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
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    The Student wrote:
    Why then do the HAP levels differ depending on your location in the country? is this not a form of discrimination in social housing policy?


    HAP does not apply to social housing it's a payment to private landlords. Why would HAP pay the same to a landlord in the arse end of nowhere versus Swords, or any Suburb of a major city?


  • Options
    #183
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    You're arguing against council policy. The council sets the rent in accordance with rental policy. Nothing else such as size, location or ameinties is relevant. This may grate with you but it's not going to change anytime soon. Tbh as far as I'm concerned the only factor should be that the income limits should be set alot higher.

    Of course I'm arguing against council policy; it doesn't work. That's the whole point of this thread.


  • Options
    #184
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pixel Eater wrote:
    Of course I'm arguing against council policy; it doesn't work. That's the whole point of this thread.


    It works for those renting a council house, it seems those not renting one or feel that the tenant is living the life of largesse are the ones that think it doesn't work. We need more social housing in all areas of a mix of house type and higher income thresholds. Other than that nothing in my view wrong with the present system. For clarity sake I am not a tenant of the council or aspire to be one.


  • Options
    #185
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #186
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭The Student


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    HAP does not apply to social housing it's a payment to private landlords. Why would HAP pay the same to a landlord in the arse end of nowhere versus Swords, or any Suburb of a major city?

    HAP is for those who can't afford to house themselves. Is this not what social housing is?


  • Options
    #188
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    The Student wrote:
    HAP is for those who can't afford to house themselves. Is this not what social housing is?


    HAP is paid to private landlords. Social housing is provided by councils and housing associations.


  • Options
    #189
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    Of course I'm arguing against council policy; it doesn't work. That's the whole point of this thread.

    For social housing, people are housed according to their needs and charged according to their means.

    As circumstances change, people can end up in employment which pays well. Differential rents mean they pay more for the same place according to their means (below market rate) but that's to encourage people to work rather than staying on the dole because they're afraid of losing their home. Would you rather a system that encourages them to stay unemployed?

    Now, I agree that selling council houses at a discount to people (some now with well paid jobs) is a huge loss for the local authority. It's also the reason the council housing stock dwindled so much over the years.


  • Options
    #190
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #191
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    It works for those renting a council house, it seems those not renting one or feel that the tenant is living the life of largesse are the ones that think it doesn't work. We need more social housing in all areas of a mix of house type and higher income thresholds. Other than that nothing in my view wrong with the present system. For clarity sake I am not a tenant of the council or aspire to be one.

    Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »
    For social housing, people are housed according to their needs and charged according to their means

    As circumstances change, people can end up in employment which pays well. Differential rents mean they pay more for the same place according to their means (below market rate) but that's to encourage people to work rather than staying on the dole because they're afraid of losing their home. Would you rather a system that encourages them to stay unemployed?

    Now, I agree that selling council houses at a discount to people (some now with well paid jobs) is a huge loss for the local authority. It's also the reason the council housing stock dwindled so much over the years.

    If the current model is so successful why is there 100,000 on the waiting list and despite a major housing crisis 100s of acres of council land sits undeveloped?

    It may look to work in theory but not in practice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    If the current model is so successful why is there 100,000 on the waiting list and despite a major housing crisis 100s of acres of council land sits undeveloped?

    It may look to work in theory but not in practice.


    Quite simple really. People were encouraged through cheap mortgages, trackers, 100% loans, buy to let, tax relief schemes and locations, lax regulation etc to buy, buy, buy, and LAs sold off their stock and stopped building as supply was created through the private sector.

    Then the crash happened and the rest as they say is history.


  • Options
    #193
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pixel Eater wrote:
    It may look to work in theory but not in practice.


    It does work in practice if funded properly by Government. Government policy in the last 10 years was to build less social housing and let the market provide. This is what has clearly not worked. Builders only build in the profit margin allows.


  • Options
    #194
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭The Student


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    HAP is paid to private landlords. Social housing is provided by councils and housing associations.

    The basic premise is both are being housed by the State they can't afford to house themselves.


  • Options
    #195
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    The Student wrote:
    The basic premise is both are being housed by the State they can't afford to house themselves.


    Different systems despite your attempt at trying to say they are the same. HAP wouldn't exist if sufficient social housing was built .


  • Options
    #196
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    The Student wrote: »
    The basic premise is both are being housed by the State they can't afford to house themselves.

    Correct. To be eligible for HAP, RAS etc you must be able to qualify for social housing. If there was enough coco housing these people would go into them.

    As there isn't its outsourced to private landlords.


  • Options
    #197
    The Student
    Registered Users Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭The Student


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Different systems despite your attempt at trying to say they are the same. HAP wouldn't exist if sufficient social housing was built .

    My point was that you previously suggested that to differentiate between social welfare tenants would be unfair.

    I just pointed out the fact that this is already happening via the HAP scheme (those in HAP are eligible for social housing).


  • Options
    #198
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    It does work in practice if funded properly by Government. Government policy in the last 10 years was to build less social housing and let the market provide. This is what has clearly not worked. Builders only build in the profit margin allows.

    Yes the policy shifted so that the state didn't build new housing and the market clearly isn't working, we all can agree on that. But (apart from ideology) another reason not to construct public housing was because of the unsustainable low rental incomes, the massive subsidies required, the anti social issues, massive rent evasion dealing with troublesome tenants; they just became such a burden for the council. The system does not work in practice and needs massive reform.


  • Options
    #199
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    The Student wrote:
    My point was that you previously suggested that to differentiate between social welfare tenants would be unfair.


    Not what I said feel ,free to put up my comment.


  • Options
    #200
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pixel Eater wrote:
    Yes the policy shifted so that the state didn't build new housing and the market clearly isn't working, we all can agree on that. But (apart from ideology) another reason not to construct public housing was because of the unsustainable low rental incomes, the massive subsidies required, the anti social issues, massive rent evasion dealing with troublesome tenants; they just became such a burden for the council. The system does not work in practice and needs massive reform.

    The rental income is as irrelevent as is the income from the Arann island ferry service. The council's have always had the right to deal with anti social elements but not the will. Unless you can provide figures of the massive rent evasion I'm ignoring that point. Ghettoising communities has caused a lot of issues hence why I agree with a better mix of tenant and higher income limits.


  • Options
    #201
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    The rental income is as irrelevent as is the income from the Arann island ferry service. The council's have always had the right to deal with anti social elements but not the will. Unless you can provide figures of the massive rent evasion I'm ignoring that point. Ghettoising communities has caused a lot of issues hence why I agree with a better mix of tenant and higher income limits.

    A big difference between a single ferry and 100,000s of housing unit.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-tenants-owe-65m-in-unpaid-rent-437052.html

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/south-dublin-council-is-owed-over-7m-in-rent-arrears-1.2974276


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Fann Linn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,787 ✭✭✭Fann Linn


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    A big difference between a single ferry and 100,000s of housing unit.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/council-tenants-owe-65m-in-unpaid-rent-437052.html

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/south-dublin-council-is-owed-over-7m-in-rent-arrears-1.2974276

    A proper fines and penalties legislation would address that problem but unfortunately the Act specificlly excluded taking deductions from SW monies. A pity really.


  • Options
    #203
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Fann Linn wrote: »
    A proper fines and penalties legislation would address that problem but unfortunately the Act specificlly excluded taking deductions from SW monies. A pity really.

    Now we're getting somewhere; that's a good idea and exactly what I'm taking about: reform.


  • Options
    #204
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pixel Eater wrote:
    A big difference between a single ferry and 100,000s of housing unit.


    Actually no both run at a loss subsidised by the state. That was the point I was making.


  • Options
    #205
    Pixel Eater
    Registered Users Posts: 486 ✭✭Pixel Eater


    Hitman3000 wrote: »
    Actually no both run at a loss subsidised by the state. That was the point I was making.

    One will cost a few thousand every year, the other hundreds of millions, depending on the level of subsidy though.


  • Options
    #206
    Hitman3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    Pixel Eater wrote:
    One will cost a few thousand every year, the other hundreds of millions, depending on the level of subsidy though.


    Still doesn't negate the fact neither are ran for profit and by their very nature and what each is set up to provide can't.


  • Options
    #207
    Michael D Not Higgins
    Registered Users Posts: 7,223 ✭✭✭Michael D Not Higgins


    Pixel Eater wrote: »
    If the current model is so successful why is there 100,000 on the waiting list and despite a major housing crisis 100s of acres of council land sits undeveloped?

    It may look to work in theory but not in practice.

    I never claimed the current model was successful in delivering the right number of houses to those who need them but that's a different issue to how much is charged in differential rents and whether that is the correct policy. The differential rent is a subsidised housing cost to the individual in need and not a driver of council investment in building new council housing.


Advertisement