Hatred within Irish Society

gurramok

Just seen this article residents against 'undesirable' housing

I find it quite disturbing that this type of hatred still persists within Irish society

The following comments about the tiny housing project(24 homes) from Mr & Mrs Joe soap :
'said they wanted to "object in the strongest possible terms". They added that "it is a known fact that where you have social or shared ownership housing this type of development can lead to anti-social behaviour. For example, under-age drinking, burglary, damage to property and general criminal activity'

Surely there must be some sort of law to prosecute people who make disgusting comments against a section of society and their politicians for nazi type support (Michael Woods and Martin Brady TD's)?

spanner

that is completely unbelivable i cant belive i am hearing this!!! and the minister supports them. it just goes to show you that the divide in irish society is getting worse and worse. it sounds something like from south africa during the apartheit regime. i know i my home town when it was anounced the building of affordable housing for people from the area it was rejoiced by all the people in the area.
i live in north wexford and it fast becoming impossible for first time buyers because people are selling their houses in dublin and move down here with greater purchasing power.

this housing development should be doubled or tribled just to spite these people

mike65

If I owned a home worth half a million I would'nt want any trash anywhere near me! And no I'm not just being controversial. The ppl who are complaining see thier security and finantial future under threat if a development full of working class families with loads of troublesome kids in tow turns up on thier doorstep. I dont know the area but if its got a sedate character and is well looked on by "the market" residents will move heaven and earth to keep it that way.

Mike.

spanner

Originally posted by mike65
If I owned a home worth half a million I would'nt want any trash anywhere near me! And no I'm not just being controversial. The ppl who are complaining see thier security and finantial future under threat if a development full of working class families with loads of troublesome kids in tow turns up on thier doorstep. I dont know the area but if its got a sedate character and is well looked on by "the market" residents will move heaven and earth to keep it that way.

Mike.

so are we to have our cities ghettoised, the reason for anti social behaviour is the policy of ghettoising hundreds of poor people into areas with on facilites. this sounds like a small affordable housing scheme, normal working people who have been price out of dublin, just because they dont have as much money as these people doesnt mean that they are going to be anti social.
as with any problems with division they are never solved with more segregation

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Redleslie

Originally posted by mike65
If I owned a home worth half a million I would'nt want any trash anywhere near me!

What about "coloureds", asylum seekers, and people like me who grew up in pretty rough working class areas (Finglas in my case). Are we all "trash" too? Since I assume you don't live in a half a million euro house doesn't that make you "trash" yourself?

mike65

Speaking personally I'd sooner immigrants than many
natives, I suspect the new arrivals would get on with thier lives rather than ruin the lives of others. I should point out that I don't own a house never mind a nice one. But regardles of that I like to think that I'm a good citizen and dont go around making life hard or unpleasent for anyone.

If I had a valuble asset to protect then I might be worried at the thought of a significant number of ppl who have not got the same stake arriving.

I do realise how that sounds but ppl who have something to protect will usually behave themselves and be "good neighbours" (even as they fiddle the tax-man) while those without something to protect will
be more likely, not certain to allow thier kids run riot, leave junk lying about the place, and so on.

Its not an admirable way to think but if I'm being entirely honest its what most do think (including me to a degree)

BTW this has always been the case I think you'll find.

Mike.

p.s. I know I wont win any arguments with any "right-on" citizens here but what the hell...

alleepally

I can't understand people who have this "them and us" mentality. We have a constitution and live in a democracy. Money and having property and wanting to "protect an asset" is not a valid excuse for seeking to exclude others from an area just because they are "working class". You don't have to be a "right on" citizen to see injustice.

At this moment and time I would qualify for "social and affordable" housing and in theory could apply for a house in that area. I work hard, I have a degree, BUT I just don't happen to be in a well paid job currently. The "funny" thing is that when I was earning a good salary it still wasn't enough to buy a home anywhere close to where I could work a well paid job and still have a quality of life.

I absolutely believe in the principle of social justice and the equitable distribution of wealth. If you do not believe in this principle you really ought to re-evaluate your outlook on life.

mike65

Thats a nice thing to aspire to...

Mike.

alleepally

It's not an aspiration. It's called being human and having empathy with your fellow human beings.

seamus

I think a lot of the anger comes from the obvious raw deal a lot of people are getting.

