Immigration and the housing crisis

Cordell

Roma gypsies used to get asylum here on basis of discrimination* in their home country (usually Romania). They are just as discriminated here, but with the added benefits

*they are treated there pretty much the same as Irish travelers here, and for the same reasons.

Thelonious Monk

I just don't think the current system is fair really. Around Holles St for e.g. there are some really nice council flats, Merrion Square is your front garden ffs. Why should they get to live there, when I couldn't afford to live in my parents area and had to move to an ex council house further out of town?! The irony...
It doesn't even bother me, I'm happy where I am and wouldn't really want to live centrally now - but surely people who are bringing money to the city should be the ones living centrally? It would improve the city centre for sure. It's just a shame and unfair that young professionals can't afford to live centrally while some people get them basically for free and may not contribute much at all.

Yurt2

The Nal wrote: »

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.

Guaranteed if that development was bulldozed and private housing was built on it, it would be for RCSI students (it's just around the corner) from Bahrain or Saudi paying north of 2k a month for accommodation. That's the market that has been cultivated and encouraged. 'Ordinary workers' or even relatively well off young professionals ain't going there under your hypothesis, no chance.

ifElseThen

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

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.

I'd be pro natural attrition and cities evolving naturally, i.e you don't inherit a social rented house etc, but go on the list under your own merits. But I'd be against forcing sitting tenants out just because prevailing winds mean that area is now very desireable.

I work in IT, in a company in the suburbs and I live in the suburbs. Accomodation needs to be factored in when making career choices.

Also lets face it, very few people have the luxury of living where they work.

Gov need to prioritise job location outside of the IFSC, Silicon Docks etc. Plenty of people have been saying this for years.

And prioritise remote working, esp for office workers.

kildare lad

Kivaro wrote: »

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.

It's head scratching alright , those who contribute nothing get looked after , they need to stop children's allowance after 2 children , do they expect the state to house their kids aswell when they grow up. Eastern Europeans pay their way in fairness, as for some of the other nationalites not so much

Idbatterim

Yurt! wrote: »

Guaranteed if that development was bulldozed and private housing was built on it, it would be for RCSI students (it's just around the corner) from Bahrain or Saudi paying north of 2k a month for accommodation. That's the market that has been cultivated and encouraged. 'Ordinary workers' or even relatively well off young professionals ain't going there under your hypothesis, no chance.

yeah but only because thats the current set up, change it! Moving those people out of the area might be contentious, but they cant have their free housing and then block far more of it being delivered. I agree, level the kips and put up far more housing...

Idbatterim

kildare lad wrote: »

It's head scratching alright , those who contribute nothing get looked after , they need to stop children's allowance after 2 children , do they expect the state to house their kids aswell when they grow up. Eastern Europeans pay their way in fairness, as for some of the other nationalites not so much

yes and all delivered and supported by that lying useless rat varadkar! dont forget that, do not vote FG until they actually remember and reward those, who voted for them!

Thelonious Monk

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes and all delivered and supported by that lying useless rat varadkar! dont forget that, do not vote FG until they actually remember and reward those, who voted for them!

In fairness it's been going on for decades. When they levelled the Sherrif St flats they should have moved the folks elsewhere and developed the IFSC area properly, as much as it has come on the area is still dodgy enough.

Lollipops23

My OH was lucky enough to A) work in a decently paid job since graduating and live at home rent free (long story) through the majority of his 20s, so managed to get the deposit for an apartment in the north city centre in 2016. No way he'd afford it now, the prices have climbed.It was also in terrible condition when we got the keys, so we sweated getting it habitable.

Anyway, we've scrimped and saved and made the place a home, where we intend on staying for a long time.

Right next to us is an estate of social housing. The kids are feral and the cause of much anti social behaviour, the crescent is constantly full of rubbish bags and the police are often up there.

I wonder how much they had to sacrifice to get to live in the same street as those of us who worked our asses off to make our houses a decent home?

Donald Trump

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My OH was lucky enough to A) work in a decently paid job since graduating and live at home rent free (long story) through the majority of his 20s, so managed to get the deposit for an apartment in the north city centre in 2016. No way he'd afford it now, the prices have climbed.It was also in terrible condition when we got the keys, so we sweated getting it habitable.

