Social Housing - Creating a monster

[TheBigShort]

Not only can those people stay there but if they have one son who never bothers to get a job he will inherit the house (tenancy) when the parents pop their clogs. If he them has one child with his partner and that child grows up, never gets a job etc then that child will inherit the house.

You are great one for peddling the extreme examples. Realistically, most people try to find work.
And of course, when it comes to deciding what to do with those who 'never bother to work', the answer somehow always comes up short.

 

[Sunny]

Two reasons - 1) even if circumstances change, they may still not be able to afford it 2) the council may not be prepared to sell it.

Well if they can't afford to buy it, they should obviously still be on the social housing list or else if they are earning the same as me and you and still can't afford to buy it, they should do what me and you do and buy somewhere that they can afford. Even if that means moving from family and friends. That's what I did. And that's what most of my friends did.

If you ever hear of a case where the council refuse to sell a social housing unit to the people living in it who can afford the asking price, please let me know. Because it just proves my point about everything around social housing just getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

No, I dont think so. But I do think it is not unreasonable for the tenants to at least have a standard of accommodation that they are used to and that the accommodation is in an area where they feel comfortable. There is a lot to be said for the well being of people if they feel part of the community and are not faced with leaving their friends and neighbours.

I never said it was, but there are other factors outside of how many bedrooms there are in a house. People are not cattle, to be herded around.

Ah here, asking people to move into smaller property so that a family that is in the same situation that they were in 25 years ago can be helped is not treating them as cattle. We are not talking about setting up a camp and moving them all into it. Why should people be entitled to a social house for life even if they have outgrown it? Is it so extreme to suggest that people who have benefited from social housing might just have to accept that they might have to make some sacrifice at some point such a moving into a smaller property.

 

[TheBigShort]

they should do what me and you do and buy somewhere that they can afford.

Why? So that all social housing is only occupied by those who are not working, or wont work?
God forbid someone from a socially disadvantaged area living in a social house actually gets ahead in life with an education and career. We couldnt tolerate them occupying a social house - evict them, social housing is only for the perpetual poor, we cant have them climbing the ladder lest they contribute back in taxes and give their deprived areas a good name.

Is it so extreme to suggest that people who have benefited from social housing might just have to accept that they might have to make some sacrifice at some point such a moving into a smaller property.

I didnt say it was extreme. I said there is more to moving someone out of their home than merely counting the number of bedrooms in it. That is wholly insufficient criteria to determine such a move.
You make it sound like there are swathes of large partially occupied social houses, there are not. If there were people would organise and start protesting. You would well to read upon on the civil rights marches in Derry to learn how social housing was manipulated in favour of some people over the needs of population at large.
The fact is, we need to start building more homes. The private sector is way behind the curve in this regard unable to provide new developments to meet demand. The public sector is also.

 

[Sunny]

Ok, that post is complete nonsense. So basically if you come from a socially disadvantaged area, you are entitled to a social house? That’s your criteria?? And yes, social house should only be for the poorest and vulnerable in society. What’s wrong with that?? If you live in a disadvantaged area and make a good life for yourself, then you deserve great credit but you don’t deserve a house. There are thousands of people who don’t live in disadvantaged areas who struggle to pay extreme rents and mortgages. Are they less deserving of your help because they don’t fit your cosy definition of ‘socially deprived’??

How do you know there aren’t loads of single people or couples living in three and four bedroom houses? Show me the figures since you are so definite. I don’t know there how many there are but I don’t know if there are hundreds or thousands and either do you.

I have no idea why you are bringing Derry and civil rights into it. Show me one post where anyone suggested manipulating social housing using any other criteria than the greatest need? Derry was based on discrimination on religious grounds. Where is the one post that is suggesting discriminating against one section of society?

As for the private sector procucing houses. Yes they are behind the curve but guess how much of this years social house supply will be met by the private sector? Read today’s report. So the private sector as you called it is Meeting the demand of social housing when there is a chronic shortage of supply for private buyers who are the biggest losers because they can’t find properties to buy since entire developments are being sold privately to the state and are paying high rents without any support or help.

 

[Firefly]

Nobody is talking about taking away their security of tenure. Not like they will be kicked out after 25 years to be put back on the housing list again. There is no reason they can't buy their social house unit...

Even 25 years would be far, far, far too long. I would think 5 years is long enough for anyone not physically or mentally impaired to be able to put a roof over their heads (either rent or buy). Giving someone a house for longer than that removes the incentive to bother and not only that, it means that those who need it most are then put into emergency accommodation.

It's a disgrace to see the next generation coming up being so dependent on the state and their fellow taxpayer as their parents are. A disgrace.

 

[TheBigShort]

So basically if you come from a socially disadvantaged area, you are entitled to a social house? That’s your criteria??

No. But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.
I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.

And yes, social house should only be for the poorest and vulnerable in society. What’s wrong with that??

No it shouldnt only be for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Why cant we provide more housing for working people who pay taxes but are being fleeced in private rental accomodation who cannot plausibly save for a place of their own?

If you live in a disadvantaged area and make a good life for yourself, then you deserve great credit but you don’t deserve a house.

