Tackling Homelesness and Social Housing

44brendan

Registered User
Messages
2,538
The discussion on Bronte's thread on the New Government Housing Initiative has prompted me to wonder how we could resolve the current homeless crisis and also provide some incentive to builder/developers/banks to re-commence house building at an acceptable risk level.

Fr Peter McVerry has recently raised awareness on the unprecedented numbers of homeless people in Ireland (particularly Dublin) and the new factor that many of these people are couples with children with a lack of capacity by Welfare or Charities to provide them with even temporary accomodation. Is is possible that we could in some way resolve this crisis without incurring significant costs that would require either additional funding or reductions in other areas of SW spend?

Statistics from Focus Ireland put the number of homeless in the country at circa 5,000 people. No breakdown of couples or single people. However, for the purposes of this excercise I have taken a breakdown of 1,500 couples and 2,000 single people.

Using these statistics we would need 1,500 additional double/family housing units and 2,000 single units. On the basis of some broad cost research each double unit is set at a cost of 120,000 and single units at 50,000. (this is based on a build price to a private developer and on a modest mix of apartments/townhouses with some element of site costs included. (assumption is that existing government owned available sites will be utilised where possible).

Total cost of providing these units would be 280mln. This would be financed by issue of a 10 year Govmt Bond at existing yield of 2.64%. Upon expiry of the 10 years the Bond would be re-financed by a further 10 year Bond being issued. Annual interest cost would be 7.4 mln. However, using existing rent supplement figures the existing cost of providing rent supplement to 5,000 homeless would be 8.6mln per annum. This is providing that they could find accomodation at the rent supplement level.

I accept that this is a very broad brush overview and there may well be some holes in the proposal that could totally undermine it, but it would appear to have some merit and in addition would provide substantial additional jobs in construction and re-generate confidence in the building sector, with profit provided to developers to re-invest in other projects.
 
As I said in response to another suggestion in the other thread:

This all makes perfect sense, except for one tiny detail: the vested interests with political clout who will ensure it will not happen.

It is in too many people's interests to go down the alternative route of higher prices all round, despite the evidence of where this leads us all to.
 
The problem is right now. Overnight the problem can be helped by allowing some people go above the ceilings. For that the priority should be families, those that are in housing and likely to be evicted in the near future because the rent is going up to market rates.

In addition they should not allow landlords to go with market rate, it should be based on an index, that rents are allowed to go up annually by the index amount, as they do in other sane countries.

If they have boarded up houses, solutions are to say to the top people on the waiting list, here you can have this house right now, we'll give you 5 or 10 K to do it up how you like but you have to live there for the next 10/20 years and are not allowed come back to the counsel for any reason in that time.

You'd be amazed what people would do with 10K if they knew they would have the house for a long time, would give them an incentive to sort out their own issues.

I don't agree long term with ghettos of social housing. How many decent 3 bed apartments can be bought for families in Dublin for 50 million. How about just buying a load of them. Buy them off Nama.

Long term is another issue.

Identify land banks suitable for housing

Figure out what is stopping developers building.

What will the Government come up with today

Based on the nonsense last week from Kenny/Gilmore about helping first time buyers, I'm expecting another hair brained scheme.
 
Long term is another issue.
Identify land banks suitable for housing

Figure out what is stopping developers building.

I don't disagree Bronte. My proposal is a longer term solution and will involve identification and acquisation of suitable land banks and improvement of problematic existing SW housing. It should not involve the creation of ghettos as units can be built on existing small sites and appended to existing builds rather than the creation of Tallaght type sprawls of social housing with low level facilities/amenities.
Handing out trancches of cash to individuals to do up houses would create its own difficulties. Some would correctly apply the cash in accomodation improvement. However, human nature being what it is, a temptation would be to apply the funds elsewhere. Any such spend would need strict control!
 
Delighted with ongoing comments;

If AAM posters can come up with viable solutions , then Government surely can.

The fly in the ointment is Ang1170 comments; I wish I had the confidence to disagree with ang1170!
 
