Immigration and the housing crisis

lainey_d_123

alastair wrote: »

Because they’re just as entitled to live in their own homes? What makes you believe they don’t work any less hard? What makes you think they don’t work?

Why are those people entitled to live in homes with subsidised or free rent when others are paying a fortune to live across from them, or are forced to commute for hours a day to get to their jobs in Dublin city centre? Why are they more important than everyone else? If they work, why don't they pay market rent rate like everyone else?

Lefty Bicek

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Why are those people entitled to live in homes with subsidised or free rent when others are paying a fortune to live across from them, or are forced to commute for hours a day to get to their jobs in Dublin city centre? Why are they more important than everyone else? If they work, why don't they pay market rent rate like everyone else?

Because're we're not China.

Thankfully.

alastair

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Why are those people entitled to live in homes with subsidised or free rent when others are paying a fortune to live across from them, or are forced to commute for hours a day to get to their jobs in Dublin city centre? Why are they more important than everyone else? If they work, why don't they pay market rent rate like everyone else?

Nobody in local authority housing has ‘free rent’. You’ve no idea what rents they pay, so let’s not pretend otherwise. They’re entitled to live in those homes because they are their homes. I happen to live in the inner city too - and I’ve no responsibility for any commuters. Why not turf your partner out of her inner city gaff to placate a commuter? Why is she more important than the people across the river? And again - why do you claim that the people across the river don’t work?

lainey_d_123

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

Because're we're not China.

Thankfully.

So you think it's acceptable for people who don't work at all or who earn very little to live in prime real estate while others are forced to spend all their money on rent or commute for hours, having serious effects on their physical and mental health?

Why, again, do these people deserve to be punished?

Pkiernan

Average council house rent in Dublin City is 69 euro per week.

But a huge percentage of these people are in arrears and pay nothing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thejournal.ie/dublin-city-council-5-4956180-Jan2020/%3famp=1

lainey_d_123

alastair wrote: »

Nobody in local authority housing has ‘free rent’. You’ve no idea what rents they pay, so let’s not pretend otherwise. They’re entitled to live in those homes because they are their homes. I happen to live in the inner city too - and I’ve no responsibility for any commuters. Why not turf your partner out of her inner city gaff to placate a commuter? Why is she more important than the people across the river? And again - why do you claim that the people across the river don’t work?

Except I do, because most of my family live around there, including an aunt who has never worked a day in her life.

I'm not the one with a partner living in the IFSC, but I don't get why you think some people are entitled to homes while others aren't. What makes those people so special that local authority housing is their 'home' while other people are crammed into flatshares or insecure rentals into their thirties? Do they not also deserve 'homes'?

alastair

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Except I do, because most of my family live around there, including an aunt who has never worked a day in her life.

I'm not the one with a partner living in the IFSC, but I don't get why you think some people are entitled to homes while others aren't. What makes those people so special that local authority housing is their 'home' while other people are crammed into flatshares or insecure rentals into their thirties? Do they not also deserve 'homes'?

Your auntie is no expert on what rent people pay, or their employment status either. That’s between each household and the council. About half of council tenancies have a main earner in employment - and keep in mind a lot of their tenants are pensioners. They are entitled to their homes because they went through the open and fair process of the housing list.

When does your partner move out of her gaff to make way for those flatshare people?

Lefty Bicek

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

So you think it's acceptable for people who don't work at all or who earn very little to live in prime real estate while others are forced to spend all their money on rent or commute for hours, having serious effects on their physical and mental health?

Why, again, do these people deserve to be punished?

They don't deserve to be punished.

But I do not wish to live in a society that would give itself the right to just forcibly eject whole neighbourhoods out into the sticks, to appease some other socio-economic demographic that even I might be more well-disposed towards.

The acceptable answer to your conundrum is supply of decent housing, decent childcare, and decent public transport.

Eric Cartman

Lefty Bicek wrote: »

They don't deserve to be punished.

But I do not wish to live in a society that would give itself the right to just forcibly eject whole neighbourhoods out into the sticks, to appease some other socio-economic demographic that even I might be more well-disposed towards.

