Low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing

[TheBigShort]

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.

That is a simple view indeed. 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?

 

[PGF2016]

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

If they are funding their own accommodation they are probably paying taxes and therefore contributing to housing those using social housing.

Should they pay taxes and also house people in their own homes?

 

[PGF2016]

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.

Plenty of people who work and pay for their own accommodation live with others. Don't hear much international condemnation. Why should those in social housing be afforded an extra luxury?

 

[ant dee]

The State should cut down on spending and after that cut down on taxes.
The State should also cut down on tenancy regulations and more landlords will enter the market.
Individuals should take care of themselves more and rely on the State less.
Build more social houses sounds nice but who is going to pay for all that debt?

Not that any politician would do such things, how are you going to get the people's votes if you don't 'bribe' them with freebies...

 

[TheBigShort]

Plenty of people who work and pay for their own accommodation live with others. Don't hear much international condemnation.

Is it public policy to have increasing numbers of adults and families co-habitating with each other?

 

[TheBigShort]

The State should cut down on spending and after that cut down on taxes.

That is a broad spectrum statement. Unless you are specific about where the cuts are to be made its hard to agree/disagree with this view.

The State should also cut down on tenancy regulations and more landlords will enter the market.

That is fine if you believe this but again specifics would be needed to agree/disagree.

Individuals should take care of themselves more and rely on the State less.

They do, in general. But from time to time, everyone, will at some point rely on the State and state provisions. Some will rely more than others, but none of us can say at any given time, with absolute certainty, who that will be.

Build more social houses sounds nice but who is going to pay for all that debt?

What debt? Build a block of 10 apartments for €100,000 a unit in the right location and you have can have an asset worth €2m.

Not that any politician would do such things, how are you going to get the people's votes if you don't 'bribe' them with freebies...

What are you talking about? Haven't you been paying attention? More and more people, because of rising rents, unaffordable mortgages are being left without a home. Families are being put up in hotels. Is this the way you want our society to operate? What sort of damage, or insecurity does this cause with young children caught up in this mess?

 

[Sophrosyne]

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

Thanks for your reply Brendan, but I still don’t see where you are going with this or what the net benefit would be to the State.

I agree with some of your sentiments. For instance, in relation to social housing, there should be a zero tolerance clause regarding persistent anti-social or indeed criminal behaviour. There is no excuse for it. It devastates neighbourhoods and destroys lives. It also deters people from accepting social housing in areas where it exists.

As regards the rest of your proposal, I think it needs to be fleshed out in order to inform further discussion.

In particular, when you say "unemployed" what do you mean?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

What debt?

The money borrowed to build the apartments. It does have to be paid back and interest must be paid on it.

Build a block of 10 apartments for €100,000 a unit in the right location and you have can have an asset worth €2m.

If a private landlord built them, they would have an asset which they could charge a market rent on or sell.

But when a local authority builds social housing, they actually have a liability. The rent does not cover the cost of collecting it, and they have to maintain the buildings.

It's why they reckoned they were better off selling them to the tenants at big discounts.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

The money borrowed to build the apartments. It does have to be paid back and interest must be paid on it.

What about your concept that you raised in another thread to deal with mortgage arrears where the principal never has to be paid back? Perhaps the State could adopt that model of funding (which is actually what most governments do).
But then again that would conflict with your other submission to pay down debt.

But when a local authority builds social housing, they actually have a liability. The rent does not cover the cost of collecting it, and they have to maintain the buildings.

It's why they reckoned they were better off selling them to the tenants at big discounts.

I'm detecting a shift in your position here, or perhaps the detail coming to the fore.
You would appear now, not only to target unemployed people for eviction, but also target working people for eviction if they don't use up any additional capacity in their homes for others waiting on social housing list.
Not only that, I could be wrong here, but it appears that with more and more people and families being squeezed out of private ownership and rental markets due primarily to rising rents and prices, your solution to the housing crisis is not to build more housing but to move people around and pack them into houses based on existing capacity?

 

[Brendan Burgess]

I was answering your very specific questions as you did not seem to understand the concept of debt and assets.

My mortgage is a debt until I repay it.

On your point about shifting my position, I often develop my position. I make suggestions. Others give feedback. Some of it is valid, and I adapt the proposals accordingly. Do you not?

Nothing at all that you have said has caused me to alter the fundamental principles that low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing and that social housing should be recycled to those most in need.

Your principle seems to be that once you get housing from the state, you have a right to keep it forever, irrespective of your housing needs, your income or your working status.

Brendan

 

[TheBigShort]

I was answering your very specific questions as you did not seem to understand the concept of debt and assets.

My mortgage is a debt until I repay it.

True, but the value of your house, that is the price it could obtain on the market (regardless if it is on the market or not) is an asset. Isn't that correct?

On your point about shifting my position, I often develop my position. I make suggestions. Others give feedback. Some of it is valid, and I adapt the proposals accordingly. Do you not?

Of course, and my feedback has been that this is an unworkable, resource draining proposal at best. I have asked for more detail on how it would work in terms of how long do you have to be unemployed before you are considered for eviction? What about mental and physical disability? What about those actively seeking, but no getting work (you do accept that in order to find work there has to a job offer?). Any consideration for suitability of employment? Or when I go to the barber's can I expect Bob The Builder to trim my moustache?
The only additional detail to emerge here is that it is not only unemployed people that will be evicted, but working people also if they don't put up others in their spare capacity without any concept of how this is such an undignified way for a society to organise itself, particularly if they are going to work and contributing like everyone else.

Nothing at all that you have said has caused me to alter the fundamental principles that low paid workers should be prioritised for social housing and that social housing should be recycled to those most in need.

I'm not suggesting that low paid workers should not be prioritized. I am suggesting that should they become subsequently unemployed through no fault of their own they should not be subject to eviction, or 're-cycling' to use your phrase, on that condition alone.

Your principle seems to be that once you get housing from the state, you have a right to keep it forever, irrespective of your housing needs, your income or your working status.

Nope. I have clearly said that where a person's fortunes improve that there should be scope to charge reasonable rates for the accommodation.
Where someone's fortunes disprove, ie they lose their job through no fault of their own, I would be opposed to your proposal.

 

[ant dee]

I am afraid I am not qualified to answer with specifics and offer a better debate. I simply, and strongly, believe that the less the State does ( assuming we also get to pay less tax!), the better off we will all be as a society.

More and more people, because of rising rents, unaffordable mortgages are being left without a home

If we remove all those rent pressure zones and absurd tenant protections we have, more landlords would bother renting their properties and that would reduce the rents.
But, we live in a democracy, and who will get voted if they speak for the landlord?


About the social housing, we have to be more effective with what we have, no matter if we spend more money to build more or not. There is a lot of grey in moving social tenants around, like you mention. Many things to take into consideration and there should be different weight factor on them.
But we have to reassess social tenants, at the very least have them pay reasonable rates if they can afford it. And in a case of one working adult living alone in a 3-bed social house, it should be market rate or get downsized.

 

[Firefly]

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?

We have a shortage of social housing and we have homeless families. These are the facts, resources are limited and will take years to fix. Do you think it is fair that a single person who is working and has enough disposable income to drive a nice car, go on foreign holidays and all the rest gets to have a house paid for by everyone else when there are families living on the streets?

 

[Firefly]

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.

Emotive term there. They wouldn't be evicted, they would be rehoused somewhere more appropriate. As for it being a huge resource burner, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented....after all, people living on the streets would benefit so that's worth it in my book.

 

[Firefly]

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?

And that people is the problem with socialism and communism right there.

No consideration for private property.

I wonder would the poster offer up spare rooms in their own house?

 

[TheBigShort]

I am afraid I am not qualified to answer with specifics and offer a better debate. I simply, and strongly, believe that the less the State does ( assuming we also get to pay less tax!), the better off we will all be as a society.