One of the ironies that hasn't been mentioned is the new regulations that came into force last year on pre '63 bedsits. Focus Ireland produced a report warning the government of the possible very negative implications for low-paid tenants and those with disabilities. They commissioned their own study and found 6,000 tenants dependent on such accommodation, three quarters of them in Dublin.

Now, we don't know how many were converted to meet the new regulations, but landlords (not unexpectedly) were complaining that they hadn't the funds to carry out improvements so that many properties would be abandoned, or sold off for other uses. Even where the improvements were done, you can assume that the landlord -- against a backdrop of sharply rising rents -- would be looking to get a return on the investment in his new "studio apartment", pricing the previous tenants out of the market.

I thought it was tragically comic the other day when the government mentioned the possibility of repurposing army barracks and Garda stations for accommodation. How many of those places will be missing basic facilities, the lack of which were the cause of them shutting down the pre '63s? By the way, nobody with half a heart thinks it's a bad idea to make slum landlords bring rental accommodation up to basic modern standards. The problem is the political short-sightedness that failed to realise there would be a cost if state-supported tenants were going to continue to live there.

It's not like they weren't warned -- the Focus Ireland report pretty much said exactly what would happen. And by the way, this legislative change was in the works for six years, along with the rest of our unfolding housing saga, so Enda Kenny's seeming surprise at how we've been overtaken by events in the housing market can be dismissed for the opportunistic political spin that it is. Rather, we are continuing steadfastly down the road we embarked on in September 2008, and it's going to be a long one.
 
Delighted with ongoing comments;

If AAM posters can come up with viable solutions , then Government surely can.

The fly in the ointment is Ang1170 comments; I wish I had the confidence to disagree with ang1170!

That's the depressing thing: it's not exactly rocket science to figure out what should happen, and to take some sensible simple actions to make it happen (the most obvious one being "use or loose" planning zoning/permissions), but given our politician's track records does anyone think this will happen?
 
One of the ironies that hasn't been mentioned is the new regulations that came into force last year on pre '63 bedsits.

6,000 tenants dependent on such accommodation, three quarters of them in Dublin.

.

At the time of this I was totally against it and still am. I don't have bedsits but am well aware of what they are and who is housed in them.

Because they are generally single people on low wages, the lower rents suit people who wish to live basically as individuals, they may share a toilet or cooking with another bedsit but it's not the same as sharing a house with others. Sometimes they don't even share a bathroom, but they have to exit their room to access it.

Also agree with your comment on slums, there was nothing stopping the government making the bedsit owners have modern facilities, just not individual bathrooms and kitchens. I listened to a bedsit owner the other day in Dublin and she's in the business a very long time and has never been inspected, and it's the same for me and others I know who are also in the landlord business.

And it is indeed ironic that it's ok for whole families to go into one roomed hotels with zero cooking facilities, and now total madness of putting families into army barracks. In addition there are families in one room in a B&B and they have to stay out of the house all day.
 
However, human nature being what it is, a temptation would be to apply the funds elsewhere. Any such spend would need strict control!

I have more faith in individual mothers to use the money wisely than I do in government to hand it over to local authorities and quangos to get anything done.

The CWO could have a function in this, they already give out money for fridges and the like. They knew who will spend the money on drugs and who will spend it on their house. They are very knowledgable on people on social welfare.
 
Listened to an interview with economist Ronan Lyons yesterday. He advised that Daft.i.e. were instructed by the Government to remove a filter from rented property listings that identified those that were prepared to accept Rent Supplement tenants. This was meant to discourage a supposed reluctance by landlords to accept those tenants. However, the result was that those on rent supplement were unable to distinguish which landlords would not accept rent supplement and could only discover this by contacting the landlords directly. Seems to be a typical example of bureaucratic action making a problem more difficult.
 
I think the problem is much bigger than just housing and there is a whole lot not being said in the media about the sense of entitlement that some people have to housing.

There is of course a diversity of people finding themselves homeless and my heart goes out to working people who are having to leave rented accommodation because of rising rents or job loss, or who just can no longer keep up with mortgage payments. Absolutely these people need help with housing. So too people with disabilities, mental health problems or reduced earning capacity for whatever reason.