The acceptable answer to your conundrum is supply of decent housing, decent childcare, and decent public transport.

the carrot hasn't worked for them, time for the stick.

alastair

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the carrot hasn't worked for them, time for the stick.

I’m sure they can inform you themselves where you can stick both your carrot and your stick.

lainey_d_123

alastair wrote: »

Your auntie is no expert on what rent people pay, or their employment status either. That’s between each household and the council. About half of council tenancies have a main earner in employment - and keep in mind a lot of their tenants are pensioners. They are entitled to their homes because they went through the open and fair process of the housing list.

When does your partner move out of her gaff to make way for those flatshare people?

I'm sure everyone paying private rent would love to have just one person working. Most of my colleagues are forced to put their kids in childcare for hours every day while both parents work, but hey, at least pensioners and non-workers who have no need to be in the city centre are 'entitled' to their cheap houses, so f**k everyone else, hey?

You don't seem to be understanding, so I'll say it again. I'm not the person with the partner in the IFSC. Read it again, slowly. Do you get it yet?

Yurt2

Lainey, I have respect for you and as you may remember, both of us got in a heated exchange a few months ago with a particularly pigheaded poster who was basically suggesting that anyone who can't afford a home was a waster and was looking for a handout. It wasn't a pleasant exchange at the time but I backed you up, so I hope you'll hear me out on this.

Nobody should be shamed for having a roof over their head. Most people will admit that the social housing system in Ireland could do with reform, and we all know that there are many in arrears. It's not ideal, and perhaps greater measures should be taken to ensure as close to 100 percent of of rent is collected as possible, for the integrity and sustainability of the system.

However, I'll say this, not long ago, someone was low-key calling you a waster because you had housing difficulties, and now you're doing the same to a cohort of individuals that you don't know their circumstances.

Once again, for emphasis, there is no such thing as a free home in the council system. Yes there may be some pisstakers, but evreyone is billed for rent, and it's not good for you to displace your housing frustrations on someone else.

I don't get mad because people have a roof over their heads and somewhere to sit down and have a cup of tea with a friend, I'm glad they're able to.

Don't succumb to internet angryman nonsense. Social housing tenants are not your enemy.

alastair

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'm sure everyone paying private rent would love to have just one person working. Most of my colleagues are forced to put their kids in childcare for hours every day while both parents work, but hey, at least pensioners and non-workers who have no need to be in the city centre are 'entitled' to their cheap houses, so f**k everyone else, hey?

Who says there’s just one earner? And people do indeed have a need to be in the city centre - if that’s where their home is.

Lord Fairlord

RobertKK wrote: »

We need 100,000+++ workers extra in the construction sector, we don't have them here, we need more immigrants to come in and work in construction.

I don't get people who are anti-immigrant, the national party election ad the other night was a disgrace, saying we had too many... when the reality is we need more to fix the country, like building houses, working in health etc

We wouldn't need those people if we had been having enough children; we are now below replacement rate.

I don't mind some immigration but it must be pointed out that not only is the quantity of people coming an issue but also the quality. Some integrate well while others are culturally incompatible and have a high unemployment.
Before anyone says, "What about Irish people who are too lazy to work?", Irish people who are lazy are Ireland's problem, people from elsewhere who are lazy aren't.

Lefty Bicek

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

We wouldn't need those people if we had been having enough children; we are now below replacement rate.

I don't mind some immigration but it must be pointed out that not only is the quantity of people coming an issue but also the quality. Some integrate well while others are culturally incompatible and have a high unemployment.
Before anyone says, "What about Irish people who are too lazy to work?", Irish people who are lazy are Ireland's problem, people from elsewhere who are lazy aren't.

Spot on.

alastair

Lord Fairlord wrote: »

We wouldn't need those people if we had been having enough children; we are now below replacement rate.

I don't mind some immigration but it must be pointed out that not only is the quantity of people coming an issue but also the quality. Some integrate well while others are culturally incompatible and have a high unemployment.
Before anyone says, "What about Irish people who are too lazy to work?", Irish people who are lazy are Ireland's problem, people from elsewhere who are lazy aren't.

