Former top housing official claims homelessness in Ireland is 'normal'

Keyzer

Back in my day, homeless meant you were living on the side of the street in a cardboard box/sleeping bag and your main form for income was begging.

Can someone define what constitutes homeless now? Is it that you don't own your own home? If so, doesn't that make everyone renting in this country homeless? What about those with mortgages, technically speaking they don't actually own the home until the mortgage is paid so can we say they are homeless too?

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

How many unemployed people do you think are in Ireland? I'm talking about working lower income tax payers. You do realise we've the highest employment we've had in a really long time and record breaking numbers of homeless. People are suffering through a housing crisis. Do you not see a disconnect there? They're all unemployed? read up on your preconceived Fine Gael spiel will ya.



The people employed by homeless charities would be out of work if there were no charities. Fair point.

Have you ever considered the real beneficiaries of the housing crisis?

Rents so high companies are getting in on the landlord act. Vulture Funds buying up loans and Varadkar applauding them. The state selling houses at a loss to only buy them back at a later date from the same people. The state buying houses at market rates to use as social housing. The state paying money to private landlords. All of this keeps the crisis going, makes it worse, but profits are up so yay!
It's a ponzi scheme. The tax payer can only pay for so many hotels before the arse falls out.

Imagine it's your money, (which it is):

You can;

A) build a house, you own and rent it out at a reasonable rate or sell it at a small profit.

OR

you can pay to put people up in a hotel or give them money to pay their rent or buy a house to rent to them.

Your choice.

Or


You can stop giving free houses to people who decide to rock up homeless one day.

I guarantee you will nearly solve the homeless crisis overnight.

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Or


You can stop giving free houses to people who decide to rock up homeless one day.

I guarantee you will nearly solve the homeless crisis overnight.

That's codology. You've been conned and you're merrily paying for the privilege. Why don't you try that and see how you fare?

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Firstly what NAMA property was this?
Secondly, you do know that "vulture funds" are just investment funds? I've a pension with Irish Life. Does that make me an investor in a vulture fund? It's a stupid term used to create a sense of injustice.

Here's a whole slew of examples:

US vulture funds clean up as Nama sells out
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/us-vulture-funds-clean-up-as-nama-sells-out-31228647.html

Here's another:

Family homes in Nama €5bn vulture fund sale

Thousands of homes will be included in a massive Nama sell-off of property loans worth nearly €5bn.

A host of international funds are set to swoop for the two portfolios of loans, which have a face value of €4.7bn.

The residential properties in the mammoth sale are understood to include apartment blocks, mostly around Dublin.

It comes amid allegations that tenants have been forced out of their housing estate in Dublin following an overseas investor buying loans tied to their homes,

Nama formally kicked off the sale process of the portfolios yesterday only days after tenants in Tyrellstown, west Dublin, were informed their leases would not be renewed.

The loans tied to the properties in Tyrellstown have been bought by a company controlled by the US investment bank Goldman Sachs.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/family-homes-in-nama-5bn-vulture-fund-sale-34544139.html

And of course besides Varadkar applauding Vulture Funds over the banks we bailed out, we've yet to find out the whole story about Noonan and his inappropriate behaviour.

James Brown

Keyzer wrote: »

Back in my day, homeless meant you were living on the side of the street in a cardboard box/sleeping bag and your main form for income was begging.

Can someone define what constitutes homeless now? Is it that you don't own your own home? If so, doesn't that make everyone renting in this country homeless? What about those with mortgages, technically speaking they don't actually own the home until the mortgage is paid so can we say they are homeless too?

Tax payers are suffering through a worsening housing crisis. Homelessness is the extreme. Are you suggesting it's all down to perspective? :rolleyes:

Wheeliebin30

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Tax payers are suffering through a worsening housing crisis. Homelessness is the extreme. Are you suggesting it's all down to perspective? :rolleyes:

You got torn apart on the homeless issue on the government thread.

Now you’re here peddling the same nonsense.

