Social Housing: a flawed system

Hitman3000

thierry14 wrote:

Germany does tbf

Nope still the council.

Wanderer78

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

indeed, all citizens have a need for housing, for life in fact.

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Despite the response you got this is all you took form it. Probably best you respond no further. Nice way to avoid the questions I put to you. Good dodge.

Fann Linn

....... wrote: »

According to need. Yes.

You think its a better system to leave the first lot, who can afford to house themselves, in, while another lot who cannot afford to house themselves live in a hostel or homeless or stuffed into one room with some long suffering relative etc?

The way people are arguing in this thread seems suspiciously like they do not want to discommode anyone who can afford to house themselves, at the expense of those who cannot. And at a higher cost to the taxpayer.

Why is it not a good idea to house those who need it and allow those who dont to fend for themselves? I am at a loss?

If we take the avg price of a house in Dublin today at approx €380k. Do you think the avg coco tenant would have €38k in savings plus be in a position to be able to get a loan from any of the banks? I don't think its feasible.

Hitman3000

thierry14 wrote:

I shouldn't have to pay for them

You're not central taxation paid into the local government fund is what pays along with the rent tenants paid by tenants. Your tax money on its own pays for very little. Wouldn't even cover a TD's annual expenses.

Pixel Eater

Okay this thread is descending into a bit of a squabble. I know social housing is a touchy subject and judging by the level of differing views, my original assertion that the system is flawed can be somewhat vindicated.

Can we discuss then what needs to be done to fix the system? I proposed that it should be opened to people on higher income, therefore it can't be labeled as only for dossers and chancer being subsidised by the taxpayer, which seems to be a common perception.

Hitman3000

thierry14 wrote:

Whats your situaton

None of your business tbh, as I said to another poster once a tenant pays their rent and honours the tenancy agreement their situation or income is not his business either.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Fann Linn

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Okay this thread is descending into a bit of a squabble. I know social housing is a touchy subject and judging by the level of differing views, my original assertion that the system is flawed can be somewhat vindicated.

Can we discuss then what needs to be done to fix the system? I proposed that it should be opened to people on higher income, therefore it can't be labeled as only for dossers and chancer being subsidised by the taxpayer, which seems to be a common perception.

Unemployment is down to 5% I think, lowest since the boom so not that many dossers. Massive tax penalties for those hording land banks.

Graham

Wanderer78 wrote: »

but we must ask, who in fact is our current approach to housing actually working for, as it seems, it doesnt favour most workers and none workers?

I think more fundamental questions are who should be assisted with social housing and what size is the pot to provide such assistance.

Clearly the current 'wait for your number to come up lottery where you win a below-cost house for life whatever your future circumstances' is not working.

The current approach gives assistance to people that may be long-past needing it while leaving some of those that desperately do need it to one side.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Pixel Eater wrote: »

Okay this thread is descending into a bit of a squabble. I know social housing is a touchy subject and judging by the level of differing views, my original assertion that the system is flawed can be somewhat vindicated.

Can we discuss then what needs to be done to fix the system? I proposed that it should be opened to people on higher income, therefore it can't be labeled as only for dossers and chancer being subsidised by the taxpayer, which seems to be a common perception.

theres no clear solutions to our housing issues, what is currently proposed by our political institutions, will more than likely fail, i.e. our homeless numbers will more than likely remain to increase, indefinitely, and theres no guarantees to those that pay their own mortgages either, that their housing needs will be met in the future.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eurokev

Fann Linn wrote:

If we take the avg price of a house in Dublin today at approx €380k. Do you think the avg coco tenant would have €38k in savings plus be in a position to be able to get a loan from any of the banks? I don't think its feasible.

Tough

Go somewhere you can afford to live.

Councils supporting so many social tenants in areas where they want to live is half the cause of this housing crisis.

Hitman3000

Pixel Eater wrote:

Can we discuss then what needs to be done to fix the system? I proposed that it should be opened to people on higher income, therefore it can't be labeled as only for dossers and chancer being subsidised by the taxpayer, which seems to be a common perception.

Fully agree the income limits are too restrictive. Your average Guard/Nurse or teacher would fall outside the income limits. We need to build more social and affordable housing. We despite the recession are still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. When the state was young and money was scarce we still managed build thousands of homes per annum and got rid of the scourge of tenements. Although the will existed then to do so, policy has switched form providing housing by the state in favour of the private sector.

Hitman3000

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So you can't or won't answer my question no problem. Time to move on.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Graham

Mod Note:

Hitman3000/....... enough.