The population is currently growing, based on natural growth alone.

4068ac1elhodqr

Tax breaks could be offered for natives to have kids, like Hungary.

But worth remembering, any great population increase isn't really needed anyway:

i) 100,000 jobs will be lost once brexit comes in proper (31Dec20+).
ii) 19nCoV will likely kickstart the next global recession, so more job losses.
iii) Automation will replace 40% of all jobs by the 2030's, unskilled roles are for the scrapheap.
iv) Any changes to CTax (likely) will scare off the MNC's towards some other low-tax state.

Thus, 'natural' rates (without mass immigration) are enough.

lainey_d_123

Yurt! wrote: »

Lainey, I have respect for you and as you may remember, both of us got in a heated exchange a few months ago with a particularly pigheaded poster who was basically suggesting that anyone who can't afford a home was a waster and was looking for a handout. It wasn't a pleasant exchange at the time but I backed you up, so I hope you'll hear me out on this.

Nobody should be shamed for having a roof over their head. Most people will admit that the social housing system in Ireland could do with reform, and we all know that there are many in arrears. It's not ideal, and perhaps greater measures should be taken to ensure as close to 100 percent of of rent is collected as possible, for the integrity and sustainability of the system.

However, I'll say this, not long ago, someone was low-key calling you a waster because you had housing difficulties, and now you're doing the same to a cohort of individuals that you don't know their circumstances.

Sorry, but no. There's a world of difference between not being able to afford to buy, despite years of hard work, and expecting to live in a prime area of central Dublin for free/cheap when you have no real need to be there. That's not shaming, it's not marginalising, it's just about being fair and using precious space effectively.

I'm not saying anyone housed there without a job should go and live in a tent - I'm saying that it's grossly unfair to have a system where vast swathes of people who don't work or barely work are so much better off than those who do. It makes no sense at all to have people not working and living in Dublin 1 because it's their 'home' while others are working their arses off and may never to be able to have a 'home' or be forced to commute for hours because the only place they can afford is it Cavan. Why should housing not be allocated according to need?

Once again, for emphasis, there is no such thing as a free home in the council system. Yes there may be some pisstakers, but it's not good for you to displace your housing frustrations on someone else.

I don't get mad because people have a roof over their heads and somewhere to sit down and have a cup of tea with a friend, I'm glad they're able to.

Don't succumb to internet angryman nonsense. Social housing tenants are not your enemy.

But there is such thing is a massively subsidised home, and why are they entitled to one, and in such prime real estate, while others aren't?

It's not angryman nonsense. I just think social responsibility only ever seems to go one way. Why can't everyone be more considerate of others and not just be out for themselves? It would be seen as really rude for a young, able bodied man to take a seat on the DART and leave an old lady standing, because the old lady has the greater need. Why does this not apply to housing? Someone who is working all hours in the IFSC to provide for a family and commuting 3-4 hours a day and never seeing their kids has the greater need for accommodation in central Dublin than my aunt, who could sit and watch TV all day from anywhere.

There simply aren't the resources for people to just take what they feel entitled to without considering the bigger picture and how it all fits together. But unfortunately the culture here is like that.

antoinolachtnai

rgossip30 wrote: »

What other means is there for counting the population in that case?
.

I thought we were in the presence of experts on census methodology? But you don’t even know how the census deals with unreturned forms?

It turns out that all these confident assertions about hundreds of thousands of uncounted foreigners are based on nothing. The people spreading this story have done no research and have no basis for it. They are just saying it to see if they can get a reaction.

Yurt2

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Sorry, but no. There's a world of difference between not being able to afford to buy, despite years of hard work, and expecting to live in a prime area of central Dublin for free/cheap when you have no real need to be there. That's not shaming, it's not marginalising, it's just about being fair and using precious space effectively.

