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

Dravokivich

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

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

The noise is not the norm. Neither herself nor erica fleming are representitive of those who want to be able to pay their way. But can't because it's too much.

Ha Long Bay

Dravokivich wrote: »

The noise is not the norm. Neither herself nor erica fleming are representitive of those who want to be able to pay their way. But can't because it's too much.

I'm surprised Ms Fleming didn't demand that the council put up here Christmas tree then take to twitter to complain.

gctest50

Dravokivich wrote: »

The noise is not the norm. Neither herself nor erica fleming are representitive of those who want to be able to pay their way.
But can't because it's too much.

Plenty times though it's because the overpriced mini mcmansion in an estate didn't work out becaue they lied about income first day

Spanish Eyes

Ah look it, we can all get inflamed and give out and all the rest of it.

Problem is we need to follow the money and see where it is going to help solve the problem. Don't see any charity saying, "yes we are making progress now, thanks to Government grants and donations".

It is all negative. I for one am not one bit impressed. And I am sorry to say that PMV Trust and Focus, and all the rest of them are laughing at us. But they get oodles of time on media, whereas those who might wish to question them are not allowed at all.

When I hear the word "homelessness crisis" I switch off now, because I know I will only hear one side of the story forevermore.

suicide_circus

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.

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.

I knew the charity sector with its guilt tripping and lobbying was shady but bugger me this thread is eye opening. not another cent.

enricoh

suicide_circus wrote: »

I knew the charity sector with its guilt tripping and lobbying was shady but bugger me this thread is eye opening. not another cent.

Wonder what the 2018 figures are?
I reckon u'd want to be sitting down suicide circus!

James Brown

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?

Imagine the money we'd save if we'd less homeless. That'd show these charities trying to tackle homelessness

Dravokivich

gctest50 wrote: »

Plenty times though it's because the overpriced mini mcmansion in an estate didn't work out becaue they lied about income first day

I'd be very weary of any mortgage lender that got the whool pulled over their eyes so easily. Considering they generally want to see actual proof of income.

James Brown

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....

He generally does the monkey at the zoo, (throws crap around) and disappears.

gctest50

suicide_circus wrote: »

I knew the charity sector with its guilt tripping and lobbying was shady but bugger me this thread is eye opening. not another cent.

Step 1.) Sit down - health n safety is important

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

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

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

suicide_circus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Imagine the money we'd save if we'd less homeless. That'd show these charities trying to tackle homelessness

that's the point. they're not tackling it. they have a vested interest in keeping it going, publicising it and exaggerating it. they're whole livelihood depends on it.

MFPM

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.

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.

You're being deliberaltely disingenious and engaging in some word play your self. Most people understand the difference between a housing crisis which there is and a very severe problem of homelessness which of course for those living in bushes and tents is a 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).

Again you're focusing on words as distinct from the reality. Emergency accommodation such as hotels and hubs are all that stands between many people being on the streets.

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.

Indeed sure it's grand life they have isn't it - four kids living in finglas, rent put up, can't afford it, more back to tallaght the other side of the city, take the kids out of school or traipse across the city in the morning with the kids - all for mammys spare room.....I think your ideology is clouding your judgement.

MFPM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

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.

Eoghan Murphy has been telling us for two years the situation is improving, it's not, yet you believe him on this?

I'll see your 'naive' and raise you to delusional.

James Brown

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.

This is the problem. People making up stuff to have a give out. The criteria for homelessness is defined. If you are in 'emergency accommodation' you are homeless. You are as well saying if a homeless person is in a shop they aren't homeless for that time.
The housing list is on a points system. You go walk into the council and tell them you want a house because you're homeless. See how you get on.
They'll likely let you fill out a form and that'll be the last of it.
There's a housing crisis and a homeless crisis. Or do you not think more children homeless than back in the slum days of the 1930's or any other time is just young kinds acting the mess or charities pulling you leg?

James Brown

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

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.

