Should we stop building social housing?

Wanderer78

The market actually isn't truly capable of producing all our needs, this is particularly evident in housing and accommodation in general, government lead initiatives such as social housing are critical in filling this void.

greenttc

one thing I cannot understand is why social housing that was built and given to people years ago was allowed to become private housing. people got their "free house" and then eventually bought the house for pittance and now those houses are being sold for hundreds of thousands giving the children of the original owners a nice profit off what was originally public money.

why were they not kept as social housing and we could be moving new people into them right now instead of having to build new houses for people on social housing lists. is that not the more economical way to do things?

I can think of several estates where social housing is going for almost half a million. look up houses in Mulvey park and Columbanus and Rosemount all in or close to Dundrum, all social housing which is now making a tidy profit for families. yes dundrum is a highly desireable place to live and i get the argument that it should go to people working in the area but these were already designated as social they should have just remained as so, this would have solved the need to rebuild and would have meant that there was social housing dotted around a wealthy enough area promoting integration

Tony EH

greenttc wrote: »

one thing I cannot understand is why social housing that was built and given to people years ago was allowed to become private housing.

Because we followed the Thatcherite model.

lola85

greenttc wrote: »

one thing I cannot understand is why social housing that was built and given to people years ago was allowed to become private housing. people got their "free house" and then eventually bought the house for pittance and now those houses are being sold for hundreds of thousands giving the children of the original owners a nice profit off what was originally public money.

why were they not kept as social housing and we could be moving new people into them right now instead of having to build new houses for people on social housing lists. is that not the more economical way to do things?

I can think of several estates where social housing is going for almost half a million. look up houses in Mulvey park and Columbanus and Rosemount all in or close to Dundrum, all social housing which is now making a tidy profit for families. yes dundrum is a highly desireable place to live and i get the argument that it should go to people working in the area but these were already designated as social they should have just remained as so, this would have solved the need to rebuild and would have meant that there was social housing dotted around a wealthy enough area promoting integration

FF sold off all the social housing stock.

They sure know how to buy votes.

mariaalice

If the house is 'free' because according to boards nobody in social housing works how did they get mortgages to buy the social housesing in the first place its a conundrum.

this is where we actually need a sticky on what terms means

"nobody gets a free house" would, in my new imagined era, see a warning that reads "people whose only income is social welfare dont pay towards their housing and quite obviously their housing is therefore provided for free, dont quibble at this statement again"

"all social housing/social welfare/expenditure on social transfer is theft" would see a warning stating "social transfers, costs incurred to prevent poverty and destitution and to ensure a basic safety net from hunger, lack of healthcare, homelessness, lack of education etc are a feature of modern life. dont make such a uselessly broad statement again"

"homelessness" would be defined as rough sleeping and would also have to be used only in circumstances where the systems in place had been engaged with and the qualifying behaviours followed. anyone with a roof over their head, or who had rendered themselves homeless by their own choices, would not qualify for the term


cmon boards, elect me to clean up the nonsense terms allowed that cause the endless debates. we'll have the place sorted by Friday

Deebles McBeebles

On your first point alone, Snoop, you got my vote.

end of the road

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They have to get to the four courts/children's court and drug clinics though? That's what the red line was built for.

that wasn't what it was built for. it was built because the population grew to an extent that a railbased transport solution was needed to provide public transport for the population along the corridor.

99problems1 wrote: »

Why are they getting NEW houses? Why don't they buy second hand houses and put them in there?

a mix of both is used.

lola85 wrote: »

It’s bonkers.

Never ever should people who are not working be given a NEW house for 40 euro a week in the area of their choice when working people have to buy and commute an hour away from where they would like because they can’t afford it.

Absolute BONKERS!!!

Unfortunately a monster has been created and it can’t be stopped now.

Oh by the way if you’re receiving money for doing nothing as the journal.ie today has shown that there is many people and using a tiny amount to pay your rent then sorry but that house is free.

the house is not free but subsidized. there are no free houses in ireland.
people buying out of the city is something that exists all over the world and will never change more than likely.