Anyway, we've scrimped and saved and made the place a home, where we intend on staying for a long time.

Right next to us is an estate of social housing. The kids are feral and the cause of much anti social behaviour, the crescent is constantly full of rubbish bags and the police are often up there.

I wonder how much they had to sacrifice to get to live in the same street as those of us who worked our asses off to make our houses a decent home?

So you're living on the back of your OH whereas those social housing people are living off the state?

Rufeo

*gets out popcorn

Dravokivich

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Affordable housing is to be had in Ireland. Less affordable in Dublin than in places like Roscommon. But London is more expensive than the North of England.

https://www.property.ie/property-for-sale/roscommon/

And there are plenty of empty houses. They could be used to house the homeless, while they are waiting for their new house to be built in Dublin.

Those lower priced houses need work. The ones that dont, arent much cheaper than in dublin. I also wouldnt be too keen on the commute to work. Homeless does not mean unemployed.

Kivaro

And "homeless" does not mean NOT having a forever home paid by Irish tax payers.

homeless (from the Oxford dictionary)
adjective
plural noun: the homeless; adjective: homeless

(of a person) without a home, and therefore typically living on the streets.

FreeThePants

Kivaro wrote: »

And "homeless" does not mean NOT having a forever home paid by Irish tax payers.

Where did they say that's what they wanted?

rgossip30

The Nal wrote: »

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.

Ballymun towers again.

Lollipops23

Donald Trump wrote: »

So you're living on the back of your OH whereas those social housing people are living off the state?

I'm paying half a mortgage.

I'm also paying half for renovations, bills, furniture etc.

FreeThePants

rgossip30 wrote: »

Ballymun towers again.

How and why?

Gunmonkey

FreeThePants wrote: »

How and why?

Probably "rabblerabblerabble moving poor people out of the city centre into crappy apartments on the edge of Dublin rabblerabblerabble social engineering rabberabblerabble"

rob316

Mass social housing will only work if its for all. The current income limits are farcical and are excluding people who would be pay their fair share of rent not the €20 a week a dole head is paying.

Housing the dregs of society again all at once will just create the next generations ghettos like we have already.

The Vienna model is the way forward and if we put in place radical plans now, in 10 years these projects could be common. We can get rid of this obsession of home ownership by providing state owned properties that have security of tenure.

To fund this though, council rents need to be increased, its 15% of income and in some cases far less.

We absolutely have to prioritize people who are working on these housing lists, who will pay a fair rent and the wasters will realize you need a job to get help.

I posted on another thread a few more points too

Here is where I would make a start on housing.

Create a public housing body, take control of social housing from the council's.

Increase council tenant rent rate.

Deduct rent from SW income directly. That will avoid any rent arrears.

Abolish the tenant purchase scheme. No way we should be selling off our housing stock for half the market value.

Raise the income limits for social housing to 60k for a working family.

Prioritise working families for social housing allocation.

Clamp down on buy to rent with higher taxes on the landlord.

We need a tax relief system to entice skilled tradesmen from abroad.

Get into the schools across the country and encourage people to consider an apprenticeship instead of going to college for the pointless arts, business degree etc.

Thelonious Monk

Is it not a case of the more social housing you build the more people will see them as an option and want one, where does it end? There'll always be some dole waster or immigrant or whatever looking for social housing, and their kids and their kids etc etc.
I have family in Austria and they don't have the same kind of people we have in Ireland, so it may work there but that doesn't mean it would work here.
I mean should we not be encouraging certain people not to have kids if they can't afford them? Then we're into eugenics. F*ck knows.

rob316

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Is it not a case of the more social housing you build the more people will see them as an option and want one, where does it end? There'll always be some dole waster or immigrant or whatever looking for social housing, and their kids and their kids etc etc.
I have family in Austria and they don't have the same kind of people we have in Ireland, so it may work there but that doesn't mean it would work here.

Which is why I said we need to give working families/working couples the priority.

It's an option plenty will still want home ownership.

rob316

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Is it not a case of the more social housing you build the more people will see them as an option and want one, where does it end? There'll always be some dole waster or immigrant or whatever looking for social housing, and their kids and their kids etc etc.
I have family in Austria and they don't have the same kind of people we have in Ireland, so it may work there but that doesn't mean it would work here.
I mean should we not be encouraging certain people not to have kids if they can't afford them? Then we're into eugenics. F*ck knows.

