Rents forecast to rise by 17%

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So you've no solutions, just attacking? Fair enough, enjoy.

It was a serious question.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/social-welfare-fraud-totalled-38-4m-in-2017-report-shows-1.3707438


" During the year, eligibility checks were made on 325,000 children.

It was found that payment should no longer be made in respect of almost 10,000 children, with the main reason being that they were no longer resident in the State."

That is a fraudulent rate of 3% in respect of child benefit found in a single year - and that is only those who were caught.

There are over 200 TDs and Senators in the Dail which means a similar rate of fraud means that there are 6-7 of them committing fraud every year. That simply isn't the case, because we have only seen occasional occurences at intervals of years.

So, it is very easy to come on here and whenever someone mentions fraud and social welfare, to glibly respond sure aren't all politicians committing fraud. The statistics show otherwise as I have shown. I would expect that kind of thinking and talking from a Mick Wallace or Paul Murphy, all soundbite and no substance, but I would expect a higher level of engagement here.

I am all for evidence-based policy-making rather than make-it-up ideas.

I do have solutions for the housing problems. Firstly, Dublin City Council needs to stop blocking high-rise, high-density housing provision by private and public developers. Even their own proposals for housing in Inchicore are not dense enough. Secondly, the planning process needs to be made easier so that NIMBYism stops ruling the day. Thirdly, Dublin City Council needs to match available social housing to actual needs. The single person living in a three-bedroom house needs to downsize to a smaller unit. Otherwise existing provision is being wasted. Fourthly, the housing list needs to be seriously investigated for people who are gaming the system. They are not criminals as you might think, but they are exploiting the generousity of the taxpayer when they have alternatives available. Fifthly, and linked to the last point, choice of social housing should not be a factor. Many people, who do not qualify for social housing, have to live many miles away from family, friends and support networks.

There are other points I have made similar to those above in many many posts on this subject.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

...

I do have solutions for the housing problems. Firstly, Dublin City Council needs to stop blocking high-rise, high-density housing provision by private and public developers. Even their own proposals for housing in Inchicore are not dense enough. Secondly, the planning process needs to be made easier so that NIMBYism stops ruling the day. Thirdly, Dublin City Council needs to match available social housing to actual needs. The single person living in a three-bedroom house needs to downsize to a smaller unit. Otherwise existing provision is being wasted. Fourthly, the housing list needs to be seriously investigated for people who are gaming the system......
Fifthly, and linked to the last point, choice of social housing should not be a factor. Many people, who do not qualify for social housing, have to live many miles away from family, friends and support networks.

There are other points I have made similar to those above in many many posts on this subject.

I agree with much of what you say. And you seem to think fixing the way Social housing is operated and allocated is needed, fair enough. But you offer no alternative yet spend an inordinate amount of time and energy knocking social housing when raised in any capacity. Again, do you see it as a less favourable solution to the road we are on currently?
Both Leo Varadkar and I do not believe a sizable number of people are pretending to be homeless to get on the housing list. To clarify, lying on an application is beyond 'gaming' IMO.
Places like Inchicore had massive problems with crime and drugs. Came out the other side only to find it's public lands much sought after and had communities moved to less fashionable areas. It actually had high density social housing before 'regeneration' A.K.A. getting public land ready for market.
Availing of the option of where you would like to live is not on the person looking for a home, that's on the LA/State. It's policy. Adhering to policy is not wrong. I think people should have options when options are available. Cherry picking which areas are ripe for selling to private concerns has us, in part, where we are.