Homelessness: The disgrace that is Varadkar and the Government

Idbatterim

A good article in the indo today on failure to provide social housing and how looking for private sector to fix it is a mistake.

https://m.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/the-right-moves-has-the-government-learned-nothing-from-the-disastrous-crash-36344429.html

JP Liz V1

Leo and Francis should step down imo

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

Funny in all your confused and confusing posts you rarely resort to numbers. Why is this?

Could you tell us rationalists how much money the Govt should spend directly on social housing in 2018/2019/2020? In millions or billions?

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

And you, who won't pay water charges or LPT, want them to build more and more.

That's either waffling or hypocrisy or both.

It's quiet simple.
First off I never said we should stop funding emergency accommodation and put the money towards Social housing. That was a egregious 'misunderstanding' on behalf of others.
Money would be better spent on social housing. We should be in a place where money we use towards emergency accommodation goes towards funding social housing.
If we had not begun to follow the current tried and failed model of relying on the private market, we wouldn't be in this worsening mess.
We should have, and it's never too late, worked towards Social Housing stock. It's been put forward that FG are well aware things aren't great regarding the crises, (housing/homelessness) but one has to wonder why they persist with policies that make both worse?
Back to funding, no, I cannot supply figures, that's why I've not supplied figures. If I was putting myself forward as the man to solve everything I'd be lying. I also can't supply facts or figures on how emergency accommodation is funded, yet here we are.

Here is it is; We spend on emergency accommodation, as a supposed stop gap measure. We are becoming more and more dependent on it and grants subsidies to enable the public, tax payers included, to put a roof over their head. Some to the tune to 55k per annum from the tax payers pocket.

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

If they generated nothing, it would still be saving money on emergency accommodation fees and we'd have property. How about looking at it like every house we build saves us a potential 55k a year? And we've a house?

Social housing would be better value for the tax payer.
Where will the money come from? I'm not sure but I know if they wanted to fund it, the state would fund it. Like we do other things of far far less importance or urgency. We can find increasing sums for emergency accommodation. The money has to come from somewhere. I think it's where it's going that might be the issue upsetting some Tories. Happier to see it go to gougers over the tax paying public? Is this the real problem? Wouldn't it be swell if we had of built up housing stock back in the heady days of 'these things take time'?
The private sector want to profit, and fair play to them. The well being or value for money of the tax payer is not their concern.

As regards LPT, I'm against it for home owners, not property investors/landlords. If you are making a business of housing, speculating, investing, you should be taxed, especially heavy while we go through these crises. Allowing the people be gouged and priced out of the purchase/rental market in a crisis is wrong. Some form of emergency legislation needs to be brought in in my view. Varadkar needs to, for the first time in his career, put up, and take these issues seriously not downplay them or give lip service.

What form would this legislation take? Dig your own rabbit hole for that one.

Why the IW/metering/consultants cluster f*** got easy money and support than something we need immediately and far more urgently, I'll never understand.

These are my thoughts/opinions. Anyone jumping in to defend their Fine Gael for the sake of the party, is missing the concept. As I've said before, I would be more than happy if Fine Gael took charge of this. I couldn't care less which party or politician gets the brownie points.

In short, what Fine Gael are currently doing is not helping. One can easily argue they are making things worse. The new housing plan is more of the same. The only things of note are their fudging of the terminology for social housing, to 'public' and other grand bluster.

McMurphy

Do you know that in Dublin the average LA house generates €3,000 per year in rent and maintenance on average costs €2,000 per annum. So the net rent to the Council is €1,000 per annum. So every property built by the State in Dublin at a minimum cost of €300,000 a pop is effectively given away to the recipients for free.

I think you might have missed the part where one of the main reasons people were advocating more emphasis on getting our social housing programmes in order was because even if a family live in the house for 40 years "free" the state still own a house at the end of it.

Currently throwing the hotels and bed and breakfast owners etc the cash, we're left with diddly squat.