I'm not saying anyone housed there without a job should go and live in a tent - I'm saying that it's grossly unfair to have a system where vast swathes of people who don't work or barely work are so much better off than those who do. It makes no sense at all to have people not working and living in Dublin 1 because it's their 'home' while others are working their arses off and may never to be able to have a 'home' or be forced to commute for hours because the only place they can afford is it Cavan. Why should housing not be allocated according to need?



But there is such thing is a massively subsidised home, and why are they entitled to one, and in such prime real estate, while others aren't?

It's not angryman nonsense. I just think social responsibility only ever seems to go one way. Why can't everyone be more considerate of others and not just be out for themselves? It would be seen as really rude for a young, able bodied man to take a seat on the DART and leave an old lady standing, because the old lady has the greater need. Why does this not apply to housing? Someone who is working all hours in the IFSC to provide for a family and commuting 3-4 hours a day and never seeing their kids has the greater need for accommodation in central Dublin than my aunt, who could sit and watch TV all day from anywhere.

There simply aren't the resources for people to just take what they feel entitled to without considering the bigger picture and how it all fits together. But unfortunately the culture here is like that.

There are moral issues all over the map with housing. I agree with you to an extent, but only to an extent. The faults you point out were not generated and presided over by the tenants you describe.

There's a big fat book to be written about the history of property, housing in Ireland and the attitudes that surround it. Who deserves what and what and why is not as simple as 'I have more purchasing power than people in social housing, therefore I think they should be displaced, sent to the badlands and I'll take what they have.'

As unsustainable as some aspects of the social housing system seems (and I agree it needs reform), what's even worse is the notion that you're purchasing power and relative income level should always hold sway over the greater societal good.

In many cases you'll end up losing on that line of thinking. Not so long ago you were rightly, and justifiably upset that you couldn't afford a home. Another poster basically turned around and said 'f*ck you, earn more money and buy one.' He was waving a sh*tty stick at you saying it's only moaners and lazy people that can't afford a property. You're more or less taking the same tack.

There's a real possibility the market could shift and maybe you'll be exiled beyond the M50, stranger things have happened in the Irish rental system.

Would it be ok if people just said, 'tough break loser, more productive people are here, so suck it up and get the hell out.' This is the exact dynamic that happens in places like San Francisco or Seattle.

Don't get taken by the green eyed monster and revel in your relatively stronger position in the market, because the market doesn't care about you. Not even a little bit.

Beasty

alastair wrote: »

I’m sure they can inform you themselves where you can stick both your carrot and your stick.

You are now banned from posting in this thread again

lainey_d_123

Yurt! wrote: »

There are moral issues all over the map with housing. I agree with you to an extent, but only to an extent. The faults you point out were not generated and presided over by the tenants you describe.

There's a big fat book to be written about the history of property, housing in Ireland and the attitudes that surround it. Who deserves what and what and why is not as simple as 'I have more purchasing power than people in social housing, therefore I think they should be displaced, sent to the badlands and I'll take what they have.'

As unsustainable as some aspects of the social housing system seems (and I agree it needs reform), what's even worse is the notion that you're purchasing power and relative income level should always hold sway over the greater societal good.

Except it's not about wealth and income. It's about need. The whole premise of social welfare is that it's supposed to be a safety net and a stepping stone. This doesn't work when people feel entitled to keep it forever, just because they needed it at one stage. Instead of feeling grateful for the help they received and wanting the next person to avail of that help, they pull the ladder up behind them so the next person gets nothing. And no, that's not the fault of the individual, but it is the fault of a system where individuals' needs are prioritised over the needs of the group.

If Mary lives in social housing in Dublin 1 while being a stay at home mother and bringing up her kids who go to local schools, why does she then get to stay in a 3-bed house once they've left home? Why is it such an outrage that she might be asked to move to a 1-bed flat suitable for a single person, but not an outrage that another family can't have the same help she did by moving into her house? Why does Mary get to have 'her' house with 2 empty bedrooms while the other family is trapped in private renting for decades with little security?

In many cases you'll end up losing on that line of thinking. Not so long ago you were rightly, and justifiably upset that you couldn't afford a home. Another poster basically turned around and said 'f*ck you, earn more money and buy one.' He was waving a sh*tty stick at you saying it's only moaners and lazy people that can't afford a property. You're more or less taking the same tack.