So you want to continue putting people up in hotels as par for the course?
It's called 'emergency' because it's an emergency, hence the use of hotels ffs...

Alrigghtythen

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you want to continue putting people up in hotels as par for the course?
It's called 'emergency' because it's an emergency, hence the use of hotels ffs...

Make them take hap


The findings, from the Dublin Region Homeless Executive (DRHE), shows during 2017, 343 families were "reluctant" to consider being accommodated under the Housing Assistance Payment scheme and subsequently ended up in hotels or B&Bs.

James Brown

suicide_circus wrote: »

that's the point. they're not tackling it. they have a vested interest in keeping it going, publicising it and exaggerating it. they're whole livelihood depends on it.

And nobody from government checks any of this?

I don't buy this Tory boy Leo attitude many spread about though.
The health crisis is people clogging up A&E with nothing wrong with them.
The housing crisis is people being entitled.
Homeless crisis is the charities and people pretending.
Be great if any of this were true mind.

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

This is the problem. People making up stuff to have a give out.

Seriously, you of all people criticising someone for this? Haha.

The more I see of your posts, the more I think that they should be seen as a mild source of amusement rather than any form of sensible discussion.

If you could come up with a few soundbites, conspiracy theories or pull a few things from your backside before you clock off for the night you might give the rest of us a chuckle.

James Brown

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Make them take hap


The findings, from the Dublin Region Homeless Executive (DRHE), shows during 2017, 343 families were "reluctant" to consider being accommodated under the Housing Assistance Payment scheme and subsequently ended up in hotels or B&Bs.

As I understand it moving people from hotels to private rentals might be mildly cheaper for the taxpayer but doesn't solve anything but help the numbers from a government perspective.

Alrigghtythen

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As I understand it moving people from hotels to private rentals might be mildly cheaper for the taxpayer but doesn't solve anything but help the numbers from a government perspective.

The family get to live in a house they can afford, better than a hotel room.

James Brown

christy c wrote: »

Seriously, you of all people criticising someone for this? Haha.

The more I see of your posts, the more I think that they should be seen as a mild source of amusement, rather than any form of sensible discussion.

If you could come up with a few soundbites, conspiracy theories or pull a few things from your backside before you clock off for the night you might give the rest of us a chuckle.

You're talking crap Christy. Show me one thing I made up? A housing crisis and vulture funds making off of it is a conspiracy theory is it?
You're one of a tiny cohort that barrel in to defend the blue shirts pretending to have a point, go on with yourself

James Brown

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

The family get to live in a house they can afford, better than a hotel room.

So the tax payer pay nothing? It's better than the Gresham for sure.

Spanish Eyes

It is the stifling of information, coinciding with the mega ads on radio and TV looking for more money that get my goat.

They have enough. Use it wisely or feck off out of here now.

Alrigghtythen

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So the tax payer pay nothing? It's better than the Gresham for sure.

It's cheaper, you said so in your last post.

Taxpayer saves

Idbatterim

Im not joking here at all, when that new maternity hospital opens in vincents; the current maternity hospital on holles street would provide accommodation for a large amount of the homeless!

Gimme A Pound

Larry Freezing Specialist wrote: »

I wouldn't have even contemplated voting FG pre 2016 and I don't think they're perfect but I genuinely would like someone to give a solid reason - without reference to fascists from the 1930s or any of the other bandwagon bluster - why they are so terrible, and why Leo is so awful and Enda was so awful.

It is something I really would like to see.

Anyone?

gctest50

Idbatterim wrote: »

Im not joking here at all, when that new maternity hospital opens in vincents; the current maternity hospital on holles street would provide accommodation for a large amount of the homeless!

The ones that are not sleeping rough won't move there

Or anywhere else.

Only place they will move is their forever home
exactly where they want to be

Galwayguy35

Larry Freezing Specialist wrote: »

Anyone?

It's only hard left loons that come out with crap like that, they shout for 'change' but have nothing to offer.

suicide_circus

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And nobody from government checks any of this?