Its not a hard concept to understand unless one wanted not to - purposely.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I think you might have missed the part where one of the main reasons people were advocating more emphasis on getting our social housing programmes in order was because even if a family live in the house for 40 years "free" the state still own a house at the end of it.

Currently throwing the hotels and bed and breakfast owners etc the cash, we're left with diddly squat.

Its not a hard concept to understand unless one wanted not to - purposely.

That isn't true, in that we usually agree to sell it to them at far less than real value.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't true, in that we usually agree to sell it to them at far less than real value.

And this was carved in stone for Moses' perusal?
Tenant purchase and not paying rent/evictions, are all issues that can be adjusted/dealt with. They have only so much bearing on the concept as we/state/LA allow.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

That isn't true, in that we usually agree to sell it to them at far less than real value.

Waffle.

If they qualified to buy the house, it meant they qualified for a mortgage.

If they qualified for the mortgage, presumably they were working.

If they were working, they presumably paid rent on the "free" house.

Lot of deflection and obfuscation going on here from yourself.

Idbatterim

bear in mind that a large percentage of the total figure of building a house, will go directly or indirectly back to government coffers very quickly.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Waffle.

If they qualified to buy the house, it meant they qualified for a mortgage.

If they qualified for the mortgage, presumably they were working.

If they were working, they presumably paid rent on the "free" house.

Lot of deflection and obfuscation going on here from yourself.

No waffle, I have previously provided information on the series of different arrangements that allowed LA tenants to purchase houses from the State and sell on at huge profit.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

First off I never said we should stop funding emergency accommodation and put the money towards Social housing. That was a egregious 'misunderstanding' on behalf of others.

This is what you said, that was apparently egregiously misunderstood:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

We'd be able to chip in a few bob savings from the 39m for Emergency accommodation last year for Dublin alone.

So apparently you don't want to stop funding emergency accommodation, but we'll be able to use the savings from not funding emergency accommodation to finance social housing.

Okay then.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

No waffle, I have previously provided information on the series of different arrangements that allowed LA tenants to purchase houses from the State and sell on at huge profit.

All of these concerns can be adjusted by the tenancy agreement. None of it takes away from Social Housing being the better deal. As I understand it there is a grace period before you can sell a corporation home you purchased as a tenant. You must show you've permanent alternative accommodation. The buyer must be intending to use it as residence, not investment.

Actually:

If you purchased your property through the Affordable Housing Scheme, you may be subject to a clawback if you sell or re-mortgage it within 20 years of date of purchase. You pay back a percentage of the sale price to Dublin City Council, which is directly linked to the initial discount you received. This is known as the “clawback”. The clawback applies whether you have a mortgage from either Dublin City Council or a bank or building society.
http://www.dublincity.ie/housing-and-community-i-own-my-home-section/i-bought-my-home-council

We don't need further fudging or scaremongering.

James Brown

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is what you said, that was apparently egregiously misunderstood:



So apparently you don't want to stop funding emergency accommodation, but we'll be able to use the savings from not funding emergency accommodation to finance social housing.

Okay then.

I'll dumb it right down;
Money spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing.
If we were using/supplying social housing, we wouldn't need rely on/spend so much on, emergency accommodation. Not paying so much for one would free up money 'we don't have'. As we utilise one we need fund the other less. Getting close?

I've answered this. If you can't get it by now, I can't help you. Sorry.

johnnyskeleton

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll dumb it right down;
Money spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing.
If we were using/supplying social housing, we wouldn't need rely on/spend so much on, emergency accommodation. Not paying so much for one would free up money 'we don't have'. As we utilise one we need fund the other less. Getting close?

I've answered this. If you can't get it by now, I can't help you. Sorry.

Mod note:

Ok I think its best that you leave it there. Your point is that its a shame that money is spent on emergency accommodation and not on social housing, but you are not proposing anything specific re: changing the budget.

