws in why that might not be the most attractive use of either the professional landlords or the States money, then I can suggest a couple of ladybird books on investing that you might be interested in.
 
There is a considerable cost associated with providing social housing to people who need it. I am very much in favour of providing it to those people. I have an issue with providing social housing to people who don't need it, even if they did need it in the past. I also have an issue with providing social housing to people who could provide for themselves but choose not to.

Give that there is a significant cost associated with the provision of that social housing if we are to let people stay in their social housing beyond the point where they actually need it then we should be charging them open market rates of rent. We can then use that extra money to provide more social housing for people who cannot provide housing for themselves.

I simply don't understand how anyone could have a problem with that, how anyone could feel so entitled that they think it is right and just that their neighbours should subsidise their lifestyle by providing them with a home for which they are not paying a fair price. To me it is no different morally and ethically from welfare fraud or tax evasion.

The silly arguments about the minutiae are a distraction; the mission statement should be to provide social housing to those who need it when they need it, acknowledging that the State's scarce and precious resources must be used in a way which maximised the return for society generally. That should be the guiding principle which informs all other actions. Giving houses to people who can and should provide for themselves is socially unjust and morally bankrupt. No amount of "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin" type discussions changes that.

If you or your family live in a council house but could afford to provide their own suitable accommodation then you/they are scroungers and parasites and no better than tax cheats. It may well be legal but it isn't right. You/they are a large part of the reason there are families living in B&B's and hotels. Own that and live with it because no amount of moral squirming changes it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register