Afaik, a certain amount of every housing development must now be affordable housing. Imagine the situation where a young single guy works his ass off, gets a very good salary, say €40k a year, and gets himself a €200/250k mortgage to buy a decent home for himself. He's constantly working his ass off, paying upwards of €1,000 a month in mortgage repayments. Then just down the road, possibly in a slightly smaller house, some guy with no job, 4 kids and a pregnant wife, moves in, paying pittance for rent, and with the option to buy the house after the same amount of years that our poor working guy spends paying off his mortgage.

I'm all for treating everyone as equals and helping people out of poverty, but there's something horribly wrong when the guy who's wasting his life and poking his dick in everything that moves gets a better deal and less responsibilities than the guy who's trying to make something of himself, and is a net contributor to society.

Now I know some of my facts here may be wrong, and there are some generalisations, but the very fact that this can occur, even once, shows that the system is f*cked. As well as that, no workign class people aren't generally horrible people to live with, but nobody can deny that their bad apples are the most rotten of the whole orchard. Kids in general are a pain in the ass to neighbours, even the good ones, and working class people generally have more. Hell, I know a teenage couple who are having a second child to get bumped up on the housing list. They even have the cheek to demand to be housed in Tallaght where they grew up.

If I had my way, people on the housing list would get houses that are available. If it's ****ing Leitrim, tough. You need a house, there's one there - if you don't want it, you can pay for your own or go to back of the queue.

(Yes, it's a flash point I think )

alleepally

Well Seamus, I sure do hope none of your family ever need to apply for social and affordable housing. How would you feel if you had a brother with 2 kids and a wife. He's working in a factory, respectable bloke, does his best by his kids, and earns 25k a year. He would quality for social and affordable housing.

Now, you like having a pint with him a couple of times a week, your parents like to see their grandchildren and you're saying you'd be happy if he was told "there's a house in Leitrim for you, take it or leave it...."

seamus

Originally posted by alleepally
Well Seamus, I sure do hope none of your family ever need to apply for social and affordable housing. How would you feel if you had a brother with 2 kids and a wife. He's working in a factory, respectable bloke, does his best by his kids, and earns 25k a year. He would quality for social and affordable housing.

Now, you like having a pint with him a couple of times a week, your parents like to see their grandchildren and you're saying you'd be happy if he was told "there's a house in Leitrim for you, take it or leave it...."

Obviously, if he had a job, he shouldn't be forced to move an unreasonable distance for it. That would be counter-productive. However, if it meant moving to the other side of the city for example, I'd tell him to pack his stuff and move out there.

Obviously when I say "beggars can't be choosers", there has to be exceptions.

ykt0di9url7bc3

Originally posted by gurramok
They added that "it is a known fact that where you have social or shared ownership housing this type of development can lead to anti-social behaviour. For example, under-age drinking, burglary, damage to property and general criminal activity'

imho "under-age drinking, burglary, damage to property and general criminal activity" is a community problem and not based upon social classing...

I do believe like seamus that the Housing situation has horrible flaws, but where the government offer such deals that people will take advantage...the housing scheme can help many people, start their lives, for the ordinary joe soap who lives and earns out his way to his own home, chooses his own home...

god forbid i make any mistakes and end up pennyless and with a family to support and my only safety net asking the government for help

Hell, I know a teenage couple who are having a second child to get bumped up on the housing list. They even have the cheek to demand to be housed in Tallaght where they grew up

maybe they have the help of thier parent nearby to help them rear the children while they try to get a job....you'll never know the full story...

shotamoose

I'm pretty taken aback at the stuff some otherwise sensible people are coming out with on this thread. Social housing tenants are not lepers. To label them all 'trash' or to say they're all wasting their lives is to perpetuate the kind of hateful bigotry that would rightly be condemned if you were talking about people of a different ethnicity.

In my view, everyone has a right to a decent home, and if that means state-subsidised social housing so be it. And developing sub-market and social-rented housing in a 'nice' neighbourhood is EXACTLY the right move if we want to avoid the 'ghettoisation' that some of those letter-writing hypocrite residents seem to deplore. A ghetto out of sight is still a ghetto, but a mixed-tenure community means there's at least a chance that the next generation of children won't grow up with the class-hatred that is apparently still alive and well in Ireland.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The development on a one-acre site known as "Goff's field" at Roncalli Road, would contain a maximum of 24 homes, 12 of which would be sold as "affordable homes" - aimed at first-time buyers - while the remainder would be social housing.

