Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

Status
Not open for further replies.
Whether someone lives in private property or social housing they are entitled to privacy. They are entitled to some level of dignity in their private lives.
While reality dictates that this is not always possible (refugee camps, asylum detention centres being extreme examples), the State is obliged to pursue policies that foster the rights of its citizens to a dignified manner. It should not pursue a policy that diminishes those rights. That is why private rooms in hotels and hostels are used for families instead of imposing families in on top of each other and the chaos that would eventually ensue.

See post 163. Plenty of private homeowners need to rent out rooms to pay their mortgage. Should they have their mortgages paid for?
 
See post 163. Plenty of private homeowners need to rent out rooms to pay their mortgage. Should they have their mortgages paid for?

That is a private arrangement arranged between private individuals. That is not public policy.
People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State.
 
That is a private arrangement arranged between private individuals. That is not public policy.
People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State.

Exactly. But you asked:

Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?
If there is a housing crisis, what has owning your own home (I'm being generous here, most houses are still the property of the banks) or not owning your own home got to do with anything?
If there are spare bedrooms in a house (regardless of who owns it) why shouldn't they be offered out to people and families who need shelter?
 
Yes, what is your point?

On one hand you ask:
"Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?"

and in the next breadth declare that:
"That is a private arrangement arranged between private individuals. That is not public policy.
People are free to live with each other if they so wish, they shouldn't be compelled to do so by the State."


So which is it?
 
So which is it?

Oh I get it, you think that when I asked

Why should someone funding their own accommodation not be compelled to house individuals who are homeless/ or in need of housing?"

That you thought I was advocating that people in private accommodation should be compelled to house others? I wasn't. I was asking the question to another poster who believes those in social housing are beholden to society. I don't think people should be compelled to house others regardless of their status as owner occupiers or social housing tenants.
 
Oh I get it, you think that when I asked



That you thought I was advocating that people in private accommodation should be compelled to house others? I wasn't. I was asking the question to another poster who believes those in social housing are beholden to society. I don't think people should be compelled to house others regardless of their status as owner occupiers or social housing tenants.

Thanks for clarifying.

My thoughts are that the owner of the property should decide how it's used. For people who own their own homes they can decide to rent out a room if they like. Likewise the owner of social housing (the council) should be able to decide to do the same.

Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
For people who own their own homes they can decide to rent out a room if they like.

That's it. As owners they can let out the whole house if they want, or they can live there and let out a spare room if they like.
What they can't typically do is let out a house to someone and then expect that person to accept other occupants to move as if and when required...Unless that is something they would like to do.
Ditto social housing, if someone is prepared to accept new occupants into their home then fine. But if not, their should be no compulsion by the State on any party to have to accept to live with strangers in the privacy of their own home.
 
That's it. As owners they can let out the whole house if they want, or they can live there and let out a spare room if they like.
What they can't typically do is let out a house to someone and then expect that person to accept other occupants to move as if and when required...Unless that is something they would like to do.
Ditto social housing, if someone is prepared to accept new occupants into their home then fine. But if not, their should be no compulsion by the State on any party to have to accept to live with strangers in their own home.

What if the State decides to re-let the house to more than one person? Or to someone else? Should they, as the owners of the property not be able to do so?
 
What if the State decides to re-let the house to more than one person? Or to someone else? Should they, as the owners of the property not be able to do so?

And evict the current tenant(s)? No, I don't think that should be allowed. What security of tenure does that provide anyone? On what basis would that be desirable?
 
And evict the current tenant(s)? No, I don't think that should be allowed. What security of tenure does that provide anyone? On what basis would that be desirable?

Then the owner (the council) should offer council houses on a lease basis which would allow it to not renew at the end of the term just like owners of every other property can. Why should it be any different than if a private landlord decides to not renew a rental agreement with one of their tenants??
 
Then the owner (the council) should offer council houses on a lease basis which would allow it to not renew at the end of the term just like owners of every other property can. Why should it be any different than if a private landlord decides to not renew a rental agreement with one of their tenants??

Yep you could do that, but on what basis would a lease not be renewed?
 
Anything the owner decides within the law, just like any other lease agreement. Do you agree?
Obviously within the law, but it would also have to be in line with public policy. So set out the public policy, as Brendan has done in his submission.
On what basis would a lease not be renewed?
 
Obviously within the law, but it would also have to be in line with public policy. So set out the public policy, as Brendan has done in his submission.
On what basis would a lease not be renewed?

That would be up to the owner (the council). For example, the council could look at my relative's situation and determine that a more needy family would be better suited to living in the 3bed house. It could then communicate to my relative that it is not renewing the lease and offer my relative something else (if it has it) or advise my relative to rent their own place.
 
That would be up to the owner (the council). For example, the council could look at my relative's situation and determine that a more needy family would be better suited to living in the 3bed house.

Assuming your relative would have a right to appeal? Particularly if it is not defined what constitutes a 'more needy family'. For instance, this family would need to have someone employed as per Brendans proposal otherwise they wouldn't be classed as more 'needy'. Alternatively, some one say a family with no income is actually a more needy family, that children should be prioritized.
Where do you stand on the issue of 'more needy' and the right to appeal?

It could then communicate to my relative that it is not renewing the lease and offer my relative something else (if it has it) or advise my relative to rent their own place.

And if your relative does not earn enough to rent her own space ( considering the record highs in the rental market), is that a factor in determining whether to renew a lease. What if the consequences of this decision meant that your relative had to also give up her job and seek employment elsewhere? Has consideration been given to her employer who may also have their business disrupted?
 
As per every other rental / lease agreement, I would think not.Why should it be different for someone living in a social house to someone renting from a private landlord?


Because it is public policy to provide adequate shelter for everyone, to provide education, opportunity, health care, decent employment, decent income, etc...etc...

Private policy is for each and everyone to decide for themselves. If private rental tenants accept being evicted at the end of a lease, that is their business. I don't agree with it, but it's not my decision.
On the other hand, in a democracy, we all have a say in shaping public policy if we want to. That is why Brendan made his submission, to shape public policy. I would be totally opposed to his views, I think at best, not thought out, at worst unconstitutional.
 
Private policy is for each and everyone to decide for themselves. If private rental tenants accept being evicted at the end of a lease, that is their business. I don't agree with it, but it's not my decision.

It's not evicted, it's a non-renewal of a lease. Ditto for commercial property. I see you don't agree with this which again I refer you to my underline sentence about socialism and communism having no regard for private property.
 
On the other hand, in a democracy, we all have a say in shaping public policy if we want to.

I agree and think the council should get to decide who lives in their property by how they them decide. At present if you get a council house it's seem to be yours for life and I find this repugnant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top