Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The €3,000 per month luxury welfare apartments
Options
Comments
-
There should be no social housing there. People should be given houses where land is cheap. Plenty of ghost estates in longford, donegal etcSweet.Science wrote: »How does it benefit people in Terenure and Templeogue?0 -
There should be no social housing there. People should be given houses where land is cheap. Plenty of ghost estates in longford, donegal etc
A lot of Terenure, Harold's cross etc. was social housing.
What's changed that similar people in need today need be farmed off to the far ends of the country? Greed.0 -
crossman47 wrote: »Indeed it is but these should be built in all areas. South Dublin Council planners insist in putting all their social housing in Tallaght and Clondalkin but nothing in Terenure or Tempelogue. That has to change for the benefit of everyone.
There's very little development activity here providing Part 5 output compared to elsewhere.
Land is relatively scarce and what is available is prohibitively expensive, even for private development, so dedicated social housing developments just aren't a runner and will provide little worthwhile return. Most of the development around Templeogue has been one-off housing stuck at either end of estate roads.
Social housing is therefore being provided for via the HAP scheme in these areas.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »A lot of Terenure, Harold's cross etc. was social housing.
What's changed that similar people in need today need be farmed off to the far ends of the country? Greed.
They should get jobs and pay for themselves
Just because it has been wrong in the past doesnt mean we need to repeat the mistakes again.0 -
They should get jobs and pay for themselves
Just because it has been wrong in the past doesnt mean we need to repeat the mistakes again.
Moving from slums to social housing was great for Irish society, there's a strong chance most people come from a socially housed family background.
People pay for themselves, but it gets more difficult as the market raises pricing the LA's/state meet with leasing/renting etc. It's a vicious circle of greed.
What was wrong with housing the Irish? What do you have against the Irish? Do you think we have two subsets in Ireland, they 'doing alright' and the 'can go f*** themselves'? How do you think the 'doing alright' make their money? A lot of them make it off investing in housing. You are talking about doing away with their customer base. Why do you hate wealthy people and those on low incomes?0 -
Advertisement
-
They should get jobs and pay for themselves
Just because it has been wrong in the past doesnt mean we need to repeat the mistakes again.
You think everyone with a job can afford to buy or to rent privately? You are living in a world of your own. There are many working people who need to be housed at a reasonable price. Thats what social housing is for. The apposite word is social - it makes us a society and not just a collection of individuals.0 -
crossman47 wrote: »You think everyone with a job can afford to buy or to rent privately? You are living in a world of your own. There are many working people who need to be housed at a reasonable price. Thats what social housing is for. The apposite word is social - it makes us a society and not just a collection of individuals.
That's the uncomfortable truth these people try to hide from. Easier to talk about the Independent newspaper 'chancer of the week'.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Moving from slums to social housing was great for Irish society, there's a strong chance most people come from a socially housed family background.
People pay for themselves, but it gets more difficult as the market raises pricing the LA's/state meet with leasing/renting etc. It's a vicious circle of greed.
What was wrong with housing the Irish? What do you have against the Irish? Do you think we have two subsets in Ireland, they 'doing alright' and the 'can go f*** themselves'? How do you think the 'doing alright' make their money? A lot of them make it off investing in housing. You are talking about doing away with their customer base. Why do you hate wealthy people and those on low incomes?
I don't hate anyone, just think everyone should pay their own way.
You forget, there is no "government" funded housing, it's all taxpayer funded.
They should, if they can't they need to retrain, upskill, or move location (either job or living )crossman47 wrote: »You think everyone with a job can afford to buy or to rent privately? You are living in a world of your own. There are many working people who need to be housed at a reasonable price. Thats what social housing is for. The apposite word is social - it makes us a society and not just a collection of individuals.0 -
Delighted to see gammon isn’t purely an English idiotic trait.0
-
I don't hate anyone, just think everyone should pay their own way.
You forget, there is no "government" funded housing, it's all taxpayer funded.
They should, if they can't they need to retrain, upskill, or move location (either job or living )
So do I and every political entity and organisation in the country.
I certainly do not. If the Government had to use personal money the state would be in a far better position. Wouldn't be any NCH over run of that you can be sure.
You don't seem to understand what a crisis is.Crisis:
a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger.
Essentially it's factors making the normal way of doing things untenable.
Also a race to the bottom is no genuine solution. For example if a Nurse or teacher can't afford rent, move poorer people out to the far ends of the country to make room. That would be a massive societal failure and squarely on societies shoulders for failing to manage itself.