I doubt theres much issues in regards to the first time buyers are there? I certainly find nothing disagreeable abt it.

However, saying that, i do have to agree with Mike on this one. I've lived in places where i've had social housing near by. And in the majority of those social houses, I've seen trouble, or seen trouble arise from the inhabitants. I'm not saying that all social housing is bad, but i will say that tenants of social housing tend to be troublemalers.

I work hard, and eventually i'll buy myself a house. Once i do that i'm anchored to that spot for the foreseeable future. When i was in apartments, and renting accomadation i could move on if i found my neighbours undesirable. When i have that house i won't be able to move on. And after living in an area for 10+ years I probably won't want to.

I don't want knackers living beside me. <Shrugs> Its not a very leniant attitude, but i don't really care. I pay higher rents, to live free from troubled areas. If these areas had social housing, the safety of that area for children and adults alike would probably drop. (I don't have facts or figures. I lived in Athlone most my life, and I've seen what settled "knackers" can do to an area.)

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz

I don't want knackers living beside me.

I wouldn't want you living beside me. You're obviously happy to stigmatise a huge group of people based on your beliefs about a small minority.

Funny how the attitude displayed by some on this board - broadly, that morality is somehow not an issue when it comes to one's own housing interests - is exactly that which is being condemned in 'social housing tenants' who are trying to get the best possible housing for themselves and, where applicable, their families.

I wouldn't want you living beside me.

And thats your choice. Its not a matter of morality.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
And thats your choice. Its not a matter of morality.

That's exactly my point. When you said "I don't want knackers living beside me ... Its not a very leniant attitude, but i don't really care" you were making clear that you didn't feel any moral compulsions on an issue which has clear ethical and moral implications - whether people should have access to decent housing in mixed communities, or whether different classes should be segregated.

This is what I mean - people seem to think it's somehow okay to say "when it comes to housing, I don't care if everyone else lives in a rat-hole, and I won't apologise for that". Well, it's not okay.

Nuttzz

NIMBY

Social housing, halting sites they are all the same as far as most people are concerned, its the "snob effect" I have paid 500k for my house here in sutton I dont want Panto & Anto from Baldoyle getting a house for 200k around here.

The problem with his country is house prices and poor planning not social housing schemes

Well, it's not okay.

Tough. I'm not looking for approval from you. I pay dearly for the accomadation that i have. One of the requirements was no knackers near by. I'm not excusing my feelings. I don't need to. To you or to anyone else.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
Tough. I'm not looking for approval from you. I pay dearly for the accomadation that i have. One of the requirements was no knackers near by. I'm not excusing my feelings. I don't need to. To you or to anyone else.

I wasn't expecting a Damascene conversion, and I certainly wasn't expecting you to justify your view, because I don't think you can. I just wanted to point out that bigotry doesn't stop being bigotry because just because it's your property values at stake. "I wouldn't want them living beside me" is no different from "I wouldn't want my son/daughter marrying one of them".

Oh i agree. I am a bigot when it comes to knackers, settled or otherwise.

Fudger

An aspect that cannot be over looked is the fact that such 'affordable' housing developments have come as a direct cause of the over priced outrageous cost of homes in this country especially in Dublin. It seems ironic that the very people who are destroying the housing economy for young buyers ie: estate agents, developers, solicitiors and politicians are the very ones who live in such affluent areas of Dublin and now that the housing crisis is banging on their doors its not acceptable ??!!!

Obviously there are a high number of glass houses in that area and plenty of stones to hand.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
Oh i agree. I am a bigot when it comes to knackers, settled or otherwise.

Yes, and when you fail to distinguish between them and other social tenants you extend that bigotry to a much wider group of people defined only by their ability to access housing on the market.

Yes, and when you fail to distinguish between them and other social tenants you extend that bigotry to a much wider group of people defined only by their ability to access housing on the market

Thats nice. But what i'm doing is being narrow-minded. I'm taking a segment of society that i want no contact with, and placing them outside my sphere of influence.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
Thats nice. But what i'm doing is being narrow-minded. I'm taking a segment of society that i want no contact with, and placing them outside my sphere of influence.

