Yes you did. People are not advancing themselves because they fear losing social housing. So considering they are no better off than other people, why would they fear that? You seem to think this a good thing. And nobody is talking about 'evicting' people on to the streets. We are talking about encouraging people to be able to make their own way without benefits. It is this that is perpetuating the cycle of poverty. For some reason, you seem to think to this is some sort of Right wing Nazi concept or something...
Social Housing - Creating a monster
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
Yes you did. People are not advancing themselves because they fear losing social housing. So considering they are no better off than other people, why would they fear that? You seem to think this a good thing. And nobody is talking about 'evicting' people on to the streets. We are talking about encouraging people to be able to make their own way without benefits. It is this that is perpetuating the cycle of poverty. For some reason, you seem to think to this is some sort of Right wing Nazi concept or something...
Social housing is provided by housing associations and similar bodies at below market rents, (that is high rents rather than very high rents) to people who meet certain criteria, the criteria vary by agency and even development. The criteria are usually designed to allow a broad mixture of people access social housing. This is a relatively new thing in Ireland.
Local Authority or Council housing is a different thing. This is the traditional form of housing outside the private sector. It is provided by LAs at very low rents, €35 per week for a 3 bedroom house is not uncommon. Again it is available to people who meet the criteria, generally poorer people, though the income limits are €35k AFTER TAX for a single person in many areas. There is also a waiting system heavily biased in favour of those whose application is on the books longest. The result of this is that LA housing goes almost exclusively to those whose parents put their name on the list the day they turn 18. In effect the children of parents who are themselves in LA housing, because they understand how the system works. this is the real reason LA housing is multigenerational. Its does not go to families who are poor across the generations, but to families who understand how the system works.
Put your kids name down for a LA house aged 18, in 10 years time they will probably be offered a house, so long as they are not earning more than the limit.
Local Authority or Council housing is a different thing. This is the traditional form of housing outside the private sector. It is provided by LAs at very low rents, €35 per week for a 3 bedroom house is not uncommon. Again it is available to people who meet the criteria, generally poorer people, though the income limits are €35k AFTER TAX for a single person in many areas. There is also a waiting system heavily biased in favour of those whose application is on the books longest. The result of this is that LA housing goes almost exclusively to those whose parents put their name on the list the day they turn 18. In effect the children of parents who are themselves in LA housing, because they understand how the system works. this is the real reason LA housing is multigenerational. Its does not go to families who are poor across the generations, but to families who understand how the system works.
Put your kids name down for a LA house aged 18, in 10 years time they will probably be offered a house, so long as they are not earning more than the limit.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Of course they are recipients. I never said they werent. I just dont single out any particular recipient or groups of recipients and blame them for all that is unfair in the world.
It wasnt that long ago that this site targeted the unemployed. But now that unemployment is falling, the economy growing, house prices are rising, its time to target other recipients, namely social housing tenants.
Here we go again, the inferred assumption that social housing tenants dont work.
I work with people in wheelchairs. They tell me of the obstacles they face on a daily basis. One example was the hotel that had wheelchair accessible toilets, but no wheelchair ramp to access the hotel! (Admittedly since fixed).
I never said that people in wheelchairs were using that as a reason not to get work. Far from it, the opposite is the reality. It is employers who dont hire staff in wheelchairs is the problem. As was pointed out to me once, how often are you met by someone in a wheelchair when entering a shop, hotel, restaurant? Its not as if people in wheelchairs cannot do a lot of the jobs, its because the environment that is designed creates obstacles.
Great idea.
Are they? Can you back it up?
Great idea, and not only an issue for low-income families, the cost of childcare is prohibitive for alot of women returning to work.
Not sure how this will resolve your OP question?
Great idea, bearing in mind however a great deal of FTB are educated and trained, so hard to know how this will resolve the issue you raised.
Who is saying this? Where did this nonsense come out of?
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
That is what I said above, which is nothing like what you said I said.
We probably have hundreds (if not thousands of civil servants) who work in the provision of social housing policy. It's not beyond reason that they should be able to decide on who gets scarce resources based on need. The current system seems to facilitate those in need at a particular time for the rest of their lives. Get a house and you're sucking diesel. Any wonder why so many think it's a system open to being gamed!
