Homelessness on the rise

Ha Long Bay

Tony EH wrote: »

They're not right. Homeless means without fixed abode, like it always has.

Having a temporary roof over one's head or "shelter" is not a home.

Posted this on another forum but applies here.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/act/28/enacted/en/print.html

The legal definition of homelessness
Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1988 states that a person should be considered to be homeless if:

(a) there is no accommodation available which, in the opinion of the authority, he, together with any other person who normally resides with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of,

Or

(b) he is living a hospital, county home, night shelter or other such institution, and is so living because he has no accommodation of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), and

(c) he cannot provide accommodation from his own resources.

Sleeper12

john4321 wrote: »

Posted this on another forum but applies here.


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/act/28/enacted/en/print.html

The legal definition of homelessness
Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1988 states that a person should be considered to be homeless if:

(a) there is no accommodation available which, in the opinion of the authority, he, together with any other person who normally resides with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of,

Or

(b) he is living a hospital, county home, night shelter or other such institution, and is so living because he has no accommodation of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), and

(c) he cannot provide accommodation from his own resources.

In Bold explains how the figure is over 10,000.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In Bold explains how the figure is over 10,000.

In that case you could add a 0.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

In that case you could add a 0.

I don't care how many 0s you add. The point is it is how we calculate / class homeless people. This isn't a new thing. We don't have thousands more homeless now compared to a year or two ago due to how they calculate homeless people. We have thousands more because thousands more people are legally homeless.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't care how many 0s you add. The point is it is how we calculate / class homeless people. This isn't a new thing. We don't have thousands more homeless now compared to a year or two ago due to how they calculate homeless people. We have thousands more because thousands more people are legally homeless.

Actually, according to Alice Leahy, we have roughly the same amount of homeless people now as we had 50 years ago! Genuine homeless. Those without a roof over their head. Not ones lounging in hotels waiting for a property to turn up in their desired area, with desired number of rooms, near mammy, school etc...

Old diesel

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, according to Alice Leahy, we have roughly the same amount of homeless people now as we had 50 years ago! Genuine homeless. Those without a roof over their head. Not ones lounging in hotels waiting for a property to turn up in their desired area, with desired number of rooms, near mammy, school etc...

So a hotel room is a home then????

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, according to Alice Leahy, we have roughly the same amount of homeless people now as we had 50 years ago! Genuine homeless. Those without a roof over their head. Not ones lounging in hotels waiting for a property to turn up in their desired area, with desired number of rooms, near mammy, school etc...

No you see you don't get to determine who is homeless & who doesn't. Just because you want to calculate homeless differently to the legal definition doesn't make it so.



We have possibly over 9000 thousand more homeless people now compared to 50 years ago

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, according to Alice Leahy, we have roughly the same amount of homeless people now as we had 50 years ago! Genuine homeless. Those without a roof over their head. Not ones lounging in hotels waiting for a property to turn up in their desired area, with desired number of rooms, near mammy, school etc...

Your lack of human empathy is emblematic of why we have a crises - far too many people think like you.

'Lounging' in a hotel room where family members of all ages have to share with zero privacy. Lounging until it's time to vacate and walk the streets until you can go back. Lounging in the take-away for dinner - again- because you have no cooking facilities. The only people lounging are those making vast profits off renting out such rooms.

And how very dare people want to live in the area they grew up in, close to family and their support network. How very selfish of people to want to remain in their community not be dispatched off to where ever and be grateful for ...

How dare people expect a minimum standard of living in terms of accommodation such as teenage children of different genders not having to share a room.

We have a rental crises in this country. Rents are spiraling out of control. We have no concept of secure long-term accommodation in the private market. We have feck all Local Authority available as so much of it was sold off and not replaced. When this country was bankrupt in the 30s we could build LA housing but with ever increasing centralisation the LAs have been hamstrung and central government controls the pursestrings - and they are wedding to the idea that private developers if encouraged enough are the solution. A central government that believes a housing in the upper 300k region is 'affordable'.

You are talking about real people. Just as real as you - with the same needs and desires.

