Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

[TheBigShort]

I can't see how any of it would work really...

Saw this and thought of this thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4884490/Ex-council-house-Cornish-coast-sells-1-4m.html

I wonder do people think there is some sort of gold mine of housing somewhere.

Good one. I can't really see the £1.4m value in it myself but there is a lot property funds with cheap QE money trying to find places to put it. I'm not saying that is the case here, but the price seems nuts.

But it's a good point you made, you could house someone in some disadvantaged backwater, then 10yrs later, a big US multinational lands by and the value quadrupled. Before you know Brendan and the gang are demanding your eviction again!

 

[Sarenco]

BS

If a tenant fails to make rent payments in an area with good employment opportunities, wouldn't it make sense to allow somebody else to avail of those employment opportunities?

That would be good for our economy - the active participants in which ultimately pay for public housing.

The level of rent arrears in each of Dublin's local authority areas would suggest that a "sense of duty" is insufficient to motivate a very significant number of tenants to pay their rent.

Incidentally, do have any sympathy for people that are currently in a "disadvantaged backwater" (your phrase)?

 

[TheBigShort]

If a tenant fails to make rent payments in an area with good employment opportunities, wouldn't it make sense to allow somebody else to avail of those employment opportunities?

You are changing the terms of Brendans proposal. He doesn't differentiate between those who are out of work but continue to pay rent, and those out of work who don't pay rent.

If there is a job going in the car wash, in ballyjamesduff, evict a unemployed person in social housing for the person who will work the car wash and give them the social housing?

That would be good for our economy - the active participants in which ultimately pay for public housing.

It would terrible for our economy, aside from the costs of implementing the scheme, the costs associated with the inevitable appeals, protests and legal fees, would be a drain on the resources of the economy.
On top of that Ireland's reputation as a democratic republic would be severely tarnished. Ireland would undoubtedly see itself before the European court of Human Rights and ECJ - is there any comparable scheme implemented by any other European country, ever?

Incidentally, do have any sympathy for people that are currently in a "disadvantaged backwater" (your phrase)?

I have every sympathy for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.
The notion that we should build social housing in their communities to accommodate unemployed people would only reinforce that disadvantage, fostering a permanent cycle of poverty.

 

[AlbacoreA]

It's unworkable. Unless you move to a economic and social model like the States.

If you offered an incentive to move world that work?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Brendan,

Don’t you think you need to clarify what you mean by “not working”.

Do you mean people who have not worked for a specific time period?

Are you referring to individual or household unemployment?

Would the age or state of health of the unemployed person or household matter?

Hi Sop

My view is as follows:

Social housing should not be given for life - it should be reviewed every 5 years. If someone would no longer be on the priority list at that stage, then they should no longer get housing.

People who work should be given priority over those who don't work.

I am open to discussion on these issues. You might think it should be every 3 years, someone else every 8 years.

If someone has not worked for years and they are living in an area where there are plenty of jobs, then they should be moved and the house should be allocated to someone who is working in those jobs. This is better than having someone on social welfare living in Dublin while someone else lives in Longford and commutes every day.

I don't propose that someone who has a review of their housing on 30 June, who loses their job on 29th June should be relocated.

But if someone gets a job on 29th June and is allocated housing on 30th June, and quits on 1 July and doesn't work again until a few days before the next 5 year review, they should not be allocated housing in their area of choice.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

It's unworkable. Unless you move to a economic and social model like the States.

If you offered an incentive to move world that work?

Such as?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

Guys

I wouldn't get hung up over whether it's free or not, or whether they pay their rent or not.

The reality is that social housing is very cheap for those who have it, whether they are working or not.

By the way, as part of the criteria for allocating housing, I would include the payment record and any record of anti-social behaviour.

I was speaking to someone yesterday, who lives in an apartment block. The apartment next door was rented out on HAP. They just threw their rubbish out the window onto the ground below. This would rule them out of any social housing in my book. It would not solve the problem of the rubbish being thrown out of a rented property, but it would tell people that to get priority on social housing they had to behave reasonably.

We have an entitlement culture. Some people feel entitled to social housing wherever they want to live and high levels of social welfare payment and feel no need to offer anything in return, even just normal neighbourliness.

Brendan

 

[The Horseman]

Guys

I wouldn't get hung up over whether it's free or not, or whether they pay their rent or not.

The reality is that social housing is very cheap for those who have it, whether they are working or not.

By the way, as part of the criteria for allocating housing, I would include the payment record and any record of anti-social behaviour.

I was speaking to someone yesterday, who lives in an apartment block. The apartment next door was rented out on HAP. They just threw their rubbish out the window onto the ground below. This would rule them out of any social housing in my book. It would not solve the problem of the rubbish being thrown out of a rented property, but it would tell people that to get priority on social housing they had to behave reasonably.

We have an entitlement culture. Some people feel entitled to social housing wherever they want to live and high levels of social welfare payment and feel no need to offer anything in return, even just normal neighbourliness.

Brendan

Completely agree Brendan. We do indeed have an entitlement culture. Case in point my niece and her partner are both working full time and can't afford to buy in their local area where as a property was recently rented for €1650 per month via the HAP. The tenant is a single mother mid twenties with two children. When asked about the rent she stated I am entitled to €1800 on the HAP.

