Compulsory eviction of old people from homes

I live in a house with me, my mum, my dad, my sister, and my 2 elder brothers. That's 6 people.

The house next to me - which is exactly the same layout, number of rooms etc, has 1 person, an old woman. Yes, that's right. 1 person lives in the same type of house that easily accomodates 6 people.

If she owned the house, I wouldn't have a problem. It would be her property, and she could do as she likes. However, I have a problem to do with the fact that the council gave her that house, and pays her rent. I have a few problems with this. For starters, it's greedy of her. Secondly, the house was previously gorgeous and new. However, as you would now expect, the rooms are all squalid and filthy, there is rot and damp everywhere, and the garden is simply a small patch of filthy wasteland. Thirdly, there are many families in this country who live in extreme poverty, not helped by the size of their houses (images of families with 3+ children living in 2 bedroom houses come to mind), who could greatly benefit from a larger house.

I think it's a basic human right that everyone should be able to live in an appropriate house. And, as I often take a utilitarian perspective on things, I believe that the happiness generated by a large family moving into that house would be many times greater than the unhappiness of moving the old woman out of her house and into something more appropriate. I guess the old woman was initially allocated the house because she had people to live with. However, as you would probably have guessed, the government can't simply tell her to leave.

Thoughts?

Maybe the thread could have been better titled: "Councils should make sure council houses are appropriate to the number of people living there and elderly people should get help with cleaning if they are unable to manage".

It could have, but it wasn't. Feel free to make your own thread with that title.

On a side note, you are the only member I have seen with a join date only slightly later than my own.

I have no desire to do so, but using the words "compulsory eviction" seems unnecessarily harsh. Life is hard when you're elderly.

If your her neigbour, why not offer some help?

Why is it your problem? It's not greedy. How long has she been living there?

I sort of agree - having lived in a two bedroom house since I was tiny - and having to share that room with a severely autistic sister - I would have loved to have had my own room and space. But I sort of think at the same time, that I'm kind of grateful for having a house in the first place - so so many people don't get that luxury.

But in a practical sense, the woman would more than likely be better off having started off in a one bed house, for the sake of cleaning etc. All the elderly people up here are generally put into single bedroom houses... If it was her family home though it's quite a shame to throw her out - and to be honest, unfair on her, if you think of all the stress moving would cause her!

Do you know how she came to be in the house? Did she have a family who have since moved out? I agree it wouldn't make sense to put a single person in a 5 bedroom house in the first place, but it seems a bit unfair to kick someone out of their home they've lived in for years because their family have moved on.

Yes, like I said I think she got the house initially due to having a family. That said, if you think that, then fine. I personally would rather the house be used by a large family though, as opposed to the house wasting away under filth and squalor and underuse by a single old woman.

2 choices:
Choice a)
The stress of 1 person moving house

Choice b)
Moving a 5-child family who were previously living in squalor into the house. The children now have bedrooms of their own, they have a garden to play in, the whole family has a lot more space, there are 2 bathrooms so there is less congestion.

Basically the way I see it, by moving her out it's making 1 person slightly less happy, or making 7 people very, very happy.

A man walks into a hospital upon entering he is killed and dissected so that he can provide organs for x number of people.

Is such a thing right? To reject autonomy under utilitarian principles?