I take it you are a millionaire who doesn't have to work much? If not you must be lazy and/or happy to be ignorant, going by your logic.0 -
Advertisement
-
If you are calling this a crisis, then it is you that is ignorant of the meaning of crisis.Matt Barrett wrote: »So do I and every political entity and organisation in the country.
I certainly do not. If the Government had to use personal money the state would be in a far better position. Wouldn't be any NCH over run of that you can be sure.
You don't seem to understand what a crisis is.
Essentially it's factors making the normal way of doing things untenable.
Also a race to the bottom is no genuine solution. For example if a Nurse or teacher can't afford rent, move poorer people out to the far ends of the country to make room. That would be a massive societal failure and squarely on societies shoulders for failing to manage itself.
I take it you are a millionaire who doesn't have to work much? If not you must be lazy and/or happy to be ignorant, going by your logic.
I am no millionaire, I have a relatively good job, as does herself, and we cannot afford still a nice house in a nice area in Dublin, so we moved out of dublin. Shock horror0 -
If you are calling this a crisis, then it is you that is ignorant of the meaning of crisis.
Society and government would beg to differ...Leo Varadkar says housing crisis keeps him awake at night
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/leo-varadkar-says-housing-crisis-keeps-him-awake-at-night-1.3724198
If you can't or won't recognise the crisis it invalidates everything you spout here.I am no millionaire, I have a relatively good job, as does herself, and we cannot afford still a nice house in a nice area in Dublin, so we moved out of dublin. Shock horror
So you failed. Fair enough.0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Society and government would beg to differ...
If you can't or won't recognise the crisis it invalidates everything you spout here.
So you failed. Fair enough.
I failed, based on criteria being set by a socialist. I'm ok with that.
I'd rather my own home paid for myself, as opposed to taking a free home from the taxpayer.
There is no housing crisis. You can't use Leo as a tenet for your viewpoint when you disregard the whole of FG/0 -
I failed, based on criteria being set by a socialist. I'm ok with that.
I'd rather my own home paid for myself, as opposed to taking a free home from the taxpayer.
There is no housing crisis. You can't use Leo as a tenet for your viewpoint when you disregard the whole of FG/
Well I mean maybe if you up-skilled or worked harder you could have afforded Dublin.0 -
Now you're catching on.Matt Barrett wrote: »Well I mean maybe if you up-skilled or worked harder you could have afforded Dublin.0 -
Originally Posted by pm1977x View Post
Jesus! Give people luxury apartments most people can't dream of affording 'forever' so they never seek to better themselves or pull themselves up out of (luxurious) poverty, what an idiot, but expect nothing less from populist nonsense merchants like Eirigi and PBP. 25 people is about as many votes as he deserves next time out.
hang on! its fg, ff and the likes who have voted for this current farce in dundrum. it makes zero sense, I dont care if eirigi or the man on the moon are against it! Its a total and utter disgrace!
Its FG and FF that are leading this lunacy! Like you say, providing insanely expensive accommodation to some, while their working poor neighbors across the road, fork out 2k plus for a one bed, nearly three 3k for a two bed! The system is rotten and corrupt to the core! This arrangement which is even more outrageous, is for twenty five years, what happens then? they are bent over a barrel, into another outrageous contract? :rolleyes:
Its so obvious that this housing crisis cant and wont be solved, because people are in desperate situations, because of the crippling rents and prices that the government supports. The only thing that will force change, is ff or sf demanding change to housing policy or years more of this farce, where the a FG are forced into a climbdown....
take a read of this, for where our homeless numbers actually stand in the big scheme of things. This homeless thing, has now become a bandwagon for many frauds, to pretend they are now do gooders, like varadkar, i'm sure they think they look great on the social media, with their feigned empathy!
we had gay marriage as the hot topic for a while, onto abortion and now its homeless...0 -
https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/conor-skehan-nothing-but-the-facts-will-do-when-tackling-homelessness-38763570.htmlDemanding an answer to the question 'Just how bad a Housing Minister is Eoghan Murphy' is only half a question.
There is no right answer to a wrong question and there is no greater falsehood than a half-truth - hence the oath in court demanding that the witness tells 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time," quoted Winston Churchill in 1947, as post-war Britain faced into a period of unprecedented uncertainty that saw the rise of populist innovations, such as the disastrous nationalisations of the coal, steel and gas industries as well as the railways.