In my late teens I was homeless living in a squat in London, I was lucky enough to be given a council flat (though why they should when I was an Irish immigrant is beyond me but I am glad they did). By the age of 24 I bought my own house. I needed a leg-up. I got it via Local Authority housing that had a secure tenancy - in the area I wanted. Within 4 years I was able to sign that tenancy back so someone else could get a leg up.

Seems to me if it was up to you I would have been left on the street or in some B&B rather than the owner of my own home (the 3rd house I have owned) because you and your kind would have judged me as less deserving.

Edit to add : The Swiss have a housing crises - their solution - ban the ownership of 2nd houses and reduce the amount of land each home owner can have. They have a robust rental market with laws that protect both landlord (often investment firms/pension plans etc) and tenant alike but recognised that the proliferation of 'holiday' homes owned by Swiss residents is having a negative impact on the housing market so have taken action. How do I know this is happening? My 30 year old niece is in the process of buying some land with a view to building a house because she can finally afford it.

d9oiu2wk07blr5

Take a situation where people who have been allocated social housing at a later time inherit a private house. Do they still qualify for social housing or is the social housing unit re-allocated?

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Your lack of human empathy is emblematic of why we have a crises - far too many people think like you.

'Lounging' in a hotel room where family members of all ages have to share with zero privacy. Lounging until it's time to vacate and walk the streets until you can go back. Lounging in the take-away for dinner - again- because you have no cooking facilities. The only people lounging are those making vast profits off renting out such rooms.

And how very dare people want to live in the area they grew up in, close to family and their support network. How very selfish of people to want to remain in their community not be dispatched off to where ever and be grateful for ...

How dare people expect a minimum standard of living in terms of accommodation such as teenage children of different genders not having to share a room.

We have a rental crises in this country. Rents are spiraling out of control. We have no concept of secure long-term accommodation in the private market. We have feck all Local Authority available as so much of it was sold off and not replaced. When this country was bankrupt in the 30s we could build LA housing but with ever increasing centralisation the LAs have been hamstrung and central government controls the pursestrings - and they are wedding to the idea that private developers if encouraged enough are the solution. A central government that believes a housing in the upper 300k region is 'affordable'.

You are talking about real people. Just as real as you - with the same needs and desires.

In my late teens I was homeless living in a squat in London, I was lucky enough to be given a council flat (though why they should when I was an Irish immigrant is beyond me but I am glad they did). By the age of 24 I bought my own house. I needed a leg-up. I got it via Local Authority housing that had a secure tenancy - in the area I wanted. Within 4 years I was able to sign that tenancy back so someone else could get a leg up.

Seems to me if it was up to you I would have been left on the street or in some B&B rather than the owner of my own home (the 3rd house I have owned) because you and your kind would have judged me as less deserving.

Edit to add : The Swiss have a housing crises - their solution - ban the ownership of 2nd houses and reduce the amount of land each home owner can have. They have a robust rental market with laws that protect both landlord (often investment firms/pension plans etc) and tenant alike but recognised that the proliferation of 'holiday' homes owned by Swiss residents is having a negative impact on the housing market so have taken action. How do I know this is happening? My 30 year old niece is in the process of buying some land with a view to building a house because she can finally afford it.

You did like most people would do. You accepted help and then helped yourself. So many "Homeless" want a home of their desire, in a location of their desire while doing little to acquire it for themselves. Personal responsibility seems to be gone out the window.

Regarding the second homes, I've been ridiculed for suggesting that AirBnB should be banned from letting out whole properties. Their use may not end the housing crisis, but would go a long way in easing it. BTW, I've no problem with a homeowner renting out a room or rooms while owner is there at the same time.

I also have an issue with the multiples of Homeless "Charities" duplicating services and in effect wasting money that would be better used housing those they claim to serve.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

So many "Homeless" want a home of their desire, in a location of their desire while doing little to acquire it for themselves. Personal responsibility seems to be gone out the window.

You don't know this. You don't these people. You're not even remotely qualified to make such a judgement. This type of bullshit just exists in your nasty little mind. You never fail to come on here month after month and paint homeless people with this large bitter brush, without having walked in their shoes or experiencing what they have/are experiencing, calling their situation "lounging" and downplaying the seriousness of the issue.

