Right to a house?

As well as building more social housing for the less well off, government needs to take advantage of cheap money worldwide to bring in investment and increase number of units built each year. Amateur landlords also need to be gradually replaced by large scale regulated corporate landlords.

Not one party or person believes or us serious about right to housing and that's just amongst those who call for it.

Comparing houses build up until the early '90's and there cost to now is ludicrous. Ya these houses look fine houses now. But they have gone through upgrades and retro fit since.

Pre 1990 houses were basically block walls, with softwood windows and doors, one bathroom, basic heating system. When these houses were build people.moved into them without kitchens, floor covering, painting and no external landscaping.

A house now build to the present regulations is a totally different product.

.....but under such conditions, this ultimately leads to monopolisation of markets, whereby smaller entities, i.e. smaller landlords get squeezed out of such markets, this is currently whats happening here, yes profits are necessary, but again, theres a difference between profits, and PROFITS!

....its time we grew up and started acting like adults, we must admit to ourselves this whole approach to property, i.e. the so called financialisation of our markets, has in fact catastrophically failed, and is now in a state of collapse.... it is failing for most citizens at this stage, including small landlords, who do play a critical role in helping provide this critical need.

...again asset owners have been heavily protected by public policy, in regards valuation, but small players have been ultimately thrown under the bus, along side the rest of the citizens, i.e. it has failed!

....yes, we must also admit to ourselves, financialisation ultimately leads to significant supply issues, heavily monopolised outcomes and hyper inflated prices, this approach only truly works for major plutocratic interests, while fcuking over everyone else!

I don't have to have a suggestion to see that repeating the same mistakes of the past that are self evident. Why do people think there would be a different outcome from things we did in the past?

Housing needs to be integrated that is all

...horsesh1t, just look at our current situation, and if you think ireland is the only country experiencing such outcomes, you better think again! financialisation has collapsed, this is clearly obvious in nearly every metric now! once again, theres very little risk involved for major investors, as public policy has their backs, credit, qe, the works.... baring in mind, its also common for major investors to receive debt forgiveness, if its needed, this is less likely for smaller investors, i.e. small time landlords....i.e. they have far more favorable conditions than smaller investors, i.e. its a completely rigged game!

yes, we do need the involvement of these entities, but it needs to be a more balanced and fairer game, but thats clearly not our reality! its clearly obvious that so called laissez faire has completely failed, leading to rapid rise in wealth inequality, and other far more complex social dysfunctions, i.e. its over!

I don't disagree with you per se. Putting poor people together creates ghettos. But is that because they are poor or is that just a symptom of something else? Causation and effect and all that. Completely random example: People who drink water first thing in the day are generally thinner. So if I drink water I'll loose weight? No people who drink water first thing in the morning are more likely to look after themselves generally. So poor may not be the issue in and off itself.

So to avoid ghettos the solution is to sprinkle them among the rest of the population who pay their own way. One has to ask at this point does society not pay enough already, why should we have to live with the anti social behaviour that comes with social housing?

Being poor has several route causes but all of those factors tend to lead to other social factors along with being poor. It is all about the odds being changed by the circumstances the state puts people in. If 50% of a school class have separated parents there will be more issues with those children than if it was 10% of the class.

The issue is anti-social behaviour increases where it is more socially acceptable. By spreading out people among the population they will be less likely to be anti-social. People generally don't like to stick out and go along with the community they live in. That is why it is a bad idea to put people together like they have in the past.

These people are part of society and they in many cases are a result of poor support services which the government failed to do in the past. You seem to suggest we just write them off and importantly their children who are innocent victims of poor planing. We can warehouse these people and continually pay to support them or help them to improve their lives. There is a poverty trap involved and it is generational for some. Leaving children with alcoholic/drug addict/mental ill parents leaves the children with very bad prospects. I went to school with people from social housing. Many were fine but some were crazy and a huge disruption. As an adult I now know these people had horrible home environments and just couldn't function. Those who were trouble now have kids just like them and my fellow students are like their parents and have created horrible home environments. Their kids have little hope of becoming productive members of society. We as a nation are responsible for them.

...and what left leaning political parties have been playing a major role in implementing such polices?