Where exactly is the justice in this!

 

[Purple]

I have every sympathy for people living in economically disadvantaged communities.
The notion that we should build social housing in their communities to accommodate unemployed people would only reinforce that disadvantage, fostering a permanent cycle of poverty.

So we should build social housing for low paid working people in those areas then, yes?
That's what Brendan is proposing.
There are many socially deprived areas which are much closer to jobs than the Dublin commuter belt.

 

[TheBigShort]

Social housing should not be given for life - it should be reviewed every 5 years

Fair enough, we will work with that and see how we go.

If someone would no longer be on the priority list at that stage, then they should no longer get housing.

This doesn't really make sense. Firstly, because they have been assigned a house they of course are no longer on the priority list.
But if you mean that they have advanced in their careers to a point that they ordinarily wouldn't be classed as in priority need of house, therefore evicted, then this would be cause for chaos.
The incentive would be, not to take the promotion at work, not to advance the career for fear of being evicted. In the event that someone who does advance their career and is subsequently evicted, then they need to find a home (perhaps their family too?). In doing so, they may quit their job for a vacancy in their new locality. If an economy is growing, employers may find it hard to find the right people to employ in the first instance, without having to consider a state run project of eviction!

People who work should be given priority over those who don't work.

Fine, but if someone who works, subsequently loses their job, what is the criteria for qualifying for eviction? For instance, if I'm unemployed but can show that I am actively seeking work, will that count for anything?
How about evicting employers from their homes if they don't employ me?

If someone has not worked for years and they are living in an area where there are plenty of jobs, then they should be moved and the house should be allocated to someone who is working in those jobs.

Moved where?

This is better than having someone on social welfare living in Dublin while someone else lives in Longford and commutes every day.

So move them to Longford? But there is a large theme park development creating hundreds of jobs there. But you want people who don't work to move there?

But if someone gets a job on 29th June and is allocated housing on 30th June, and quits on 1 July and doesn't work again until a few days before the next 5 year review, they should not be allocated housing in their area of choice.

Will there be any consideration as to why a person is long-term unemployed? Mental illness, physical disability for instance? Or poor educational background? Abusive childhood?
What if the person is a qualified carpenter, but there is a downturn in the construction industry, and jobs are hard to get? Should the carpenter be expected to fill the vacancy at the local hairdressers? Just to avoid an eviction?

 

[Purple]

This doesn't really make sense. Firstly, because they have been assigned a house they of course are no longer on the priority list.
But if you mean that they have advanced in their careers to a point that they ordinarily wouldn't be classed as in priority need of house, therefore evicted, then this would be cause for chaos.
The incentive would be, not to take the promotion at work, not to advance the career for fear of being evicted. In the event that someone who does advance their career and is subsequently evicted, then they need to find a home (perhaps their family too?). In doing so, they may quit their job for a vacancy in their new locality. If an economy is growing, employers may find it hard to find the right people to employ in the first instance, without having to consider a state run project of eviction!

The logical conclusion to that is that our social welfare system is a poverty trap.
Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[TheBigShort]

The logical conclusion to that is that our social welfare system is a poverty trap.
Do you think that's a good thing?

The point I made was in the context of Brendans proposal being implemented. I agree, a poverty trap it certainly would be.

 

[TheBigShort]

So we should build social housing for low paid working people in those areas then, yes?

I agree, we should.

That's what Brendan is proposing.

He is not, he has not suggested building social housing. He has suggested prioritizing social housing for low paid workers through a process of assessment that will be implemented by eviction where appropriate.

 

[Purple]

The point I made was in the context of Brendans proposal being implemented. I agree, a poverty trap it certainly would be.

No, my point is that our whole welfare system is a poverty trap.

 

[Purple]

He is not, he has not suggested building social housing. He has suggested prioritizing social housing for low paid workers through a process of assessment that will be implemented by eviction where appropriate.

Would you be in favour of prioritising low paid working people over people who aren't working when selecting them for housing in a particular location?

 

[TheBigShort]

No, my point is that our whole welfare system is a poverty trap.

You may think so, fair enough, that is your view. But this is about Brendans proposal. Would Brendans proposal enforce that poverty trap or alleviate any element of it?

 

[TheBigShort]

Would you be in favour of prioritising low paid working people over people who aren't working when selecting them for housing in a particular location?

No, the practicalities of such a scheme would be unworkable, chaotic and ultimately resource draining. If there is a demand for social housing (as a consequence of excessive prices in the private market), I would be in favour of building social housing.

 

[Purple]

You may think so, fair enough, that is your view. But this is about Brendans proposal. Would Brendans proposal enforce that poverty trap or alleviate any element of it?

Maybe we should start another thread on this subject.

 

[TheBigShort]

Maybe we should start another thread on this subject.

To save that, perhaps you could just answer the question I asked you about Brendans proposal?

 

[AlbacoreA]

I think a poverty trap is a very likely outcome of this proposal. Its far more likely than with the current system as a whole. The latter though is a different topic.