Yes, and I think it's wonderful when the narrow interests of bigoted nimbys like yourself are swept aside like they should be. Up with this sort of thing!

joe90

Just my 2 cents not that it really matters.I am kiwi living in ireland now for the past nine years and love the place.The attuide towards any outsider in this country is amazing i have never seen so much racist,hatred comments towards people.This whole area off illegal or foreign works and the way people go on about them when the irish have been doing it for years,the number off illegal irish workers in new zealand that i knew was a very hi number and they were riding the system to the limit but no one was complaing most were hard workers.Just look at the USA over the last decade how many irish work and live there illegal.I know i should shut or leave and most off you will tell me to but i thouight i would give you and outsider view.

Cheers

Redleslie

Originally posted by mike65
Speaking personally I'd sooner immigrants than many
natives,

I seriously doubt it. Immigrants (especially the "coloureds") are all AIDS ridden woman hating terrorist criminals who don't want to integrate into society dontcha know.

I suspect the new arrivals would get on with thier lives rather than ruin the lives of others.

Racist nimby bigots do go out of their way to ruin the lives of others by stereotyping people and trying to ghettoise them.

I should point out that I don't own a house never mind a nice one.

So you're trash?

But regardles of that I like to think that I'm a good citizen and dont go around making life hard or unpleasent for anyone.

Except for shooting your nimby mouth off and boasting about how you would make "trash" people's lives as unpleasant as possible given the chance.

ixoy

Well folks, I grew up in Sutton and lived there up until a couple of monthd ago so I've some understanding of the mentality of the local area. And yeah, it's pretty much what's been said by others. I've seen my father and mother work damned hard their whole lives to be able to afford us this home. The family's holidays would never be remotely extravagant for a long while because my parents worked towards this goal. My father additionally spent a lot of time studying in college, both as a young man and again in an evening course, to allow him get to where he is now. I can fully understand then people in the area - many in the same position - objecting to X coming in when it would seem apparent that X cannot have put in some of the same effort by virtue of X being in the affordable housing scheme project in the first place. Is there justice then that we should have had to pay a few hundred grand more than X?

Now I know X and family may not be social misfits and could be very hard working but there are clear and proven links between socio-economic backgrounds and behaviour associated with ghettos. You can try and spin it as much as possible, but we alll know it exists. I can fully understand the point being raised that mixing the backgrounds is quite possibly one of the best ways to address it but surely you can see why it's "but not in my area"? Hell it could even boil down to a selfish line of thinking for me. I'll eventually inherit the property along with my sibling. I don't want it devalued to the possibility of social deprecation.

seamus

Originally posted by daveirl
No-one has said that people don't have a right to housing, what I've seen is people asking for equality. You shouldn't be allowed get a house cheaper than your next door neighbour just because people don't want all the low income housing in one area.

I have absolutely nothing against anyone who takes that type of housing, it's just that I don't see it any different to offering people BMWs on the cheap while other people pay the full price.

Yeah, this is pretty much it. Apart from maybe one or two posters, nobody has really said anything that makes them a nimby. It's a well-used phrase mostly incorrectly applied to anyone who rejects any kind of development in their area.

I've said it before in another thread - to improve a situation, you can't try to appeal to people's morality, or guilt them into accepting it, you have to appeal to their baser instincts, namely greed and selfishness.

Personally, I would introduce a few things:
Reinstatment of a first time buyer's grant, which can be used by anybody buying their first home. Whether the house is new or not is irrelevant. The value of the grant should be €15,000 or 5% of the value of the house, whichever is lesser.

Increase of the higher tax band to €38,000. Increase of lower taxation rate to 22% increase of higher tax rate to 43%. The average paid worker now falls into the higher tax band, yet can't afford a mortgage. Madness.

Increase the value of renter's allowance to one quarter of their yearly rent. Lower taxation on rental earnings for landlords. A lot of people are getting screwed for rent, and are stuck in a loop. They must pay rent for somewhere temporary to live, but can't afford to save for a permanent residence. Rental costs and the ability of renters to save need to be addressed.

All mortgage payers receive a tax refund equal to their average monthly mortgage repayment.

People living in state accomodation, and not earning a wage, get free rental, but no extra allowances (apart from child and the normal ones). Wage earners pay 10% of their monthly salary, adjustable based on circumstances. People living in state housing never get the option to buy at a reduced rate. They can buy at full rate or not at all (but first time buyer's grant can be applied if necessary). When the main tenant (i.e. husband and wife) dies, and there are no dependents or OAPs living in the house (regardless of whether they are dependent on the main tenant), the house gets given back to the state, and all other adult tenants are evicted after 6 months. However, they do get a higher preference if they apply to live in the house.

