Breaking News: People want free houses. Can I have one too?

10000maniacs

Deleted User wrote: »

To the people saying Social Housing is a joke, or offering hyperbolic, non-verifiable, "I know a single mother... etc" stories.

Serious question time here.

A: Should everybody in a 1st world country (like ours) have shelter and accommodation as a basic right?

B: If someone cannot afford to rent privately, what should they do?

C: To what level should the government intervene?


Let's have a discussion on facts and not hyperbole

The answer for me to question A is not axiomatically or inevitability.

The answer to B for me is move to a place where you can afford the rent.

The answer for me to C is not to the point of giving a family of 12 an €800,000 home (A la Mick and Mairead Philpott)

The_Conductor

Deleted User wrote: »

A: Should everybody in a 1st world country (like ours) have shelter and accommodation as a basic right?

Shelter and accommodation is a basic human right- as per the UN conventions we are signatories of. What shelter and accommodation means- is not defined. Some governments argue that providing a tent meets the letter of the law- some even have difficulty meeting this low goalpost.

Deleted User wrote: »

B: If someone cannot afford to rent privately, what should they do?

There should be publicly available council housing. People should not have the right to buy council houses- they should be council houses in perpetuity. Also- I would argue that no-one should be allowed live in the same house for a period of longer than 10 years- there should be a policy to move them periodically.

If people's conditions improve- to the extent they can provide for themselves- they should be forced to do so.

Selling council houses- is what has decimated the stock of houses available in the country for those unable to care for themselves, and increased our reliance on private rented accommodation, paid for with public funds.

We *need* to stop selling council houses- and ensure they are available in perpetuity for their stated purpose.

Deleted User wrote: »

C: To what level should the government intervene?

We need to change legislation.
We need to remove the right to buy council property.
If/when council property is sold- it must be on the open market- and available to anyone who is willing to buy it- the tenant does not get preferential treatment.
Council tenants- should have limited tenancies in any given property- I'd suggest a maximum of 10 years- before being forced to vacate the property (and either provide for themselves, or accept another property elsewhere).

As a good start- we need to build proper units in places where tenants have a hope of finding employment, and bettering themselves. These suggestions that we retrofit ghost estates for council purposes, in the back beyonds of nowhere- are bollox.

Kate!!!

Agreeing that shelter is a basic right however in return we all need to work to pay for the shelter and those in social housing should have to do the same. If they can't get a job they need to so community service . They need give back for what they receive.

Just because it's a basic right does that mean it should be free and you can sit at home all day and give back nothing in return .

What are the rights of those who work all day to pay for the houses and social welfare money.

Kate!!!

On another point the rent is either clearly too low or there are no inspections . I find a large amount of social housing is abused as people don't respect what they are given because they don't pay for it or pay very little . Compare that to the house of someone who pays a mortgage they work hard for the house and therefore don't abuse the property .

And then we have to pay more tax to do up the houses they have abused!!!

riclad

The problem may solve itself,
ie in 15 years time all the council house s will be sold.
The council cant sell council apartments ,cos of complications ,
in insurance,etc
who pays for maintenance if half the flats are privately owned ?

IN 30 years time council estates may not exist .
All the council houses will be privately owned.

Maybe single mothers will be on rent allowance until their children grow up.

The present system is based on the existance of large council estates ,
where people on low incomes lived .
the reality is 70 per cent of council houses have been sold off.

Theres council apartments still, but these are only suitable for a woman with 1 child.

I think it would be better for society if there was a ban on buying ,
a council house.
IF your income goes, over 50k, the rent go,s up to 150 euro per week.
You are encouraged to leave,
you,ll get tax credits if you buy a private house.
NON council house.

The_Conductor

The_Conductor wrote: »

There should be publicly available council housing. People should not have the right to buy council houses- they should be council houses in perpetuity. Also- I would argue that no-one should be allowed live in the same house for a period of longer than 10 years- there should be a policy to move them periodically.

Great overall response. Thanks.

Ironically I'm moving house at the moment so can't address all your points!

But on the note of the ten years thing.

Why?

I come from a pretty rough council estate. In the 80's it was an absolute hellhole. One day walking to school a car erupted into flames about 20 yards from me! Heroin was also a big problem back then. And now it's a pretty enough place. People can grow flowers in their gardens without fear of someone ripping them up.

What happened?