Pixel Eater

Fann Linn wrote: »

Unemployment is down to 5% I think, lowest since the boom so not that many dossers. Massive tax penalties for those hording land banks.

Well there will always be dossers unfortunately; people who wouldn't work in a fit even if there are plenty of jobs. They still need to be housed but we certainly shouldn't be encouraging them with ultra cheap rent in a council house for life. Yes land hording should be penalised but that won't actually help unless the money is used to build sustainable housing. Plus a great deal of land is actually owned by the state in any case.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

theres no clear solutions to our housing issues, what is currently proposed by our political institutions, will more than likely fail, i.e. our homeless numbers will more than likely remain to increase, indefinitely, and theres no guarantees to those that pay their own mortgages either, that their housing needs will be met in the future.

But there is a clear solution: the state builds housing to plug the gap that the private sector won't fill. It has the land and the money, it just need the will.

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Fully agree the income limits are too restrictive. Your average Guard/Nurse or teacher would fall outside the income limits. We need to build more social and affordable housing. We despite the recession are still one of the wealthiest countries in the world. When the state was young and money was scarce we still managed build thousands of homes per annum and got rid of the scourge of tenements. Although the will existed then to do so, policy has switched form providing housing by the state in favour of the private sector.

Exactly, totally hit the nail on the head.

PeterParker957

Fann Linn wrote: »

Its also a necessity for a society.

Really ? DECENT children who go on to contribute, yes. Feral antisocial no marks who believe the world owes them a living, not so much.

Fann Linn

PeterParker957 wrote: »

Really ? DECENT children who go on to contribute, yes. Feral antisocial no marks who believe the world owes them a living, not so much.

Nice generalisation there.

PeterParker957

Fann Linn wrote: »

Nice generalisation there.

Thank you.

Fann Linn

eurokev wrote: »

Tough

Go somewhere you can afford to live.

Councils supporting so many social tenants in areas where they want to live is half the cause of this housing crisis.

But that's what councils do. Support and provide social housing.

Graham

Fann Linn wrote: »

But that's what councils do. Support and provide social housing.

Not very well and certainly not in sufficient volumes if current homeless figures are to be believed.

There's no doubt the entire area of social housing needs a massive overhaul/rethink. That may have to include the affordability of certain areas and the appropriateness of providing social housing in those areas.

dhaughton99

There’s 18 SDCC council houses being built 300m from my home. 3.6 million. They are fabulous looking. 3 and 4 bedroom, also comes with attic converted. 6 large solar panels per house. Front and back gardens. Stonemasons have been there doing a wall around the play area for past 6 weeks. No expense spared. Just hope they are looked after.

Mark Henderson

dhaughton99 wrote: »

There’s 18 SDCC council houses being built 300m from my home. 3.6 million. They are fabulous looking. 3 and 4 bedroom, also comes with attic converted. 6 large solar panels per house. Front and back gardens. Stonemasons have been there doing a wall around the play area for past 6 weeks. No expense spared. Just hope they are looked after.

Why wouldn't they be?

PeterParker957

Mark Henderson wrote: »

Why wouldn't they be?

Experience.

Hitman3000

dhaughton99 wrote:

There’s 18 SDCC council houses being built 300m from my home. 3.6 million. They are fabulous looking. 3 and 4 bedroom, also comes with attic converted. 6 large solar panels per house. Front and back gardens. Stonemasons have been there doing a wall around the play area for past 6 weeks. No expense spared. Just hope they are looked after.

Nice to hear of 18 social housing units coming on stream. Hopefully the council will allocate the homes to a mix of tenants and increase the income limits to avail of same. As for upkeep, it's part of a tenancy agreement with the council it just needs to be enforced if warranted.

Graces7

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A good question.

The councils want everyone who is in need of housing to register with them. or HAP you have to. They say they want everyone housed.I had a discussion with them re that. Not sure why

Never dealt with HAP but it seems a convoluted system

Finding anywhere to rent privately is getting harder and harder. On a low income especially. I rented privately in Ireland for 12 years and it got harder and harder to find anywhere. All kinds of reasons; major renovations, needing for family, selling up.. or things so wrong that you had to leave

I was deeply relieved to find a place owned by the council and feel much more settled.

Graces7

eurokev wrote: »

Tough

Go somewhere you can afford to live.

Councils supporting so many social tenants in areas where they want to live is half the cause of this housing crisis.

Maybe also people here to do not know that on the application forms you can choose three areas you would prefer to be housed?