Media: New Government proposals to tackle Homelessness

The_Conductor

There are a few interesting articles in today's papers- as Minister Eoghan Murphy has come up with a smorgasbord of initiatives all together.

The Irish Times reports on his proposals under the headline: Families to be allowed refuse only one social housing offer

Link Location here: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/families-to-be-allowed-refuse-only-one-social-housing-offer-1.3214785?

The Indo take a slightly different tack- running with a 'To Hell to Connaught' type take on the proposals under the headling: Government to Offer Homeless Families the chance of house in rural counties

Link Location here: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/government-to-offer-homeless-families-in-dublin-the-chance-of-house-in-rural-counties-36114265.html

A few of the main points of the proposals as follows:

A new 'intra-agency' homeless group to be setup (by the charities, Threshold, DSP and others- to monitor/manage homelessness.

Plans to mitigate the very high number of refusals of social housing (over 3,000 offers were turned down since 1st Jan 2016- the vast majority of which were in Dublin city and county). The vast majority of stated reasons for refusals- people did not like where the properties were, followed by- people were unhappy with the property size, or the fact that it was an apartment rather than a house, with no garden. Full length of top ten reasons for refusals published.

Refusal of a social housing offer to either move people down the list- or remove them from the list altogether.

Fast tracking of 'Place Finder' Services (as previously announced in the Programme for Government), to help homeless people find property

200 New emergency hostel beds for Dublin- some of which will cater for family units- by the end of November

12 million to be spent on 'Family Hubs' to support families who are not currently homeless, but who are 'at risk' of becomming homeless

New Rent-to-Mortgage Scheme for the 60,000 owners of PPRs who are in arrears of more than 90 days (he was asked at the conference about landlords in arrears- and fudged a response, however the inference was lending institutions will be assisted to fast-track repossessions).

1,300 social housing units available for immediate occupation in rural counties (an improbable number of these are in Cos. Donegal and Clare- why, I have no idea) (Relocation to rural counties is to be entirely voluntary- however, the Minister imagines demand will be very high). New advisory and other supports to be put in place for people who agree to relocate

Proposed amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act whereby any landlord who is proposing to end a tenancy will first have to notify the Residential Tenancies Board with the details- and the RTB will contact the tenant- outlining their options.

The Peter McVerry Trust have released a statement welcomming the Minister's proposals. Sinn Féin have released a statement strongly condemning them. Others appear to have very mixed views.

Personally- I think that these are a series of sticking plasters- treating the symptoms rather than the causes of homelessness. There are some very welcome measures in the Minister's proposals- however, there is also an element of being seen to being active- but in reality kicking the can down the road- which is what politiicians are so good at. We need supply- we critically need supply. Pointing to Donegal, Mayo, Clare and other counties- and finding they've over 1,300 ready-to-go social housing units- is really one of the biggest red herrings of all. The reason they are vacant- is because people don't want to live there. People are voluntarily making themselves homeless- rather than accepting these units.

Its a series of snappy sounding soundbites- and while the emergency measures are critical and its good that they are being delivered- they are shortterm measures- the long term solution has to be a massive ramp-up in supply. The private sector, including the 1480 AHBs, have proven incapable of addressing the housing issue. The government needs to tell the Local Authorities to get off their arses and get building- the current programmes of buying chunks of developments, which were going to be built anyway- is only canibalising the nascent private sector building programmes- the public sector itself needs to build social housing units on the one hand- and it also needs to stop selling them!!!!

Wheeliebin30

I would like to live in foxrock please.

If I don't get my way I'm going homeless.

Sorted.

The_Conductor

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

I would like to live in foxrock please.

If I don't get my way I'm going homeless.

Sorted.

Some people have made such demands (perhaps not the 'Foxrock' part)- and then gone to the media to shame the local authorities into giving them what they want. Local authorities tend to be media shy- and prone to rolling over when they're caught in spotlights. Certain high profile cases have served to highlight this- and encourage others to take similar approaches.

