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 eviction ban

Options
1181921232462

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    Paint it whatever you wish. If you are a social tenant and you don't work, your rent is free. Paying 30 quid a week out of your dole is not a contribution. That assumes the 30 quid is paid, which often it isn't.

    Stay Free



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    "Former Lord Mayor of Dublin, Green Party member Hazel Chu, said she was “not surprised” by the high costs due the higher quality of materials used in council properties.

    “We need to maintain a high quality of standards when it comes to council built properties, but I do wonder about the management. We need to manage the costs better,” she said."

    What a perverse incentive when those who are not contributing are getting higher quality things paid by those who work their asses off and can't afford it themselves.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,209 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Those key workers include nurses, teachers and shop workers. There's loads of people on minimum wage who are "key workers" Plus there's existing communities. We can't force people out because another group want to live there. It's effectively a mini plantation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    Hazel Chu shows sense and dense in one statement. At the current cost DCC is paying to build a house (around 300k), it would take nearly 200 years to recover the cost from a tenant paying 30 quid a week. That assumes no upgrades or maintenance. Sound investment there.

    Myself and my OH are hardworking professionals. When I see properties being given to to people by the council on my street, it boils my blood. Most people here worked, or still work hard to pay for the roof over the head. Others just cried and moaned and got a gaff for nothing. Lift the eviction ban and go further....start moving freeloaders out.

    I have siblings in council accommodation. One of them living alone in a 2 bed property worth nearly 400k. This family member needs council accommodation for reasons I won't get into, but doesn't need a 2 bed. The other living in a 4 bed property with a family. She's just a lazy and entitled fvcker tbh. That description fits too many social tenants. People like that should not be housed inside Dublin IMO. They can do nothing anywhere.

    Stay Free



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    Making sense again. I would have a lot less of an issue with key workers being subsidised in prime locations. For those who sponge the dole and claim for everything when doing nothing....up off yer arse and do nothing somewhere else. Maybe if Dublin buys Leitrim for a few hundred grand, we can put em all there 😂

    Stay Free



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 893 ✭✭✭Emblematic


    We can argue about where council properties should be built but I think however, going forward, we need vastly more units built of all sorts; social and affordable as well as commercial for rent and for sale (particularly at the moment for rent). The reason why this discussion is happening at all is because far too few residential units have been built over the past couple of decades and we need to stand up to those who oppose new developments.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,066 ✭✭✭HerrKuehn


    We should build affordable rentals for low income and key workers. There is probably also a case for building affordable homes for sale. The state could probably build entire estates, 50% affordable rentals and 50% affordable homes at scale and for a reasonable price. The HAP system would remain for those who aren't working.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    paint it whatever way you want, it is subsidized not free.

    for it to be free, there would be no requirement to pay anything, there is a requirement to pay rent ergo it's not free.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    it would be a few hundred billion for your classist clensist plantation nonsense which in some sense could be classed as a form of genocide, and would likely breach international law.

    in reference to your other post, the fact it boils your blood that you chose to buy a house yet are whinging because someone got a subsidized house they have been deemed to be entitled to shows you are in fact the real self-entitled one if i'm honest.

    you are going to get a property and will own it assuming you keep up the repayments for which it is actually the bank's house until you pay back the loan in full.

    the subsidized tenant on the other hand will never own the property they are living in.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,677 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I don't think anyone has an issue with those in social housing who work or are disabled being accommodated in sought after areas.

    I think many people do have an issue with the types who won't work, drag up their kids and cause misery where ever they are being accommodated.

    There is a clear distinction between these two groups and they should be housed accordingly.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    A lot of people who live in sought after areas and payed for it the hard way absolutely do have an issue with it, I know many.

    The worst is new developments where people are paying over 600k or 700k for a house and half of the development is given to social housing.

    People are getting screwed on house prices, screwed on tax and then their tax is going to pay for their neighbour's house so they get the same home without paying for it. Many are gaming the system also.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    we tried that, it failed.

    hence we have the approach of mixed developments which mostly work and which mostly integrate people.

    those who deliberately won't work and drag up their kids are such a minority they are irrelevant and can easily be dealt with if we resourced the relevant services.

    however chucking them in a ghetto is not happening no matter how much a few self-entitled individuals whinge.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Genoicide is a bit dramatic.

    There is an inherent and incontrovertible logic to trying to make most efficient use of resources. It would seem a bit silly to allocate scarce resources to a person who doesn't actually need them.