Keyzer

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Tax payers are suffering through a worsening housing crisis. Homelessness is the extreme. Are you suggesting it's all down to perspective? :rolleyes:

No, not at all.

I just want someone to give me a definitive statement on what constitutes being homeless in Ireland in 2019 - what conditions need to be met?

James Brown

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

You got torn apart on the homeless issue on the government thread.

Now you’re here peddling the same nonsense.

More guff. Somebody has to call you out on your sh*te talk.
You seem to be dodging my replies. Is that me being torn apart?

weldoninhio

LotharIngum wrote: »

You wouldn't have done it either.
And its exactly the same everywhere.

There is a tsunami of fcukers ready to come down on you via twitter, the media, TDs, charities should you actually speak the truth. Noone is going to go against that. And most of them have the same views too. Its just easier to join in with the bullies for them than to stand up to them and take what will come from the gang.

I've a backbone, so I would have. Falling out with family members who I think are taking the piss has been a semi-regular occurrence for me.

James Brown

Keyzer wrote: »

No, not at all.

I just want someone to give me a definitive statement on what constitutes being homeless in Ireland in 2019 - what conditions need to be met?

A wider definition of homelessness can be divided into the following: Visible homelessness: Rough sleeping is the most visible form of homelessness but most people who are homeless stay in State-funded emergency accommodation (hotels, B&Bs, emergency residential facilities, or hostels).https://www.focusireland.ie/get-involved/schools/student-resources/what-is-homelessness/

The legal definition of homelessness
Section 2 of the Housing Act, 1988 states that a person should be considered to be homeless if:

(a) there is no accommodation available which, in the opinion of the authority, he, together with any other person who normally resides with him or who might reasonably be expected to reside with him, can reasonably occupy or remain in occupation of,

Or

(b) he is living a hospital, county home, night shelter or other such institution, and is so living because he has no accommodation of the kind referred to in paragraph (a), and

(c) he cannot provide accommodation from his own resources.

While the 1988 Act does not impose a duty on housing authorities to provide housing to people who are homeless, it does clearly give responsibility to the local authorities to consider their needs and expand their powers to respond to those needs. Specifically authorities may house homeless people from their own housing stock or through arrangement with a voluntary body. The Act also enables the local authority to provide a homeless person with money to source accommodation in the private sector.

In addition to the provisions relating to direct responses to people presenting as homeless, Section 10 of the Act enables local authorities to provide funding to voluntary bodies for the provision of emergency accommodation and long term housing for people who are homeless.

The 1988 Act requires that local authorities carry out periodic assessments of the number of people who are homeless in their administrative area, as part of their housing needs assessment. The first assessment was carried out in 1989 with follow up assessments every three years. See the most recent assessment here.

Other legislation related to homelessness
The other main legislation that deals with homelessness in Ireland includes the Health Act 1953 and the Child Care Act 1991.In practice, what does the legal definition mean?

In practice, the legal definition translates into different types of homelessness.

The visibly homeless are people who are:

living rough, or
sleeping in designated emergency accommodation such as a hostel
People at risk of homelessness have housing but are likely to become homeless through:

economic difficulties, or
the threat of violence
People rough sleeping are:

not in contact with emergency services, and
not staying in emergency accommodation
https://www.homelessdublin.ie/info/policy

The way I look at it is society elects people, they get together with associated groups and between them decide what constitutes being homeless. Love or loathe it that's the way it is. If individuals disagree that's their right.
The trouble is we could spin it that nobody is 'really' homeless, but I find it's best to go with the majority or we'll get nowhere. Record breaking numbers of children homeless for example. That means ever since we start keeping such records there has never been as many children homeless as there are now. That's good enough to be going on with IMO.

Kivaro

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

....... You know there’s greasy paws in the till when you have days where there are more homeless charities than rough sleepers. Someone needs to lift that slate up and see what’s crawling underneath.

markodaly wrote: »

How many people do focus Ireland house?
The media should be digging into this but they and the directors of these 'charities' share wine at the same social events so it won't be happening.

