Latest figures: €300m spent on rent allowance in 2004 alone

ISAW

rkeane wrote:

I wonder does this figure include the cost of housing bogus asylum seekers - I seriously doubt it!

What is a "bogus" asylum seeker? Either they are one or they are not!

If this is the cost of housing Irish familes - I don't mind paying my taxes for it...though I would prefer if the County Councils built homes for them.

I would prefer they bought their own! Council housing are an ongoing expense. People should be encouraged to buy the council property and look after it themselves.

rkeane

There are thousands of Asylum seekers living in private rented accomodation in Dublin alone. Until recently, all asylum seekers were housed in private Apartments / houses - at huge expense. Since the dispersal policy came in, new applicants are given hostel accomodation - proper order! For example Nigerian nations have an acceptance rate of 0.6% - they are still living in private accomodation despite being refused asylum in this country. :mad:

I'd like to know what the cost of housing them is.

Victor

Wow, this thread is really full of people wanting to have a rant against "undesireables" and are wrapping it up in economic terms they don't even understand

ISAW wrote:

I think if you borrowed 12 billion and stated you were building 250 000 social houses the beaurocrats and builders would soak up your money.

I think he just doesn't understand the economics and practicalities of it. Where would those houses be built? Do we repeat the ghettoisation of Ballymun and West Tallaght? Who is going to build them?

Projects should have penalties for being over budget. Give the contractor a lump sum to complete on time and it does not matter if he does it in two days or two years as long as it is safe. Then after the time expires he pays penalties.

But realise that if you get into a punative scheme, that overall you will pay more for those houses.

ISAW wrote:

People are not homeless by the way. there are maybe 150 to 200 on the streets of a 1.2 million population area.

Whatever the validity of that figure, it grossly under-represents the number of people who have no home of their own.

ISAW

Victor wrote:

Wow, this thread is really full of people wanting to have a rant against "undesireables" and are wrapping it up in economic terms they don't even understand

I think he just doesn't understand the economics and practicalities of it. Where would those houses be built? Do we repeat the ghettoisation of Ballymun and West Tallaght? Who is going to build them?

Read my earlier posts. They are being built at a rate of 8000 a year. The builders are flat out at that rate. The fantasy point was that 400 million is being spent a year and 250,000 houses are needed. The poster asked why we couldnt spend ten or twenty years rent supplament and just build the houses. Effectively this IS what we are doing. Two billion has been put into house building and 7,500 a year are being built. At that rate (and it may well slow down) the current list would be met in about five to six years time.

But realise that if you get into a punative scheme, that overall you will pay more for those houses.

why? If there is a large available supply of labour then it can go to the lower bidders. We are beginning to see this now in private house building. Poles Russians and Romanians are working for lower pay and cutting the costs. The developer can then cut his price (or leave it the same and make more profit).

Whatever the validity of that figure, it grossly under-represents the number of people who have no home of their own.

The point I was making was that indigent people,people living on the streets are DOWN in spite of the population of Dublin decreasing. The "relative poverty" argument has now become "we have 40,000 people on rent supplament" when it used to be "we have hundreds of people sleeping rough every night". Furthermore not everyone wants or needs a home of their own. Ireland has the highest home ownership in the world as far as I know. In the US or France or Germany many people rent, much much more then the percentage who do here.

Victor

Cantab. wrote:

As a short-term, emergency measure, I don't see major problems with using hostels, B&Bs and private accomodation, but it should have a time limit of 6 months on it.

Article yesterday. Keeping someone in B&B costs €30,000 per year compared to €12,000 in private accomodation.

Cantab.

Victor wrote:

Article yesterday. Keeping someone in B&B costs €30,000 per year compared to €12,000 in private accomodation.

Well obviously it's going to cost a lot more to keep someone in a B&B for a year. I never even suggested that we should do this.

I would think policy should revolve around the following:

hostel: up to 2 nights
B&B: up to 2 weeks
private rented accomodation: up to 6 months
social welfare housing: over 6 months

The system as it stands is totally weighted towards the private rented sector and is one of many examples of this government wasting taxpayers' money.

Injection of this huge amount of money in to the rental sector also has the added social problem of contributing to even higher rents for young people and those in low-paid jobs.

There's a vested interest in keeping rents high and this policy certainly helps the interest of the private landlord with a direct line to government.

bonkey

Cantab. wrote:

I would think policy should revolve around the following:

hostel: up to 2 nights
B&B: up to 2 weeks
private rented accomodation: up to 6 months
social welfare housing: over 6 months

Take this system, and assume there are too many "over 6 month" people for the amount of social housing available. Where do they end up? Private rented accomodation, agreed?

The system as it stands is totally weighted towards the private rented sector

So is yours, if - like the current system - there is not enough social welfare housing.

and is one of many examples of this government wasting taxpayers' money.

So is your preferred system if - again - the demand for the social welfare housing outstrips the supply.

Lets not forget we haven't always been as affluent as we are now, nor that while paying for any new housing to replace rent the rent must still be paid....and you get to a situation where it is quite understandable that the amount of social welfare housing is too low, and that the least worst available option (by your own admission) is chosen instead.

But still you go on that its a terrible waste, and that instead of what they're currently doing they should....wait for it....do what they're currently doing - invest heavily in building new social housing.

Bravo. You've proposed a solution virtually identical to the system you're saying the solution will fix.

ISAW

rkeane wrote:

There are thousands of Asylum seekers living in private rented accomodation in Dublin alone.

I suppose you can support this assertion? Otherwise withdraw it until you do.

Until recently, all asylum seekers were housed in private Apartments / houses - at huge expense.

Ditto. How many and how much did it cost?

Since the dispersal policy came in, new applicants are given hostel accomodation - proper order! For example Nigerian nations have an acceptance rate of 0.6% - they are still living in private accomodation despite being refused asylum in this country. :mad:

I dont see any problem in putting them into camps and upskilling them for jobs. The problem of the expense is simple. They are not allowed to work so how can they pay their rent?

I'd like to know what the cost of housing them is.

Oh so you do not know? How can you claim it is a "huge expense" then when you admoit you dont knw how much it costs?