Other posters have pressed you on the point but you dont want to elaborate. Thats fine.

Now lets move on please.

oscarBravo

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I'll dumb it right down;
Money spent on emergency accommodation would be better spent on social housing.
If we were using/supplying social housing, we wouldn't need rely on/spend so much on, emergency accommodation. Not paying so much for one would free up money 'we don't have'. As we utilise one we need fund the other less. Getting close?

I've answered this. If you can't get it by now, I can't help you. Sorry.

<snip - see warning above re: moving on from this>

OMD

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Waffle.

If they qualified to buy the house, it meant they qualified for a mortgage.

If they qualified for the mortgage, presumably they were working.

If they were working, they presumably paid rent on the "free" house.

Lot of deflection and obfuscation going on here from yourself.

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

Why are the "left" in Ireland so bedded to this right wing Thatcherite policy?

jimmycrackcorm

OMD wrote:

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

In theory selling state housing to the tenants should be ok, but the crux of the problem is selling too cheaply and not reinvesting the proceeds in new housing.

oscarBravo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

In theory selling state housing to the tenants should be ok...

Why? If they can afford to buy a house, shouldn't they buy one on the private market? If they can't afford a private house, why should the state reduce its housing stock?

McMurphy

OMD wrote: »

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

Why are the "left" in Ireland so bedded to this right wing Thatcherite policy?

Id be all foe keeping social housing stock in public/state ownership?

If only legislators had the ability to end such shenanigans?

James Brown

OMD wrote: »

Selling state houses to private sector is the biggest cause of lack of social housing in this country. A simple search on Myhome.ie or daft will show hundreds of former social houses on sale. These houses should not be in private hands but should be in the hands of the council to house those most in need. It is not rocket science.

Why are the "left" in Ireland so bedded to this right wing Thatcherite policy?

Not sure about it being the left. Sinn Fein are relativity left and they want tightening of the policy and agree it's generally bad practise. Also for many years, specifically through the 90's when tenant purchase policy was in and commonplace we'd many FG/FF heavy LA's.
I don't think it's a left or right issue as such. People use to rightly believe they should be able to own a house one day. That's changed and we need catch up to that reality. Maybe no government party wants to be the one to tell people that for most of them owning a home like your parents has practically become fantasy?
Knocking down housing estates for PPP wasn't a help either.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Id be all foe keeping social housing stock in public/state ownership?

If only legislators had the ability to end such shenanigans?

I know, the councils have really let us down again.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

I know, the councils have really let us down again.

Councils legislate now?

Who knew

nlrkjos

My own estate is a former council social housing scheme built in the 40/50's, 76 well built houses all 3-4 bedroom with big gardens. They all came up for sale to tenants in the 80's at a cheap price when interest rates were 15 or 16 %. One comment I will make, since then, when it was "privatized", the estate has become much cleaner and has won a few local tidy town awards, I'm guessing that once people owned the house they became much more conscious of the look of the area, the residents assoc' is stronger and pro-active. So while it may be wrong to sell off social housing stock, the sale improved my area's general cleanliness and social interaction. Just saying.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Councils legislate now?

Who knew

Eh, we were talking about councils selling off homes cheaply. What has that to do with legislation?

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

Eh, we were talking about councils selling off homes cheaply. What has that to do with legislation?

I already explained.

You even quoted me.

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Id be all foe keeping social housing stock in public/state ownership?

If only legislators had the ability to end such shenanigans?

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I already explained.

You even quoted me.

But we don't need legislators to stop it, any of the councils could just refuse to sell the public stock of housing, of course, that would mean one of our so-called left-wing parties having to make a decision rather than just whinge and protest.

McMurphy

blanch152 wrote: »

But we don't need legislators to stop it, any of the councils could just refuse to sell the public stock of housing, of course, that would mean one of our so-called left-wing parties having to make a decision rather than just whinge and protest.