You are simplifying the issue. You place no emphasis on a persons background, the environment they grew up in, their social links with the community they live in.
If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career? Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty?

Where is the one post that is suggesting discriminating against one section of society?

Ok granted, Derry was somewhat off the charts.

when there is a chronic shortage of supply for private buyers who are the biggest losers because they can’t find properties to buy since entire developments are being sold privately to the state and are paying high rents without any support or help.

I totally agree - but what is your proposal to solve the problem?
It seems your angst is against state funds being used to provide housing for those in social need over those first-time buyers who are also in need of housing.
To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.

 

[TheBigShort]

I would think 5 years is long enough for anyone not physically or mentally impaired to be able to put a roof over their heads (either rent or buy).

On what basis 5yrs? What would happen if after 5yrs someone was working a near minimum wage job as a hairdresser? Are they to be evicted?

 

[cremeegg]

I am simply saying that is not fair that volunteer housing agencies are buying entire developments to the detriment of young first time buyers who are struggling to find property too and are facing disgraceful rents and that they are competing against each other using taxpayers money which only pushes the price of the property up.

I seriously doubt that there are any volunteers involved.

 

[Tebbit]

In Gorey Wexford Planning permission was given for a large number of houses in a new development called Glen an Gairdin.
The new homes were slow to sell with only eleven selling over approx. 18 months. In one swoop Wexford County Council purchase 22 houses.
When one checks the bulk buy against property price register the council payed full whack for all 22 units. The eleven private buyers are not happy bunnies.

And why wouldn't they be unhappy, they scrimped and saved and are paying massive mortgages and the others will get it for nominal rent. To me that's just plain wrong. Fully social housing estates should be built again and this time maybe run better than they were previously. I don't believe the public/private mix works at all. There should be no social housing for life - if your circumstances improve you should be expected to move on and pay your own way.

 

[Delboy]

It's a disgrace to see the next generation coming up being so dependent on the state and their fellow taxpayer as their parents are. A disgrace.

There are political parties in this country that view this as a perfectly reasonable state of affairs. In fact, they encourage/cultivate it as it gives them a support base to work from into the future

 

[Purple]

You are great one for peddling the extreme examples.

You're a great one for ignoring reality when it doesn't suit your ideology. How do you know it's extreme? Are you suggesting that it is unusual for many generations of the to live in the same council house? I know it happens in my family.

Realistically, most people try to find work.

Can you back that up?

And of course, when it comes to deciding what to do with those who 'never bother to work', the answer somehow always comes up short.

The answer to a single person who needs social housing is to give them a one bedroom apartment.

 

[Purple]

It seems your angst is against state funds being used to provide housing for those in social need over those first-time buyers who are also in need of housing.
To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.

See this is just gas; the State can't get its act together to build social housing, even though it owns half the residential land in Dublin, so it takes money from first time buyers and buys the very houses they want to live in.

The State,"We're using your money to buy the house you wanted to buy and we are giving it to someone else. Why have you got a problem with that?"

First time buyer, "Why don't you use my money to build a house for that person?"

The State, "We really couldn't be arsed. We know that this isn't increasing housing stocks or helping working people but it's easier and it gets the loony left, the poverty industry and RTE off our backs for a while so, well, tough luck. Anyway, we live in a social democracy!"

 

[Sunny]

On what basis 5yrs? What would happen if after 5yrs someone was working a near minimum wage job as a hairdresser? Are they to be evicted?

Again, that is just ignorant. I have a family member who is a hairdresser and she is not looking for a social house. Not everyone on minimum wage is looking for social housing either. If the minimum wage is not sufficient for people to live, then you argue for an increase in the minimum wage and live with the consequences of that as a country. You don't say to private business, you pay the minimum house and the taxpayer will provide them with a house to balance it out.

 

[TheBigShort]

I have a family member who is a hairdresser and she is not looking for a social house. Not everyone on minimum wage is looking for social housing either

I never anything like that either!?!

It was suggested that after '5yrs' anybody who was not mentally or physically impaired should be able to put a roof over their heads.
This is of course nonsense. Its as almost if your OP has been passed by. As if it hasnt dawned on some people that even well paid workers are finding it difficult to put a roof over their heads. Is that not the case?
If so, then low paid workers are also finding it difficult - isnt this what your OP is about?

 

[Sunny]

No. But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.
I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.

They should be grateful. When I lost my job, I was extremely grateful for the benefits I received but I also didn't stay on them one minute longer than I needed. I even took minimum wage jobs for a couple of weeks that cost me money by the time I paid for transport to work. What's wrong with saying that people should be grateful for welfare? Not saying they should be bowing and saying thanks but they can show their gratitude by trying their hardest to get off benefits like many many people do

No it shouldnt only be for the poorest and most vulnerable in society. Why cant we provide more housing for working people who pay taxes but are being fleeced in private rental accomodation who cannot plausibly save for a place of their own?

