The Best of "Social Housing - Creating a monster"

Status
Not open for further replies.


This is the point the Govt does not want to provide social housing but is unwilling to actually come out and say it. Hence the reason for the Approved Housing Bodies etc, these are bodies funded by the State who can raise additional finance if they need.

The beauty of this from the Govt's perspective is that if a tenant needs to be evicted for any reason it is the Approved Housing Body doing it and not the State! so the politicians are not held responsible and they will no doubt fight for the tenant not to be evicted.

I think the old model of Social housing is gone and security of tenure in a specific house indefinitely will become a thing of the past within the near future.
 
It was manageable enough when a unit could be built for £50-60k, or even €100k, but with new builds now seeming to start at €250k, exclusive of site cost, it is a huge cost.

Never mind the maintenance costs..
 
Never mind the maintenance costs..


I could never understand why the council were responsible for the maintenance costs. If you get a council house now even a second hand one they are brought up to current building reg's (including insulation etc) and most achieve high BER ratings while if you purchase a property privately and you want to meet current building regs you have to do everything yourself (which is extremely expensive).
 
Where did I say they would have to move far away from where they currently live?
If someone in a social house in Crumlin can afford to buy or rent a private house in Crumlin but chooses not to I think that at the very least they should pay open market rent for the house they live in. That's all. That rent can then be used to provide more social housing to those who can't afford open market rates.
Do you think they should continue to enjoy subsidised (below market) rates of rent? If so why?
 
Im pretty sure you wouldnt expect a family on €20K a year to be paying €1000 pm if that what the prevailing market rate is?
Of course not. I've continuously said that rents should be ties to income but increase as income increases until it gets to the market rate.

as far as Im aware the Differential Rent Scheme applies a rent of one-sixth of income (subject to other considerations such as how many adults occupy the house, how many are at work, care for the elderly etc).
It varies from area to area (just another costly complexity) but one-sixth of income is way too low for higher earners. That means that someone with an income of €80,000 in a council house in Crumlin only pays a maximum of €1100 a month and probably far less while their lower income neighbour in private rental accommodation with the same family circumstances is paying well over €2000 a month.
I don't think that's fair.
 

What about all the people who have had to buy in Mullingar due to not being able to afford a place in Dublin, yet have all their ties in Dublin....what should happen for them???
 
When we bought a house, my wife and I worked in Dublin. We couldn't afford to buy in Dublin, so we bought where we could afford in the commuter belt. Social housing is not supposed to be there to provide your forever house and keep you living in luxury in your perfect world. Once someone is earning enough, they should move on. It's up to them to sort out where.
 
Here is a stat from CSO about LA household incomes

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-hbs/hbs20152016/hinc/

Households rented from a local authority had the lowest average weekly gross household income at €495.57. State transfers were the main source of income in these households, accounting for nearly two-thirds (66.4%) of gross income. Less than 21% of persons in these households classified themselves as unemployed.

From that, it would appear, that we are a long way off tenants in LA housing ever being able to afford a place of their own, rental or ownership.
 
This thread really is going around in circles. From skimming over the pages it sounds to me like the ideal solution to all of this is to provide all social housing in Mullingar. Then once people in social housing earn enough money to pay for their own place they'll be only too happy to move out, leaving the house open for the next family on the list. Problem solved.
 
I give up. We have one proposition that it doesn't matter how much you earn. The state has a responsibility to provide you with a house in your selected location, and you get to keep it and pass it on to the next generation indefinitely.

Or there's the real world where reasonable people consider that it's their own responsibility to provide a house for themselves once they can afford it. And that you don't get to cherry pick the conditions to suit you. You get what you can afford where you can afford.
 

You appear to believe that people should take no responsibility for the circumstances they find themselves in. If I can give a brief synopsis of the above to explain my position.

As part of the allocation of social housing people are advised that your housing needs are assessed every 5 yrs to consider both over and undercrowding. If the property is to big for you then you know when you got the property in first place that your situation will be assessed every 5 yrs and you could and would be moved if the property is no longer suitable.