And they're finding it a whole lot harder now as the government is buying up the very houses and apartments within their price range!
If there is someone with a greater need then they get the house. I'm not saying this is easy by the way, but we are dealing with a scarce resource (social housing) and therefore it should be used to faciliate those in most need. But we've been down this road before. You are happy for a single mother who is easily able to pay for something herself and whose 2 children are now adults and living somewhere else to remain in her 3 bed social house whilst a family with young kids stays in a hostel, so it's pointless really.
I didn't say that. Plenty do, but I would be willing to bed that there is a higher percentage of people living in social housing that don't work (or have never worked) than those living in non social housing.
And this is the whole point all of us are trying to make. Social housing, like the dole, should be a safety net to help people in times of trouble, not something permanent which traps them in a perpetual cycle of poverty.
Yes it is.....
You said people in fear of losing social housing would be dis-incentivised to learn or progress their career. That is exactly the same as saying that social housing is encouraging people to remain reliant on benefits and forsake more or better work. Then you say that people in receipt of social housing are no better off than people without it........ Confusing to be honest
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Yes, and they are probably implenting it in accordance with the direction of their political masters.
But the question is to you, if you evict one low-income family in favour of a non-working family with disabled children (or vice-versa)
Where does the evicted family go?
Yes, I think we are universally agreed on that.
This is garbage. You know only too well that I am opposed to evicting anybody on the sole basis of how many rooms are in the house. Peoples lives are far more complex than that.
Of course there is, by its very nature there will always be.
And this is the point im making. Housing is not a temporary fix. It is a long-term permanent social need that is required for everyone - even the very wealthiest of us all.
It is not something to dangle over peoples necks that after 5 yrs if your circumstances have changed in some regard you could face eviction to some other unknown location. There are smply too many complex variables to consider to make it impossible to work unless some form of dictatorship is imposed.
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Please read my quote again. This time, put some emphasis on the words 'if' and 'could'.
We dont have a policy to evict social housing tenants on foot of them advancing in their careers. If we did, then that could act as a disincentive not to advance a career for fear of losing their home and joining the ranks of all the other first time buyers who im sure you will admit are finding it tough.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
So basically it is open to everyone? So whats the big fuss then?
Seriously? Are you just trolling for something to do or something? On one hand you say the person on 50000 in social housing contributes exactly the same as the person earning 50000 and isn’t in social housing. Then you turn around and say that IF we tell the person in the social housing that if they earn more they could lose their social house, the person would be afraid to advance their career. Why would they if they contribute exactly as the same as person earning 50000 who isn’t in social housing and would advance their career. You have just confused yourself at this stage. You still don’t get the argument if you think that people choosing not to advance their career and trying to get off Benifits and welfare because they are afraid of losing the benefits is actually a good thing. It is that attitude that is part of the problem. That is why people are never getting off social housing and the list just gets bigger and bigger......
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
None
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
This is what you said;
to which I took to mean, that if you progress in your career and earn enough then you should make way for someone else and join the ranks of first time buyers who are struggling to buy a home.
To which I replied;
Now you have stated that building more social homes is not the answer. You have suggested that providing more childcare places and education and training as possible solutions.
I think these are good ideas, but they go no way to assisting first time buyers to enter the market at prices they can afford.
So perhaps you could provide an concrete solution to assist the FTB's and those who are most vulnerable in society in finding a home.
In the absence of a sustainable housing market, I suggest the state intervenes to build more social housing.
to which I took to mean, that if you progress in your career and earn enough then you should make way for someone else and join the ranks of first time buyers who are struggling to buy a home.
To which I replied;
Now you have stated that building more social homes is not the answer. You have suggested that providing more childcare places and education and training as possible solutions.
I think these are good ideas, but they go no way to assisting first time buyers to enter the market at prices they can afford.
So perhaps you could provide an concrete solution to assist the FTB's and those who are most vulnerable in society in finding a home.
In the absence of a sustainable housing market, I suggest the state intervenes to build more social housing.