Frankly, if it was up to me , there would be huge sweeping reform in the whole housing market. I wouldn't go into it here. I wouldn't have even thought it all through.

Yes, and I think it's wonderful when the narrow interests of bigoted nimbys like yourself are swept aside like they should be. Up with this sort of thing!

Well, thats the thing. You see most Irish people have some form of bigotry or racism in them. We might not run out and burn that targeted segment out of their homes, but we do tend to turn away from them, or try to ignore them as much as possible.

For me its travellers. I grew up near them, went to school with them, and hell, i've shagged a few of them. Drawing from those experiences i gathered the view that i just don't like them. I'm not likely to go out and kill any, BUT i don't want any involvement with them. And this goes along with the concept that i don't want to live besides them.

The Moralistic standpoint is a wonderful thing. I really do admire you if you really believe, and practice these gospel words you're spewing, but i can't live like that. I don't really feel like lying to myself. So i don't.

shotamoose, You see, you're a wonderful person if you believe, this and you're welcome to live in those areas that separate my home from the knackers. That should fit nicely with your belief.

Just look at the USA over the last decade how many irish work and live there illegal

Thats their problem. Let them deal with it. Besides i don't really see how it matters to this thread.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz
The Moralistic standpoint is a wonderful thing. I really do admire you if you really believe, and practice these gospel words you're spewing...

Heh, I did wonder how long it would be before you started accusing me of 'moralising' or something similar ...

Like I said, I don't expect or demand for you to change, I just think your opinion and that of your ilk shouldn't be a deciding or even significant consideration in the distribution of social housing.

Let's be clear on what I said: I think there is a moral case for everyone to have the opportunity of a decent home, and that mixed tenure communities are a good thing.

I didn't say that everybody should love their neighbour, merely that they should not try and decide where other people should live on the basis of bigoted preconceptions.

If someone was ruining my neighbourhood I would have no qualms whatsoever about using every legitimate means to make them stop. The difference is that I would wait until they actually did something worth complaining about, whereas you would apparently decide to make life difficult for them based entirely on first impressions (or first pre-conceptions, even). Since you have admitted being a selfish bigot in this matter it hardly makes me a 'moraliser' when I agree with you.

Brerrabbit

Slightly off topic, but out of interest: what is a "Nimby"?

Never heard that word before.

Carry on...

Brerrabbit

Sorry just copped it :rolleyes:

"Not in my back yard"?

Is that it?

Once again, carry on...

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
I'm not looking for approval from you. I pay dearly for the accomadation that i have. One of the requirements was no knackers near by.

Well, you know what the easiest, and most equitable solution in terms of everyone's rights is?

If the people you don't want happen to end up there.....you can move.

Your choice is your choice. You're entitled to it. Just don't expect society to bend itself around your wants, especially when you admit that they're bigoted.

jc

mike65

Originally posted by Redleslie

I seriously doubt it. Immigrants (especially the "coloureds") are all AIDS ridden woman hating terrorist criminals who don't want to integrate into society dontcha know.

[/b]
Racist nimby bigots do go out of their way to ruin the lives of others by stereotyping people and trying to ghettoise them.

So you're trash?


[/b]
Except for shooting your nimby mouth off and boasting about how you would make "trash" people's lives as unpleasant as possible given the chance. [/B]

Dear God Redleslie read my words not what you think I've said! I take as I find, and the truth is if there is trouble comming its from "sink estate" oiks. Not all ppl who live in such places are bad, most are trying to get by. BUT there is an element in such places that thrives on causing everyone else as much hassle as possible.

Am I trash? er no. (they live across the main road)

As for you last comment did I suggest anywhere I was a trouble making bigot who would "do for them"? If you think I am then you clearly dont know me at all. Which funnily enough you don't.

Mike.

Well, you know what the easiest, and most equitable solution in terms of everyone's rights is?

Yes, let them move in elsewhere. Perhaps where other people of their own class/type live?

Your choice is your choice. You're entitled to it. Just don't expect society to bend itself around your wants, especially when you admit that they're bigoted.