4ensic15

At least one council uses a bidding system to allocate a house to the highest interested applicant on the list. It is much more efficient thar the offer, refuse offer system. It doesn't involve institutional bullying of applicants.

utmbuilder

even private tenants with sheds of cash find it a long journey to get a new home, must be so hard for hap people

Villa05

The_Conductor wrote:

New Rent-to-Mortgage Scheme for the 60,000 owners of PPRs who are in arrears of more than 90 days

Waste of time. If they can't afford mortgage they can't afford market rent

The_Conductor

Villa05 wrote: »

Waste of time. If they can't afford mortgage they can't afford market rent

The implication is that the 'rent' will be charged at local authority rates and assessed on 'affordability' grounds, rather than at market rates. Aka- you're not going to be worse off as a result of having a portion of your mortgage parked with the local authority- its not a cost-free option, but it is, relatively speaking, a low cost option for the potential participants in the scheme.

Its not in anyone's interests to have these people worse off than they currently are.

quadrifoglio verde

The_Conductor wrote: »

Some people have made such demands (perhaps not the 'Foxrock' part)- and then gone to the media to shame the local authorities into giving them what they want. Local authorities tend to be media shy- and prone to rolling over when they're caught in spotlights. Certain high profile cases have served to highlight this- and encourage others to take similar approaches.

One of the homeless people who died last week had been offered a house in Meile an Ri in Lucan.
Now it's not the nicest estate, but I know a few decent people living there.
Absolutely absurd to remain living in emergency accommodation because the council won't house you where you want to live.

The_Conductor

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

One of the homeless people who died last week had been offered a house in Meile an Ri in Lucan.
Now it's not the nicest estate, but I know a few decent people living there.
Absolutely absurd to remain living in emergency accommodation because the council won't house you where you want to live.

While I sympathise with the lady's children and their father- I honestly don't understand the mentality.

Its not the worst estate in the Lucan/Ronanstown/Neillstown area- and it does have a supply of available social housing projects.

The residents there have been promised a large public park by South Dublin County Council over the next 2-3 years- on the other side of the 12th Locke/Newcastle Road- there are more resources coming onstream in the general area.

Most of the residents there- are people who purchased properties there- social housing tenants are very much in a minority (as per government policy).

While I sympathise with the lady's children- I honestly don't 'get' that someone would be so distraught at the thought of an offer of a property there- that they would commit suicide- leaving two young children without a mother.

The_Conductor

Ps- I'm writing the above- as father to a 6 and 7 year old, living in an apartment with no garden- no family support whatsoever- and a 16 mile commute to and from school on a daily basis for my munchkins.

Atlantic Dawn

The_Conductor wrote: »

Refusal of a social housing offer to either move people down the list- or remove them from the list altogether.

This is the most important initiative, anyone refusing an offer should be off the list and banned from it for 5 years. Plenty of people down the bottom of the list for having a little more sense like not having multiple kids with nowhere for them to live would appreciate any offer of housing.

Gatling

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

One of the homeless people who died last week had been offered a house in Meile an Ri in Lucan.
Now it's not the nicest estate, but I know a few decent people living there.

She had 3 separate offers I'm a friend of the family and there was a lot more to that than is been mentioned ,

To hear so many people whom are homeless making multiple refusals is absolutely a rediculous situation ,I wonder if they were told they had to pay for their hotel stays would they be quick enough to take an offer

Gatling

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

This is the most important initiative, anyone refusing an offer should be off the list and banned from it

Parts of the UK your Actually discharged from the local authorities care ,and you then have to self accommodate after that

Wanderer78

Gatling wrote:

Parts of the UK your Actually discharged from the local authorities care ,and you then have to self accommodate after that

That solves these issues, doesn't it!

Our housing/homelessness issues aren't going to be solved, best of luck to those that are

Sad Professor

There are many legitimate reasons why someone on the housing list might refuse a house. To suggest that they are all waiting for a place in Foxrock is absurd. Based on my own experiences of it, I have nothing positive to say about Meile an Ri and can understand why someone wouldn't want to to live there. Is it better than living on the street? Undoubtedly, but that we may be moving toward a situation in which people will be given these kinds of ultimatums is very depressing.

According to the IT, the govt is also considering "potential financial incentives for landlords who agree long-term leases". I've been arguing for something like this for ages. Lets say landlords agree to secure, sitting tenancies for a 10-15 year period in exchange for favourable tax treatment. I think it would help a lot and would get around the (false) perception that the constitution is a barrier, but would have to be accompanied by regulation of airbnb and weeding out non-compliant landlords. Of course, this isn't the first time we've heard they are working on this, so I'll believe it when I see it. As I said in the other thread, I think sitting tenancies will eventually be brought in as a rushed emergency measure to tackle homelessness.