That is ideological position that covers a broad spectrum of issues. For sure there are good examples to support your view, but also good examples against your view.

If we remove all those rent pressure zones and absurd tenant protections we have, more landlords would bother renting their properties and that would reduce the rents.

Implying that landlords are now hoarding their properties and not letting them out at all? I haven't seen any evidence that would indicate that this is a significant issue.

But, we live in a democracy, and who will get voted if they speak for the landlord?

Isn't there 33% of Ministers or Dail Deputies who are registered landlords? Either or, that is a sizeable presence at the seat of power and decision making.

There is a lot of grey in moving social tenants around, like you mention. Many things to take into consideration and there should be different weight factor on them.

I hope Brendan takes on board your feedback.

But we have to reassess social tenants, at the very least have them pay reasonable rates if they can afford it.

That was my proposal, I hope Brendan takes on board your feedback.

And in a case of one working adult living alone in a 3-bed social house, it should be market rate or get downsized.

I disagree. Applying market rates is what drives people for the need of social housing. While I understand the sentiment here, the practicalities of implementing such a scheme are simply not realistic. The prospect of the State getting tied up in appeals, legal fees, administration, etc will outweigh any potential benefit by a country mile.

 

[TheBigShort]

They wouldn't be evicted, they would be rehoused somewhere more appropriate.

evict
ɪˈvɪkt/
verb

1. expel (someone) from a property, especially with the support of the law.
   "a single mother and her children have been evicted from their home"

Most people who are evicted are re-housed. In hostels, hotels, social housing. It is still eviction.

We have a shortage of social housing and we have homeless families.

So build more houses.

Do you think it is fair that a single person who is working and has enough disposable income to drive a nice car, go on foreign holidays and all the rest gets to have a house paid for by everyone else when there are families living on the streets?

No I don't think it is fair. I have said, repeatedly, that there should be scope to charge reasonable rates for the accommodation if disposable income permits it.

As for it being a huge resource burner, just because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented...

True, but it should always be a consideration. In this instance it is obvious to me that the state will be tied up in appeals, legal fees,protests, administration etc and the costs will outweigh the benefits (if any) as to be a waste of time.

after all, people living on the streets would benefit so that's worth it in my book.

No they wouldn't. If they are on the streets, I'm assuming that they are not working? If they are not working, they are not prioritized under Brendans submission.
The easiest thing would be to house at least one person in the house that your lady friend was earmarked for. But that wouldn't work either, as your lady friend is working she would be prioritized for that home, leaving the people on the streets anyway, so no improvement there.

 

[TheBigShort]

And that people is the problem with socialism and communism right there.

No consideration for private property.

I wonder would the poster offer up spare rooms in their own house?

And clearly you didn't understand where I was going with the point.
For the record, no I wouldn't offer up a spare room in my house. Because, like most, I value my privacy and security. There is a hotel close to me that houses two adults and a child. I have two spare bedrooms. Should I be compelled to house them?
Is living in my house adequate accommodation for them live in, considering there is already two adults and a child living there? Is it a long-term healthy situation to house two families (who don't know each other) in a four bed house?

Once you have answered those questions, we can decide if the house being a privately owned house, or a social house makes any difference to the answers.

 

[Firefly]

And clearly you didn't understand where I was going with the point.
For the record, no I wouldn't offer up a spare room in my house. Because, like most, I value my privacy and security. There is a hotel close to me that houses two adults and a child. I have two spare bedrooms. Should I be compelled to house them?

No, It's your house and your private property. It should be entirely up to you

Is living in my house adequate accommodation for them live in, considering there is already two adults and a child living there? Is it a long-term healthy situation to house two families (who don't know each other) in a four bed house?

Probably not for both questions. Again, it's your house and your private property. It should be entirely up to you.

Once you have answered those questions, we can decide if the house being a privately owned house, or a social house makes any difference to the answers.

I have answered the questions. Whether a house is privately owned or socially owned does and should make a difference. The owners should have the right to how it's used.

 

[TheBigShort]

Probably not for both questions.

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.