Nataly Colossal Curler wrote: »

Social housing is needed, that's the society we live in. However, I don't think social housing should take up prime real estate. Those who are unemployed, long term, should not be housed in areas where working people could benefit from. I also don't think it's a good idea to build social housing estates. Some conflicting opinions in there, which I don't have the answers for.

I don't know anything about city planning or anything like that, but I do know that it is incredibly unfair for workers to be forced to commute 60 - 90 minutes while the unemployed are living in the center of the city.

it is perfectly fair and is how the housing market works. all workers living in the city is not achievable and is never going to be, even if all unemployed were thrown out to wherever, which in itself isn't workable.

eviltwin

Paulzx wrote: »

..............and priority for social housing should be focused on those people who work but will never afford or qualify for a mortgage. There's thousands of people who work long hours for minimum wage and make a contribution to society. All brand new social houses should be targeted at these type of people. They will pay rent and also bring their families up in an environment where work and having a job is expected.

People who have never worked a day in their lives should be at the bottom of the pile for housing

And that is starting to happen. One housing body that has built housing for people who meet traditional social housing requirements are now building for those who don't qualify for social housing but dont earn enough to get a mortgage. Long overdue and hopefully others will follow suit.

riclad

I don,t think any dublin city council apartments were sold,
may be due to problems with insurance .
EG who would be responsible for maintenance or repairs ,
in an apartment block.
If half the units were owned by the tenants .
And half by dublin city council .

Maybe some empty blocks with no tenants were sold ,i don,t know .
Some social housing units are owned and managedd by charitys .

Sweet.Science

Why does everyone who lives in a council house hang around in their front garden.

You've got the house for free , why not sit in it.

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

And that is starting to happen. One housing body that has built housing for people who meet traditional social housing requirements are now building for those who don't qualify for social housing but dont earn enough to get a mortgage. Long overdue and hopefully others will follow suit.

Do you have any info on that? Something similar to the affordable housing scheme?

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

this is where we actually need a sticky on what terms means

"nobody gets a free house" would, in my new imagined era, see a warning that reads "people whose only income is social welfare dont pay towards their housing and quite obviously their housing is therefore provided for free, dont quibble at this statement again"

"all social housing/social welfare/expenditure on social transfer is theft" would see a warning stating "social transfers, costs incurred to prevent poverty and destitution and to ensure a basic safety net from hunger, lack of healthcare, homelessness, lack of education etc are a feature of modern life. dont make such a uselessly broad statement again"

"homelessness" would be defined as rough sleeping and would also have to be used only in circumstances where the systems in place had been engaged with and the qualifying behaviours followed. anyone with a roof over their head, or who had rendered themselves homeless by their own choices, would not qualify for the term


cmon boards, elect me to clean up the nonsense terms allowed that cause the endless debates. we'll have the place sorted by Friday

You may have it "sorted" by Friday. But it wouldn't make it any less wrong.

eviltwin

GarIT wrote: »

Do you have any info on that? Something similar to the affordable housing scheme?

I can't because I work for them and it's not going to be launched until next year but one site is already being built and another just got planning permission

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

I can't because I work for them and it's not going to be launched until next year but one site is already being built and another just got planning permission

That's still positive to hear

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

You may have it "sorted" by Friday. But it wouldn't make it any less wrong.

yeah i know, i know

but so much of these debates churn over constantly around the imprecise or emotive use of terms which allows for too much fudging.

if someone is making a point about people getting housing costs met totally from the government purse, to refuse to engage other than to jump in and make a tired quibble shouldnt be kosher, it should be treated as whataboutery imo

but look we're not exactly engaged in productive discussion anyway, ill admit

topper75

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, we should be nationalising as much house building as possible and removing profit from the equation altogether. Leaving housing at the mercy of greed has caused untold misery to tens of thousands of people living in private rented accomodation over the last few years.