I don't buy this Tory boy Leo attitude many spread about though.
The health crisis is people clogging up A&E with nothing wrong with them.
The housing crisis is people being entitled.
Homeless crisis is the charities and people pretending.
Be great if any of this were true mind.

it depends who's propaganda you want to buy into, dosn't it?

Galwayguy35

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you want to continue putting people up in hotels as par for the course?
It's called 'emergency' because it's an emergency, hence the use of hotels ffs...

Well telling them to take what's being offered to them or clear off and find their own place would be a good start, that would soon root out the scammers from the genuine cases.

Plumbthedepths

Larry Freezing Specialist wrote:

Anyone?

I'll give you my reason FG had a golden opportunity in 2011 when the population was traumatized from the crash to change the crap that has gone on in this country for decades, what did they do?.. nothing the status quo prevailed whilst looking after their friends. They are now being propped up by the very crew they accused of driving the country to the cliff edge. They could have reformed the way this country is governed and run, they wasted the chance. That's my hate of FG, a golden opportunity wasted.

Wheeliebin30

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'll give you my reason FG had a golden opportunity in 2011 when the population was traumatized from the crash to change the crap that has gone on in this country for decades, what did they do?.. nothing the status quo prevailed whilst looking after their friends. They are now being propped up by the very crew they accused of driving the country to the cliff edge. They could have reformed the way this country is governed and run, they wasted the chance. That's my hate of FG, a golden opportunity wasted.

What could they have changed?

christy c

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You're talking crap Christy. Show me one thing I made up? A housing crisis and vulture funds making off of it is a conspiracy theory is it?
You're one of a tiny cohort that barrel in to defend the blue shirts pretending to have a point, go on with yourself

One thing you made up? I had a quick look back through my posts where I engaged with you, one thing a couple of months back where you brought up about the FF and FG agreement and then bizarrely tried to claim you didn't. I'd have a guess that there are more recent examples if I looked.

Nonsense about the states main interest being big business and citizens coming second (not sure of the correct soundbite) I would classify as a conspiracy theory.

And I've said before that I'll defend FG as best of a bad lot, you haven't exactly exposed me.

Plumbthedepths

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

What could they have changed?

As I said I ain't engaging with a blinkered loyal party supporter.

Wheeliebin30

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

As I said I ain't engaging with a blinkered loyal party supporter.

Haha unbelievable.

enricoh

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What could they have changed?

I thought leo said he was gonna cull all the quangos - havent seen any sign.
Reward those that get up early in the morning - maybe he meant in the next term!
Brought insurance payouts back to reality n therefore insurance premiums - still waiting!
Tax cuts n increase in spending to be 50/50 - haha!
He's good in front of the camera - that'll have to do!

James Brown

Larry Freezing Specialist wrote: »

I wouldn't have even contemplated voting FG pre 2016 and I don't think they're perfect but I genuinely would like someone to give a solid reason - without reference to fascists from the 1930s or any of the other bandwagon bluster - why they are so terrible, and why Leo is so awful and Enda was so awful.

It is something I really would like to see.

Record break homeless, worse year on year.
Housing crisis.
Health crisis.
Irish Water quango 'jobs for our own'.
Reilly's clinic allocations.
Applauding Vulture funds for being better at business than the banks we bailed out.
All while we've high employment and seemingly a growing economy. Something not adding up.

Varadkar's childish all mouth no trousers spin. His department of spin.
Kenny told lies, amusing lies, but still. He didn't quite 'end the scandal of hospital trolleys'.

Partnering up with Fianna Fail to keep their bums on seats. No ethics.

Most of all choosing to continue the way we did business, despite promises to the contrary. A waster opportunity to make the system better. Well at least the got ethnic status for themselves. Called Travelers now though.

This is the part were you say, 'sure what would Sinn Fein do' or something. You asked. I answered.

Gimme A Pound

"This is the part..." - what? Yeah of course you answered when I asked.

