The social housing list in Dublin

ThunbergsAreGo

bubblypop wrote: »

There is very bad value for our taxes, I agree 100%, I do think that the country I live in should look after those people who cannot look after themselves. Do you believe that?

Those who CANNOT look after themselves? Yes of course.

I don't think it needs to be top of the range apartments in city centre locations and I don't think it should be for life.

tom1ie

tom1ie wrote: »

But what to do about it? Any politicians who even dare broch this subject are slammed by the media and other vested interest parties such as the aforementioned REITS or the likes of PBP SF etc.

I know, it is a touchy subject!
But imo, the government really need to make it worthwhile for people to work, instead of making life easier for non workers, they need to incentivise actually going to work.
Now, that doesn't involve making life difficult for those who cannot work, but instead mAking work attractive to people that are in the fence.



Government have to make it worth while to work, if you can bring home more money weekly by not working, why would people look for a job?

yoke

Jizique wrote: »

You can believe that they should be looked after and not believe that they should be put up in €750k apartments on Howth Road or in Rathgar; you do not have to believe that county councils are bidding against first time buyers for property; you can question whether those with little interest in work should be handed housing in the city centre forcing workers to commute for over an hour each way to pay the tax that pays for the councils; you don’t have to believe that councils signing 25 year leases with property funds is a good use of our taxes

At first glance I'd have agreed with you, it sounds very unfair that people who are basically getting stuff for free, are getting stuff worth way more than the average worker can afford.


How do you suggest that the government prevents ghettoisation though, and prevent the creation of an underclass who live in a ****hole and get together to form gangs and ****?

Jinglejangle69

yoke wrote: »

At first glance I'd have agreed with you, it sounds very unfair that people who are basically getting stuff for free, are getting stuff worth way more than the average worker can afford.


How do you suggest that the government prevents ghettoisation though, and prevent the creation of an underclass who live in a ****hole and get together to form gangs and ****?

Tell them if they act the maggot they are out on the street.

Literally.

yoke

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Tell them if they act the maggot they are out on the street.

Literally.

Is there a country that has successfully tried this approach though without breaking the bank, ending up spending probably more on police than they're saving on social welfare?



The examples I can think of include Saudi Arabia and China, but Saudi Arabia almost definitely spends more on their police force than we spend on social welfare, per capita... I'm not sure about how things work in China.

Jinglejangle69

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Tell them if they act the maggot they are out on the street.

Literally.

And what happens when they are out in the streets?
Do you want a capital with hundreds of homeless people living in tents on the streets?
I'm not sure that is good for anyone

clytemnestra

https://www.thejournal.ie/stories-of-people-and-housing-in-ireland-5430959-May2021/

Dozens of stories collected here, some really shocking depressing stuff.

maccored

tom1ie wrote: »

Because tax payers are paying for it.
As a tax payer I would prefer to see the tax I have contributed towards spent wisely.

be careful then who you vote for. Its not the person taking advantage of whats on offer to them thats the issue. its the governments who - for example - increase the dole, set PUP payments at a high level etc that are creating the issues.

you cant blame people who find they are better off on the dole refusing work (though how they arent bored to death I'll never understand). You should though blame the parties who set the system up that way

ThunbergsAreGo

clytemnestra wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/stories-of-people-and-housing-in-ireland-5430959-May2021/

Dozens of stories collected here, some really shocking depressing stuff.

It is depressing but it's also awful emotive click bait drivel from a website that would have cheerleaded council buying up large swathes of potential housing

clytemnestra

Oh sure - I'm no fan of The Journal or its politics. I'm sure they'd never print anyone's opinions on how scandalous it is that unemployed people are being housed in 750k properties while they struggle. But the stories speak for themselves and are worth being made public.

Wanderer78

clytemnestra wrote:

Oh sure - I'm no fan of The Journal or its politics. I'm sure they'd never print anyone's opinions on how scandalous it is that unemployed people are being housed in 750k properties while they struggle. But the stories speak for themselves and are worth being made public.

..... Why have houses become so expensive?

ThunbergsAreGo

clytemnestra wrote: »

Oh sure - I'm no fan of The Journal or its politics. I'm sure they'd never print anyone's opinions on how scandalous it is that unemployed people are being housed in 750k properties while they struggle. But the stories speak for themselves and are worth being made public.