Sadly, this is never going to happen. Our Groupthink media in Ireland will not deviate from the identical position that we have a dystopian situation with homelessness in Ireland and millions of our children are just one bowl of gruel away from starvation.
There are no self-respecting reporters or journalists in Ireland who would carry out an in-depth investigation of the homelessness scam/industry and the corresponding taxes and resources being wasted on a fictional crisis. Who is profiting? All a reporter would have to do is follow the money.

Even listening to Claire Byrne last night complaining after her own poll stated that the majority of us do not want to pay extra taxes to solve the homelessness crisis. "What do we do now?", she cries, as she laments that "they don't want to pay more taxes to solve the problem". The "they" is the working tax payer. She was identical in her condemnation of us, when on a similar poll on whether to pay more taxes in order to accept a greater number of asylum seekers. There was even a bigger majority that said "no way" in that poll. Again, she lamented to Simon Conveney who was her guest that "they don't want to pay for it, so what do we do?". Of course, Conveney responded saying that Ireland would accept more asylum seekers; irrespective of what we (the public) say on polls etc.

So let's not look to the Irish media for help to dismantle this homelessness myth; we need people like Conor Skehan to come to the fore.
If that man ever decided to go into politics, he would win an election in a landslide. The Irish media and the existing political structure in Ireland are deathly afraid of people like Skehan ........ as they dare to speak the truth.

Spanish Eyes

Problem..... We are not allowed to question anything as being wrong when it comes to homelessness. Ever.

The media, both print and TV never seem to have a debate on the Charity Industry supporting the homeless crisis mantra.

No, we are supposed to be just nodding donkeys and agree with all the propaganda that we have been fed up to now.

Time to question has come. First it was Casey, now it is Skehan and Eileen Gleeson. Well done them all.

When you see every day that the mayhem caused by Travellers is described as "criminal gangs", and homeless people are in private rented accommodation, you really have to ask yourself how the statistics are compiled.

Well how are they compiled? What actually constitutes a homeless person? What are the criteria, who qualifies, is there a definitive rule regarding refusal of a place and placing you down the list?

It is all so woolly and opaque, it is no wonder that stories abound.

I am glad Skehan has spoken out. It's about time another side of the story is being told.

But don't wait for any backup from RTE or NT etc. or any of the papers either. Nah. Brainwashed is what we are. But many of us refuse to be and want to hear the real story.

weldoninhio

NIMAN wrote: »

Totally agree, we need security of tenancy.

I had a friend in Sweden who was renting a place for 20+ years. That should be the way to do it, if you find a place you are happy with and want it for 5, 10, 15 years, you should be able to sign a contract that allows you to stay.

Of course, tenants have to play ball too. They have to pay regularly and on time. And not leave the landlord in the lurch.

Laws would have to apply to both sides.

In Ireland, there's a certain that know every single right they have, but want absolutely none of the responsibilities that goes with those rights.

jmayo

conorhal wrote: »

So we sell it to a US vulture fund instead? What's the net benefit of that?
What's the point of an affordable housing list if you're not going to sell affordable housing to the people on it?

So now you are syaing an affordable housing list and not just the housing list which as we all know happens to include a lot of people like Margaret Cash.
I think there should be some form of affordable social council housing for low income workers and I don't mean for the never work with the hand out brigade.

It would be far better to give citizens on the affordable housing list a leg up with a cheap home and all the net benefits we'll accrue from citizens with spending money and families with the stability of a roof over their head then we will ever get from American investment companies gouging money out of our ecomomy and paying feck all, if any, tax.

There has always been a catch 22 here.
If those properties were rented out, because lets face it some of the people would not be able to get mortgage with probably little savings and poor income, then NAMA would never recover cash.
Some people would then complain that NAMA never recouped the investment put into it.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Looking for something for nothing or just begrudging those who get aid?
The principle is sound. It's the anecdotes and few chancers that cause the problems.

There are more than a few chancers and there are fooking more than a few looking for something for nothing.
We have had 100,000 permanent long term unemployed even during height of our boom.