In a nutshell, firstly the junkies died off, but more importantly the kids that were causing the trouble grew up. They are now parents themselves and they don't allow their kids to sh*t on their own doorstep.

It's no paradise but compared to what it was it is!

Moving families arbitrarily every ten years, moving kids out of schools, looking for new babysitters/childcare, taking people away from their extended families, moving away from part-time jobs etc. really stops people putting down roots and I would love to know why you think it would be a good idea?

I am in total agreement that you should never be able to buy a council house btw. It's a mental idea imo.

Kate!!!

10000maniacs wrote: »

The answer for me to question A is not axiomatically or inevitability.

The answer to B for me is move to a place where you can afford the rent.

The answer for me to C is not to the point of giving a family of 12 an €800,000 home (A la Mick and Mairead Philpott)

A yes but in return they need to give back to the community that supports them

Kate!!!

Kate!!! wrote: »

A yes but in return they need to give back to the community that supports them

Honest question here.

Have you ever spent any time in these communities?

Because in the one I'm from, there's a big involvement i the local resource centre, people keep their kids in check and they make the place look nice.

Also, not everyone is entitled to CE Schemes and if you're on the dole you can only volunteer at registered charity organisations.

Kate!!!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honest question here.

Have you ever spent any time in these communities?

Because in the one I'm from, there's a big involvement i the local resource centre, people keep their kids in check and they make the place look nice.

Also, not everyone is entitled to CE Schemes and if you're on the dole you can only volunteer at registered charity organisations.

I am from one . My family home was in a rough area we did own house but lived in an area of council houses . My family bought it privately not from the council.

That's what I mean that the system needs to be reformed

riclad

IT would be more accurate to say ,people want houses cheap.
most of the houses are bought at a 40 per cent discount.
The kids who cause trouble grow up.
People who bought houses tend to take care of them.
There,s no longer lots of new tenants with kids coming in to the estate ,
since most of the houses have been sold.
When the average age in a estate is 30 plus crime, tends to go down .

say IT takes 8 years to get a house,now
in 10 years time, it might take 17 years.
ie your child may have grown to be a young adult ,
by the time you get a house.

I read an article in the local paper ,
it says under government rules it very difficult for councils to buy a private house ,to give to people on the housing list.
EVEN if its valued at 50k.
The hse could spend 80k,
just on rent allowance for one family before they get council accomodation.

ITS unlikely you are living next door to someone who got their house for nothing.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

C: To what level should the government intervene

I know it's not what you meant but ironically enough, if the government hadn't intervened and banned bedsits, the current housing crisis (and there is one building) wouldn't be as marked.

There was and remains a need for cheap, basic accommodation and if that means sharing a toilet on a floor with a couple of other bedsits, then so be it. The government in its usual nanny state way however said "no more of that" and now many of those units are simply not available to rent at all.

People should not be homeless in Ireland, with some caveats...if you are destitute and totally reliant on society for the roof over your head, you should be prepared to at least do some community work for it. Nothing should be provided "no strings attached".

What is provided is IMO often overly generous, or at least the minimum specs for each family unit are too generous. A family that is relying on other taxpayers to house them, cannot complain if it's a tight squeeze. In Germany they don't have these sort of minimum specs...you will see families or 4 or 5 in 1 bed flats (parents use the fold out couch in living room, kids all together in the bedroom. In Ireland the local authority deems this a problem to be rectified with a bigger property. In Germany it doesn't.

People being housed at taxpayers' expense, shouldn't even think about complaining about having to move away from where they grew up of their family support unit or whatever. This is normal even for working people.

Beggars can't be choosers but we shouldn't kick beggars in the teeth either.

Mrs OBumble

Kate!!! wrote: »

Agreeing that shelter is a basic right however in return we all need to work to pay for the shelter and those in social housing should have to do the same. If they can't get a job they need to so community service . They need give back for what they receive.

While I agree that they should - the reality is that finding community service, which doesn't displace existing paid jobs, for people who are essentially unemployable is extremely difficult.

why?

Well if people have convictions for some offences. you cannot have them working in roles which see them in contact with kids or vulnerable adults. That rules out working in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, elderly care services, in the homes of elderly people, disability services, etc.

If they have other convictions, you cannot have them fundraising (and besides we have enough chuggers on the streets already!)

If they are unstable, you cannot let them near guns or restricted poisons. That rules out pest control in remote areas. (I have no idea if there's an Irish equivalent to the opossum - maybe rabbits? - but this is one of common populist theories at home).