It's remarkably petty.

Gatling

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't know this. You don't these people. You're not even remotely qualified to make such a judgement.

Can you explain why many supposedly desperate homeless people living in hotels minus any financial contribution from themselves are turning down offers of social housing and keeping themselves in hotels longer than necessary,

Or is it's a simple case of wanting a house with front and back gardens 2 minutes walk from schools,shops ,mammies house

Tony EH

Gatling wrote: »

Can you explain why many supposedly desperate homeless people living in hotels minus any financial contribution from themselves are turning down offers of social housing and keeping themselves in hotels longer than necessary,

Or is it's a simple case of wanting a house with front and back gardens 2 minutes walk from schools,shops ,mammies house

There could be numerous reasons, that are different for many people and not just the simplistic shite you've just made up.

I don't know why some people turn down a house. NOBODY here does and unless we're present when they are looking at the house, we won't.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't know this. You don't these people. You're not even remotely qualified to make such a judgement. This type of bullshit just exists in your nasty little mind. You never fail to come on here month after month and paint homeless people with this large bitter brush, without having walked in their shoes or experiencing what they have/are experiencing, calling their situation "lounging" and downplaying the seriousness of the issue.

It's remarkably petty.

True. I can only go by what I read in the media. I'm too busy working to pay for the roof over MY head.

Ha Long Bay

Tony EH wrote: »

There could be numerous reasons, that are different for many people and not just the simplistic shite you've just made up.

I don't know why some people turn down a house. NOBODY here does and unless we're present when they are looking at the house, we won't.

We do

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/3000-social-housing-offers-turned-down-in-past-two-years-450651.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/almost-one-third-of-families-refusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714

Tony EH

john4321 wrote: »

We do

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/3000-social-housing-offers-turned-down-in-past-two-years-450651.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/almost-one-third-of-families-refusing-social-housing-were-homeless-1.3414714

No, we don't.

That can't and doesn't explain each individual case.

Graces7

Old diesel wrote: »

So a hotel room is a home then????

as it is where they live, yes. define a home? where you live.

Vizzy

Tony EH wrote: »

There could be numerous reasons, that are different for many people and not just the simplistic shite you've just made up.

I don't know why some people turn down a house. NOBODY here does and unless we're present when they are looking at the house, we won't.

I think that you will find that across the country that there is a 20% + rate of refusals for one of your "numerous reasons" ( including the likes of a refusal of a house with seaviews because it made the applicant seasick)

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

True. I can only go by what I read in the media. I'm too busy working to pay for the roof over MY head.

Be careful what you read and who's media you're reading.

This is a vast group of people we discuss on this thread each month. You have no way of knowing what their circumstances are, or what they are going though and your constant characterisation of them as chancers and loungers is completely unwarranted, not to mention ignorant.

Ha Long Bay

Tony EH wrote: »

No, we don't.

That can't and doesn't explain each individual case.

Most refusals were for reasons such as the size of the property offered, or unsuitable location, although there were some distinctive reasons provided in other cases.

Two offers made in Wicklow were refused because the applicant wanted “a cottage on its own”.

In Wexford, the fact that only a street view was on offer was cited in one case. In South Dublin four applicants would not take up an offer because they said they were feuding with other families in the area; one person said they did not like the external aspect of the apartment building; and another person said there was “too many steps outside to front door”.

Gatling

Tony EH wrote: »

There could be numerous reasons,

So wait desperate homeless people and families turning down "forever homes" and you say it's made up ,

Your have no idea all your doing is attacking posters who don't agree with whatever agenda you have.


Wonder if these supposed desperate homeless people had to contribute to their hotel bills would they be so quick in turning down a 'forever home " with subsidised rent or is there a hope here's a house rent free , beside your mammies , sister,aunt and uncles

Tony EH

Vizzy wrote: »

I think that you will find that across the country that there is a 20% + rate of refusals for one of your "numerous reasons" ( including the likes of a refusal of a house with seaviews because it made the applicant seasick)

FFS, you can't black mark a large grouping of different people based on one instance of clickbait.

