Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

[TheBigShort]

These exclusions are for the genuinely sick and that the old are relocated into more appropriate accommodation (eg a one bed property when children have left the family house and not retaining a three bed house when only one person a couple remain in the property).

I would accept that there is good reason to re-accommodate elderly people in smaller and more suitable accommodation, but not against their will.
But to relocate them 'anywhere' in the country is absurd. They should be left in their communities if they want.

 

[Purple]

I'm all for building social housing and prioritizing people on low and middle incomes. I'm simply opposed to the concept that if any of them subsequently lose their jobs that they will then be subject to possible eviction.

Fair point. I agree. It needs to be more detailed than just having a job or not having a job at a given moment.

 

[The Horseman]

To be fair to all sections of society the rent for Social housing should be tied into the rental costs of the area in question and not just the income of the household. The tenant should make a contribution reflecting the local rental costs. if you tie the rent to the local area then the change in the family make up will encourage downsizing when appropriate. I don't accept that Social Housing tenants should be insulated from the changing rental levels that private renters must face.

Nor do I accept that Social Housing tenants should have accommodation for life in their desired location. Mortgage holders if they can't afford the mortgage will need to downsize/relocate to areas they can afford, why should Social Housing tenants be any different?

I will again reiterate that the sick and the old should be excluded from the above situation and dealt with more sympathy.

With the above in place those who refuse to work will be forced to relocate to those areas they can afford. This should result in people taking some form of personal responsibility and therefore being rewarded in some way for same.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Are there any up-to-date statistics on unemployed households?

 

[Firefly]

Nor do I accept that Social Housing tenants should have accommodation for life in their desired location.

A relation of mine qualified for a newly built social house in Cork in an ok location (not the best but far from the worst) as she was a single mother. The kids are now grown up and to be fair are doing well for themselves. Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest. She could easily live in a 1 bed apartment and free up her house for a homeless family.

 

[Purple]

A relation of mine qualified for a newly built social house in Cork in an ok location (not the best but far from the worst) as she was a single mother. The kids are now grown up and to be fair are doing well for themselves. Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest. She could easily live in a 1 bed apartment and free up her house for a homeless family.

What's most surprising is the utter lack of a social conscience by tenants of public housing who occupy homes they don't need or take/keep a home when they have the means to provide one for themselves. I hope none of them ever complain about corrupt politicians, high salaries, protest about water charges etc.
Some people just have no integrity.

 

[Firefly]

What's most surprising is the utter lack of a social conscience by tenants of public housing who occupy homes they don't need or take/keep a home when they have the means to provide one for themselves. I hope none of them ever complain about corrupt politicians, high salaries, protest about water charges etc.
Some people just have no integrity.

Yip. Sad to say the person would fall firmly into this group of people.

 

[TheBigShort]

A relation of mine qualified for a newly built social house in Cork in an ok location (not the best but far from the worst) as she was a single mother. The kids are now grown up and to be fair are doing well for themselves. Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest. She could easily live in a 1 bed apartment and free up her house for a homeless family.

While I understand the sentiment, the practicalities of this are simply not realistic in the absence of a sustained social housing program.
For instance, considering this woman raised children as a single mother, presumably in the same locality? Is there a 1 bed apartment in the locality available? What condition is it in? Assuming 20yrs + raising kids, is it unreasonable to expect that she may not want to leave her community? Plenty of us do leave our communities at some point in our lives, typically when we are younger and setting up home for the first time. Is it unreasonable to expect that when we raise a family we become part of the community? What disruption would this cause in her current employment if she had to move?
Does she have to buy the 1 bed apt? Or is it social housing too? Is there any consideration that where she lives is her home - as distinct from being simply a house. Why can't private occupiers of houses (where kids have flown the nest) not be compelled to sell up and downsize?
I do think there is scope to assess a person's disposable income and apply a reasonable rate for the accommodation. But expecting people to leave their homes on account of additional space becoming free is not realistic. Compelling them to leave is cause for conflict.

 

[ant dee]

But she doesn't need the help from the State anymore, no dependant kids and she is working.
So, a better solution would be to have her pay the market rent if she wants to keep living there.
If she can't afford it, well... she will have to move away, probably a smaller apartment nearby. Or further away if there is nothing nearby, why not?
A lot of people can't afford to live by themselves in a 3-bed house, we are not giving them a social house each!

 

[TheBigShort]

But she doesn't need the help from the State anymore, no dependant kids and she is working.

How did you figure that? It hasn't been stated what her income is. If she is a low paid worker, Brendans proposal is to prioritize her for social housing. And again, new conditions of Brendans proposal appear to be adopted - that is, working people are also targeted for eviction. The initial proposal was only to target those that were not working.

So, a better solution would be to have her pay the market rent if she wants to keep living there.

I agree that there is scope to assess disposable income and apply a reasonable rate. I would be opposed to applying the 'market' rate to social housing as that would effectively defeat the purpose of providing social housing in the first place.

If she can't afford it, well... she will have to move away, probably a smaller apartment nearby. Or further away if there is nothing nearby, why not?

Again, what would be the point in providing social housing if the occupants couldn't afford to pay the rent? If you can't afford the rent, then you are the person in need of social housing. See the title of this topic.

A lot of people can't afford to live by themselves in a 3-bed house, we are not giving them a social house each!

That is true, but just because everyone is not getting social housing doesn't mean that no-one should get social housing.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

If she is a low paid worker, Brendans proposal is to prioritize her for social housing. And again, new conditions of Brendans proposal appear to be adopted - that is, working people are also targeted for eviction. The initial proposal was only to target those that were not working.