With recipients, where does the incentive to pay back come from? I mean - would there be a meaningful eviction threat from such nationalised houses?
Do you equate all profit-making with greed?
Does successful risk-taking by an entrepreneur merit no reward?

anyway, we should be building more social housing. heaps of it.

the standard of planning, density and the enforcement of behaviour around noise, housekeeping, asb, rent payments should all be much, much tighter.

the problem isnt that social housing is bad as a concept, its the way we accept and normalise the abuse of it as a society that gives it a bad name

topper75

topper75 wrote: »

With recipients, where does the incentive to pay back come from? I mean - would there be a meaningful eviction threat from such nationalised houses?
Do you equate all profit-making with greed?
Does successful risk-taking by an entrepreneur merit no reward?

is this the type of successful risktaking that saw everyone else paying for them the last time

NSAman

Yes there is a need for social housing, not everyone has the ability to earn enough to keep themselves in the current economy.

BUT! This should not be a house for life. It should be a stepping stone to get you on the path to independence.

Self reliance is something that everyone should strive for. Putting yourself on the council listing immediately when you are young should be discouraged.

Families should be given a number of years to save and earn and this should be in the contract, there is nothing like knowing you have a definite amount of time to achieve something and making that happen.

Anti-social behaviour means loss of house, drug dealing means loss of house, make people responsible for the house, after all, if it your own home you have to pay to maintain it. Pride in ownership leads to less of the items mentioned prior to this.

Not paying rent is not taking responsibility for your own actions, there are rarely any excuses for this. If you are in the private sector rental you would be kicked out (especially where I live).

Not everyone has the ability to take responsibility for themselves. That is why we have social workers and other state employees who monitor individuals. If help IS needed then it should be available.

One thing that absolutely grinds my gears are those that CHOOSE not to work. (I know some will attack me for saying that I mean ALL social housing recipients when in fact I do not). Laziness should never be rewarded. There are some who choose not to work, yes I have met them and know them (as I am sure many others have). Someone able but not willing to work, should never be given things that others have to work for.

People should really be given every opportunity and assistance to make their own lives better and be given a leg up. Social housing is just one aspect of this.

Earthsnotflat

From my perspective, as someone who never qualifies for any state help and has to pay for everything, the idea of social housing for working people it's very unfair towards 'working poor' . I don't have half the disposable income someone working and paying very little for social housing has yet I am just above the limits to qualify, always improving qualifications, always fighting against odds just to pay mortgage and huge costs of commuting to work plus works to improve old house as couldn't afford any better and couldn't afford rent too, i don't qualify for any back to school etc yet can barely afford it, don't have private health insurance or pension yet can't always afford gp, etc while people on social welfare or indeed those working but having social house provided don't have such worries, etc etc. It's just demoralizing.. but it's not something that can be changed overnight, whole approach should be to appreciate more people who don't want to burden society with the need to provide for them, there are lots of people who work and study and pay for everything and are far from comfortable middle class, whereas those being provided for by state are effectively living much more care free, it's just not fair, not that I hope it will change

Tony EH

Earthsnotflat wrote: »

it's very unfair towards 'working poor'

This should be a term that passes no lips in a fair and just society. Nobody working full time should be out of reach of putting a roof over their heads.

But the questions we should all be asking ourselves, is not "How are dole scum getting free houses", it's how have we allowed societies to denigrate into a system that puts the necessities for living out of the hands of so many people?

Our current housing situation is a perfect example of something that has completely gotten out of control, especially when we can see working people bringing in decent income, but still unable to even hope for such a basic living item like a modest house. And even if they can scrape together the payments for their crappy two bedroomed dog box, they are hocked into debt for decades for it <- and I'll say it again, there's a real ticking time bomb waiting to go off in a few decades.

In years gone by, owning a family home could be handled with relative ease and with one one person working into the bargain. How has it gotten to a stage that even with two incomes, it isn't enough and owning a basic family home is but a pipe dream to so many people?