However, it makes me really angry to listen to people who keep having children knowing that they do not have the financial means to look after them. I think there is an awful sense of entitlement in this country and I have no sympathy for people who do not take responsibility for the decisions they make around having children. My options are live in an apartment so I will not have more than two children and I will not feel like I'm entitled to a house if I have two children and we feel we have outgrown our two bed apartment. I do have huge sympathy for the children of irresponsible people who bring them into the world expecting to live off hand outs and obviously those children need to be looked after, but it doesn't stop me being really angry about it and wondering what more can be done about it.

How many working people have made a decision that they cannot afford to have children, or limit their family to one or two children deliberately. What help is there available to them?

I feel sorry for people who, through no fault of their own are facing homelessness and are being lumped in with people who feel entitled to a house because they keep having babies they know they can't afford support. I've heard so many cases on the radio of people who have had housing difficulties for years yet have babies of a few months old. I think the government would be better off bringing in more free childcare and more stipulations on how long you'll be housed on really low rent for. There are no incentives for people who want to be housed by the state rather than work at the moment.

Also, what about relocating people who cannot work because they have to look after the children they couldn't afford to have. Would a part solution be to house people in different parts of the country? If they are not working they do not need to live in any particular place. Why should people be entitled to live in a particular place if they have never taken responsibility for themselves or the children they bring in to the world? Why should I pay a premium in tax to house people in particular locations when I don't have a choice of locations myself? Or to give people an entitlement to a bedroom each for their children, or a garden, when my family will maybe never have that?

As for giving people 10k to do up a place!? I had no floors in my home for nearly two years. We had wicker chairs and no sofas for about a year. Now that we are established the interior of our home is still worth a lot less than 10k. Then the proposal is that there will be a limit on what I can rent out my apartment for if I do ever want to move out myself. It's not fair to limit the rent I can achieve on my home so that someone else can get it for free from the state along with all the other benefits I can't claim. I'm living beside single mothers who pay a fraction for their apartments of what I do, they are in fulltime education with aspirations towards phds and are driving cars a lot newer than mine. Some people know how to work the system and it's wrong.

There is a serious housing crisis happening and there are genuine people who badly need help. There are also a huge amount of people who rely on the state deliberately and not half enough is being done to address these people that are clogging up social housing that other people are more genuinely entitled to.

I felt really bad for the woman on the late late who was priced out of her apartment recently with her husband working. I had no sympathy for the other woman who had a few kids, a new baby and the father not on the scene. Where does responsibility come in to this? The latest now is that there are people coming from the UK to dodge care orders on their children because Ireland is a softer touch. More people for us to house.
 
As for giving people 10k to do up a place!? I had no floors in my home for nearly two years. .

Well if it costs the rest of the taxpayers less in the long run isn't it better, but I do agree with you in the sense that you and I and plenty of working people I know put up with no floors etc as we started out in life.

I too don't understand how some people seem to have a new baby but no father, so I often suspect we're not getting the full truth, maybe father in jail or they are lying.

The argument about sending people to empty houses in Kerry won't work, they tried that in the UK and everybody came back to London. Personally if I were homeless in Dublin and offered a B&B I'd hightail it to a decent town where there was good transport links and reasonable rents where I could house my family in a 3 or 4 bed place on the state. With a good free school as well. No idea why people would subject themselves to 7 or more years of waiting lists. I presume that having more kids brings you up the lists so that's why people keep having children. We're the reverse like you, limiting our family to what we can afford.

Maybe the media should investigate the back ground story a bit more.
 
I too don't understand how some people seem to have a new baby but no father, so I often suspect we're not getting the full truth, maybe father in jail or they are lying.
There was a young woman in her early 20's on TV3's Ireland AM programme this morning who was highlighting her plight and the drawbacks of having to live in a hostel with two children, aged 4 and 1 while 'waiting to be housed'.

She is also pregnant and when the presenter asked her if she was getting any assistance from the children's fathers, she said they weren't involved - including the person who fathered her unborn child.

As long as the state continues to provide everything on a plate including housing, money, grants, medical cards, rent supplement, back to school allowances, etc. etc., people will take it and the incentive to work and do for themselves is zero.

There should be a welfare cap similar to what they've introduced in the UK. It should never pay more to be on benefits than to work.
 