Anyway, the economy has greatly improved since 2011, same-sex marriage, abortion rights... the homelessness crisis is due to the recession. It was not caused by FG. I just don't see what they can do to resolve it quickly.

They inherited a mess from the crooks-led previous crowd. The latter are far more to blame imo.

There is all this "They could have" - how do you know?

hmmm

Snickers Man wrote: »

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.

Why should we force this person to do anything? If he wants to own a property and not rent it out to some homeless person, that should be his decision. If he wants to rent it, or live in it, or keep ducks in it, it's none of your business.

The market failure is by not building in areas of demand. The market failure is NIMBYism, where instead of allowing new builds, we have politicians of every hue objecting to any new housing bigger than a bungalow in their neighbourhood. Build apartments in the city - lots of them - expensive ones, cheap ones, affordable ones, big ones, small ones. If you want to live in a house with a huge back garden and not be overlooked, move outside the city.

stateofflux

I do agree with his point about Homelessness (like many other causes) being a big industry employing thousands. very little coordination between them and nothing effective gets done about the root causes.

The government have passed on responsibility for a lot of its own remit to 3rd party charities which is adding big time to this mess of a situation.

i know there will always be a number of rough sleepers (many with drug & mental issues) that are effectively unhouseable and require constant on-the -ground care.

But i still disagree with his point on Normalizing. I think there is nothing wrong with declaring 'Crisis' once it gives the govt. a kick up the hole to take true responsibility for the situation and take coordinated and effective action.

Spanish Eyes

Time for some to get a jolly over to Finland, where apparently everything in the homeless department is just fine. I doubt that. But sure what do I know.

But anyway they may see the Northern Lights. And come back energised with lots of solutions that do not involve millions to so called charities. We might see.

Wheeliebin30

I was listening to the Michael Reid show on lm/fm before Christmas and he was talking to Eoin o Brion about homelessness.

Anyway he started saying he read wiki and countries like Brazil, Peru, Canada etc have no homelessness so why can’t Ireland do it.

I was banging my head off the steering wheel.

These morons are paid to know the truth about this stuff yet they use Wikipedia to slate the government.

What hope have we of the truth ever been told apart from people like Peter Casey and Conor Skeehan.

Gimme A Pound

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

It's only hard left loons that come out with crap like that, they shout for 'change' but have nothing to offer.

dis is a joke of a country!!! :mad:

/goes back to watching Say Yes To The Dress

Plumbthedepths

Wheeliebin30 wrote:

Haha unbelievable.

As is your claim you would accept criticism of FG policy, so jog on dude.

ifElseThen

https://www.cluid.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Cl%C3%BAid-Annual-Report-2017-WEB.pdf

Page 67

Compensation for loss of office as employee €91,506
Professional and consultancy €520,366

ohnonotgmail

ifElseThen wrote: »

https://www.cluid.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Cl%C3%BAid-Annual-Report-2017-WEB.pdf

Page 69

Compensation for loss of office as employee €91,506
Professional and consultancy €520,366

Page 67 for those who clicked on the link. What conclusions have you drawn from those 2 figures?

ifElseThen

Shows up as 69 in Chrome's embedded PDF viewer.

600k would buy 2 houses is my conclusion.

ohnonotgmail

ifElseThen wrote: »

Shows up as 69 in Chrome's embedded PDF viewer.

600k would buy 2 houses is my conclusion.

they added nearly 600 homes to their portfolio last year. they built apartments for 40+ senior citizens. Do you think they shouldn't pay professionals to do work for them?

Wheeliebin30

Mirium interviewing head of housing at the moment.

God her little puppy dog sad voice of why why can’t you build houses for all the homeless is grating.

What’s her salary again?

Would love to stick a social housing estate beside her.

Or even better Margaret Cash beside her.

Absolute hypocrite of the highest order, I detest these people the most.

False fake sympathy.

Good interview.

"Anywhere they try to build social housing the level of objection to it is significant, they are well used to it they say."