Murphy is disaster. I thought Coveney was incompetent but I never doubted his sincerity. Murphy looks like he has to practice his earnest face in the mirror every morning.

Gatling

Sad Professor wrote: »

There are many legitimate reasons why someone on the housing list might refuse a house. To suggest that they are all waiting for a place in Foxrock is absurd. Based on my own experiences of it, I have nothing positive to say about Meile an Ri and can understand why someone wouldn't want to to live there.

But look at the reasons that have published ,
Garden isn't big enough for a 13ft trampoline ,
One person was on a very long term holiday in Rome ,
One couldn't cope moving to a certain house because it would make her depressed,
One the front door was too far from the living room ,
Property isn't suitable for multiple pets ,
The excuses are endless ,

You can turn down 3 housing offers in a 12 month period before you face any possible sanction but In theory you could be offered 2-3 properties every 12 Months over 10+ years and still stay on the list ,

But your homeless living in a hotel with zero rent ,zero untilies ,zero contribution of any kind and with the ability to repeatedly turning down housing offers with zero comeback ,
So yeah it may be hard living in a hotel but as long as it's free People will have the exact same mentality ,
Turning down housing should lead to hotel rooms been vacated and no further assistance offered ,

Wanderer78

Gatling wrote: »

But look at the reasons that have published ,
Garden isn't big enough for a 13ft trampoline ,
One person was on a very long term holiday in Rome ,
One couldn't cope moving to a certain house because it would make her depressed,
One the front door was too far from the living room ,
Property isn't suitable for multiple pets ,
The excuses are endless ,

You can turn down 3 housing offers in a 12 month period before you face any possible sanction but In theory you could be offered 2-3 properties every 12 Months over 10+ years and still stay on the list ,

But your homeless living in a hotel with zero rent ,zero untilies ,zero contribution of any kind and with the ability to repeatedly turning down housing offers with zero comeback ,
So yeah it may be hard living in a hotel but as long as it's free People will have the exact same mentality ,
Turning down housing should lead to hotel rooms been vacated and no further assistance offered ,

and what exactly would this solve?

Gatling

Wanderer78 wrote: »

and what exactly would this solve?

I believe if people were told they have to pay for their own hotels rooms would not be so quick to declare themselves homeless ,
People currently living in hotels who turn down multiple offers should have then be discharged from the local authorities care and made fend for themselves , I believe it would have the same effect where people wouldn't be able to refuse multiple housing offers,

One of the problems we have it's way to easy to self declare homeless with no proof you can't afford your rent or landlords are selling up , add the face you get free hotel accommodation it's actually leading to abuse of the system along with getting priority on the housing list offers .

Wanderer78

Gatling wrote: »

I believe if people were told they have to pay for their own hotels rooms would not be so quick to declare themselves homeless ,
People currently living in hotels who turn down multiple offers should have then be discharged from the local authorities care and made fend for themselves , would I believe would have the same effect where people wouldn't be able to refuse multiple housing offers,

One of the problems we have it's way to easy to self declare homeless with no proof you can't afford your rent or landlords are selling up , add the face you get free hotel accommodation it's actually leading to abuse of the system along with getting priority on the housing list offers .

sorry, but thats all drivel! i suspect if you do all that, you ll just have an increase in complex social issues such as criminality. there will always be those that will abuse systems, its human nature, but i also suspect most that currently call themselves homeless are genuine. we are experiencing a fundamental failure of our housing systems, our politicians and their advisers are lost, i have come to the conclusion, it will not be solved! these 'free' statements are complete nonsense, majority of citizens pay some amounts of taxation, some more so than others. the construct of 'the market', is done! we need to move on from it, but its not going to happen anytime soon, if at all!

Gatling

Wanderer78 wrote: »

sorry, but thats all drivel! i suspect if you do all that, you ll just have an increase in complex social issues such as criminality.

Sorry but that's a cop out , saying people will enmass turn to criminality is a joke and hyperbolic ,

So Mary to jack are homeless they are living in a hotel Costing hundreds if not thousands a week ,mary and jack contribution to their stay is zero ,
Mary and jack are begging for help they are desparate to be housed ,Mary and jack turning down multiple offers of housing ,
But there desperately trying but the hotel accommodation is indefinitely contribution free what would motivate Mary and jack to accept housing that would mean payment of rent and utilities ,
Or would life be easier staying in the hotel with zero rent or utilities .