In (fluffy) times Government got votes on entitlement culture . That culture will be hard to shift.

I keep hearing of entitlements to A&B&C&D , funny thing is that the askers too often cannot see their own inputs into some of their hassle.

Delgirl; Welfare caps as per UK ; unless they are well handled will have horrendous societal consequences.
Suggest Government pick the 3 most glaring inequalities in our welfare system ,sort them for a year. Re-adjust were necessary , then go on 3 more.So within a 5 year frame we will have a fairer system. Whoops! there is an election to be win in 2 years and etc etc etc !!!!!!Sorry my sarcasm took over!!
 
I'm sick and tired of the whole entitlement culture too, I see far too much of it. I got into voluntary work thinking I could do some good and instead I spend my time filling forms for people for every entitlement going. Only today I completed a OPA form for adding on a 3rd child, born a month ago and in answer to one of the questions on the form the answer I got and I quote 'there is no father'. Really, really!

Also on Joe Duffy today he was speaking to a girl who was living in a hostel for 14 months, several times it came up in conversation that she was in full time work, he didn't once ask her whey she couldn't manage to pay rent like most people working have to, surely she could have rented a room somewhere even on minimum wage.
 
Also on Joe Duffy today he was speaking to a girl who was living in a hostel for 14 months, in full time work, he didn't once ask her whey she couldn't manage to pay rent like most people working have to,

I listened to the podcase and couldn't understand her story either. Is that the one where we are talking about 4 adults, mother and 3 children and they are upset because the state won't house them together. Even though we are not really talking about a family in the normal sense but well grown up 'children'. Surely that's not the state responsibility to give them a family home?

I get the impression that Joe will ask lots of questions but will not dig too deep as otherwise he'd have nobody phoning in.
 
Yes that was the case, the mother and two other daughters were living in a different hostel, one was 13ish, the other in college and dependent so those 3 were considered the family unit, the 22 yr old couldn't be included in their application for housing due to her age. BUT she was in full time work, don't get it!
 
Then there are cases of people who [broken link removed] in order to jump up the housing list.

Her 3 children, whose ages range from 18 months to 5-years-old, all slept with her in the car, while a friend let her wash and clean their clothes in her house. Shortly after the story broke, several good Samaritans came to her aid and McMahon and her children have now been put up in a hotel for the next 4 weeks.


The Mail has reported today, however, that McMahon’s partner was in fact jailed for a bank robbery around a year ago, and she was forced to leave her home after she defaulted on mortgage payments.


She also told the newspaper that she refused to move in with her mother as they didn’t get along and has been quoted as saying, “I’ll sleep in the car all my life if i have to”.

The transcript of her Radio interview with Niall Boylan was very enlightening! At the bottom of this page you can listen to the interview in full.
 
Then there's cases of people who [broken link removed] in order to jump up the housing list.

.

Ties in with my view that some of the missing father's are in jail. Even if that woman defaulted on her mortgage I wonder why she didn't just stay in the house?
 
If AAM posters can come up with viable solutions , then Government surely can.
Or perhaps (as is often the case) AAM posters don't actually know enough complex issues to come up with viable solutions?

I often suspect we're not getting the full truth, maybe father in jail or they are lying.
I think you're right that we often don't get the full story with many of these stories pushed out through the media.

The argument about sending people to empty houses in Kerry won't work, they tried that in the UK and everybody came back to London. Personally if I were homeless in Dublin and offered a B&B I'd hightail it to a decent town where there was good transport links and reasonable rents where I could house my family in a 3 or 4 bed place on the state. With a good free school as well. No idea why people would subject themselves to 7 or more years of waiting lists. I presume that having more kids brings you up the lists so that's why people keep having children. We're the reverse like you, limiting our family to what we can afford.
Housing is much more than a roof over a head. Community is important in creating sustainable housing environments. Taking people who have low educational qualifications away from their roots, their family, their friends, their community connections rarely creates sustainable housing.
In (fluffy) times Government got votes on entitlement culture . That culture will be hard to shift.
Voting turnout rates are generally low in council estates, so I'm not sure that your theory holds good.
 
Back
Top