Everyone in social housing should be assessed every 5 years.

If she were assessed tomorrow, she should be treated the same as a single woman of the same age without any dependents.

As she is working, she would get priority over someone who is not working.

As she is single, she would not be getting a three bedroom house.

If there is a suitable one bed apartment available she could move there.

If not, she should identify two other people who qualify for social housing who will share the house with her, and she could be left there.

But it is not fair to people on the housing list that she occupies a three bed house on her own.

Brendan

 

[PGF2016]

But expecting people to leave their homes on account of additional space becoming free is not realistic.

Why is it not realistic? It's realistic that someone who pays for their own housing may have to move when they can't afford the area they are in. Why not social housing? Why can they not be re-assessed?

Compelling them to leave is cause for conflict.

Again, why is this a problem? Why would those in social housing have cause for conflict if they have to leave whereas supporting themselves don't have the same option?

 

[ant dee]

How did you figure that? It hasn't been stated what her income is.

Well, we don't have to focus on an individual case. From the description 'Herself is working away and still living in the same 3 bed house. Cars, holidays and all the rest.' lets assume she would no longer qualify for social housing if she were to apply now, for argument sake.

And I see Brendan explained some points better, just above.

 

[TheBigShort]

As she is single, she would not be getting a three bedroom house.

I agree, that an initial assessment would deduce this. But is there no consideration that she may have lived in the house for 20yrs plus? Is there any consideration of her preferences to continue living in her community?

If there is a suitable one bed apartment available she could move there.

What about other single low paid workers in need of housing?

If not, she should identify two other people who qualify for social housing who will share the house with her, and she could be left there.

I'm sorry but this is simply preposterous. Imagine a working person, who has raised kids on her own, probably for 20yrs plus being told you have to move or share your house as digs with other people. Do you have any sense of the dignity of the individual? Let alone the occupant having now to share with non-family, why should those on the waiting list expect to have to share with other non-family?
As a temporary solution perhaps, while housing is being built to meet demand, but as a permanent arrangement it is not practical or desirable.

But it is not fair to people on the housing list that she occupies a three bed house on her own.

Unless they are not working of course, isn't that right? A family of four with no employment income should expect to be treated less favourably than a single working person in a three bed house?

The problem with social housing is that not enough housing has been built. The reason more and more people are waiting for housing is that their incomes, whether in employment or not, is insufficient to for them to purchase their own home. More and more are being forced to rent, which in itself is at record highs. As rents go up, far in excess of incomes, more and more will apply for social housing.
The housing crisis has nothing, or very little, to do with this or that person occupying this or that house. It has to do with a failed public policy that out-sourced a nations housing needs to the private market, which in turn operates, understandably, on it's want to make profit and not for any social need.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

But is there no consideration that she may have lived in the house for 20yrs plus?

Is there any consideration of her preferences to continue living in her community?

What about other single low paid workers in need of housing?

None. Those who are beholden to society to support them have no rights in terms of where they live.

None. She cannot afford to have preferences.

As an alternative, she should be compelled to take other single low paid / homeless people into the State's house.

 

[TheBigShort]

None. Those who are beholden to society to support them have no rights in terms of where they live.

She is no more beholden to society than you are.

None. She cannot afford to have preferences.

Says who? What sort of simplistic view is this?

As an alternative, she should be compelled to take other single low paid / homeless people into the State's house.

I think you should be compelled to do the same. Fair is fair.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

She is no more beholden to society than you are.



Says who? What sort of simplistic view is this?



I think you should be compelled to do the same. Fair is fair.

There is a slight difference...I am a net financial contributor to society. I have earned the right to live where I want and live with who I want.

You seem to think it's callous for society to look after people and house them, but just not with spare bedrooms and exactly where they want to live.

I want to live on Vico Road or Sorrento Terrace but I can't afford to; should society facilitate that?

 

[TheBigShort]

As she is single, she would not be getting a three bedroom house.

If there is a suitable one bed apartment available she could move there.

This would appear to confirm that it is not only unemployed people that would face eviction but also working people.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

This would appear to confirm that it is not only unemployed people that would face eviction but also working people.

You seem to be missing the point; someone in State-funded accommodation should work within the constraints of what's available. Someone who's funding their own accommodation should face no such restrictions.

It's quite simple really.

 

[TheBigShort]

There is a slight difference...I am a net financial contributor to society. I have earned the right to live where I want and live with who I want.

No you are not. You are a consumer and a polluter like the rest of us.
We all have the right to live, we all earned the right to live.
We all have the right to live with who we want to. Implied in that is also the right not to live with who we don't want to.
Of course, reality dictates that that is not always the case, but it is the State obligation to adopt and implement policies of what we want and need, and not of what we don't want and don't need.
We don't need a policy that forces people to live with another based purely on their socio-economic status. It is undignified and would be subject to mass resistance, depleting resources, legal challenges, international condemnation.

You seem to think it's callous for society to look after people and house them, but just not with spare bedrooms and exactly where they want to live.

You are missing the point. There are some 80,000 on housing lists. They are not there because of widespread occupation of unemployed single people in three bed houses. The practicalities of implementing such a scheme to evict people, firstly on their employment status, then on their personal status would be a huge resource burner.
The scheme has also been exposed that it is not only targeting unemployed people, but also working people.

I want to live on Vico Road or Sorrento Terrace but I can't afford to; should society facilitate that?

No, why should it? Are you suggesting that there are under occupied social housing units there?

I thought you said that you already lived where you wanted to?

I have earned the right to live where I want and live with who I want.