Councils could just refuse to do something, that someone might be legally entitled to do, by simply refusing it to happen, even if their legally obliged by legislation?

Have you thought this through?

Good loser

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Councils could just refuse to do something, that someone might be legally entitled to do, by simply refusing it to happen, even if their legally obliged by legislation?

Have you thought this through?

Are you sure about this?

I would have assumed the option of engaging in the scheme is left to the Councils.

Good loser

Rick Shaw wrote: »

I think you might have missed the part where one of the main reasons people were advocating more emphasis on getting our social housing programmes in order was because even if a family live in the house for 40 years "free" the state still own a house at the end of it.

Currently throwing the hotels and bed and breakfast owners etc the cash, we're left with diddly squat.

Its not a hard concept to understand unless one wanted not to - purposely.

Don't you see that the exact same dilemma presents itself to those that currently rent houses (and would prefer ownership)?
Your help to these people is to say 'stop paying rent and buy a house'.
But, but, but - - -etc

It all comes down to money (as usual) the Govt can no more pay for all the houses/apts needed, especially in Dublin, as the private individual can buy his own house. So both rent. Both with the same intention of paying as little rent as possible and for as short a length of time as possible.

So putting forward capital proposals without identifying the source of the money is waffling while those who refuse to pay nominated taxes like LPT and Water Charges are the hypocrites.

blanch152

Rick Shaw wrote: »

Councils could just refuse to do something, that someone might be legally entitled to do, by simply refusing it to happen, even if their legally obliged by legislation?

Have you thought this through?

You are not legally entitled to purchase your house under the scheme, the Councils can refuse to sell.

Section 22 (2) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 provides that:

"(2) A housing authority may sell an affordable house under this Part where the authority no longer requires the house for the purposes of affordable housing and the authority has allocated the dwelling to a household in accordance with an allocation scheme."

The key word is "may", which is used instead of "shall". In the case of all of the Dublin councils, they should not be selling any houses to tenants as they clearly require the houses for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, if any houses are being sold in Dublin, and are not available for the homeless as a result, it is clearly the fault of the councils as they have discretion under the Act.

There is no legal entitlement to buy a council house.

Chips Lovell

Hived off the election talk and moved it into the new thread. Maybe keep this one for the ongoing discussion of the government's handling of the homelessness crisis.

blanch152

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Hived off the election talk and moved it into the new thread. Maybe keep this one for the ongoing discussion of the government's handling of the homelessness crisis.

Thanks for that, a really good idea, but I think this post of mine ended up in the wrong thread, as it has to do with the homelessness issue:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105362610&postcount=146

"You are not legally entitled to purchase your house under the scheme, the Councils can refuse to sell.

Section 22 (2) of the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 provides that:

"(2) A housing authority may sell an affordable house under this Part where the authority no longer requires the house for the purposes of affordable housing and the authority has allocated the dwelling to a household in accordance with an allocation scheme."

The key word is "may", which is used instead of "shall". In the case of all of the Dublin councils, they should not be selling any houses to tenants as they clearly require the houses for the purpose of affordable housing. Therefore, if any houses are being sold in Dublin, and are not available for the homeless as a result, it is clearly the fault of the councils as they have discretion under the Act.

There is no legal entitlement to buy a council house."

FreudianSlippers

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Every few years, the government is required to do a Housing Needs Assessment, which is basically a tally of all the local authority housing waiting lists. Here's all the recent ones:

1993 - 28,200
1996 - 27,427
1999 - 39,176
2002 - 48,413
2005 - 42,946
2008 - 56,249
2011 - 98,318
2013 - 89,872
2016 - 91,600

The real jump came in 2011 and you may have been able to predict a crisis would happen if the economy picked up but construction didn't.

