Homelessness on the rise

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Since when have citizens been defined as beggars because they are homeless?
Since when are people expected to be grateful for under par accommodation?
Since when are folk to be condemned for refusing unsuitable accommodation?

ans 1-3 when everyone else is oaying for it while paying their own ridiculous rent/mortgage

Gatling

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Are you sure you aren't a FG spin doctor? You've totally twisted the facts in the article you linked.

That's just desperate ,

Maybe you could tell us how much the 3000+ families in hotels contribute to their stay in hotels including utilities

satguy

We really need to build more homes, in the past FF were very good at this. (and yes, I do mean council homes).
Time will tell just how SF will do. (very soon)

At the end of the day, as a nation, we will have to take our medicine. Council homes will have to be built.

As for FG, they seem happiest when out new Hockey Pitches to Wesley College.

Sleeper12

Gatling wrote:

Maybe you could tell us how much the 3000+ families in hotels contribute to their stay in hotels including utilities

What has that got to do with you misquoting the very article you post as proof. One third of homeless families have not refused social housing as you stated. Or can you provide a link to it?

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Since when have citizens been defined as beggars because they are homeless?
Since when are people expected to be grateful for under par accommodation?
Since when are folk to be condemned for refusing unsuitable accommodation?

If they consider it unsuitable, then it’s up to themselves to source their own accommodation.
Hundreds of families buy substandard properties and get on with turning them into the home they want. Why do anyone expect the government to provide them with brand new properties filled with top of the range fixtures and fittings?

Sleeper12

satguy wrote:

We really need to build more homes, in the past FF were very good at this. (and yes, I do mean council homes). Time will tell just how SF will do. (very soon)

I'm not a FF fan but they would have done something about the housing shortage back in 2012 if in power. Knowing FF it would have been tax breaks for the builders or investors. That wouldn't bother me so long as the building started. We could easily have an extra 100,000 homes built by now if FG didn't ignore what everyone else knew since 2012.

Think of the millions wasted on Irish water. The cost of the Gardai protection for the Irish water workers at the time. The cost of the court cases with no convictions. The cost of the free 100 grant paid out trying to bribe the public. The millions it cost to refund the water charges paid to Irish water. They ignored the growing housing shortage while they concentrated on the disaster that is Irish water.

Gatling

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What has that got to do with you misquoting the very article you post as proof.

I didn't misquote .


Now have you anything to back up your opinion or opinions.

I haven't seen anything other than personal opinion from several pro-homeless posters

Gatling

Has anyone been on the focus website.

They claim 9800 are homeless with 100+ rough sleepers
And only 60,000 on the social housing list

How many households are on the waiting list for social housing?
The most recent official assessment of social housing need was published in December 2016 and showed 61,600 households qualified for social housing – one of five of which had been on the list for more than 5 years.

Under the Social Housing Strategy the Government estimated that only 35,573 of the households on the list actually needed a new home.


But wait according to figures regularly published over 90,000 + are on the lists ,

Did we loose 30,000 people all of a sudden

handlemaster

Hitman3000 wrote: »

handlemaster wrote:

Loaded question . If you wish to state something do so.

It's not, it's a simple there is or there isn't. If unwilling to answer just say so.

If there was no point been made no need to answer a pointless question.

Sleeper12

Gatling wrote: »

I didn't misquote .


Now have you anything to back up your opinion or opinions.

I haven't seen anything other than personal opinion from several pro-homeless posters

Actually ⅓ of all homeless families refused offers of social housing

This statement is not true. You know it's not true

Sleeper12

Gatling wrote: »

Has anyone been on the focus website.

They claim 9800 are homeless with 100+ rough sleepers
And only 60,000 on the social housing list

How many households are on the waiting list for social housing?
The most recent official assessment of social housing need was published in December 2016 and showed 61,600 households qualified for social housing – one of five of which had been on the list for more than 5 years.

Under the Social Housing Strategy the Government estimated that only 35,573 of the households on the list actually needed a new home.


But wait according to figures regularly published over 90,000 + are on the lists ,

Did we loose 30,000 people all of a sudden

Who's figures are the 90,000

Hitman3000

Gatling wrote:

But wait according to figures regularly published over 90,000 + are on the lists ,

Again Google is your friend . RTE news September 2017 housing list figures released under an FOI request 99,555 on housing lists.

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

Why do anyone expect the government to provide them with brand new properties filled with top of the range fixtures and fittings?

When has anyone said, this is what they want or are you making up stuff?