I thought you example of the son breaking up with his girlfriend and the daughter wanting to be a model was comical to say the least. Life sucks, we all have problems, life never turns out the way we want.

On a slightly separate all be it relevant topic the who concept of differential rent needs a serious overhaul. Why is the differential rate charged not tied in some way to the prevailing local rents and not just the income of the household. It is unfair to have two properties paying the same rent simply because of the income of the households are the same where one property is located in an area that has a lot of amenties and the other has none but both are charged the same rent simply because the household income is the same.

Also, there should be a min rent charged which relates to the property type and location. If the differential rate is the only method of charging rent and you have one person living in a three bed property and they are paying rent based on the differential model do you think this is fair on those looking for accommodation. After all we do have a housing shortage!
 
I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect, the only problem is that there are too few social houses.
Eventually we'll all get a social house with the current model, which is of course sustainable and fair (just like our State pension system, Public sector pay and pensions and all other forms of welfare) and everything will be great.

The only problem is the private sector, which unlike the Public Sector, is dysfunctional and inefficient. The reason for that is that all rich people, and people who work in banks in particular (but aren't in Unions), are greedy and immoral.


The State controlling more and more of our economy is a good thing and addressing the symptoms of inequality through wealth transfers rather than addressing the root cause of that inequality is the way to go.


We don't have to change any systems.
We don't have to reform any structures.
There is no waste.
The solution to every problem is to just spend more money.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is greedy, selfish, ignorant, uneducated, right-wing and morally bankrupt.

The scales have fallen from my eyes; I am reborn, Comrades!
 

Building more houses on its own is not the answer. A cultural shift is required whereby people are held responsible for their actions. The current political establishment don't have the desire to tackle this problem and we have this bizarre notion everybody is entitled to housing no matter what. If people pay their rent and its set at a reasonable level as I have suggested above then I think that's a move in the right direction.

All building more houses will do is increase the entitlement culture we have. We need to tackle the abuses of the system and make people responsible for their situations. If this means making people homeless when they don't pay rent their differential rent which the State has decided is fair than so be it.

I am however not aware of this ever happening. Maybe if it did it would send a message to others gaming the system and go some way to dispel the stereotyping you feel is ongoing.
 

The UK has the bedroom tax where benefits are cut for each under utilised bedroom. They even have the concept of mutual exchange that lets people swap houses. France has rent reviews every two years on household income with supplements applying on everything over a certain level with no ceiling. I don't exactly see people being kicked to streets. Denmark and Sweden has seen huge amounts of social housing being bought out by tenants as their circumstances changed. Hardly earth shattering.....

Dublin City council has a waiting list for people looking to downsize from their existing social property so some people are actually not aghast at such an idea of trying to eliminate under utilisation of social housing stock. Maybe instead of your 'build it and they will come' philosophy, we should actually try to use our existing stock as efficiently as possible? I know it's a crazy idea. Why not add another 25% tax on people earning over 100k instead and build and build instead...Bloody rich people.....
 
Eh, is that not everyone???? I wish my career guidance teacher had included the option of social housing when I was younger...Would probably have ended up in a much better location with a shorter commute than where I live now.....

Also, I can think of no better incentive to help secure your future than being less and less dependent on the State.
 
This discussion has raised an interesting question (for me).

Should I as a matter of course be encouraging my children to register with the social housing services of our local authority as a life strategy on turning 18 ?

Given the level and increasing rate of price rises of housing and given that *one* of the criteria for selection appears to be time elapsed, is it not a useful hedge for ones' children ?

I just had a look at some of the social housing properties available from DLR CC and some are in very nice locations indeed !

[broken link removed]
 
I think that's the nub of it; I fundamentally disagree that giving an adult a house for life is the same thing as providing funding to keep a child in school or a to keep a museum open.
In the same way I support subsidised public transport (within reason) but I don't think the State should give people cars.
 
I am trying to gather together all the ideas for tilting the balance back in favour of those who struggle to provide for themselves rather than to become dependent on themselves.

This thread
Social Housing - Creating a monster
is fascinating but there is a huge amount of off-topic stuff and repetition, so I have extracted the best bits into this thread.

Brendan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.