Just to add on to this, as a percentage of population it looks like this:
1993 - 28,200 - 0.78%
1996 - 27,427 - 0.75%
1999 - 39,176 - 1.04%
2002 - 48,413 - 1.23%
2005 - 42,946 - 1.03%
2008 - 56,249 - 1.25%
2011 - 98,318 - 2.15%
2013 - 89,872 - 1.95%
2016 - 91,600 - 1.92%

FreudianSlippers

Obvious Otter wrote: »

The government can’t just build all these social houses. We just couldn’t pay for it. The government isn’t going to increase income tax or corporation tax so how exactly can the government afford to subsidise housing for so many people on a massive scale? The housing problem was caused by really poor regulation and still the government expects the private sector to build houses that people can’t afford to buy to an extremely high standard. The Irish electorate need to get real if we are to deal with this crisis.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

No, I'm not suggesting that we can build 91,000 local authority houses straight away. But there's a difference between that and building enough to ease homelessness levels.

Homelessness and affordability are two separate (albeit related issues). And the former takes priority over the latter.

On a separate point, arguing about paying money to private landlords for emergency accommodation is a red herring. We can't turf these people out on the street. We have to keep paying it until more accommodation is built.

I don't buy either issue has to take priority. As I outlined earlier, the obvious solution is to axe the rent assistance scheme and provide incentive for developers to build a percentage of affordable houses by way of tax breaks, legislation and removal of height restrictions in certain areas.

The government should not be a landlord other than for those who are the most poor in society. Allowing the government to build social housing for the poorest and leaving the private sector (albeit well regulated) to deal with affordable housing, both issues can be quickly addressed.

Chips Lovell

blanch152 wrote: »

Thanks for that, a really good idea, but I think this post of mine ended up in the wrong thread, as it has to do with the homelessness issue:

Oops. Moved it back now

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

But we don't need legislators to stop it, any of the councils could just refuse to sell the public stock of housing, of course, that would mean one of our so-called left-wing parties having to make a decision rather than just whinge and protest.

Aren't Sinn Fein kind of left wing?

“In the context of the housing crisis – when housing supply is at a critical level in Dublin – selling houses, particularly in high-demand areas with low housing stock isn’t necessarily a good idea.”
“Giving somebody a 60 per cent discount on a council house someone may have only lived in for a year makes no sense. If somebody is living there for 30 or 40 years they are entitled to buy their home but is it fair for people who have only lived there for a year or two?”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/just-26-of-dublin-council-tenants-use-scheme-to-buy-home-1.3208165

We need to all move away from the outdated left versus right. Bertie called himself a Socialist back in the day.

They refuse to learn or simply like quango like slush funds for 'their own'?

Fine Gael ministers are backpedalling over a mooted plan to create an Irish Water-style quango which would take over the building of houses from local councils.

It was suggested yesterday that the Government may establish a new semi-State company to drive house-building across the country in an effort to solve the housing crisis.

But the possibility of such a move prompted an immediate public backlash amid concern that the structure would be created along a similar model to Irish Water.

A number of senior figures have told Extra.ie that the plan is doomed to fail and that the immediate public resistance to the idea at such an early stage gave cause for concern.

One minister said: ‘If there is this much backlash at this stage, and there is the perception that this is a quango, then that plan is dead.’

Similar to the model of Irish Water, the new body would take powers off local authorities in an effort to solve the housing crisis. Speaking about the suggestion yesterday, housing expert Lorcan Sirr from the Dublin Institute of Technology suggested there was some merit to the proposal.
https://extra.ie/news/irish-news/backlash-fine-gael-housing-plan

Good loser wrote: »

Don't you see that the exact same dilemma presents itself to those that currently rent houses (and would prefer ownership)?
Your help to these people is to say 'stop paying rent and buy a house'.
But, but, but - - -etc

It all comes down to money (as usual) the Govt can no more pay for all the houses/apts needed, especially in Dublin, as the private individual can buy his own house. So both rent. Both with the same intention of paying as little rent as possible and for as short a length of time as possible.