Over 80% of one particular group of approx. 30,000 have never worked.

But of course you come out with the typical spiel about anyone complaining about funding lazy leeches who will never contribute anything positive to society as being begrudgers.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

If you're on low income, you should get benefits you are due as decided by the state.
If you're unable to afford rent, you should get rental aid.

Should you also get to pick and chose where you get to rent ?
Should you also get a bonus for christmas, money for social occasions, a house commensurate with your family size ?

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Now do we want more working poor becoming homeless or as a society should we assist them?
Should we rent state owned properties to them or should we put them up in hotels or give money to the profits of private landlords?

Relying on the private market does not work and costs us more.

No one is really complaining about the working poor, we are though complaining about the non working not so poor.
And I think most people can see that we do need some state provided cheap accommodation for poorer working people.

But congratulations for diverting this to be about the hard pushed working poor and not the "won't ever work ones" on the housing lists.

Idbatterim

we arent far off the point as homeless being defined as 'not owning your home" renters will be up next to be called 'homeless' :rolleyes:

There are more than a few chancers and there are fooking more than a few looking for something for nothing.
We have had 100,000 permanent long term unemployed even during height of our boom.

I agree, there are enough low skill jobs going in dublin now. If they are getting their house for free, thats it. They can work and earn up to 18,000 a year virtually income tax free. I mean that, if they are getting the house for nothing, then they get a few hundred quid a week on top of it too? its outrageous!

Taking the roof over their heads might be a bit drastic, but the other free money is stopping!

Mrs OBumble

ifElseThen wrote: »

These voluntary housing organisations... Do the board members work for free?

https://www.cluid.ie/ourboard/

http://circlevha.ie/who-we-are/circle-board/

We are actively seeking new partners to help us achieve our ambitious growth strategy – delivery of 2,500 new units over the next three years. Clúid’s planned spend over the course of this strategy is €500,000,000.

Who oversees this spending and tendering etc?

They ain't charities. They are not for profit companies funded by bgovernment social housing money an ctheir own property development. "Voluntary" is a legal term here with a non standard meaning.

In the big ones, contracts are handled by staff earning similar wages to council housing staff.

Smaller ones sometimes have voluntary pwople involved ... and mske somw batty devis ions as a result.

Spanish Eyes

Is it true that Threshold (Government funded) advises those being evicted say for non payment or other legal eviction notice, to stay put and overhold?

Honestly if that is the case, surely that requires some intervention by someone.

As long as things are legal there should be no Government agency advising someone to do something wrong.

What a joke this country is really. IF what I asked above is true.

fortwilliam

I am currently living in the states, I moved here a few months ago.
I also thought Ireland had a somewhat issue with homelessness.

By Jesus, if you want to see what a homelessness crisis is, you should see the cities here.
Thousands of people shuffling around with all their worldly possessions in a shopping trolley or a backpack.

Disoriented people with clear signs of mental instability, drug use and malnutrition sitting on street corners with a cardboard sign begging for money.

*In comparison to the US* Ireland has no homeless problem.

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

He’s right……homelessness has become a business for certain groups. It is in their interest to bang this particular drum in the media as often and as loud as possible because this is their bread and butter. These guys would be out of a job if we eradicated homelessness.

https://www.pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

Total employment costs for 2017 – €14.9million (page 24)
Total state funding – €14.4million (page 11)

Think about that for a second. Every penny the Government gives these guys, plus the first half a million raised via collection, plus the €200k used to fund tht collection (also page 13) is spent on staff salaries and pensions. Before a cup of tea or a sleeping bag or a pair of dry socks is handed out, they take the first €15million+.

If they didn’t exist, and that €15 mill was handed out to an organisation that already receives funding that covers the wages (or vice versa), it would all go towards where it’s needed (barring a small % increase in the number of staff they'd have to employ).

Scandalous, really.

Edit: I am in no way disparaging the great work that people do for PMCVT. But when homeless people would be better off to the tune of €15,000,000 then questions have to be asked.

good god almighty that is inexcusable. this is the very definition of a scam.