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

When has anyone said, this is what they want or are you making up stuff?

Any properties rented via HAP have to meet higher regs than non HAP properties. Any council house newly built or renovated needs to meet current building regs.

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

Any properties rented via HAP have to meet higher regs than non HAP properties. Any council house newly built or renovated needs to meet current building regs.

What has your answer got to do with MA's claim of demanding top notch fixtures and fittings?

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What has your answer got to do with MA's claim of demanding top notch fixtures and fittings?

Top range fittings include solar panels, insulation, energy efficient boilers etc all leading to low cost heating.

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

Top range fittings include solar panels, insulation, energy efficient boilers etc all leading to low cost heating.

No they are regulations that are also placed on private developers including one off housing. So again your response does not answer MA's claim. Although I see she has deleted it. Wonder why?

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No they are regulations that are also placed on private developers including one off housing. So again your response does not answer MA's claim. Although I see she has deleted it. Wonder why?

These regs should be relaxed for social housing thereby bringing the build costs down resulting in more houses being built with the same money.

mad m

Over heard a work colleague talking about how his daughter declared herself homeless (think she has a kid) they offered her a bed in a hub on south side, she declined and said it was to far as kids go to school somewhere on north side.

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

These regs should be relaxed for social housing thereby bringing the build costs down resulting in more houses being built with the same money.

Silly suggestion considering we are going to miss our CO2 emission targets for 2020 as it is.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Silly suggestion considering we are going to miss our CO2 emission targets for 2020 as it is.

So what do you suggest? Given the fact we have limited financial resources to solve the problem.

Wheeliebin30

satguy wrote: »

We really need to build more homes, in the past FF were very good at this. (and yes, I do mean council homes).
Time will tell just how SF will do. (very soon)

At the end of the day, as a nation, we will have to take our medicine. Council homes will have to be built.

As for FG, they seem happiest when out new Hockey Pitches to Wesley College.

Have you a cost analysis of how much it will cost along with the number of homes and were the money will come from etc etc????

Wheeliebin30

mad m wrote: »

Over heard a work colleague talking about how his daughter declared herself homeless (think she has a kid) they offered her a bed in a hub on south side, she declined and said it was to far as kids go to school somewhere on north side.

Shhhhhhhh you’re not allowed say things like this.

Hitman3000

The Student wrote:

So what do you suggest? Given the fact we have limited financial resources to solve the problem.

The obvious solution is build more housing, tax the hoarding of land and that of empty houses except where the owner is in a nursing home. Refurb council dwellings instead of laying empty. Btw your suggestion of relaxing environmental planning for social housing is still stupid considering we already are going to miss targets for emissions and face increased fines as a result.

Hitman3000

mad m wrote:

Over heard a work colleague talking about how his daughter declared herself homeless (think she has a kid) they offered her a bed in a hub on south side, she declined and said it was to far as kids go to school somewhere on north side.

Cool story, watch the thanks role in.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No they are regulations that are also placed on private developers including one off housing. So again your response does not answer MA's claim. Although I see she has deleted it. Wonder why?

I haven’t deleted anything

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

I haven’t deleted anything

Your claim about people demanding top fixtures and fittings seems to have disappeared off the mobile site. Anyway other than you claiming they have, when have people demanded these things? Never heard it myself.

Hitman3000

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Your claim about people demanding top fixtures and fittings seems to have disappeared off the mobile site. Anyway other than you claiming they have, when have people demanded these things? Never heard it myself.

It’s there at post 666. Why then are people rejecting perfectly good homes? Wouldn’t a less than perfect property be preferable to a hotel room?

Hitman3000

Deleted User wrote:

It’s there at post 666. Why then are people rejecting perfectly good homes? Wouldn’t a less than perfect property be preferable to a hotel room?

So you don't know why certain homes were rejected but made up something to fit your narrative or as some would say you lied. You don't know what any one living in a hotel has been offered if they have been offered anything at all. But again you seek to have your own narrative.

The Student

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The obvious solution is build more housing, tax the hoarding of land and that of empty houses except where the owner is in a nursing home. Refurb council dwellings instead of laying empty. Btw your suggestion of relaxing environmental planning for social housing is still stupid considering we already are going to miss targets for emissions and face increased fines as a result.

So we build council housing and some people don't pay their rent. What do we do then? I invest in a property and want to leave it idle so I am going to be taxed so. It appears your answer is to tax tax and tax more. You refuse to place any responsibility on people to accept housing once offered.

Typical leftist approach to a problem.