The cost has living has made people have smaller families but then you look at the future if we don't have kids who is going to contribute to exchequer and who will pay the older population state pensions. We are already seen the effects of an aging population.

Thelonious Monk

rob316 wrote: »

The cost has living has made people have smaller families but then you look at the future if we don't have kids who is going to contribute to exchequer and who will pay the older population state pensions. We are already seen the effects of an aging population.

Well maybe the aging population, which would include me by then, might have to have a bit less and suffer a little. We've been through worse. We can't just keep growing Ireland and the world's population indefinitely anyway.

Lord Fairlord

alastair wrote: »

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

It's growing because of immigration, some of which is legitimate and some is not.
Unfortunately there is a not insignificant problem with bogus asylum seekers (and one wonders how many came here through family reunification based on asylum granted where it shouldn't have been), sham marriages and English language schools that really just serve to get people in the country to work (and thus suppress wages for the Irish working class).

There is also the issue of culture. Some say that they are happy with people coming here as long as they are willing to work; that sounds good in theory. However if we take the first generation of British Pakistanis for example, I have no doubt that most of them worked hard, there being little in the way of social welfare in the 1950s. By the third generation, there are now serious problems with Islamism, sexual abuse, cousin marriage, welfare dependence etc. It shouldn't need to be said, but obviously there are many British Pakistanis not involved in any of that.

Lollipops23

rob316 wrote: »

The cost has living has made people have smaller families but then you look at the future if we don't have kids who is going to contribute to exchequer and who will pay the older population state pensions. We are already seen the effects of an aging population.

Not being bad, but plenty of these people's kids won't be contributing in a meaningful way (besides paying VAT). They certainly won't balance what they've claimed from the state social welfare with income taxes.

lainey_d_123

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Not being bad, but plenty of these people's kids won't be contributing in a meaningful way (besides paying VAT). They certainly won't balance what they've claimed from the state social welfare with income taxes.

And this is what people don't like to say because it's not politically correct.

The people most likely to have kids who will grow up to be contributors - those people who are healthy, educated, not substance abusers, live with good values/morals (i.e. knowing it's wrong to steal or smash up others' property) are the last people who are procreating, because they can't bloody afford to. I know so many people who would make wonderful parents but who have either decided against it for financial reasons or are only starting to try now in their late thirties because it's taken them this long to even have any sort of financial stability.

lainey_d_123

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Is it not a case of the more social housing you build the more people will see them as an option and want one, where does it end? There'll always be some dole waster or immigrant or whatever looking for social housing, and their kids and their kids etc etc.
I have family in Austria and they don't have the same kind of people we have in Ireland, so it may work there but that doesn't mean it would work here.
I mean should we not be encouraging certain people not to have kids if they can't afford them? Then we're into eugenics. F*ck knows.

How is it eugenics to tell people they have to support their own kids? I never understood this argument. Eugenics would be telling people they can't have kids at all because of their crappy genes (or whatever). Having to support the kids you chose to have is how it works in almost the entire world.

Annasopra

Thankfully the vast majority Irish voters didnt blame immigrants for our problems


https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/ireland-experienced-austerity-and-chose-not-to-blame-immigrants/11/02/?fbclid=IwAR3iI-n0lN1KPNM8wBSb7kuqV9d2PZwg1LGysnXXmP3JmK6gYTU6maocVLw#.XkKeRqGnzSk.facebook

riclad

The government and city council owns lots of land around dublin ,
if they want to build high rise social housing,they have lots of options.
i think going back to the old blocks in ballymun, the council would not be in favor of building housing over 4 storey,s to supply social housing .
theres, a limited amount of builders working in ireland now,
it makes no sense to knock down the council housing we have now .

Jizique

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Well maybe the aging population, which would include me by then, might have to have a bit less and suffer a little. We've been through worse. We can't just keep growing Ireland and the world's population indefinitely anyway.

Well, Japan still seems to be doing ok - GDP per capita is far more relevant that GDP, and with increased automation, we really need to question the need for an ever growing population.