Absolutely, its a bad state of affairs for anyone looking to buy (or rent) at the moment.

Not enough building houses, increased regulations /cost on new builds and a growing population

JimmyVik

bubblypop wrote: »

I know, it is a touchy subject!
But imo, the government really need to make it worthwhile for people to work, instead of making life easier for non workers, they need to incentivise actually going to work.
Now, that doesn't involve making life difficult for those who cannot work, but instead mAking work attractive to people that are in the fence.

Government have to make it worth while to work, if you can bring home more money weekly by not working, why would people look for a job?

Policy in our house now not to bother doing overtime.
You take home less than half of it, so it just makes the time more valuable to you than what you end up left with after working OT.

Wanderer78

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

Absolutely, its a bad state of affairs for anyone looking to buy (or rent) at the moment.

Not enough building houses, increased regulations /cost on new builds and a growing population

....and we re still allowing the fire sectors to dictate the narrative!

maestroamado

Wanderer78 wrote: »

..... Why have houses become so expensive?

We have in my view politicians who do not care about the people they say they represent, that is principally our fault as we elect them but we have little choice as the cozy party cartel select who goes forward.
Also almost all Government policy in this country is through lobbying and the developers have a huge lobby.
The planning allows Cuckoo funds to buy a sway of houses that in my view were given planning for homes.
The best example i can think of.
The rural planning rules are unless they changed is if a family member wants to build a home on lands owned by family.
The house must be lived in by the person who got the planning for 7 or 10 years, i was told both by different people.
Then we have NAMA and a few other bodies, it will not get better any time soon...

Just to add i was talking to an EA i met about 2 years ago i met in the local large town and i mentioned the large development that was sold around Liffey Valley at the time.
I expressed my view and said i did not agree and i asked what he thought, he replied "you don't know the half of it and your better off"....

Wanderer78

maestroamado wrote: »

We have in my view politicians who do not care about the people they say they represent, that is principally our fault as we elect them but we have little choice as the cozy party cartel select who goes forward.
Also almost all Government policy in this country is through lobbying and the developers have a huge lobby.
The planning allows Cuckoo funds to buy a sway of houses that in my view were given planning for homes.
The best example i can think of.
The rural planning rules are unless they changed is if a family member wants to build a home on lands owned by family.
The house must be lived in by the person who got the planning for 7 or 10 years, i was told both by different people.
Then we have NAMA and a few other bodies, it will not get better any time soon...

i actually strongly disagree with this, i do believe most of our politicians are decent humans, and are actually extremely concerned about our housing issues, but this problem is far more serious than this, they actually believe their ideologies work, and are determined to show so, without accepting the reality, they simply dont!

Nermal

yoke wrote: »

How do you suggest that the government prevents ghettoisation though, and prevent the creation of an underclass who live in a ****hole and get together to form gangs and ****?

If that happens, it happens.

In the long run, it's less corrosive to society than seeing hard work go unrewarded.

Just make sure the ghettos are far away.

Wanderer78

Nermal wrote: »

If that happens, it happens.

In the long run, it's less corrosive to society than seeing hard work go unrewarded.

Just make sure the ghettos are far away.

so do nothing to try prevent such outcomes, and potentially create out of sight, out of mind situations? this strangely sounds familiar!

ek motor

Nermal wrote: »

If that happens, it happens.

In the long run, it's less corrosive to society than seeing hard work go unrewarded.

Just make sure the ghettos are far away.

As unpalatable as it sounds , this is the most suitable option.

Wanderer78

ek motor wrote: »

As unpalatable as it sounds , this is the most suitable option.

what happens if its decided to place one of these areas next door to you?

IngazZagni

Wanderer78 wrote: »

what happens if its decided to place one of these areas next door to you?

This is already happening. The Oscar traynor Road site for example. A good mix of private and social will now be delayed for years and eventually a 100% mix of social will be created. This is going to be the norm on public sites going forward. We have completely forgotten about the mistakes we made in the past on these issues.

Jinglejangle69

bubblypop wrote: »

And what happens when they are out in the streets?
Do you want a capital with hundreds of homeless people living in tents on the streets?
I'm not sure that is good for anyone

Well maybe just maybe if people realise if they act the bolox and make life hell for others they might end up loosing their social house, they might think twice.

