Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Social Housing: a flawed system

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    The council may also have a reliable tenant in that property already.

    I didn't suggest evicting anyone.


  • Options
    #33
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #34
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Differential rent is what the council charges. Although I get suspicious of these 'I know someone who' whenever these type of threads appear.

    Hearsay.


  • Options
    #35
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    seamus wrote:
    I don't know what the solution is. Taking problem tenants and putting them in quiet estates solves the problem of having too many scumbags concentrated in one area. But like putting the bold kid in the class beside the good kid, you might make the bold kid quieter, while you make life worse for the good one.

    The most likely scenario is the latter.

    Xterminator wrote:
    I find it hard to believe people are calling for large council estates. Is it because some people begrudge the social housing tenants in the same estate as the one they have purchased their house in?

    No. Its simply unjustifiable that with such a massive crisis that the covenant pays double or triple the cost to pay for private housing for social needs instead of building economically and properly addressing the problems.

    It doesn't make sense that the rules stipulate that a developer building ten million euro houses has to provide ten percent or one of those houses for social housing.
    Pixel Eater wrote:
    Social problems are an issue (in some estates) but the main problem with social housing is that's it so economically unviable. They should open up public housing to people on far larger incomes. In theory a single person on €35k can qualify for a public house but in practice there is no way someone like that will get a house at the moment. Increase the threshold to €50 or 60k as these people can actually afford to pay and have a designated proportion for this cohort.

    I think this is a good idea. Instead of buying into private estates, build council housing and offer a proportion of those as affordable rents for low paid workers that fall just short of the threshold to qualify for social assistance.


  • Options
    #36
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    I said I was suspicious I didn't say you were lying. I'm just amazed at how many people are willing to share their intimate financial details with others. Although this knowledge is usually only forthcoming on threads such as this and benefit threads.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    ionapaul
    Registered Users Posts: 5,297 ✭✭✭ionapaul


    It is a very difficult problem to solve. I totally understand the reasoning behind the measure forcing developers to set aside a certain % of a new estate for social housing (often the poorest quality units understandably from the developers standpoint), it reduces the likelihood of ghettos, etc... but the knock on impact surely is that it puts downward pressure over time on the non-social housing home prices in said estate (particularly if any problem social tenants emerge) and upwards pressure on the older estates that were built before the social housing requirement?

    On a personal note, I've occasionally wondered what is the % premium I'd pay for house A in a totally private estate versus an identical house B in a social housing % estate. The vast majority of social tenants are wonderful people I'm sure but how much would the typical person pay to avoid the chance of nightmare neighbours (you get them with private owners too obviously :D)? It's total NIMBYism but regardless of how destructive of societal development such a preference is, surely it actually impacts house prices over time you'd think? Would love to see some research on this in the future!


  • Options
    #38
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #39
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    This is another issue. Social housing rent is based on a percentage of income, usually around 15%, but for some daft reason it's also capped so someone who earns a lot will still pay relatively small rent.

    Untrue. Urban myth. Comes up time and time again.

    1st example that came up in google

    https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/sites/default/files/content/Housing/Differential%20Rents%20Scheme%202016.pdf

    4. MAXIMUM RENT:
    No maximum rent applies. The rent as calculated will be charged.


  • Options
    #40
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    do you know of a single person who is earning 120k that was approved for council housing via the waiting list? IE the list that is over 10 years long?

    i suppose these 120k earners have couch surfed, or lived with family in overcrowded conditions for the last decade in the hope of scoring council accommodation?


  • Options
    #41
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    Do you think someone on a 120k pa is given a council house?
    All I can take from your post is you know someone's financial details( well you claim to) and feel they are advantaged in a way you or others are not and would lie an equality of misery. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but that's all I can get from your post.
    Seriously someone gets awarded a council house due to their low income family size. 10 years later they may have educated themselves better, got promoted even, got a job but you want them kicked out of their home and area just because....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #43
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    Once they are paying the rent and are a responsible tenant can't see the issue. Rent is means assessed.


  • Options
    #44
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #45
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #46
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,428 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    'the market' , 'the market', are we not learning our lessons yet!


  • Options
    #47
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    You said you know someone who earns 80k and went on to describe their lifestyle . You claimed you know how much rent they pay. So why contradict yourself?


  • Options
    #48
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    My tax is also subsidizing M O Leary in the form of child allowance. Our society has decided this is how we want things so I'm happy to go along. No joy in seeing others miserable tbh.


  • Options
    #49
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #50
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #51
    Xterminator
    Registered Users Posts: 4,739 ✭✭✭Xterminator


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    nope the market needs to be fixed to bring rents in line with earning.

    Council rents are charged using a formula. If you said the formula needs to be tweaked, it is regularly.

    But to charge market rents, when the market is broken?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #53
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,428 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    'the market' is a figment of our imaginations, it is truly not capable of providing us with our actual needs


  • Options
    #54
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Xterminator wrote: »
    Untrue. Urban myth. Comes up time and time again.

    1st example that came up in google

    https://www.wexfordcoco.ie/sites/default/files/content/Housing/Differential%20Rents%20Scheme%202016.pdf

    4. MAXIMUM RENT:
    No maximum rent applies. The rent as calculated will be charged.

    As far as I can make out that refers to the rent supplement rather than the direct payment for a council house.


  • Options
    #55
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    You claimed I was subsidizing someone, I find if you wish to make this claim it's only fair I can expand on it.


  • Options
    #56
    lawred2
    Registered Users Posts: 24,384 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    is that true?


  • Options
    #57
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #58
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    Already answered
    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    Again I have not accused you of lying. Try reading my response.
    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    That's your claim. Personally I think it's none of your business. It's between the person and their landlord.
    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    No applicable to every council . They all so far.
    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    No just find it amusing how someone always knows the intimate financial details of a person they think is gaming the system. Usually only seen on threads where housing or benefits is the topic.
    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.
    Again it's not your concern. The council sets the terms for their tenants. Why should someone give up an advantageous situation for themselves just to satisfy others? Makes no sense.
    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.

    Can't see a point I could agree or disagree with, have you got one?


  • Options
    #59
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Two people: one is on the dole and the other earns 50k. Both can get on the same public bus or train, use the same public hospital or even legal aid. I don't know why housing should be different. A council builds an estate or block of flats of 100 units. 50-60 go to the middle income higher earners and the rest to the traditional poorer cohorts who usually avail of social housing. There is your mixed development. If the private sector won't provide housing (which it isn't) then the state has to step in (which it currently isn't, or at least merely dipping its toe in).


  • Options
    #60
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    None of your business as you are not a tenant. Of course if you wish you can lobby for your LPT to be increased to bring it up to a standard you would be pleased with.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    ....... wrote:
    This post has been deleted.


    Simple really I pay tax( quite a lot actually) it goes in to a central pot and pays for a myriad of stuff. Social housing, schools, Civil servants wages etc. No bodies tax is ring fenced for a certain service or provision. So to say you are subsidizing social housing you must recognise you are also subsidizing other areas so to my mind it is disingenuous to concentrate on one area unless of course it is to further a agenda.


Advertisement