So putting forward capital proposals without identifying the source of the money is waffling while those who refuse to pay nominated taxes like LPT and Water Charges are the hypocrites.

But, there's money for this;

A truly ambitious social housing programme of 47,000 units to 2021 will be delivered with
funding of €5.35 billion.
We have also put in place a €200m Infrastructure Fund to open up large sites where homes
are needed and where homes are now going to be built.

Brilliant, 5.35 billion for social housing, (sourced from a magic money tree I assume).
...but wait....

By mid-2017, emergency hotel and B&B type accommodation for families will only be used in limited circumstances and will have been largely replaced by suitable permanent family accommodation by delivering additional housing solutions including through an expanded Rapid-Build Housing Programme.
http://rebuildingireland.ie/Rebuilding%20Ireland_Action%20Plan.pdf

Huh?

The number of people accessing emergency accommodation has hit a record number of 8,374.
That includes 5,250 adults and 3,124 dependents, according to figures released by the Department of Housing. However, the Department says that the rate of those entering homelessness has slowed and the numbers of people being placed in homes is ahead of the number of those entering homelessness.
This, Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy says, is “welcome progress”.
“Unfortunately, families and individuals continue to present to our emergency accommodation services.
http://www.thejournal.ie/emergency-accommodation-housing-progress-3666900-Oct2017/

So relying on the private market is obviously not working.

Releasaing state lands
A programme will be put in place under a State Lands Management Group to identify and release further sites from the ownership of other public bodies for master-planning and making them available to a variety of scales of developers with the potential to deliver at least 500 homes initially in 2017 and building up incrementally after that to a potential capacity for provision of up to 1,000 homes annually by 2021.
http://rebuildingireland.ie/Rebuilding%20Ireland_Action%20Plan.pdf

Their own plans, being followed are not helping. So why do they insist on going down the same road?

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't buy either issue has to take priority. As I outlined earlier, the obvious solution is to axe the rent assistance scheme and provide incentive for developers to build a percentage of affordable houses by way of tax breaks, legislation and removal of height restrictions in certain areas.

The government should not be a landlord other than for those who are the most poor in society. Allowing the government to build social housing for the poorest and leaving the private sector (albeit well regulated) to deal with affordable housing, both issues can be quickly addressed.

I agree with less government involvement, but we can't cut rent subsides while funding private business on the other hand, enabling them create profit off the public with tax payer assistance. It needs be a measured move.
Developers are in a business, if they need looking after from the tax payer they need revisit their business model.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

I agree with less government involvement, but we can't cut rent subsides while funding private business on the other hand, enabling them create profit off the public with tax payer assistance. It needs be a measured move.
Developers are in a business, if they need looking after from the tax payer they need revisit their business model.

That's not what I was suggesting in the slightest (because it's what we already to with rent assistance); we promote new affordable housing by giving tax breaks and relaxation of planning to developers. It works very well in other countries.

FreudianSlippers

Matt Barrett wrote: »

But, there's money for this;



Brilliant, 5.35 billion for social housing, (sourced from a magic money tree I assume).
...but wait....

You're not correct on this. Firstly, it's actually only an increase of €733m per year (i.e. €2.2bn over 3 years) and, secondly, that money had to come from somewhere... it's not "new" money but either/both (i) reduction in another area (ii) increased income.

I think that's the fundamental piece of the puzzle you keep missing here which others have been attempting to explain to you.

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're not correct on this. Firstly, it's actually only an increase of €733m per year (i.e. €2.2bn over 3 years) and, secondly, that money had to come from somewhere... it's not "new" money but either/both (i) reduction in another area (ii) increased income.

I think that's the fundamental piece of the puzzle you keep missing here which others have been attempting to explain to you.