Who benefits from a system that works like this? Because it certainly isn't the majority of folk.

mariaalice

Earthsnotflat wrote: »

From my perspective, as someone who never qualifies for any state help and has to pay for everything, the idea of social housing for working people it's very unfair towards 'working poor' . I don't have half the disposable income someone working and paying very little for social housing has yet I am just above the limits to qualify, always improving qualifications, always fighting against odds just to pay mortgage and huge costs of commuting to work plus works to improve old house as couldn't afford any better and couldn't afford rent too, i don't qualify for any back to school etc yet can barely afford it, don't have private health insurance or pension yet can't always afford gp, etc while people on social welfare or indeed those working but having social house provided don't have such worries, etc etc. It's just demoralizing.. but it's not something that can be changed overnight, whole approach should be to appreciate more people who don't want to burden society with the need to provide for them, there are lots of people who work and study and pay for everything and are far from comfortable middle class, whereas those being provided for by state are effectively living much more care free, it's just not fair, not that I hope it will change

Are you resentfull of the working poor becaue they get additional state support which they get because their income is low?

Electric Sheep

Balanadan wrote: »

Why do some working people get free houses and others don't?

Level of income.

Thelonious Monk

NSAman wrote: »

Anti-social behaviour means loss of house, drug dealing means loss of house, make people responsible for the house, after all, if it your own home you have to pay to maintain it. Pride in ownership leads to less of the items mentioned prior to this.

Not paying rent is not taking responsibility for your own actions, there are rarely any excuses for this. If you are in the private sector rental you would be kicked out (especially where I live).

I don't get this... if they do any of these bad things then where do you put them if you kick them out? Back in a hotel and back on the housing list? Doesn't really make sense.

Ms. Captain M

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If your landlord gives you money each week for not working but takes a small bit of it back as rent, that's not you paying rent imo.

Well I pay my Council rent out of my wages. Oh dear...have I been doing it wrong?

lola85

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get this... if they do any of these bad things then where do you put them if you kick them out? Back in a hotel and back on the housing list? Doesn't really make sense.

Who cares.

Thelonious Monk

lola85 wrote: »

Who cares.

Relevant authorities will have to care wont they

NSAman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get this... if they do any of these bad things then where do you put them if you kick them out? Back in a hotel and back on the housing list? Doesn't really make sense.

It is called responsibility for your own actions. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilised manner then you should not have the PRIVILEGE of a social house.

The fact that some people do not understand this is at the root cause of these issues.

At the end of the day, a social house is NOT an entitlement and should not be viewed as such.

You should pay for the consequences of your actions.

the beer revolu

NSAman wrote: »

It is called responsibility for your own actions. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilised manner then you should not have the PRIVILEGE of a social house.

The fact that some people do not understand this is at the root cause of these issues.

At the end of the day, a social house is NOT an entitlement and should not be viewed as such.

You should pay for the consequences of your actions.

All well and good but what do you do with these people?
Perhaps they will live in a tent next to your house

Thelonious Monk

NSAman wrote: »

It is called responsibility for your own actions. If you cannot conduct yourself in a civilised manner then you should not have the PRIVILEGE of a social house.

The fact that some people do not understand this is at the root cause of these issues.

At the end of the day, a social house is NOT an entitlement and should not be viewed as such.

You should pay for the consequences of your actions.

So what do you do with them? Put a load of already poor people who aren't even capable of getting a job or proper education out on the street? That'll go down well wont it.

Mad_maxx

kneemos wrote: »

Nobody gets a free house.

Of course some people get a free house

NSAman

the beer revolu wrote: »

All well and good but what do you do with these people?
Perhaps they will live in a tent next to your house

Perhaps that might be the answer. Rewarding some people for bad behaviour doesn't seem to work. Exclusion for housing assistance for a period of time with the understanding that if they cause such behaviour again the exclusion period will be longer might be a deterrent to such behaviour.

Basically, at the moment there is no deterrent in place.