If they cannot read well enough to understand the safety warnings on chemicals, then you cannot have them doing cleaning (which should be paid anyway, since it's a requirement in most places).

If they have a disability, there will be other things that they either cannot do, or which need more adaptations than most community-work receipients would accept.

Checking all the above requires a very high level of administration - and most people believe the people doing that administration should be employees themselves, not community service volunteers because ...

If people aren't motivated (eg because they're doing community work only as a penalty for not having paid work), then you need to provide very high levels of supervision or they just skive off all day.

Etc.

There are many more-detailed research papers written about this. But I don't know any society that has managed to implement universal community-work-for-the-dole.



Now .. getting back to housing.

I wouldn't support a compulsory move after 10 years, that's too rigid.

But I would support a compulsory 5 or maybe 10=year review of circumstances, checking whether the family still is eligible for indigent housing (ie still low income), and whether the house they are in still meets their needs - with a compulsory move to another council house in the same general area within 12 months if it doesn't. This would free up the 3-beds for families, and move empty-nesters into more appropriate sized accommodation while they're still young enough to readily adapt.

I don't support tenant-purchase, because it dilutes the council / association estates and makes them a lot more costly to mange. But I'd maybe support a tenant-purchase scheme that let people use some of the rent they've paid to the council towards the deposit for a house they purchase on the open market. Effectively a savings leg-up to get the council house back for people who need it more.

riclad

IF THE government encouraged people who earn over 50k, to buy a private house,
using tax credits,
they,d save a lot on rent allowance payments ,

Free up places for people on the housing lists.

The new planning laws making self build houses illegal make the situation even worse.

ALL the government seems to do now is bring in new taxes.

10000maniacs

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

While I agree that they should - the reality is that finding community service, which doesn't displace existing paid jobs, for people who are essentially unemployable is extremely difficult.

why?

Well if people have convictions for some offences. you cannot have them working in roles which see them in contact with kids or vulnerable adults. That rules out working in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, elderly care services, in the homes of elderly people, disability services, etc.

If they have other convictions, you cannot have them fundraising (and besides we have enough chuggers on the streets already!)

If they are unstable, you cannot let them near guns or restricted poisons. That rules out pest control in remote areas. (I have no idea if there's an Irish equivalent to the opossum - maybe rabbits? - but this is one of common populist theories at home).

If they cannot read well enough to understand the safety warnings on chemicals, then you cannot have them doing cleaning (which should be paid anyway, since it's a requirement in most places).

If they have a disability, there will be other things that they either cannot do, or which need more adaptations than most community-work receipients would accept.

Checking all the above requires a very high level of administration - and most people believe the people doing that administration should be employees themselves, not community service volunteers because ...

If people aren't motivated (eg because they're doing community work only as a penalty for not having paid work), then you need to provide very high levels of supervision or they just skive off all day.

Etc.

There are many more-detailed research papers written about this. But I don't know any society that has managed to implement universal community-work-for-the-dole.



Now .. getting back to housing.

I wouldn't support a compulsory move after 10 years, that's too rigid.

But I would support a compulsory 5 or maybe 10=year review of circumstances, checking whether the family still is eligible for indigent housing (ie still low income), and whether the house they are in still meets their needs - with a compulsory move to another council house in the same general area within 12 months if it doesn't. This would free up the 3-beds for families, and move empty-nesters into more appropriate sized accommodation while they're still young enough to readily adapt.

I don't support tenant-purchase, because it dilutes the council / association estates and makes them a lot more costly to mange. But I'd maybe support a tenant-purchase scheme that let people use some of the rent they've paid to the council towards the deposit for a house they purchase on the open market. Effectively a savings leg-up to get the council house back for people who need it more.

1: The occupants of any council house should be means tested every year, and if their circumstances are now above the minimum threshold, they should be given notice to leave.
2: The occupants should NEVER NEVER NEVER be given the option to buy the property at a reduced rate. I have never understood the logic in doing this. it's not the council's property to sell, its the taxpayers.

riclad

I think if you are paying rent in a council house you have to fill in a form every year,
giving the income of everyone who lives there .
When your income reaches x amount you go up to max rent .
eg 100 euro per week approx.
IF your income goes, down ,you can tell the council and they will reduce your rent.

I think housing purchase was brought in by politicians, looking for votes.