It's about allocation isn't it? Who suggested 'new' money? If can be diverted it the will is there as borne out by Fine Gael's plan.
The real issue is the problem that what the state has been doing all along as the homeless crisis worsens, is still the way to continue.
I can't see how things will improve with more of the same policies?

jimmycrackcorm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's not what I was suggesting in the slightest (because it's what we already to with rent assistance); we promote new affordable housing by giving tax breaks and relaxation of planning to developers. It works very well in other countries.

I'm unsure if tax breaks would work as well here given the considerable gap in supply and demand. The outcome is more likely to be more profits in the developers' pockets.

I think there is a worthwhile opportunity to turn NAMA into a housing funding and development agency from its current remit as being a bad bank. It would have the scale, access to finance, and expertise to force through significant development.

Good loser

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's about allocation isn't it? Who suggested 'new' money? If can be diverted it the will is there as borne out by Fine Gael's plan.
The real issue is the problem that what the state has been doing all along as the homeless crisis worsens, is still the way to continue.
I can't see how things will improve with more of the same policies?

You're all over the place.

There's no sense, rhyme nor reason to that bolded sentence.

Your grasp of the rational is obscure.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's about allocation isn't it? Who suggested 'new' money? If can be diverted it the will is there as borne out by Fine Gael's plan.
The real issue is the problem that what the state has been doing all along as the homeless crisis worsens, is still the way to continue.
I can't see how things will improve with more of the same policies?

Excellent, are we cutting social welfare or public sector pay for this investment in social housing?

blanch152

Someone in another thread directed me towards an OECD report which was fascinating.





http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/housing/

"In Ireland, households on average spend 21% of their gross adjusted disposable income on keeping a roof over their heads, slightly above the OECD average of 20%."

So, more or less in line with the average.

"In Ireland, the average home contains 2.1 rooms per person, more than the OECD average of 1.8 rooms per person. In terms of basic facilities, nearly every dwelling (99.9%) in Ireland contains private access to an indoor flushing toilet, more than the OECD average of 97.9%."

Well above average. In the country report on Ireland it says:

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/ireland/

"Ireland performs well in many measures of well-being relative to most other countries in the Better Life Index. Ireland ranks above the average in jobs and earnings, housing, personal security, health status, education and skills, social connections, subjective well-being, work-life balance, and environmental quality"


When we hear the government say that internationally this country is not too bad on housing, those figures explain why they say it.

Idbatterim

blanch152 wrote: »

Excellent, are we cutting social welfare or public sector pay for this investment in social housing?

I'd be well up for both as they are still majorly ott. Certainly welfare is

James Brown

Good loser wrote: »

You're all over the place.

There's no sense, rhyme nor reason to that bolded sentence.

Your grasp of the rational is obscure.

What's currently happening isn't working, so why keep slogging away with depending on the private market and the PPP model? How's that?

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Excellent, are we cutting social welfare or public sector pay for this investment in social housing?

I don't know but here it is, this money, over this period?:

A truly ambitious social housing programme of 47,000 units to 2021 will be delivered with
funding of €5.35 billion.

The problem here is the social housing programme does not only pertain to Social Housing.

johnnyskeleton

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Hived off the election talk and moved it into the new thread. Maybe keep this one for the ongoing discussion of the government's handling of the homelessness crisis.

Thread title changed to reflect the specific topic that has developed. Link to hived off thread here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057812753

JP Liz V1

2 more homeless died in Dublin this week

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

2 more homeless died in Dublin this week

While beds lie empty. I suppose that’s Leo’s fault too?

seamus

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

2 more homeless died in Dublin this week

About 145 people will die in Dublin this week.

2 of them happen to be homeless.

I know it sounds heartless, but unless they actually died because they were homeless, it's not that big a deal. Yes, ideally no-one should suffer the indignity of dying in the street, but unless the primary cause of death is hypothermia and the person had nowhere to go, then it's not society's "fault" that they died.

Yes, I know how that sounds. But ultimately pointing out that a homeless person died is unremarkable. It's an appeal to emotion. People die all the time. Where's the outrage for them?