Worth a shot no?

Cause the current situation isn't working.

Wanderer78

IngazZagni wrote: »

This is already happening. The Oscar traynor Road site for example. A good mix of private and social will now be delayed for years and eventually a 100% mix of social will be created. This is going to be the norm on public sites going forward. We have completely forgotten about the mistakes we made in the past on these issues.

what if we truly dont know how to address such issues?

Wanderer78

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Well maybe just maybe if people realise if they act the bolox and make life hell for others they might end up loosing their social house, they might think twice.

Worth a shot no?

Cause the current situation isn't working.

so potentially making people homeless, resolves issues by......

ThunbergsAreGo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so potentially making people homeless, resolves issues by......

Getting other, less disruptive (for neighbors etc) people who contribute to society homed

Incentivising working and abiding by the law

Wanderer78

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

getting other, less disruptive (for neighbors etc) people who contribute to society homed

...so basically 'swapping' populations, this resolves these issues by....

what if some simply dont give a rats arse about rules, laws, and consequences....

Mimon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so potentially making people homeless, resolves issues by......

Motivating people to not act the maggot because they know there is serious consequences for doing so.

I don't really like getting up at 6am every morning to commute to work and I could decide I'm not going to work ever again but hey I know there will be consequences and I could end up losing my home and be homeless.

Seems a section of society are privileged as there is no consequences for anything they do. Never worked, get a house handed to you, act the maggot, zero action taken against you.

ThunbergsAreGo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...so basically 'swapping' populations, this resolves these issues by....

You are correct there is a bigger problem in the lack of housing given the growing population we have. It wouldn't fix it but it would reward people who work, instead of penalising them. Why is it people in private accommodation of buying that need to move further and further from their area.

This is the single biggest issue in the country at the moment, a growing population and not enough houses.

Reducing regulation e.g. required BER - might help reduce the cost of housing - but likely our climate change initiative will prevent that. Its almost like everything that happens is interconnected...

We cannot have cheap houses built to a high standard that dont negatively effect the planet.

We cannot have a growing population, not build houses (partly due to the above) and not have a housing issue.

Wanderer78

Mimon wrote: »

Motivating people to not act the maggot because they know there is serious consequences for doing so.

I don't really like getting up at 6am every morning to commute to work and I could decide I'm not going to work ever again but hey I know there will be consequences and I could end up losing my home and be homeless.

Seems a section of society are privileged as there is no consequences for anything they do. Never worked, get a house handed to you, act the maggot, zero action taken against you.

do you really think this is going to work, do you really think people, who have probably struggled in the early stages of our educational and training systems, and probably left at an early age, will all of a sudden have an epiphany, return to it, or maybe go straight to work? what kind of work would await them, what employer would employ them? i suspect low waged jobs are probably all theyd get, if they were lucky, can you truly house yourself, and provide all of your needs under such employment conditions?

ThunbergsAreGo wrote: »

You are correct there is a bigger problem in the lack of housing given the growing population we have. It wouldn't fix it but it would reward people who work, instead of penalising them. Why is it people in private accommodation of buying that need to move further and further from their area.

This is the single biggest issue in the country at the moment, a growing population and not enough houses.

Reducing regulation e.g. required BER - might help reduce the cost of housing - but likely our climate change initiative will prevent that. Its almost like everything that happens is interconnected...

We cannot have cheap houses built to a high standard that dont negatively effect the planet.

We cannot have a growing population, not build houses (partly due to the above) and not have a housing issue.

again, the bigger question is, how come property and land has become so expensive, and in a relatively short space of time?

ELM327

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i actually strongly disagree with this, i do believe most of our politicians are decent humans, and are actually extremely concerned about our housing issues, but this problem is far more serious than this, they actually believe their ideologies work, and are determined to show so, without accepting the reality, they simply dont!

Decent humans I'm sure, but caring about housing I don't think so.


I actually disagree with some/most people here. I don't think we have a housing crisis. There are plenty of available houses. It's just that certain cohorts of people who dont work want free houses/subsidized houses in the city center - which a lot of workers cannot afford.