    Let's suppose you are in charge of housing for a day. You have two houses you can allocate, one in Dundalk, and one in East Wall. You have two 38 year old applicants for those houses, both from inner-city Dublin. John who has worked in Dublin city centre for the past 20 years since he turned 18, and Jim who, by choice, has never worked, and will likely never work. He gets up around noon every day, spends a few hours in the bookies and goes to the pub or has a few cans in the evening. John starts at 7am every morning. There is a bus that leaves Dundalk at 5am that will get him into work on time most days.

    You get to make the choice - which one do you think would be better to put in East Wall and which one would you put in Dundalk?



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    This adherence to "Mixed developments" is responsible to a considerable degree for current the housing fuckup



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road




    ultimately that is just the problem for those who have an issue with someone else getting what they believe to be a better deal on a similar property to them.

    in reality it's actually not really a better deal at all as the individual being subsidized will never own the property.

    the same individuals would be complaining, even though they will deny it, if someone got the same property for 400k or 300k, but unfortunately sometimes people get a better deal on something they buy and yes it is a bummer when it happens but it's not going to change.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    it's irrelevant as whoever i would pick i would be told that i actually wouldn't pick either one.

    trust me, have been there and played that game.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump




  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Of course it is. It absolved Councils of the responsibility to build estates like they used to.



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    they were already absolved of doing that pre that policy.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Well as long as it's in place, they won't be able to build their own housing.

    If you support a rigid adherence to "mixed developments" then you are de facto supporting the position where only the private sector builds, and the councils should never build anything of significance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,888 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Then you will have people on here complaining the council or government buying up land for social housing for these people.

    Council and governments don't build for that we need developers to develop, builders to build, banks to loan money and government to give straight forward building regulations to follow with acceptance in a timely manner.


    This talk about social housing etc is getting in the way of we need the above to start happening.


    Well one thing the government could do is advertise the rest of the country for jobs and investment so not everyone things the cities are where its at



  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    they are able to build, they are refusing to build.

    that is even if they are allowed to build in the first place which i suspect they aren't.

    we have to remove the old bigotries and eradicate classism, mixing people does this eventually.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    How can the council build a "mixed development"?

    Suppose they actually do build an estate of 100 houses on the edge of a town somewhere. Are they supposed to sell 90 of them to private buyers and only house 10 social tenants?

    And I'm talking about the Council actually building. Not paying a private builder to build it for them. Whether they have the staff at this minute in time is not the point - they can build capacity if they want to over the next few years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 19,437 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Councils already have plenty of land. They don't need to buy more. What they currently do though is turn it over to private developers in return for the developers building a percentage of social housing that the Council will then pay them for.



  • Registered Users Posts: 491 ✭✭SwimClub


    I don't even know where to start with this, so I won't!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    If the person paying the ~90% subsidised rent had a job and earned their own money, then it wouldn't be free. As it stands, if the dole is the method of paying this rent, then it's free.

    Stay Free



  • Registered Users Posts: 23,677 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    What do you mean it hasn't worked? Failed for who? The Netherlands puts them in "Scum Villages" incidentally. They decided the mixed tenure stuff wasn't working for them due to the problems caused to upstanding citizens whether they work or not (including those in social housing who do work, are disabled or make an effort).

    You strike me as someone who is hopelessly sheltered from the coalface of what can happen to an entire estate should just one dysfunctional family be moved in by the council. That's all it can take to make your life hellish.

    Why should anyone have sympathy for them?


    Tell us all why they are deserving of a roof over their heads paid for by us and our understanding and sympathy.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,605 ✭✭✭...Ghost...


    How have you formed the opinion that moving freeloaders to less prime real estate to be a form of genocide? Had a few pints for Paddies day have you?

    Moving these people would not cost billions. Done over a period of 10+ years, it would generate revenue from the sale and market rate rental of these properties. This revenue could be used to build more properties which is very much needed.

    You want to know what makes me entitled? I work hard and I pay my way. When someone is handed the keys to an asset worth on average 400k because they chose to leach from the system, of course it boils my blood. I'm working to support the freeloaders as well as my own family. That money could and should be spent on deserving items, such as health and education and oh I don't know....maybe our chronically underpaid defense forces.

    You talk about me getting to own my property after the mortgage is paid. What point are you making there? I pay more in property tax each year than freeloaders have paid for them in rent. If I need to extend my property, I pay about a hundred grand for a kitchen extension. If a social tenant needs to extend, it gets paid for, or they get offered a different property. The freeloading council tenant doesn't need to own the property. They have their forever home with periodic upgrades given free of charge.

    Post edited by ...Ghost... on

    Stay Free



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 29,073 ✭✭✭✭end of the road



    ultimately it isn't free as rent is required to be paid.

    once the recipient of the dole or other benefit receives the money they get it's not their money, before hand it's the governments tax take from us.

    we will have earned the money originally but once it passes to the government then it's no longer our money.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



Advertisement