Thelonious Monk

NSAman wrote: »

Perhaps that might be the answer. Rewarding some people for bad behaviour doesn't seem to work. Exclusion for housing assistance for a period of time with the understanding that if they cause such behaviour again the exclusion period will be longer might be a deterrent to such behaviour.

Basically, at the moment there is no deterrent in place.

OK for e.g. Mags Cash has dozens of convictions and 8 kids, and got a 4 bed house for free recently, exactly where she wanted. Say she does another job on Penney's, you put the 9 of them out on the streets?

Mad_maxx

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats a complete con job. If taxes are lowered then public services get lowered and the taxpayer ends up paying MORE for public services.

If taxes were lowered

No, public servants wages get lowered, that's different to a reduction in services

the beer revolu

NSAman wrote: »

Perhaps that might be the answer. Rewarding some people for bad behaviour doesn't seem to work. Exclusion for housing assistance for a period of time with the understanding that if they cause such behaviour again the exclusion period will be longer might be a deterrent to such behaviour.

Basically, at the moment there is no deterrent in place.

Because having hordes of people with behavioural problems living on the streets will be great for society?
Again, I ask, where?
On your street?

Deebles McBeebles

Ms. Captain M wrote: »

Well I pay my Council rent out of my wages. Oh dear...have I been doing it wrong?

Again we have to differentiate between those who work and those who will never work. Both get the same houses, only one pays for it.

Mad_maxx

El_Bee wrote: »

If you live in a house where the rent is paid through HAP or social welfare, then how is it not free? the cost to you is zero.

Only a committed ideologue could believe its anything other than free.

Mrs OBumble

Ms. Captain M wrote: »

Well I pay my Council rent out of my wages. Oh dear...have I been doing it wrong?

Do you have any idea how many council tenants don't actually pay their rent?

nthclare

They'll take another tenner a week off us in the next budget like they've done since they came in, and throw it into an insinerator like they so every year.

I'd more money in my pocket 4 years ago than now, robbing Peter to pay Paul

Mad_maxx

Tony EH wrote: »

Because we followed the Thatcherite model.

Anytime you hear that dopey term uttered, you know your dealing with a sloganeering parrot devoid of independent thought

NSAman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

OK for e.g. Mags Cash has dozens of convictions and 8 kids, and got a 4 bed house for free recently, exactly where she wanted. Say she does another job on Penney's, you put the 9 of them out on the streets?

So what is your solution to the issue?

Give her a 4 bedroomed house and another 600 convictions and let them keep the house and hope she pays the rent from Robbing Pennys?

Sorry I know I am being flippant but there seems to be an entitlement complex amongst some. There are no consequences for their actions.

Perhaps Ms. Cash should have the children taken and adopted, Lord knows they may have a better future outlook...

Thelonious Monk

NSAman wrote: »

So what is your solution to the issue?

Give her a 4 bedroomed house and another 600 convictions and let them keep the house and hope she pays the rent from Robbing Pennys?

Sorry I know I am being flippant but there seems to be an entitlement complex amongst some. There are no consequences for their actions.

Perhaps Ms. Cash should have the children taken and adopted, Lord knows they may have a better future outlook...

I would imagine the kids are beyond repair already, will be interesting to see how many of the male ones end up in jail, and how young the females are when they get pregnant.
Anyway, we should be housing Cash as is yes, because we've no other choice really, but the solution would be to stop producing people like this in the first place through education and opportunities and better social workers etc etc.
I know it sounds wishy washy but I really believe it's the only way these social problems can be fixed.
I don't think this Government or any Irish Government ever will be able to change a lightbulb never mind solve complex social problems like the many we have in Ireland, so I expect the amount of f*ck ups needing housing will just keep increasing and we'll have to keep giving them free houses.

Also - imagine taking kids off a mother for adoption - there'd be absolute uproar. That isn't something that can be done. Poor mother who was never given a chance raised in traveller poverty etc etc and now we're taking her kids. So that's a no go too.
You need to look at this realistically.