Spanish Eyes

suicide_circus wrote: »

good god almighty that is inexcusable. this is the very definition of a scam.

Well the facts are well hidden for sure.

No investigative journalism left in this country. They are all lemmings.

We have to find out for ourselves, and when we question anything that goes against the received wisdom we are shut down stat.

I am heartily sick of being silenced now.

Anyway. Onwards and upwards.

Alrigghtythen

"Before a cup of tea or a sleeping bag or a pair of dry socks is handed out, they take the first €15million+" "

The whole thing is a sham. The charities, the pretend crises, the people who just don't want to bother, the entitled crowd


It's good for pushing up house prices though, anyone might think the developers and the charities are in bed together

James Brown

jmayo wrote: »

There has always been a catch 22 here.
If those properties were rented out, because lets face it some of the people would not be able to get mortgage with probably little savings and poor income, then NAMA would never recover cash.
Some people would then complain that NAMA never recouped the investment put into it.

NAMA sold off housing, at a loss, to vulture funds. In some few cases the state bought the same properties back. That's a fact.

jmayo wrote: »

There are more than a few chancers and there are fooking more than a few looking for something for nothing.
We have had 100,000 permanent long term unemployed even during height of our boom.

Over 80% of one particular group of approx. 30,000 have never worked.

But of course you come out with the typical spiel about anyone complaining about funding lazy leeches who will never contribute anything positive to society as being begrudgers.

There's chancers in everything. Should we all crawl under and rock and close up the country? What's your point? We've a housing crisis, but there's some chancers. Okay so, move along?
Any fraudster should be rooted out. Are you saying we should turn a blind eye to the crisis because of them? If you're not, what's your point here? We all know there's chancers in law, government and standing beside you at the bus stop.

jmayo wrote: »

Should you also get to pick and chose where you get to rent ?
Should you also get a bonus for christmas, money for social occasions, a house commensurate with your family size ?

You get three options when you complete the form. If an option comes up and your next on the list, you get it. If none of your options come up, you get no offer. If one of your options comes up and you refuse it, you get sent back down the list. Do it too much you get taken off the list. Not quite as you spell it out.
Yes you should get a bonus for Christmas. Yes you should not have a family of four in a one bedroom.

jmayo wrote: »

No one is really complaining about the working poor, we are though complaining about the non working not so poor.
And I think most people can see that we do need some state provided cheap accommodation for poorer working people.

Grand so. So why is it when ever the topic of the housing crisis or homelessness comes up the same shams, like the OP, pile in to give out about chancers?

jmayo wrote: »

But congratulations for diverting this to be about the hard pushed working poor and not the "won't ever work ones" on the housing lists.

I'm with you on this. But making every discussion about Margret Cash and chums is ignoring the vast majority, but if it sides nice with your view go ahead I suppose.

Mrsmum

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

"Before a cup of tea or a sleeping bag or a pair of dry socks is handed out, they take the first €15million+" "

The whole thing is a sham. The charities, the pretend crises, the people who just don't want to bother, the entitled crowd


It's good for pushing up house prices though, anyone might think the developers and the charities are in bed together

I don't understand this. Is this what Peter McVerry is standing over ? I thought he was one of the good guys. Please someone give me back my faith in him.

Spanish Eyes

All this will amount to nothing. I'm telling you now.

Will all be covered up by the media in this country. So sad that those who are actually contributing to this via taxes are the very ones who will never be housed by HAs or the Council, and must save for donkey's years to live in a dormitory town somewhere and pay for commuting costs and childcare.

Something is wrong there isn't it?

Dravokivich

DebDynamite wrote: »

Is it correct that people who are in receipt of HAP, and are therefore renting (because you can't avail of HAP unless you're on the housing list ), are included in that 10,000 "homeless figure"? If so, that's absolutely ridiculous. I thought the homeless were people in temporary accommodation (hotels, hubs, etc.)

No. If you're renting through hap you are removed from the housing list as your needs have been met.