Politicians dont think 20 years ahead,

ie what do we do for people on the housing list,
when ALL the houses have been sold to former tenants.

WHEN IT takes 10 years to get a council house ,
then the government may admit the system is broken.

NickD

riclad wrote: »

I think if you are paying rent in a council house you have to fill in a form every year,
giving the income of everyone who lives there .
When your income reaches x amount you go up to max rent .
eg 100 euro per week approx.
IF your income goes, down ,you can tell the council and they will reduce your rent.

This is true, it's reviewed every year and the rent can increase or decrease, depending on circumstances. Also if you get a job, and your income increases you are obliged to inform the council.

conorhal

NickD wrote: »

I kind of feel like I should defend the honest, hardworking people who through bad luck, find themselves in need of council housing. My husband lost his job in 2010 and after looking for a job for 9 months, went back to college to re-train, (he only has a year left, praise Jesus)

I lost my job in Jan this year and despite searching and applying for everything am still out of work.

We have 3 young children and had been renting the same house for 13 years. We were very, very lucky to be offered a house by our local county council and gladly took it. We moved in two months ago.


We consider this a stepping stone until we are back on our feet and are immeasurably grateful to be in it.

I don't think anybody would find fault with your situation, the issue people have is whith those that consider a council house an end in and of itself, not a stepping stone. I know folks that are three generations in the same council house, gran passed it on to mum who has passed it on to her kids. I suspect that you'd be deeply depressed to think that your grandchildren never aspired to reach higher then their hand could reach out.

Gatling

conorhal wrote: »

I don't think anybody would find fault with your situation, the issue people have is whith those that consider a council house an end in and of itself, not a stepping stone. I know folks that are three generations in the same council house, gran passed it on to mum who has passed it on to her kids. I suspect that you'd be deeply depressed to think that your grandchildren never aspired to reach higher then their hand could reach out.

There not supposed to be able to pass down houses ,
I know a friend who was evicted after his parents passed away within a few months of each other ,
Other CC's make people sign a contract stating they have no legal claim to a house if they move home to look after a sick or elderly parent,

I certainly don't believe in this house for life idea ,you housed based in circumstances at the time ,
ie ,number of children under 18 ,make up of family single or couple ,

The amount of 3/4 beds that could be freed up if they reviewed circumstances regularly ,and bring in a rule when your youngest moves out your housed in smaller accommodation suited to your needs

Mrs OBumble

riclad wrote: »

Iif you are paying rent in a council house you have to fill in a form every year, giving the income of everyone who lives there. When your income reaches x amount you go up to max rent .
eg 100 euro per week approx.

This is correct.

However the maximum varies by area, eg Galway City in 2012 it was E180 per week. And that maximum is still well less than the market rate in many areas. Personally I think it should be fully income related with no maximum.

riclad

You don,t pass down house,s
i know someone was living in a 3bed house,
father passed away.
council told him, to move out,
gave him a 1bed flat.

even if 1 person is living in a 3bed house, they,ll let him stay there till he dies.

The government made new rules, banned bedsits,
they did nothing to increase rental accomodation supply for people who are on low incomes ,rent allowance.
SO its now very hard to find a flat if you are a single person ,
on rent allowance in dublin.

AT some point the present rent allowance system will break down,
as all the council will have left will be 1 or 2 bed flats , apartments for those on the housing list .

Apart from ballymun theres very few new council houses being built.

Idbatterim

What is provided is IMO often overly generous, or at least the minimum specs for each family unit are too generous. A family that is relying on other taxpayers to house them, cannot complain if it's a tight squeeze. In Germany they don't have these sort of minimum specs...you will see families or 4 or 5 in 1 bed flats (parents use the fold out couch in living room, kids all together in the bedroom. In Ireland the local authority deems this a problem to be rectified with a bigger property. In Germany it doesn't.

Thats the difference between Germany and this kip, you can forget the German mentality allowing people who work hard live off the back of others indefinitely. To be honest, from what I hear from my dad and German relatives when they are over, it sounds like the best type of system, they wont have people out on the streets, but you will be literally existing. Benefits are also linked to what you paid in if I am not mistaken? To my mind it has a few advantages, most people will try to better themselves and it isnt morally corrupt like here. Think about the gross income you need to pull in, just to get what the life long leeches get for free. Not just the house, whatever allowances, dole, free college if their sprogs choose to go, child allowance etc.

missmyler

riclad wrote: »

You don,t pass down house,s
i know someone was living in a 3bed house,
father passed away.
council told him, to move out,
gave him a 1bed flat.