Except I'm not asking for any subsidies, handouts, or whatever you want to call it, and they are. If I were given a house for <70 euro a week and allowed to stay in it forever, I'd be bloody grateful for it, not complaining that it wasn't central enough for me. I certainly wouldn't expect to be housed in the city centre if I weren't working there.

There's a real possibility the market could shift and maybe you'll be exiled beyond the M50, stranger things have happened in the Irish rental system.

Oh, I'll most likely be emigrating, as I have several times already, just as I've commuted in from far beyond the M50. But that's OK, because I'm not considered 'disadvantaged', right?

Would it be ok if people just said, 'tough break loser, more productive people are here, so suck it up and get the hell out.' This is the exact dynamic that happens in places like San Francisco or Seattle.

Don't get taken by the green eyed monster and revel in your relatively stronger position in the market, because the market doesn't care about you. Not even a little bit.

There's a happy medium between 'knock it all down and build flats for the rich' and 'people are entitled to stay in social welfare houses for their entire lives despite not needing to be in central areas'.

ifElseThen

The inner city was not prime real estate for many decades. Do you expect those council tenants to be moved out of their community simply because it's prime real estate now? It is not their fault that gov/ibec forced concentration of FDI in and around their area.

We're moving towards Dublin being out of reach for anyone not in tech or finance and that's a result of bad planning in a multitude of sectors.

My parents are long term council tenants, old man worked in a semistate all his working life. With the old man in a nursing home, she now pays 36 a week for a 4 bed in D.12. This is ridiculously low but it is based on a 15% rate of the income. A few years back she was paying 140 a week. And she has never missed a week's payment. We've also had no success in getting a downgrade to a smaller place for the elderly.

The rules around social housing do need to be tightened and improved upon.

Yurt2

ifElseThen wrote: »

The inner city was not prime real estate for many decades. Do you expect those council tenants to be moved out of their community simply because it's prime real estate now? It is not their fault that gov/ibec forced concentration of FDI in and around their area.

The rules around social housing do need to be tightened and improved upon.

A point worth making from a moral standpoint.

From the 60s until the probably the early 90s, living between the canals or central areas generally was regarded as being for povs (to be clear I don't regard social housing tenants as povs, I'm just being provocative) as the upwardly mobile classes were taken up with moving to the near suburbs. Now that it's more desirable and there is housing unaffordability across the board, many are suggesting some type of social cleansing program for the central postcodes.

Let's entertain that idea for a moment as silly as it is: let's say we pogrom the povs to the badlands and modern open market apartments are built in their stead.

There's an almost 100 percent likelihood that such housing provision will be way out of reach of posters like Lainey and ordinary workers floating around the median wage and above (not to pick on her).

On the last point above I agree. There could stand to be greater enforcement of arrears and yes, in many cases, somewhat higher social housing rent to put the system on a sounder footing.

kildare lad

What happens when all these houses are built , whether the been subsided or social and another recession comes in, because it will happen be it 5 years or 10. Who's gonna pay for all of it ? We're currently paying 300000 Euro interest every half hour to europe. The country will go bankrupt .
As for immigration there's 2 families of gypsy's in my friends estate , they don't work and have loads of kids . How are they housed when they don't add one cent to the economy.

lainey_d_123

ifElseThen wrote: »

The inner city was not prime real estate for many decades. Do you expect those council tenants to be moved out of their community simply because it's prime real estate now? It is not their fault that gov/ibec forced concentration of FDI in and around their area.

We're moving towards Dublin being out of reach for anyone not in tech or finance and that's a result of bad planning in a multitude of sectors.

My parents are long term council tenants, old man worked in a semistate all his working life. With the old man in a nursing home, she now pays 36 a week for a 4 bed in D.12. This is ridiculously low but it is based on a 15% rate of the income. A few years back she was paying 140 a week. And she has never missed a week's payment. We've also had no success in getting a downgrade to a smaller place for the elderly.