Gatling is on the housing list 10 years with zero offers of housing ,
Gatling and Mrs Gatling are currently back in education while keeping a roof over our heads , feeding our two kids and keeping them in clothes and shoes ,

Who is better off .

mdebets

Gatling wrote: »

Sorry but that's a cop out , saying people will enmass turn to criminality is a joke and hyperbolic ,

So Mary to jack are homeless they are living in a hotel Costing hundreds if not thousands a week ,mary and jack contribution to their stay is zero ,
Mary and jack are begging for help they are desparate to be housed ,Mary and jack turning down multiple offers of housing ,
But there desperately trying but the hotel accommodation is indefinitely contribution free what would motivate Mary and jack to accept housing that would mean payment of rent and utilities ,
Or would life be easier staying in the hotel with zero rent or utilities .

Gatling is on the housing list 10 years with zero offers of housing ,
Gatling and Mrs Gatling are currently back in education while keeping a roof over our heads , feeding our two kids and keeping them in clothes and shoes ,

Who is better off .

You are wrong.
Today, someone refusing a social house and staying on in the hotel, doesn't cost the state anything more, as most likely someone further down the list will take the house,so onebfamily is off the list, not mater what (that's why a bitting system as showed above would be much fairer).
On the other hand, where are people supposed to live, if they are off the housing list. most of the people on the housing list are there for a reason, they can't afford a house on their own. And even if a cheat is taken off the housing list, it would just be one more family competing for the limited numbers of houses, which would just mean some other family will end up on the housing list, as they now can't afford their own house anymore.
So taking people off the housing list will mean an increase in people living on the street and an increase in crime.

Those on the housing list shouldn't even be allowed one refusal. The tax payer paying for your accommodation, you take whatever you are given or you are out on your ear simple as that.

Oh that's a bad estate, oh it's too small for pets, oh it's too far from somewhere etc etc etc: tough luck, many people who are paying their own rent/mortgages can't live where they want so why on earth those on social housing lists think they have any entitlement to is beyond me.

mdebets

Titus Inexpensive Tarp wrote: »

Those on the housing list shouldn't even be allowed one refusal. The tax payer paying for your accommodation, you take whatever you are given or you are out on your ear simple as that.

Oh that's a bad estate, oh it's too small for pets, oh it's too far from somewhere etc etc etc: tough luck, many people who are paying their own rent/mortgages can't live where they want so why on earth those on social housing lists think they have any entitlement to is beyond me.

This argument isn't really thought trough very well and cost the state much more money in the long time then refusals woudl do.
As long as there is a waiting list for social houses, someo one else down the waiting list will take it and if no one does, it's not really suitable for housing (see my points below).

If you force people to take the first house offered, it could lead to many issues that would cost the state even more money.

Move a single parent or even a family were father and mother need to work, and who at the moment are depending on family on friends for child mining to be able to work, away from this family. The state would need to pay for childminding or the dole if one parent has to give up work to mind the children.
Move a person to somewhere out in the sticks with no public transports and miles away from any work or shops. The state would need to provide a car or the dole again if the person has to give up work.
Moving a family knowingly to a house, where already 5 previous tenants have been bullied out by the neighbours in the last year. Who is paying compensation for any damage done to the tenants? The state.

The fairest way would be a bidding system, where anyone on the housing list could bid for a vaccant property and the one highest on the witing list gets it.

Gatling

mdebets wrote: »

You are wrong.
Today, someone refusing a social house and staying on in the hotel, doesn't cost the state anything more,

So taking people off the housing list will mean an increase in people living on the street and an increase in crime.

What's the average cost a hotel room in Dublin per week now multiply that figure by 52 X 1000 it adds up to a significant figure Which is all one way zero contribution from the people living in hotels ,

Says who exactly an increase in crime and homesless on the street can that be actually backed up or is it just antedotal

And we already have a bidding system called the choiced based lettings system

c montgomery

I Have a 3 bed house in a good location in cork which I offered to the council for the long term leasing scheme where they rent it from you for 10-20 years. House has 3 schools within 500m.
Council took 7 weeks to decide and when they got back to me (4weeks ago) they said they had no requirements for it currently without even viewing it.
It took 10 minutes to rent it privately, estate agent had a list of people who were looking for a house in the area.