I know 2 people (in the same estate funnily enough) who both "inherited" their parents 3 bed council houses in South Dublin when their parents died. Both of these people were and still are the sole occupants.

So it's does happen

But I also remember a guy in work saying he was asked to leave his council house when his parents died.

on_my_oe

Deleted User wrote: »

Great overall response. Thanks.

Ironically I'm moving house at the moment so can't address all your points!

But on the note of the ten years thing.

Why?

Moving families arbitrarily every ten years, moving kids out of schools, looking for new babysitters/childcare, taking people away from their extended families, moving away from part-time jobs etc. really stops people putting down roots and I would love to know why you think it would be a good idea?

I am in total agreement that you should never be able to buy a council house btw. It's a mental idea imo.

Council housing should be a temporary solution, not a permanent fixture, especially as circumstances change; by the time ten years rolls around you might be living alone in a three bedroom house and your three kids are now living in council houses of your own. Down under social tenancies are reviewed every two years to make sure it meets the needs of both parties (the tenant and the council)

riclad

SO you have 3 kids, each of those kids ,are female,, and have 2kids,
thats a long shot.
i know some women age 30 that have zero children.
Have no wish to have kids.

on_my_oe

Not that much of a long shot - and blokes can end up with the kids too... I know a family of nine kids, parents in social housing, five kids also in social housing... The remaining for - two abroad, one on the list and one still living at home, and unfortunately that's not only ones I know of.

Spoken as a woman in her thirties, married and unable to have kids

(But immensely proud go her nieces, nephews and god children)

Victor

Rory28 wrote: »

because its their fault you're miserable.

10000maniacs wrote: »

Hurry back, you might be missing something on Sky Sports.
Was Jeremy Kyle good this morning?

Biffo The Bare wrote: »

:pac::pac::pac:

Constructive posts only please.

Moderator

fussyonion

riclad wrote: »

I think if you are paying rent in a council house you have to fill in a form every year,
giving the income of everyone who lives there .
When your income reaches x amount you go up to max rent .
eg 100 euro per week approx.
IF your income goes, down ,you can tell the council and they will reduce your rent.

I think housing purchase was brought in by politicians, looking for votes.

Politicians dont think 20 years ahead,

ie what do we do for people on the housing list,
when ALL the houses have been sold to former tenants.

WHEN IT takes 10 years to get a council house ,
then the government may admit the system is broken.

I've been living in my council home 2 years now and I have never been sent a review form

Geuze

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

The actual cost of social welfare unemployment payments is tiny compared to say pension payments.

State Pension exp 2012 = 6.3bn

Working Age Income Supports = 6bn
that includes: JSB, JSA, OPFP and Maternity benefit, etc.


http://www.welfare.ie/en/downloads/Social%20Stats%20AR%202012_Section%20A.pdf

Shakespeare's Sister

Eric Cartman wrote: »

people whos career decision was made at the age of 16-17 when they decided to let 'anto' throw it into them so she could get a free house off the back of a crying brat

Oh dear. I know there are some right freeloaders with an astounding sense of entitlement , but "Anto" is forced into it is he?
It's striking the amount of people who deem the woman alone as responsible for her pregnancy. You don't just get a house immediately either if you're placed on the housing list (and you're not just added to the housing list because you ask to be - there's a protocol to follow) and you don't get a decent house in an area that doesn't have a lot of problems.

Lots of people who don't deserve it too get lumped in with the freeloaders.

Calhoun

Magaggie wrote: »

Oh dear. I know there are some right freeloaders with an astounding sense of entitlement , but "Anto" is forced into it is he?
It's striking the amount of people who deem the woman alone as responsible for her pregnancy. You don't just get a house immediately either if you're placed on the housing list (and you're not just added to the housing list because you ask to be - there's a protocol to follow) and you don't get a decent house in an area that doesn't have a lot of problems.

Lots of people who don't deserve it too get lumped in with the freeloaders.

I would personally be in favour of laws that meant you had to name the father on the birth cert so the likes of anto would have to pay. All I care about is there seems to be a culture of people getting houses when they get a kid, the state shouldn't be enabling bad decision making.

As for the last point you get what you pay for if folk don't like the area , then they need to work to get out of it.