Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

[Sarenco]

Of course they can't!

Is that the sum total of the point you are trying to make?! How utterly banal.

If you read the proposal again you will notice that it related to social housing alone.

 

[TheBigShort]

Of course they can't!

Is that the sum total of the point you are trying to make?! How utterly banal.

No it is not the sum total of the point I am making, where did I say it was? Like I said in my previous post

don't concern yourself about the point I'm making,

 

[Sarenco]

TheBS

I've read your previous post - twice - and I still have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make.

I've asked you to clarify what you are trying to say on a number of occasions and you either can't or won't. Let's leave it there.

 

[TheBigShort]

I've asked you to clarify what you are trying to say on a number of occasions and you either can't or won't. Let's leave it there.

Here is the substantive point, although at this juncture I don't expect you will understand. But who knows you might surprise me?

Brendan has put out pre-budget submission on "behalf of the Irish Taxpayer". He has addressed this to the Minister of Finance and published it in a national newspaper, so I assume he is serious about his proposals.
If so, I consider one of his proposals to be reprehensible, that is, the proposal which we have commented on - people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.

You have agreed with me that the State shouldn't be allowed to do this.

In any event, it is now my inclination that Brendans proposal was simply not thought out and the fine detail would probably fit on the back of an envelope. I could be wrong, perhaps there are detailed workings, costings etc on this proposal. Certainly I did initially think that that would be the case, upon reading the proposal this morning, and considering that it was addressed to the Minister of Finance and published in a national newspaper.
But my inclination is that this proposal has no real substance or merit, never had or never will and should never really be considered by anyone, let alone the Minister for Finance or the readership of a national newspaper.
That is my substantive point. Whether you understand that or not, is inconsequential now.
Let's leave it there.

 

[ant dee]

people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.

Question: Social housing tenants are staying in those homes for free are they not?

 

[Sarenco]

If so, I consider one of his proposals to be reprehensible, that is, the proposal which we have commented on - people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.

BS,

So you disagree with Brendan's proposal that people in social housing that aren't working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is readily available so that people that are willing and able to work can be prioritised.

Fine. You could have just said that without all the hyperbole and trick questions.

I happen to think that Brendan's suggestion has some merit. So, no, I don't agree with you.

 

[TheBigShort]

So you disagree with Brendan's proposal that people in social housing that aren't working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is readily available so that people that are willing and able to work can be prioritised.

I actually disagree with anyone who proposes that anybody, in any type of housing, should be relocated to any location in the country on account that they are not working. It's an insidious proposal and even more so if it targets particular groups in society.

I happen to think that Brendan's suggestion has some merit.

That doesn't surprise me, you and some others.
Thankfully, the submission itself is of poor quality and unlikely to ever gain any traction.

 

[Sarenco]

You are obviously entitled to your opinion.

However, taken to its logical conclusion, it means that somebody in one part of the country with poor employment prospects may be denied an opportunity to fulfil their potential. Does that seem fair to you?

There are actually villages in rural Ireland that are crying out for inward immigration (so they can secure their schools, etc). Would it be so "insidious" for Government policy to facilitate these initiatives? Or should the "lottery effect" of current welfare policy always take precedence?

 

[TheBigShort]

However, taken to its logical conclusion, it means that somebody in one part of the country with poor employment prospects may be denied an opportunity to fulfil their potential.

How did you arrive at this? The proposal was to relocate individuals from social housing where to anywhere in the country where that individual was not working. This would facilitate social housing for an individual who was working. Here it is again, so we are clear

Low and middle paid workers must be given priority for social and affordable housing. Those who are not working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is available or can be built quickly and cheaply.

So an example might be an individual in say, Achill, isn't working. But there is a job at the car wash. But the individual won't work it. There is a social unit available in Ballsbridge. So the individual gets moved to Ballsbridge so that the person who ends taking the car wash job can avail of the vacant social unit in Achill.
Is that how this scheme would work? Or do you think it needs a bit of fine tuning before it will ever be taken seriously?

There are actually villages in rural Ireland that are crying out for inward immigration (so they can secure their schools, etc). Would it be so "insidious" for Government policy to facilitate these initiatives?

In this manner yes, it certainly would be.
But you appear to have changed the terms of the proposal. What you seem to be offering now is that people would be moved to rural locations. This is different to being moved to wherever in the country social housing is available .

Seriously, if you want to continue arguing for this nonsense then go ahead. But like I said, it is not gaining any traction anywhere.

 

[Sarenco]

BS

I'm absolutely sure that Brendan did not envisage relocating people from Achill to Ballsbridge because they refused to take up a position in a car wash!

So it appears you do not have an objection to the principle but you are arguing that the proposal is not worded appropriately.

Fair enough. That seems a bit childish to me but at least we now understand your argument.