Complete joke.

mdebets

mdebets wrote: »

This argument isn't really thought trough very well and cost the state much more money in the long time then refusals woudl do.
As long as there is a waiting list for social houses, someo one else down the waiting list will take it and if no one does, it's not really suitable for housing (see my points below).

If you force people to take the first house offered, it could lead to many issues that would cost the state even more money.

Move a single parent or even a family were father and mother need to work, and who at the moment are depending on family on friends for child mining to be able to work, away from this family. The state would need to pay for childminding or the dole if one parent has to give up work to mind the children.
Move a person to somewhere out in the sticks with no public transports and miles away from any work or shops. The state would need to provide a car or the dole again if the person has to give up work.
Moving a family knowingly to a house, where already 5 previous tenants have been bullied out by the neighbours in the last year. Who is paying compensation for any damage done to the tenants? The state.

The fairest way would be a bidding system, where anyone on the housing list could bid for a vaccant property and the one highest on the witing list gets it.

All the above are the issues people renting privately or buying face why should those on social housing lists get to bypass what everyone else faces.

mdebets

Titus Inexpensive Tarp wrote: »

All the above are the issues people renting privately or buying face why should those on social housing lists get to bypass what everyone else faces.

You don't understand. The problem isn't if they have to face the same problems, but if it is intelligent, to create 'solutions' that cost more money for the state.
If the state moves someone to somewhere where he doesn't have access to public transportation and his job is too far away to walk or cycle, the state either has to provide him with a car or the dole (remember, if your on the housing list and working it's unlikely you are able to pay for a car).
If the state moves someone away from his free childcare and he depends on it to be free from work, the state either has to provide childcare to free or pay him the dole (remember, if your on the housing list and working it's unlikely you are able to pay for childcare).

And all this, without cutting the payments for hotels or other temporary ccomodation.
If you have 100 people on the housing list and you have 10 vaccant properties, 90 people can still refuse the property without the bill for temporary housing being reduced. At the end you have still temporary housing for 90 people to pay.

mdebets

Gatling wrote: »

Says who exactly an increase in crime and homesless on the street can that be actually backed up or is it just antedotal

Sorry, forgot this point.

It's really a simple conclusion.
What are people going to do if they are removed from the housing list and thrown out of temporary accomodation. They have to live somewhere.
Some might be able to stay with friends or family, but that is really only a temporal solution and especially if you have children not something you can do for a long period of time.
Most of them would be on the dole and most of the ones working are on low wages.
If you look at the rental market at the moment, it is hard even for someone on a good wage to get an affordable home. What chance do you think someone with a low income who also has no references from previous landlords, has, to get any home he can aford?
But they have to live somewhere The only options would be on the street or in a homeless hostle.
Of course they could try to get more money. Again hard if you are in a low paying job or homeless. So a common source to get more money would be begging or criminality.

jamesthepeach

For the sake of equality are they going to offer people on the housing list in the rest of the country the chance to choose houses in Dublin

mdebets

mdebets wrote: »

You don't understand. The problem isn't if they have to face the same problems, but if it is intelligent, to create 'solutions' that cost more money for the state.
If the state moves someone to somewhere where he doesn't have access to public transportation and his job is too far away to walk or cycle, the state either has to provide him with a car or the dole (remember, if your on the housing list and working it's unlikely you are able to pay for a car).
If the state moves someone away from his free childcare and he depends on it to be free from work, the state either has to provide childcare to free or pay him the dole (remember, if your on the housing list and working it's unlikely you are able to pay for childcare).

And all this, without cutting the payments for hotels or other temporary ccomodation.
If you have 100 people on the housing list and you have 10 vaccant properties, 90 people can still refuse the property without the bill for temporary housing being reduced. At the end you have still temporary housing for 90 people to pay.

How many on the housing list are working? Very few I'd imagine. So most of your argument is a non-issue for the majority of those refusing houses.

The fact is if you are having a house provided for you you either take what you are given or pay for your own house.

ohlordy

Titus Inexpensive Tarp wrote: »

How many on the housing list are working? Very few I'd imagine.

You can imagine all you want but you are wrong, so no point listening to anything else you have to say.

I don't have figures, but I am involved on a daily basis in assessing the rent that social housing tenants are asked to pay. Assessment is based on income. Large majority of households have working adults, assessment based on P60s and payslips, not on social welfare incomes.