Graces7

Gatling wrote: »

Can you explain why many supposedly desperate homeless people living in hotels minus any financial contribution from themselves are turning down offers of social housing and keeping themselves in hotels longer than necessary,

Or is it's a simple case of wanting a house with front and back gardens 2 minutes walk from schools,shops ,mammies house

Unkind. Maybe remember that people who have been evicted, lost all their possessions, have lost also a way of life chosen and familiar to them may righly and understandably be very emotional and not thinking fully>

HOME is a basic thing for humans, A settled place, safe. familiar,,

You do not suddenly become a differentr person when you are evicted - akthough some posters here seem to think you do,

Seeing the landlord walk up the drive to your door with a letter in his hand evicting you is a horrible and distressing experience. Believe me. Enough to unsettle anyone.

I stayed in private rentals as there was the dread of being allocated somewhere I could not endure. Partly medical,partly social

My last rental was a death trap but nothing else opened up. It is a horrible feeling and being shunted around is also that. We do not become beggars, we become very vulnerable.
and we still have the same desire and need that you do for a home where we can settle with what we need and yes, desire. In familiar surroundings within reach of family etc.

Deeply thankful for where I live now.

Tony EH

john4321 wrote: »

Most refusals were for reasons such as the size of the property offered, or unsuitable location, although there were some distinctive reasons provided in other cases.

And they're legitimate reasons. Size and location have a significant and real impact on people.

john4321 wrote: »

Two offers made in Wicklow were refused because the applicant wanted “a cottage on its own”.

In Wexford, the fact that only a street view was on offer was cited in one case. In South Dublin four applicants would not take up an offer because they said they were feuding with other families in the area; one person said they did not like the external aspect of the apartment building; and another person said there was “too many steps outside to front door”.

And these are bunkum, but not something to be used to tar the homeless with. There will always be extraordinary cases with silly reasons being. but, that doesn't mean some folk get to use those ridiculous individual cases as a means to delegitimise a very real situation, just because they have bitter little minds.

Graces7

Gatling wrote: »

So wait desperate homeless people and families turning down "forever homes" and you say it's made up ,

Your have no idea all your doing is attacking posters who don't agree with whatever agenda you have.


Wonder if these supposed desperate homeless people had to contribute to their hotel bills would they be so quick in turning down a 'forever home " with subsidised rent or is there a hope here's a house rent free , beside your mammies , sister,aunt and uncles

family matters. OK? OK! and please .. rent free ?

Vizzy

Tony EH wrote: »

FFS, you can't black mark a large grouping of different people based on one instance of clickbait.

What you fail to state about these people who are NOT turning down houses(according to you) is that the applicants have told the Local Authority which areas that they want housing, they have an option of putting down 3 areas in order of preference.
Its a bit of a cop out then to refuse a house for some spurious reason, don't you think ?

The Specialist

Graces7 wrote: »

family matters. OK? OK! and please .. rent free ?

Yeah family matters but if you have your hand out looking for a house, you don't get to pick and choose where it is. And yes rent free because as seen in the case of Ms Gimme Cash, any rent she pays is coming from the obscene amount of welfare she receives - from the taxpayer - free money therefore rent free.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

Be careful what you read and who's media you're reading.

This is a vast group of people we discuss on this thread each month. You have no way of knowing what their circumstances are, or what they are going though and your constant characterisation of them as chancers and loungers is completely unwarranted, not to mention ignorant.

So, Erica Fleming, Margaret Cash, Claire Elliott, Keeley Jones and their multitide of children really don't exist?

ThunbergsAreGo

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They still use agreed metrics to arrive at figures, the minister seems to be using his own.

What are the agreed metrics out of interest?

Is it a global agreed standard?

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote:

You did like most people would do. You accepted help and then helped yourself. So many "Homeless" want a home of their desire, in a location of their desire while doing little to acquire it for themselves. Personal responsibility seems to be gone out the window.

How many is so many?

There are absolute chances & lazy layabouts on the housing list. I can't deny that but they are in the minority. The examples given out on homeless threads are usually the same scrounges time and again. Not different ones but the same half a dozen names going on 3 years now.