Earthsnotflat

mariaalice wrote: »

Are you resentfull of the working poor becaue they get additional state support which they get because their income is low?

Yes I am resentful but because I am the working poor in comparison with someone getting social house.
And I've probably heard one too many story of people playing the system... My complaint is , I guess, if you're honest and do everything to maintain yourself you're treated as one well off when it's far from truth, how can families be left with no choice but to go to moneylenders to pay for food, school etc, working families I mean. How my family income compares with other earning the same but having fraction of costs thanks to subsidised housing. It's going to backfire badly for society as incentive to work is not there. There are many people on welfare working officially part time and the rest is untaxed income.
That's why it's so hard for so called squized middle, because that's what they are.

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So what do you do with them? Put a load of already poor people who aren't even capable of getting a job or proper education out on the street? That'll go down well wont it.

Have a little more faith in people, they aren't stupid, just ruined by a system which views demanding nothing of some people ( not even basic law abiding civility) as virtuous.

NSAman

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would imagine the kids are beyond repair already, will be interesting to see how many of the male ones end up in jail, and how young the females are when they get pregnant.
Anyway, we should be housing Cash as is yes, because we've no other choice really, but the solution would be to stop producing people like this in the first place through education and opportunities and better social workers etc etc.
I know it sounds wishy washy but I really believe it's the only way these social problems can be fixed.
I don't think this Government or any Irish Government ever will be able to change a lightbulb never mind solve complex social problems like the many we have in Ireland, so I expect the amount of f*ck ups needing housing will just keep increasing and we'll have to keep giving them free houses.

I actually agree with you on this.

I honestly do not know where you can start to fix these issues, but someone HAS to start somewhere. Do I trust any government or government departments to solve this issue? Absolutely not.

So this leads to a problem that will become worse as time goes on.

I know we are all giving our opinions on things in a discussion forum and that accounts for ZIP in the real world, but to me it seems that personal accountability is something that has to be made mandatory.

Will that happen? In a pigs eye it will....

Mad_maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

OK for e.g. Mags Cash has dozens of convictions and 8 kids, and got a 4 bed house for free recently, exactly where she wanted. Say she does another job on Penney's, you put the 9 of them out on the streets?

Of course

Deebles McBeebles

NSAman wrote: »

I actually agree with you on this.

I honestly do not know where you can start to fix these issues, but someone HAS to start somewhere. Do I trust any government or government departments to solve this issue? Absolutely not.

So this leads to a problem that will become worse as time goes on.

I know we are all giving our opinions on things in a discussion forum and that accounts for ZIP in the real world, but to me it seems that personal accountability is something that has to be made mandatory.

Will that happen? In a pigs eye it will....

We are all in agreement that the government will never fix the issues mentioned so what else can you do? Keep plodding along as is or make an example of someone are the only alternatives I can think of.

Mad_maxx

the beer revolu wrote: »

Because having hordes of people with behavioural problems living on the streets will be great for society?
Again, I ask, where?
On your street?

A system where there is no real consequence to engaging in feckless delinquency is toxic for society.

The liberals have failed miserably yet still demand to define what is best practice, staggering arrogance

Mad_maxx

Earthsnotflat wrote: »

Yes I am resentful but because I am the working poor in comparison with someone getting social house.
And I've probably heard one too many story of people playing the system... My complaint is , I guess, if you're honest and do everything to maintain yourself you're treated as one well off when it's far from truth, how can families be left with no choice but to go to moneylenders to pay for food, school etc, working families I mean. How my family income compares with other earning the same but having fraction of costs thanks to subsidised housing. It's going to backfire badly for society as incentive to work is not there. There are many people on welfare working officially part time and the rest is untaxed income.
That's why it's so hard for so called squized middle, because that's what they are.

The difference is you ( unlike the work shy welfare lifers) are not officially " vulnerable" according to the liberal do gooders who dominate media and policy in this area.

It's about an aprooved narative