Similarly, any minister of a department who oversees any upsetting aspect of life can be equally criticised as the worst ever minister for 'allowing' road traffic accidents, suicides, cancer deaths, or homelessness.
Populist denunciations of wrongdoing by authority figures has become a new blood sport, yet such attacks can be confounded by asking the accuser the simple question: 'Compared to what?' How bad compared to the past? How bad compared to other countries? How bad compared to previous ministers?
For example, the counts of rough sleepers in Dublin have varied little over the last 12 years, through boom and bust. There was a minimum of 59 and a maximum 184 - the current figure is 92. This has happened on the watch of five separate ministers, drawn from Fine Gael, Fianna Fail, Labour and the Green Party. Life - with all its tragedies - marches heedlessly onwards, no matter who is in power.
Attempts have been made to close this form of analytical dialogue by outrage. Critics denounce comparisons as attempts to diminish the crisis by 'normalising' or 'contextualising' it or by claiming that it is 'victim shaming', or that the minutiae of comparative data are out of date or irrelevant.
The list of methods used to try to shake off the troublesome question, 'compared to what?', is long. Perhaps the vigour of the attempts to stifle this type of analysis should be taken as a compliment to its appropriateness and effectiveness.
When formulating public policy, the truth must be told by using facts and not by making emotional appeals. 'During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act' has become the slogan for those who point out that truth is the new hate speech, where facts are not always welcome.
The facts are that, in terms of comparisons on the broad canvas of housing, Ireland now fares well in the context of Europe; having the fourth lowest level of overcrowding; the fifth lowest housing overburden rate and Europe's lowest levels of severe housing deprivation and households with children facing overcrowding.
Indeed, in every one of the 11 factors examined in the indicators of European Homelessness 2019 report, Ireland is better than the EU average in every one, except in the fundamental issue of arrears - as well as the prevalence of lone women with dependent children among households experiencing damp housing. These are facts.
Those confronted with using alarmism to further their cause often counter by saying "Ah, what's the harm of a bit of exaggeration, if it shocks people into giving money. Sure, it's a worthy cause". The harm of exaggeration and alarmism is that it can cause the misdirection of scarce resources into photogenic 'misery porn' projects - as Patsy McGarry courageously called out in last week's Irish Times.
In the case of housing, charities and activist journalism all try to vigorously make the case that homelessness must be the national priority - which is a misdirection. Homelessness is a result of lack of affordability, not lack of housing. This critique has often been derided, but this reality has been confirmed since the recovery of housing supply, which has done little to change the number of homeless.
In fact, housing supply appears to be surging - as evidenced by more than 20pc increases in new homes built; commenced or permitted in 2018 - a remarkable achievement.
This has taken the heat out of price increases which have slowed to only 1.1pc in September 2019, approaching the typical inflation rate of the rest of the economy.
Meanwhile the real issues, like mortgage arrears, go neglected. Currently between 28,000-30,000 such family homes have been in arrears for more than two years. The Central Bank's latest figures up to the last quarter of last year says there are 19,000 who have been unable to meet any commitments for over five years. This figure masks more complex realities - with poorer households having significantly less [and falling] arrears compared to the general population in which nearly 8pc have such problems - over twice the EU average.
This is real trouble on a very large scale, but there are solutions - though you wouldn't know about it to read the media; nor would you know that solutions such as Mortgage-to-Rent exist - which keeps financially distressed families in their homes. This approach may have the capacity to keep up to 8-9,000 households in their houses. This approach surely needs even more attention.
This brings us to answering the 'Compared to what?' question. Even allowing for the complexity of international comparisons, it is sobering to contemplate the scale of housing and homelessness issues around the world compared to Ireland.
We have around 10,000 people who are classified as 'homeless'. By comparison in Scotland in 2018-19, 36,465 homeless applications were made, of whom 29,894 were assessed as homeless by their local authority - an increase of 3pc, or 892 applications, compared to the previous year.
Homelessness is a very different thing from rough sleeping - the subject of most posters that seek funding for homelessness. The Dublin region has 92 people who were recorded as rough sleeping this year compared to 152 in 2018. Brussels has 150 rough sleepers; in 2015 Lisbon had 431. It is sobering to consider the comparable figures for larger cities such as London which has 8,855; Paris 2,232; Los Angeles 44,000; Seattle 12,112; San Francisco 9,700; New York City 3,588, and San Diego 8,576. Homelessness is a part of the reality of capital cities and large cities all over the world.