If council are putting you up in hotels, you're still homeless. And that's where a large bulk of the figures are coming from.

gctest50

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't understand this. Is this what Peter McVerry is standing over ? I thought he was one of the good guys. Please someone give me back my faith in him.

The Peter McVerry Trust had a total income of €10,656,737 in 2014, of which €6,842,691 came from the State.

It employed 146 employees in 2014 at a cost of just under €8.1 million.

NIMAN

I wonder what the total wage bill for all the homeless charities combined is?

Do we really need 15 or 20 homeless charities? Why not get them combined and down to maybe 3 or 4, save a fortune on wages?

Dravokivich

oneilla wrote: »

Hey, if you hang around reading this thread you might pick up some tips on how to get a free house, free car and blank cheques from the Social Welfare.

Don't have the time for that. Got a job to go to.

Spanish Eyes

NIMAN wrote: »

I wonder what the total wage bill for all the homeless charities combined is?

Do we really need 15 or 20 homeless charities? Why not get them combined and down to maybe 3 or 4, save a fortune on wages?

Will never happen. Territorial and empire building, they will never merge.

But we are paying through our taxes (FOR WHAT) so donating to any charity that has Government funding is off my radar and has been for some time.

The only exception is Brother Kevin in the Capuchins. Yes, he gets a grant, but most of the expenditure is from donations. I don't think he has a CEO or paid employees. Could be wrong.

Ha Long Bay

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't understand this. Is this what Peter McVerry is standing over ? I thought he was one of the good guys. Please someone give me back my faith in him.

Did you ever hear him in any single interview saying anything positive? It's always negative spin with no solutions.

Snickers Man

EdgeCase wrote: »

You'll always get a % of people gaming any system. That's human nature. It doesn't take away from the reality that there is a major housing squeeze in Dublin, Cork and a few other areas. That's entirely down to an abnormal lack of supply that is clearly caused by the 2008 collapse which entirely wiped out the residential construction sector.

That is certainly a factor but you have to look at other things that are affecting the availability of property. Skehan's main point, although he didn't elaborate on it last night, was that there is a lack of availability not of housing per se but of "affordable" housing. Which points to a failure in the operation of the market which leads us to wonder what structural incentives are there that work against home space being made available to those who need it.

Example: On the stretch of Grand Canal in central Dublin close to where I live, there have been two tents with people living in them as more or less permanent structures for several months. And it is now mid winter. Meanwhile, next door to me there is a perfectly fine residential property--a house--that has been vacant for at least two years.

Why?

I don't know. It is owned by a man who to the best of my knowledge has never lived in it but it has been rented out in the past. Applying basic Adam Smith economics to this case we can consider that "it is not from the munificence of the [property owner] that we can expect [available living space for rent] but from his own self interest in [renting it out]"

Smith used the example of a baker and bread, hence the square brackets, but the same principle applies.

Clearly it is not in the sleeveen landlord's immediate financial interest at this point in time to make his property available for rent. Why not? One can speculate. Maybe he is asking a price that even in this buoyant market is too far beyond reasonable to attract any takers. Maybe he is hoarding the site with the intention of selling it on for further development and wants vacant possession. Whatever the real reason is, he is not being given sufficient incentives to make it available. That's a market failure.

Personally I think that a negative incentive should be put into play here. The taxman should be sodomising this guy till his arse bleeds (figuratively speaking). Charge a property tax way in excess of RPT for any property that's been vacant for, say, more than six months and be sure to collect it too. You might be surprised how much property comes on stream and quickly.

Of course you would have to enforce such measures which in the last analysis means hiring security firms to sequester such a miscreant's assets which means you could have a Strokestown-style standoff which would get some people outraged about the shocking mistreatment of honest property owners by "official Ireland" and the "mainstream media" and "de banks" but let's just decide to whom we want to be nice.

gctest50

NIMAN wrote: »

Do we really need 15 or 20 homeless charities?

15 or 20 ?? more than 75

More than 75 organisations received €95.9m in funding in 2014.

And based on an average of 5,000 people currently without homes, this means the State spends almost €20,000 per homeless person every year.