I never said the individuals lacked civic pride. Have you ever heard of the "broken window theory" you should look it up.

Where as you are actually automatically saying it is a bad thing without any research on the subject. There is actual research on this and it is known to be better for more people than warehousing people in social housing.

You 2 are bothered about a sense of fairness to the people who buy their own property and don't think others should be helped out. What you aren't considering is that that includes people with disabilities, illness or old age to name but a few. A friend of mine lived in Coolock in social housing because her brother was severally disabled and the costs resulted in them requiring state aid and housing. It was not pleasant place for her to grow up and actually very dangerous. She literally wasn't safe leaving the house if it was dark outside so she didn't.

My new neighbour has a disability and is being provided with the house next door. There are 2 careers that stay with him and I have no issue with him being there. You two have the view he should live in a social housing in a rough area created by the state. I don't agree with you and know he would be in danger in such a community because I grew u close enough to such areas to know what they are like. They are neglected by the councils and some of those living there. A few bad apples does destroy the whole barrel

again, you ll find the bad apples actually have highly complex needs, of which have never truly been addressed, this ultimately leads to even more complex and dysfunctional outcomes, and round and round we go.....

did the post touch a nerve… I’ll summarise your post . excuse , excuse , other people have it easier than me, even high earners can’t buy a house .

All excuses, if you want to buy a house save like hell , spend nothing , earn more , then buy a house .That’s all there is to it .Some people don’t like simple solutions cause the simple solution involves hard work . If you know any doctors or lawyers that can’t buy a house they must be working for free .

From friends that dealt with long term unemployed she said it is obvious that many have mental disorders but they can't force them to be evaluated or to seek help. It is like a vicious dog that is the result of mistreatment with a dog they put it down with a person you can't. Ultimately the goal should be to reduce the people being harmed now to prevent them going down the same route. The people we have now are the result of earlier failings. There are factors outside of environment but environment is what can be controlled and planned for.

The extremes are addicts but there is degrees of everything. In my primary school class I know the outcome of some people.

I know of some of my 33 fellow class mates

at least 2 are in prison for a long time

1 was shot over drug debts

3 are doctors

4 bank managers

1 is a TD

2 dead from natural causes

4 with long term illness

4 guys in and out of prison

2 alcoholics

2 dead from road accidents

1 head of a major company

After that nothing stands out

the 6 guys in prison lived in Coolock on 2 parallel roads. One of the doctors also lived there The guy shot was from a nicer area but became friends with the guys in prison now. The alcoholics had alcoholic parents. The guys with terminal illnesses live in council housing

About 20 million Americans live permanently in trailer parks, or 6% of the population (2015 stats). People living in direct provision here are also accommodated in mobile home camps. There is much available public land that could be used to accommodate people in family-sized units which the state has already deemed acceptable for those living in direct provision, often for many years. We have, in this country, some reluctance to accept that a home does not need to have fixed foundations to give people a secure place to live, for a time at least until their savings can fund the deposit or until a social housing unit is allocated to them.

Sections of public parks could be allocated to mobile home parking, with services included, such as communal showers and laundry services. Starting off: the grounds around Aras an Uachtarain could accommodate a sizeable number. The President show his concern and give a good example by welcoming the first convoy through the gates.

You completely missed the point. It is not "nature or nurture" no matter what the environment you are being raised in causes issues. It is not even something to discuss it is a known issue. How many of your class mates are in prison? How many murdered somebody? You may very well have no idea what I am talking about if you went to private boarding school as that is so removed from me I have no idea what your school days were like. I doubt you had nearly as many interactions in peoples' homes as I did growing up. Some class mates homes were very grim

Crime of passion or hire because that was 3 of my class mates. There are outliers

No it is about being nurtured by your family. The unknown is how you react to a standard environment. We know exactly what happens to people who live in high crime areas. I come from a privileged background compared to many but you were at another level completely there is no way you have the experience of seeing poverty like I did. Ever go to a persons house to find their parents sold the carpet and furniture?

I'll keep it in pop cultural references. Most people saw The Wire, a whole season shows the kids growing up and how their futures are determined by the environment. If you didn't get that from the show you won't get it in real life.