There is one final comparison that must be borne in mind. Dealing with homelessness must be compared with the effect on those who are not homeless. Ministers for housing must juggle the maddening complexity of the consequences of their successes. The housing market recovers - people are relieved to at last be freed from the shackles of negative equity - yet in the same breath they curse the rising prices because their children are locked out of the market by the rising price of new homes. No winning for a minister there.
More troublingly, the improvement in the provision of more than 8,000 new high-quality social houses has the potential to badly bruise those working hard to enter the private housing market. These who struggle to save have the potential to feel inequitably treated compared to those in receipt of social housing. No winning for a minister there either.
Yes, this is the worst minister - except for all those others that have been tried from time to time, in any place, all over the world.0 -
why should anyone pay a fortune to live in Dublin? there is huge amounts of land available for development, we can build above a few floors like the rest of the world have been doing for decades, the state houses and has housed many people here at virtually no cost to those individuals. Anyone who can afford a mortgage here, will be paying the scandalous marginal rate of tax, then paying a huge amount directly to the government in building related taxes. Then get done on europes highest interest rates.
Do people not stop to think , why should I work my ass to afford something average or or move to some kip an hour from dublin? When its the system that screws them over, and they defend this system that screws them, it is bizarre!0 -
They should, if they can't they need to retrain, upskill, or move location (either job or living )
Thats fine for you to say but not everyone is in a position to do any of those. You seriously expect an ordinary working man on a low wage to up sticks so he can buy a house! We (and I accept its we the taxpayer) must provide for those who can't afford to buy a house or rent at todays prices. And I don't mean buy in a location of their choice but anywhere in the Dublin region if their job is in Dublin.0 -
crossman47 wrote: »Thats fine for you to say but not everyone is in a position to do any of those. You seriously expect an ordinary working man on a low wage to up sticks so he can buy a house! We (and I accept its we the taxpayer) must provide for those who can't afford to buy a house or rent at todays prices. And I don't mean buy in a location of their choice but anywhere in the Dublin region if their job is in Dublin.
you see, I would agree with the "put in more effort" "get up earlier" line etc, directed at some people, but how do you justify that stance, when there are many not getting up or lifting a finger, getting prime dublin property for next to nothing?0 -
Advertisement
-
crossman47 wrote: »Thats fine for you to say but not everyone is in a position to do any of those. You seriously expect an ordinary working man on a low wage to up sticks so he can buy a house! We (and I accept its we the taxpayer) must provide for those who can't afford to buy a house or rent at todays prices. And I don't mean buy in a location of their choice but anywhere in the Dublin region if their job is in Dublin.
Why should I as a taxpayer be expected to fund someone else to live somewhere I cannot afford?
If your job in Dublin doesnt pay enough for you to live in Dublin then move0 -
Matt Barrett wrote: »Moving from slums to social housing was great for Irish society, there's a strong chance most people come from a socially housed family background.
People pay for themselves, but it gets more difficult as the market raises pricing the LA's/state meet with leasing/renting etc. It's a vicious circle of greed.
What was wrong with housing the Irish? What do you have against the Irish? Do you think we have two subsets in Ireland, they 'doing alright' and the 'can go f*** themselves'? How do you think the 'doing alright' make their money? A lot of them make it off investing in housing. You are talking about doing away with their customer base. Why do you hate wealthy people and those on low incomes?
I thought that 'social' is paying rent (from the Govt., via HAP etc.), to: a Landlord Owner / or to a Mortgaged Investor :- mainly to give to both of these groupings, Profit and to secure their Asset/s.
Whereas 'Council' housing that was built by State Govt. funds (c.1930's to 1970's?) and provided to directly to those in need (on 74 yr. leases?) :- and all rent that was being paid, was being given directly back to the State.
But (did?), Ch.J.Haughey, Fianna Fail, decided to ditch the State; sell 'em all off; and so, to create Fianna Fail owners; then, Fianna Fail landlords; and then, Fianna Fail multiple investors.
Fianna Fail had the sureness themselves of 74 yr. Leases? themselves; and then turned Rogue;- to everyone thereafter.
(most definitely include Labour in the above; and many F.G.).0 -
Idbatterim wrote: »you see, I would agree with the "put in more effort" "get up earlier" line etc, directed at some people, but how do you justify that stance, when there are many not getting up or lifting a finger, getting prime dublin property for next to nothing?