 

[TheBigShort]

Simply unworkable, but reprehensible more so.

Where do you get this nonsense from?

Aside from the nonsense of it all,

Aside from the nonsense of it all, how would you propose such a scheme work, and how much would it cost?

What I am getting at is simply the unworkable nature of such a scheme, let alone anything else that I would think about it.

the proposal itself doesn't appear to be backed by any detail which probably implies not much thought went into it.

I consider one of his proposals to be reprehensible, that is, the proposal which we have commented on - people not working being moved from their homes to any other location in the country by the State.

But my inclination is that this proposal has no real substance or merit, never had or never will and should never really be considered by anyone, let alone the Minister for Finance or the readership of a national newspaper.

Whether you understand that or not, is inconsequential now.
Let's leave it there.

So you disagree with Brendan's proposal that people in social housing that aren't working should be relocated to wherever in the country social housing is readily available so that people that are willing and able to work can be prioritised.

Fine.

I actually disagree with anyone who proposes that anybody, in any type of housing, should be relocated to any location in the country on account that they are not working. It's an insidious proposal and even more so if it targets particular groups in society.

From which you have concluded;

So it appears you do not have an objection to the principle

 

[Sarenco]

BS

A string of invective and rhetoric is not an argument. It's just boring.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

In general, an excellent submission, great to see it in national newspaper.

Two minor suggestions to this specific point:
(1) This should apply to areas designated as RPZs.
(2) The state should not purchase any new private property in RPZs for use as social housing as this is contributing to increased prices for workers seeking to buy their own homes. Land may be purchased for development of new property.

Hi Odyssey

I missed that in all the noise.

Excellent suggestion on RPZs.

"Low paid workers in RPZs should be given priority for social and affordable housing over those in receipt of social welfare".

 

[mathepac]

Question: Social housing tenants are staying in those homes for free are they not?

No they are not. All social housing tenants must make a minimum contribution to the LA of €25 per week depending on their household income. This is as well as making up any difference between the HAP the LA pays directly to the private landlord and the rental charged by the landlord.

 

[Sarenco]

BS,

A string of invective and rhetoric is not an argument. It's just boring.

 

[mathepac]

People relying on the taxpayer to pay for their housing should get better housing than the taxpayer who pays for their own home.

This must be a typo Brendan, I think you meant "should not".

 

[Brendan Burgess]

(2) The state should not purchase any new private property in RPZs for use as social housing as this is contributing to increased prices for workers seeking to buy their own homes. Land may be purchased for development of new property.

The Minister announced that the state won't be buying any more social housing. The budget will be allocated to building instead.

But it does show a big problem.

There is competition between public and private housing. If the state buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds 1,000 social houses it prevents a private developer from supplying 1,000 houses to people working in Dublin.

If the state builds 1,000 houses it will soak up all the available labour. The private sector will have to pay more or import construction workers from Eastern Europe.

Brendan

 

[Brendan Burgess]

This must be a typo Brendan, I think you meant "should not".

Hi mathepac

Thanks for that. Corrected now.

Maybe it was a Freudian typo. And I really believe the propaganda that people who don't pay for their houses should get better housing than those who do!

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

The Minister announced that the state won't be buying any more social housing. The budget will be allocated to building instead.

But it does show a big problem.

There is competition between public and private housing. If the state buys the Glass Bottle Site in Ringsend and builds 1,000 social houses it prevents a private developer from supplying 1,000 houses to people working in Dublin.

If the state builds 1,000 houses it will soak up all the available labour. The private sector will have to pay more or import construction workers from Eastern Europe.

Brendan

Brendan

With respect, it is this type of mindset that I think needs to be challenged. The underlying assumption here is that is that people living in social housing are not working. But simultaneously you argue that working people (low paid) should be prioritized for social housing.
You may actually consider this, many occupants of social housing are actually working, and in low paid jobs too.

 

[Delboy]

This is something I have long argued for when discussing the housing shortages/allocation of social housing.

You rarely ever hear advocates for families where the one/both parents have to commute hours every day with the kids in bed before they leave and if lucky, they grab 30 mins with them in the evenings.
But you'll always hear the usual culprits in the media arguing that single mothers/unemployed/those on long term disability get first call on social housing in the areas in which they grew up. This is often in prime locations close to employment. They need to remain close to their family/friends networks we're told.
But what about workers who have to move many miles from their families and take on large mortgages/high rents and then have the long commute...how do they survive without the close support networks? Do they even matter?

I don't think the proposal as worded will ever be implemented by any of the political parties in Ireland. It just won't happen. People in houses for many years will not be uprooted...the Irish Times/Kitty Holland would have a field day.
A right wing Govt could bring in a rule for new social housing tenants and being in X area for Y period of time with no job. But we've never had a right wing Govt in Ireland and I don't think we ever will.