NIMAN

john4321 wrote: »

Did you ever hear him in any single interview saying anything positive? It's always negative spin with no solutions.

Vested interests you see.

No homeless, no jobs for them all. No millions from the Gov.

Alrigghtythen

NIMAN wrote: »

I wonder what the total wage bill for all the homeless charities combined is?

Do we really need 15 or 20 homeless charities? Why not get them combined and down to maybe 3 or 4, save a fortune on wages?

In 2014, there was 23 homeless charities in Dublin

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/the-homeless-industry-also-has-questions-to-answer-30804937.html

gctest50

Duplication all over the place and when they will try to bring them all under the one "umbrella"

( Housing Service Ireland ) anyone ?


no-one will lose their job

HSE version 2

Spanish Eyes

OK I suppose what I would like is an annual statement or something from all homeless charities (via their CEOs) as to how they have helped ease the issue with all the income.

I don't think anyone knows off hand who the CEOs of these Government funded charities actually are unless you look it up, and I can't be bothered atm!

That is the scandal. Faceless CEOs. For what exactly?

We as taxpayers are shareholders in all their organisations and deserve some feedback.

Dravokivich

gctest50 wrote: »

15 or 20 ?? more than 75

More than 75 organisations received €95.9m in funding in 2014.

And based on an average of 5,000 people currently without homes, this means the State spends almost €20,000 per homeless person every year.

If that kind of money is being spent by the government the department of social protection really should be either tendering these services out properly, like the NTA with everything, if they aren't going to run it internally themselves. That's way too much money to be pushing with out any improvement in the services that's being paid for. Its very expensive lip service.

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

The Peter McVerry Trust had a total income of €10,656,737 in 2014, of which €6,842,691 came from the State.

It employed 146 employees in 2014 at a cost of just under €8.1 million.

I'm not sure where you're pulling those figures from, but they seem a little out of date.

The average number of employees (including directors) in the year was 387 (for 2017) and 298 (for 2016)

Salaries: 13.6 million
Social welfare: 1.3 million
Pensions 70k

Total employment costs for 2017 = €14,996,105

It's right there in black and white on page 24: https://www.pmvtrust.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Approved-and-Signed-PMVT-Audited-Accounts-for-2017-Excluding-income-and-expenditure.pdf

As I said previously, the Gov't funding is on page 13.

gctest50

More "fun" :


The four biggest [charities] in Dublin have well over 900 employees with a payroll running to €80million or €90million.

Kivaro

john4321 wrote: »

Did you ever hear him in any single interview saying anything positive? It's always negative spin with no solutions.

Homelessness makes Peter McVerry relevant ...........at least in his own eyes. Nobody is saying homelessness does not exist. There are between 200 - 300 actual homeless people on the streets. They should get all the help they need, even if they refuse it multiple times.
But having dozens of homeless charities in this small country getting tens of millions of tax payer funds, with more paid employees than actual homeless people is crazy. Many of these charities have executives getting paid 6 figure salaries, so it is in their best interest to keep the "crisis" going ....... even if they have to import it.

MFPM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Or


You can stop giving free houses to people who decide to rock up homeless one day.

I guarantee you will nearly solve the homeless crisis overnight.

It would be helpful if you provided some evidence to back these assertions. One might also think it odd that given all the 'free houses' being thrown that there is an homeless issues at all but then I'm sure you'll be able to solve that riddle with your evidence....

MFPM

Kivaro wrote: »

Homelessness makes Peter McVerry relevant ...........at least in his own eyes. Nobody is saying homelessness does not exist. There are between 200 - 300 actual homeless people on the streets. They should get all the help they need, even if they refuse it multiple times.
But having dozens of homeless charities in this small country getting tens of millions of tax payer funds, with more paid employees than actual homeless people is crazy. Many of these charities have executives getting paid 6 figure salaries, so it is in their best interest to keep the "crisis" going ....... even if they have to import it.

How do they do that?

begbysback

begbysback wrote: »

If we eradicated homelessness, would the homeless of other countries then migrate to Ireland?