The rules around social housing do need to be tightened and improved upon.

Well yes, why not? Cities evolve and areas change. If the IFSC area is where the jobs are, then why not prioritise workers for living there? What is this idea that because you happen to be born somewhere, you have a God given right to stay there for the rest of your life? I have friends from Donnybrook and Ballsbridge whose parents inherited houses before they went ridiculously expensive and they can't afford to live where they grew up. It's called 'life'.

Dublin isn't even in reach for a lot of people in tech and finance, especially when it comes to buying. This is another issue with many social tenants like my aunt, they have absolutely no idea what things actually cost because they've never had to pay for them. They think anyone with a good job is 'rich' and see them as the enemy. I was telling my aunt that my colleague is living in a tiny cramped 2 bed with his wife and 2 small children, desperately trying to save up to buy a place. His quality of life is far, far worse than any social tenant I know, despite the fact he's a software engineer on a 'good' salary. She asked me how could he be worse off than her when she's on the dole. I had to explain to my aunt just how much she gets for free/very cheap that other people have to pay for. Private rent, medical care, all sorts of things she's never had to worry about. Most people with 'good' jobs don't have the security she takes for granted.

lainey_d_123

Yurt! wrote: »

A point worth making from a moral standpoint.

From the 60s until the probably the early 90s, living between the canals or central areas generally was regarded as being for povs (to be clear I don't regard social housing tenants as povs, I'm just being provocative) as the upwardly mobile classes were taken up with moving to the near suburbs. Now that it's more desirable and there is housing unaffordability across the board, many are suggesting some type of social cleansing program for the central postcodes.

Let's entertain that idea for a moment as silly as it is: let's say we pogrom the povs to the badlands and modern open market apartments are built in their stead.

There's an almost 100 percent likelihood that such housing provision will be way out of reach of posters like Lainey and ordinary workers floating around the median wage and above (not to pick on her).

On the last point above I agree. There could stand to be greater enforcement of arrears and yes, in many cases, somewhat higher social housing rent to put the system on a sounder footing.

That's not what I'm saying, though. This is what the current situation is. Social housing tenants or very rich people. I'm suggesting that there should be a way for 'normal' workers to live in these areas, because at present, someone on the average income is essentially worse off than anyone.

Kivaro

kildare lad wrote: »

....
As for immigration there's 2 families of gypsy's in my friends estate , they don't work and have loads of kids . How are they housed when they don't add one cent to the economy.

I mentioned this in another thread a while back about how a family member of mine whose young family have to move from the town we were all born and bred in because the council bought up most of the affordable housing stock. They now have to move to a rural area and rebuild an old country cottage, away from their family and friends. Both of the parents in this young family work and contribute greatly to the local community.

So who is moving in these newly acquired housing stock in town?
Mostly Roma Gypies and some Africans. The Roma Gypies are definitely not working and are causing anti-social issues in the town with theft and begging.

This is the reality of the wrong type of immigration coming into this country. The town mentioned above also has a substantial Polish population, who are now part of the community and makes the town a better place by contributing and integrating into our society.

Yurt2

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

because at present, someone on the average income is essentially worse off than anyone.

Things aren't easy for the 'average' worker at the moment, but it's simply not true they're worse off than anyone. Everyone thinks their problems with housing are the most severe. There are people living on the streets. You even hear landlords sitting on three or four properties that are appreciating rapidly and have had their mortgage cleared two decades, the closest thing to the magic money tree that's possible in this economy, having a good moan to themselves about de socialists underminin' their precious property rights because some modest reforms protecting tenants from underhanded evictions get introduced.

The Nal

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

That's not what I'm saying, though. This is what the current situation is. Social housing tenants or very rich people. I'm suggesting that there should be a way for 'normal' workers to live in these areas, because at present, someone on the average income is essentially worse off than anyone.

This is 100 metres from Stephens Green, the LUAS and right beside the College of Surgeons. Why do we need social housing here?



Surely we could offer the people here much better homes outside of town, bulldoze this shíthole and go high rise? This land could house thousands of people.