One has little to do with the other. We don't do it for fraudsters and we should root them out.NovemberWren wrote: »I thought that 'social' is paying rent (from the Govt., via HAP etc.), to: a Landlord Owner / or to a Mortgaged Investor :- mainly to give to both of these groupings, Profit and to secure their Asset/s.
Whereas 'Council' housing that was built by State Govt. funds (c.1930's to 1970's?) and provided to directly to those in need (on 74 yr. leases?) :- and all rent that was being paid, was being given directly back to the State.
But (did?), Ch.J.Haughey, Fianna Fail, decided to ditch the State; sell 'em all off; and so, to create Fianna Fail owners; then, Fianna Fail landlords; and then, Fianna Fail multiple investors.
Fianna Fail had the sureness themselves of 74 yr. Leases? themselves; and then turned Rogue;- to everyone thereafter.
(most definitely include Labour in the above; and many F.G.).
I'm not sure what your question is. Social housing should be council/state owned on public land. There should be no private element outside of who ever we pay to build IMO.
TBF, Labour was the only main party to call out selling off public land in the PPP scheme. That has us where we are.0 -
WOW! 55 million euro. That could have gone to 25 of the swine flu vaccine victims as compensation. They really need to get their priorities straight.0
-
I think I'll give up on this. Some people here would have been quite at home in Thatchers Britain. Devil take the hindmost and every man for himself - no such thing as society as she once said.0
-
Why should I as a taxpayer be expected to fund someone else to live somewhere I cannot afford?
If your job in Dublin doesnt pay enough for you to live in Dublin then move
That's a fair point but we need to draw a line at some time. If government led private greed is making the tax payers situation difficult, government has a duty to change policy IMO. We have/had public land specifically for social housing. Now the market wants those areas, so what? The distribution of social housing should be based on need not greed or which areas are deemed fashionable by the market.
Imagine vulture funds buying up all around and in some country town and you trying to tell the locals, 'tough sh*t' move elsewhere? Be interesting to say the least. It would get to the stage of telling Irish people if they can't afford to live in Ireland, tough go abroad. Then you have to ask who's looking out for the Irish people if not government? The market?0 -
Except for being anti-Irish, Thatcher got a lot of stuff right.crossman47 wrote: »I think I'll give up on this. Some people here would have been quite at home in Thatchers Britain. Devil take the hindmost and every man for himself - no such thing as society as she once said.Matt Barrett wrote: »That's a fair point but we need to draw a line at some time. If government led private greed is making the tax payers situation difficult, government has a duty to change policy IMO. We have/had public land specifically for social housing. Now the market wants those areas, so what? The distribution of social housing should be based on need not greed or which areas are deemed fashionable by the market.
Imagine vulture funds buying up all around and in some country town and you trying to tell the locals, 'tough sh*t' move elsewhere? Be interesting.
"The distribution of social housing should be based on need not greed"
Correct, I agree with this.
However, the social housing should be built (not rented or HAP) by the state, ownership retained by the state (not inheritable).
Perhaps my "To hell or to longford" was a bit extreme.. but social housing could be built in areas of Dublin that are cheaper than the center. Provide more housing for the same money, without inconveniencing those who have done enough in life to better themselves above a need for social housing, to providing for themselves.
PS: If vulture funds wanted to buy every house in my area, I wouldnt have a problem with that. If someone is not paying the mortgage then the vulture fund (or anyone else for that matter) should be able to buy the property after repossession.0 -
PS: If vulture funds wanted to buy every house in my area, I wouldnt have a problem with that. If someone is not paying the mortgage then the vulture fund (or anyone else for that matter) should be able to buy the property after repossession.
In a lot of circumstances they buy it for pennies on the pound, probably much less than what a social housing tenant would purchase theirs for.
They then form a monopoly and they get to price fix.
If you have a problem with property prices or rents, trust me you have a problem with vulture funds.0 -
That also doesn't account for public land sold off ending up in the hands of vulture funds only to be rented, leased or bought back for use as social housing. Very bad deal for the tax payer, great for the housing speculation industry.0
-
Advertisement
-
Matt Barrett wrote: »That also doesn't account for public land sold off ending up in the hands of vulture funds only to be rented, leased or bought back for use as social housing. Very bad deal for the tax payer, great for the housing speculation industry.
Bought back at "market value".
To put it in context, you own a site of land, you employ a builder to build a house costing 200k, he then charges you 300k because he includes the price of the land you all ready own.
Seriously you couldn't actually make that up.0
Advertisement