You still don’t get it! Of course if someone from a disadvantaged area and living in social housing does well and starts earning the same as someone not from a disadvantaged area and looking to buy a private house, they should not be entitled to social housing. That’s not some right wing nazi thinking. It’s simply stating the simple fact that one person is not more derserving of help than someone else just because they might have needed help in the past.
Just because there might be a shortage of houses to buy doesn’t mean that State should continue to provide benefits because you needed them at one stage of your life. It’s like telling someone from the same disadvantaged area that you can keep the dole even when you start working so you don’t feel disincentivised to make something of yourself.
I have no idea how to sort out the mess of the property market. I do know that I have witnessed governments of all sides mess and intervene in the market for decades and every time, they have made the situation worse. Getting rid of bedsits, tax breaks, treatment of landlords, rent supplements, social housing policy, Nama, land hoarding, property tax, stamp duty etc etc etc. But none of that will solve the social housing list which is continuing to grow and grow. There are now over 200 housing associations in this country. Over 200. It is an industry in itself now.
Just because there might be a shortage of houses to buy doesn’t mean that State should continue to provide benefits because you needed them at one stage of your life. It’s like telling someone from the same disadvantaged area that you can keep the dole even when you start working so you don’t feel disincentivised to make something of yourself.
I have no idea how to sort out the mess of the property market. I do know that I have witnessed governments of all sides mess and intervene in the market for decades and every time, they have made the situation worse. Getting rid of bedsits, tax breaks, treatment of landlords, rent supplements, social housing policy, Nama, land hoarding, property tax, stamp duty etc etc etc. But none of that will solve the social housing list which is continuing to grow and grow. There are now over 200 housing associations in this country. Over 200. It is an industry in itself now.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
You are right because you are not making sense. Or rather you are not thinking through what it appears to be what you are saying.
Lets take an example. An unemployed couple with one child are afforded social housing (LA has determined they have no other suitable accommdation). The man eventually gets a job as truck driver, the woman trains as an accountans assistant. Joint income is now €70k. Are you suggesting that because of this new found income they should now vacate their home to make way for others in 'greater need'?
Perhaps they should then pay market rent.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I think there would be scope to increase rent for sure, but for the State to charge a rate that effectively makes them equivalent to private profiteering landlords is simply a non-runner. Aside from the disincentive it would invoke to work as a truck driver, the purpose of social housing is to provide a stable platform in which families can hopefully find ways to dignified way of life.
And it still wouldn't solve the problem outlined in the OP.
if social housing estates were built again - which is the only real answer to the problem of homelessness - - the couple with 70,000 would probably move on to another estate elsewhere. After all why should they with an income of 70000 be given social housing with nominal rent and someone next door with the same or slightly more/less be paying mortgage etc. There should be no social housing for life, no selling on cheaply social housing to occupiers in social housing estates. It should be kept as social housing stock. If your circumstances improve move on. I've seen social housing sold on by families who make a nice little profit, good luck tothem, but why should I subsidise this? If their circumstances improve move on and leave the house to some other family who needs it.
I just don't think the public/private mix works at all. Social housing estates, properly managed is the only answer to the housing problem.
I just don't think the public/private mix works at all. Social housing estates, properly managed is the only answer to the housing problem.
This might be off-topic, but is it unusual that Oaktree, who is a registered charity, don't name their board, their directors or their management on their website?
https://www.oaklee.ie/about-us/our-governance
https://www.oaklee.ie/about-us/our-governance
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I keep hearing this, and I keep asking with no reply, move onto where?
Havent you being reading the news? Did you not read the OP?
Working people with decent incomes are struggling to buy a place for themselves, they are struggling to pay the rent.
What incentive is there for anyone afforded a social house to improve their circumstances if they face being 'moved on' to some unknown location?
Can you envisage the disruption this could cause? Someone finally gets a chance to improve their circumstances and then has to face the disruption of moving. How will this affect their employment? Their childcare arrangements? Their school arrangements?
Who would oversee such a scheme? How much will this cost the taxpayer? Will the tenants have right to appeal the decision to move them on? Will they have right to appeal any proposed new location? If yes, how much will all this cost the State in legal fees?
Last edited: