Article on inefficiencies in social housing allocations

lookr

4ensic15 wrote: »

Middle-class people are transient when they are single but they eventually get to buy a house.

Is this a joke?

AndrewJRenko

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

As long as we have minimum wage jobs, you know, the people who serve our drinks, clean our toilets, mind our children and our elderly parents, all the meaningless jobs that we don't value much, we will have people who will need social housing.

lawred2

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

Middle class people don't rent rooms in shared houses.

Maybe young professionals do for a time but middle class people don't.

s7ryf3925pivug

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

As long as we have minimum wage jobs, you know, the people who serve our drinks, clean our toilets, mind our children and our elderly parents, all the meaningless jobs that we don't value much, we will have people who will need social housing.

Clean my own toilet, look after my own kid, my wife looks after him while I work. Don't have time to go for drinks. Too busy working and spending time with my kid.

Didn't have a kid until I could afford to provide for him. I pay lots of taxes and resent when that money is misspent supporting the indolent, at whatever station in society.

Lots of people work hard and do everything right yet end up not having kids, leaving it too late, or not ever affording a home of their own.

In any case, social housing is fine. The sort of pandering described in the article is not fine though.

Bubbaclaus

lawred2 wrote: »

Middle class people don't rent rooms in shared houses.

Maybe young professionals do for a time but middle class people don't.

What's your definition of middle class?

lawred2

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What's your definition of middle class?

well not just someone who works

lookr

Dimitri Clean Rapper wrote: »

Middle class people must be less human I guess. It's OK for them to rent a room in a house share and move as dictated by the job market. All they care about is money. Salt of the earth WC people need to put down roots and have housing they can call home.

lawred2 wrote: »

Middle class people don't rent rooms in shared houses.

Maybe young professionals do for a time but middle class people don't.

"Middle class" is a highly subjective term. I don't think it's hard to grasp the point Dimitri Clean Rapper is making. It is not an argument against social housing, but an argument against perverse incentives.

If you knew my salary, you would definitely consider me "middle class". I suspect you would also not consider the sacrifices I have made to get to that point. I do not have access to the same standard of housing as people earning considerably less.

Even the much milder government Home Loan scheme is a good example of this. Someone earning 45k can get a bigger mortgage with a much lower fixed rate than someone earning 50k - and can therefore outbid them.

I do not mind supporting people who are less fortunate through my taxes, but I take serious issue with a system that suggests I am a sucker for working as hard as I do.

lawred2

lookr wrote: »

"Middle class" is a highly subjective term. I don't think it's hard to grasp the point blergh is making. It is not an argument against social housing, but an argument against perverse incentives.

If you knew my salary, you would definitely consider me "middle class". I suspect you would also not consider the sacrifices I have made to get to that point. I do not have access to the same standard of housing as people earning considerably less.

Even the much milder government Home Loan scheme is a good example of this. Someone earning 45k can get a bigger mortgage with a much lower fixed rate than someone earning 50k - and can therefore outbid them.

I do not mind supporting people who are less fortunate through my taxes, but I take serious issue with a system that suggests I am a sucker for working as hard as I do.

I don't know what you earn.. I know what me and my wife earn.. and we've bought in what would have the outwardly appearance of your typical 'middle class' development..

Reality is different though.

We're skint the most of the time with mortgage, childcare and commuting costs.

Salaries both look good on paper however. Six figure household income.

Wouldn't consider us a middle class household all the same. Middle class people for me don't live paycheck to paycheck.

lookr

lawred2 wrote: »

I don't know what you earn.. I know what me and my wife earn.. and we've bought in what would have the outwardly appearance of your typical 'middle class' development..

Reality is different though.

We're skint the most of the time with mortgage, childcare and commuting costs.

Salaries both look good on paper however. Six figure household income.

Wouldn't consider us a middle class household however. Middle class people for me don't live paycheck to paycheck.

That is my point. I don't think of myself as middle class either, but that is what we are considered to be. In fact, this is what Leo Varadkar considers to be a middle class wage:

"It's between 35 and 40-something thousand, so I would go much broader than that, I would include people who are on the minimum wage, people who work very hard, but would be earning less than that"

:rolleyes:

You are middle class because your income level suggests that you are more fortunate than a significant chunk of the population, but less fortunate than your "betters". As you know, the reality is more complicated.

The problem is that our grotesque property market has dramatically changed what it means to be "middle class" in 2018.

loyatemu

mikemac2 wrote: »

Annamore Court in Ballyfermot is a scheme that maybe could be copied.

There were 38 small flats opposite the Fás centre that were closed for years and years. A shame just lying idle

Now 70 new units are on the site. Built to the best of standards though they are quite small as it’s a small site. The emphasis is have elderly residents move there and free up family homes in the area. I don’t have links and stats but I have read stories in the Northside people of Ballyer locals very happy to move there

Seems to be a success story by DCC and the Iveagh Trust who are partners on this

I've seen similar schemes in the UK - my retired aunt and uncle moved into one such scheme, downsizing from a larger (council) flat. There's a caretaker on site, most of the residents are retirees, they go on coach trips to the seaside at the weekends, to the bingo etc - they seem very happy with it.

On the private sector side - they're building loads of apartments by the harbour here in Greystones and I've heard it said the developers are planning to market them at trader-downers as the town is full of retirement age people rattling around in semi-Ds or massive Edwardian piles (the apartment are likely to be eye-wateringly expensive though).

If there are families crammed into one-bedroom apartments, while empty-nesters are living the 3 or 4 bed council houses, perhaps they could be incentivised to swap? I know people on here will have a knee-jerk negative reaction to giving LA tenants any further perks, but moving home is disruptive, particularly if you're asking people to leave the homes they've raised their families in. It would be cheaper than building new units anyway.

Here we go

Smart and logical but not a snowballs chance in hell will it happen

4ensic15

lookr wrote: »

Is this a joke?

You should know. You posted it!

Samuel T. Cogley

Sleepy

Is this news to anyone?

Our social housing stock is woefully utilised and sold off at ridiculous discounts

The "right to buy" can be an effective means of fixing the mistakes of the past (overly-high concentrations of social housing in a given area) but it's a policy that needs to be used carefully and only where it's appropriate, with discounts on a sliding scale (highest discounts being given to the early purchasers, much smaller discounts available to the last few sales and a cut-off where, say, 10% of the remaining units in an area are left as social housing at which point either no units should be sold, or units should only be available to be purchased by sitting tenants at market value (i.e. at a level that enables the council to replace that unit).

IIRC, the maximum rent any social tenant can be asked to pay is something like €400 a month, regardless of the household's income or wealth. A single lottery winner could be paying a fraction of the market rent for a council-maintained 5 bedroom house in Malahide simply because they inherited their parents tenancy from Fingal County Council.

AndrewJRenko

mikemac2 wrote: »

Annamore Court in Ballyfermot is a scheme that maybe could be copied.

There were 38 small flats opposite the Fás centre that were closed for years and years. A shame just lying idle

Now 70 new units are on the site. Built to the best of standards though they are quite small as it’s a small site. The emphasis is have elderly residents move there and free up family homes in the area. I don’t have links and stats but I have read stories in the Northside people of Ballyer locals very happy to move there

Seems to be a success story by DCC and the Iveagh Trust who are partners on this

Is there anything hugely novel about this? Surely lots of councils have done a range of sheltered housing type schemes for older people, with on-site supports to varying degrees? They are great for people 'trading down', and often good for returning emigrants too.

Sleepy wrote: »

A single lottery winner could be paying a fraction of the market rent for a council-maintained 5 bedroom house in Malahide simply because they inherited their parents tenancy from Fingal County Council.

Yeah, this could happen. But it almost certainly didn't - or if it did, there are one or two cases nationwide, so it's not a great scenario to build policy around.

NIMAN

As someone else just finding out this stuff for the 1st time, more shocking stats that show we could probably solve this so-called housing crisis fairly easily if we applied some logic.

But alas we won't, cos it would offend the mob and the media would love nothing more than to cover a couple getting evicted from their 4 bed home which is too big for them.

Very biased reporting in Ireland, doesn't seem to ever change. Peter Casey will speak his mind, as will the like of these 2 guys who published this. I like seeing them on panels, they tell it like it is.

Wanderer78

NIMAN wrote:

Very biased reporting in Ireland, doesn't seem to ever change. Peter Casey will speak his mind, as will the like of these 2 guys who published this. I like seeing them on panels, they tell it like it is.

Lock'em up, Lock'em up, Lock'em up!

Here we go

Does it mention how houses/flats can be passed down form generation to generation by putting a name on the floor even if they don't live there ?

mad m

My grandparents had a council house since it was first built, 2 up, 2 down . Grandparents, 2 uncles and my mam and I lived in it back in the late 70’s, early 80’s. A uncle who is 71 lives in it now. Totally under utilized. He was reared in the house so to get him to move to a smaller apartment who be a shock to him.

He was asked years back did he want to buy it but declined. This house would suit a family, local schools, park etc.

Wheeliebin30

Did I just hear on fm104 news a housing agency building 300 houses to add to the 5,000 they already built?

The cost is 50 euro a week for life they said and it’s the same for their kids for life and won’t change?????

L1011

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Did I just hear on fm104 news a housing agency building 300 houses to add to the 5,000 they already built?

The cost is 50 euro a week for life they said and it’s the same for their kids for life and won’t change?????

It would be 300 bed spaces (not even rooms) probably so 100-150 units. However, 300 would be a drop in the ocean of requirements anyway.

Wheeliebin30

L1011 wrote: »

It would be 300 bed spaces (not even rooms) probably so 100-150 units. However, 300 would be a drop in the ocean of requirements anyway.

No I heard him say families and their kids will have the tenancy for life too.

Jack Moore

lookr wrote: »

Is this a joke?

Nope it’s the world.

L1011

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

No I heard him say families and their kids will have the tenancy for life too.

I heard the same bulletin and neither thing was said

ednwireland

https://www.virginmediatelevision.ie/player/show/809/151335/0/Ireland-AM

and heres TD Brid Smith shouting down someone trying to have a conversation about the numbers

Graces7

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Only in Ireland...the sense of entitlement is second to none.

A friend in council housing in the UK had to move to a smaller house when her children left home. The system there is different

And please; nothing to do with a sense of entitlement ( horrible expression and accusation) . Simply that unless the system changes, individuals will not. That house is their home... whether they own it is immaterial...

Been watching a youtube series on council housing in the UK where the homeless crisis is far far greater than here. They have arrangements/make arrangements with private landlords who agree to accept housing benefit .

A far more integrated system than here

Also does the writer of that article know how many houses have been sold to tenants?

terrydel

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Only in Ireland...the sense of entitlement is second to none.

Entitlement from who? The person in the social housing?
The state put them there, if the house is not suitable for their needs, in this example being discussed it is too big, then its the states fault. Do you think the person demanded a house that is too big for them? If so, have you evidence to back this up?
Do we know if the person was in a relationship/part of a bigger family unit when they initially availed of the social housing thats now deemed too big?
This is entirely the fault of the state and I see nothing that suggests or backs up a sense of entitlement in the recipients of these houses, they are simply taking whats offered. You'd probably be moaning if they turned it down, so you cant have it both ways.
This is essentially victim blaming. Its up to state to put people in suitable housing and manage the social housing stock in the most efficient manner. Its not the fault of those availing of it.

klaaaz

Just saw that article now which is too simple when the problem is complex. It refers mostly to older people(aged 50's plus) whose kids moved out of the home. These people would likely not have the earning power(they won't get mortgages!) to live in private rental accommodation, and as we know that there is a long waiting list for social housing. Some would of course like to move out into smaller accommodation as their homes become unmanageable for them due to old age and health issues.

The only other way is to build more senior citizen housing which too has not been happening. I've heard that the waiting list in DCC for senior citizen housing is in the hundreds, the person would be waiting years for a flat. If the FG government actually funded social housing properly, it would help.

Eric Cartman

they really need to be corrected when they reffer to it as their 'forever home'

L1011

Eric Cartman wrote: »

they really need to be corrected when they reffer to it as their 'forever home'

They are lifetime tenancies and there is no way to retrospectively change that. A system for new tenancies that can be devised to both not hang a deadline date in front of people and avoid the human cost of the 'bedroom tax' would be welcomed but I've not seen one to date.

That's why a carrot approach has to be taken in encouraging elderly tenants - many of whom *need* the additional services provided in dedicated senior housing - to move to those facilities. But the Iveagh Trust are about the only group who've built any recently; when DCC should have built up a large base of units themselves at this stage.

Give up the 2/3/4 bed, get a nearby new or otherwise continuously modernised between tenancies 1 bed with call bells & on-site warden. DCC get the 2/3/4 bed to give to someone with the requirement for that.

The other issue is the inheriting of tenancies which really needs to stop. If it is felt that the people inheriting them are in need of social housing, put them on top of the list to get a suitably sized unit knowing that a bigger unit gets released - don't a single person get a 2/3/4 bed for themselves just because they lived there before.