Maybe our homeless could migrate to other EU countries... oh wait a minute, they speak foreign languages.

MFPM

MFPM wrote: »

One might also think it odd that given all the 'free houses' being thrown that there is an homeless issues at all but then I'm sure you'll be able to solve that riddle with your evidence....

MFPM wrote: »

How do they do that?

By inflating the stats. A huge part of that is changing the meaning of the word "homeless". See the above-quoted post as an example. We don't have a "homeless" crisis.

We do, however, have a housing crisis. But those 10,000 people quoted as being homeless aren't living on the streets, or crouched in a doorway with a sleeping bag and a load of cardboard for a mattress. Those are now classified as rough sleepers (as well as homeless).

Also included in that 10,000 figure is anyone who used to rent, got a pain in their hole forking over loadsa money, or got their HAP stopped, or were kicked out of their council house for whatever reason, moved back into their ma's gaff and presented as homeless the following Monday in the corpo's offices.

Wheeliebin30

MFPM wrote: »

It would be helpful if you provided some evidence to back these assertions. One might also think it odd that given all the 'free houses' being thrown that there is an homeless issues at all but then I'm sure you'll be able to solve that riddle with your evidence....

Eoghan Murphy himself states anyone going into emergency accommodation on average wont be in there longer than 6 months before been housed.

While there is people in the waiting list 10 years.

Don’t be so naive.

Galwayguy35

People living in hotels free of charge aren't homeless, why people keep saying they are and putting them down as homeless when the figures come out is baffling.

Connor Skehan told us last year that quite a few of them were playing the system and I take him at his word.

padd b1975

Chinasea wrote: »

Stopped today on Abbey Street by a mature Irish lady and she launched into a general help the homeless spiel. There is no reason as to why she would not already be availing of our generous welfare payments.

She had a suitcase which I'd be fairly sure was empty and was nothing more than a cunning theatrical bandwagon prop.

Saw some tourists being suckered into the drama.

I don't even break stride for that type of scrounger.

Spanish Eyes

The Propaganda mantra rules.

You can choose to engage, but I don't anymore now. Just like the Travellers and all that.

We are told nothing except gimme gimme gimme, I am entitled. OK. I have just put my earbuds in now lol..

Alrigghtythen

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

"

It's good for pushing up house prices though, anyone might think the developers and the charities are in bed together

No doubt we will hear some time, maybe years ahead, in some investigative program that some individuals had a common linked interest in both a homeless charity and a developer/other such benefitting industry. If it can happen, it will happen. But maybe after tons of our taxpayer money has been forked out.

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By inflating the stats. A huge part of that is changing the meaning of the word "homeless". See the above-quoted post as an example. We don't have a "homeless" crisis.

We do, however, have a housing crisis. But those 10,000 people quoted as being homeless aren't living on the streets, or crouched in a doorway with a sleeping bag and a load of cardboard for a mattress. Those are now classified as rough sleepers (as well as homeless).

Also included in that 10,000 figure is anyone who used to rent, got a pain in their hole forking over loadsa money, or got their HAP stopped, or were kicked out of their council house for whatever reason, moved back into their ma's gaff and presented as homeless the following Monday in the corpo's offices.

You're essentially homeless once you aren't able to viably afford accommodation.

Looking to challenge the justification of it, because one isn't sleeping rough isn't really looking at the issue. Your just adding degrees of grief. Its the not to dissimilar to kind of thing a lot of people used to give out about when it came to "mansplaining."

Alrigghtythen

Dravokivich wrote: »

You're essentially homeless once you aren't able to viably afford accommodation.

Looking to challenge the justification of it, because one isn't sleeping rough isn't really looking at the issue. Your just adding degrees of grief. Its the not to dissimilar to kind of thing a lot of people used to give out about when it came to "mansplaining."

Margaret Cash was in 52000+ a year. She said there's a difference between homeless and being poor.

“I never said I was poor. I said I was homeless"-Margaret Cash 2018