So basically everyone should be entitled to a house subsidised by the taxpayer? That's really what we our tax money spent on. Of course more houses need to be built but that's not the governments job and it is not even the argument here. I can guarantee you that in 5 years time despite thousands and thousands of social houses being built, that the waiting list for social housing will still be as long...It is like the health service and waiting lists. Throw money at the problem and hope for the best

You are simplifying the issue. You place no emphasis on a persons background, the environment they grew up in, their social links with the community they live in.
If everyone from a disadvantaged background faced eviction on foot of advancing themselves educationally and professionally can you not see how such a policy could act as a disincentive to learn, to progress a career? Thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty?

That's exactly the point. Social housing is acting as a disincentive to learn and to progress a career. You just said it yourself. How can such a system be right for everyone including the people involved?

I totally agree - but what is your proposal to solve the problem?
It seems your angst is against state funds being used to provide housing for those in social need over those first-time buyers who are also in need of housing.
To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.

My angst is not against providing social housing. My angst is against the stupidity of the government giving tax breaks to first time buyers but then competing against them to buy property. My angst is against is multiple housing agencies bidding against each other with a private developer using taxpayers money to get property on their books so they can claim to be helping the most people. My angst is against is the idea that social housing doesn't seem to be there to help people get through tough times. It almost seems like a way of life for many people. My angst is against despite full employment, social housing lists are growing and growing. My angst is against the fact that you can't criticise government policy without being accused about not caring about the disadvantaged or the homeless...

 

[Purple]

I took it that the suggestion was that the lease should expire after 5 years and the needs of the tenants be re-assessed. That could mean they stay where they are, they get a bigger house or they get a smaller one.

I rent in the private sector. I have a few months security for me and my children.
There are tens of thousands of people like me.
Why should the state use our money to provide better tenancies to other people?

 

[TheBigShort]

You're a great one for ignoring reality when it doesn't suit your ideology. How do you know it's extreme? Are you suggesting that it is unusual for many generations of the to live in the same council house? I know it happens in my family.

Its not 'unusual' but it is a tiny minority of the population. The topic is about social housing of which a great many people need, including working people and their families who cannot afford the market prices. This link is from another thread posted by BB on another thread


https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/a-very-interesting-paper-on-lifetime-income-inequality.205305/

http://www.dublineconomics.com/papers/3533.pdf


In it you will find the heading a heading – Key factor: on average, even lifetime poor spend majority of their working lives in (low-paid) work.

With that, my experience is that everyone I know who is capable of working generally tries to find work at some point. Most people will have worked at some point or another. As the study above suggests even the poorest spend a majority of their lifetimes at work. Obviously there are some exceptions to that – like those in your family, but that’s no excuse to tarnish everyone else with the same brush.

 

[Purple]

But if you grow up in a house, social or privately owned, it is not unreasonable to consider that your home.

My children consider our house their home. Both they and I know that we'll probably have to move out at some stage.

I get a sense that you consider thait those who live in social housing should be eternally grateful to some other cohort of society.

Of course they should; they have been given a home which is being paid for my their fellow citizens. I'm grateful when someone gives me a pint; I say "thank you" and look to return the favour. I'm sure I'd feel grateful if someone gave me a house.

 

[TheBigShort]

My angst is against the stupidity of the government giving tax breaks to first time buyers but then competing against them to buy property. My angst is against is multiple housing agencies bidding against each other with a private developer using taxpayers money to get property on their books so they can claim to be helping the most people.

I am agreeable with you on these two points.

My angst is against is the idea that social housing doesn't seem to be there to help people get through tough times. It almost seems like a way of life for many people.

Social housing, or housing for that, is not a temporary fix (unless its emergency accommodation). There appears to be a misunderstanding of what housing is for and what it is. It is not a benefit or a gift...it is a social necessity. It is essential to maintain the social fabric of a society.
How we, as a country, provide that housing is up to us. The policy for many years has been to allow the market determine the supply and demand and prices of houses and to encourage private ownership, with only the government intervening to house the poorest and most vulnerable.
This model has failed, dismisally. As your OP rightly points out, working people cannot afford homes of their own and worse, they are now competing with state funded agencies to buy properties - this is madness and is a consequence of a market failure and a failed housing policy.

My angst is against despite full employment, social housing lists are growing and growing.

Yes, a symptom of a failure of the market to provide a sustainable housing sector for the population, courtesy of a housing policy not to interfere in that market by way of providing more social housing.

 

[Purple]

The topic is about social housing of which a great many people need, including working people and their families who cannot afford the market prices.

No, this thread is about the state using the taxes of working people seeking to buy a home to price those same people out of the market by buying the same homes they are looking to buy.
This thread is about the shambolic wastefulness of state funded bodies bidding against each other to buy private houses, thus pushing up the price of the remaining private houses on the market instead of the state building social housing directly.
Issues such as inherited tenancies etc., while irksome, are a side issue.
Around 9% of our housing stock is social housing. I don't care if it's 25% as long as the state controls that stock efficiently and fairly. That means frequent reviews and where tenants can afford an open market rate they should be paying it. Where they can't they should have their needs assessed every 2-5 years and adjusted accordingly.

The state should be legally barred from purchasing, or funding the purchase of, a private house which is on the market for private purchasers.
Builders/ developers should not be allowed to buy our the requirement for social and affordable housing in new developments.