Bonkey, I'm basically admitting what most people i know think. Personally i see it as a bit of honesty. Yes, its my choice to move, which i have done, by leaving Athlone. However, if i'm settled and living in an area for ten years, i think i'm entitled to object if there's planning to bring in social undesirables into the same area as i live.

As for Society bending itself to fit my opinions, i've never expected it to.

Heh, I did wonder how long it would be before you started accusing me of 'moralising' or something similar ...

you were making clear that you didn't feel any moral compulsions on an issue which has clear ethical and moral implications

Seems to me, you were taking the moral and ethical standpoint.

Like I said, I don't expect or demand for you to change, I just think your opinion and that of your ilk shouldn't be a deciding or even significant consideration in the distribution of social housing.

I'm stating my opinion, I'm not stating anyone else's opinion. And you're more than welcome to your opinion. Its odd though, that i don't have a right to mine.

I didn't say that everybody should love their neighbour, merely that they should not try and decide where other people should live on the basis of bigoted preconceptions.

When you're looking for a place to move into, don't you look at the area and the type of people living there? You decide if its safe, whether its a place you would want your children growing up, and whether you would enjoy living there. At least i do, and i'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that everyone else does. I don't see much difference in those decisions/judgements and objecting to a certain type of people moving in.

Let's be clear on what I said: I think there is a moral case for everyone to have the opportunity of a decent home, and that mixed
tenure communities are a good thing.

Okies. And i agree to a certain extent. I just don't agree with undesirable elements being allowed in. Hhmmm, what makes them undesirable? Judgements on areas that those same classes/social types have acted in the past. You see, I have no problems with people of different colours or nationalities. I just have problems with those classes that have a tendacy to cause trouble.

If someone was ruining my neighbourhood I would have no qualms whatsoever about using every legitimate means to make them stop.
The difference is that I would wait until they actually did something worth complaining about, whereas you would apparently decide
to make life difficult for them based entirely on first impressions (or first pre-conceptions, even). Since you have admitted being a
selfish bigot in this matter it hardly makes me a 'moraliser' when I agree with you

Ahh thats the true difference i suppose. I've seen generations of knackers act exactly the same way as those before. Whole families, who have concentrated on crime, and troublemaking.
True there are some exceptions, but i do judge by the majority. So, yes, I do have pre-conceptions and so does every person that posts here.

Selfish bigot? hmmm... I'm a bigot insofar as i don't want anything to do with them. Selfish? insofar, as I want my life to be a success and to live in the most peaceful and safe way.

Sparks

Originally posted by seamus
Imagine the situation where a young single guy works his ass off, gets a very good salary, say €40k a year, and gets himself a €200/250k mortgage to buy a decent home for himself. He's constantly working his ass off, paying upwards of €1,000 a month in mortgage repayments. Then just down the road, possibly in a slightly smaller house, some guy with no job, 4 kids and a pregnant wife, moves in, paying pittance for rent, and with the option to buy the house after the same amount of years that our poor working guy spends paying off his mortgage.
I'm all for treating everyone as equals and helping people out of poverty, but there's something horribly wrong when the guy who's wasting his life and poking his dick in everything that moves gets a better deal and less responsibilities than the guy who's trying to make something of himself, and is a net contributor to society.

Yes there is something wrong - but it's that an average, ordinary, two-bedroom house can sell for €220,000 and upwards.

Maybe I'm showing my cynicism, but when a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Blackrock sells for more than an 18th century chateau in the south of france on twenty acres of land.... well, I'm thinking that that is the problem, rather than a programme designed to ensure everyone has housing which is better than shantytowns and slums.

Yes there is something wrong - but it's that an average, ordinary, two-bedroom house can sell for €220,000 and upwards.

Sparks, from what i've read its not so much the newcomers to teh housing market thats the problem, but rather these social housing projects that are planned.

I agree totally that housing & land in Ireland costs way too much.

monument

Originally posted by mike65
BUT there is an element in such places that thrives on causing everyone else as much hassle as possible.

I know people like that, the ones people move house to get away from. However, I don’t think that "element" is restricted to the people who need cheap housing, and

Originally posted by daveirl
You shouldn't be allowed get a house cheaper than your next door neighbour just because people don't want all the low income housing in one area.

You shouldn't be allowed to stop cheaper houses closer to high class ones just because people want to keep to their own social class.

Originally posted by Sparks
Maybe I'm showing my cynicism, but when a three-bedroom semi-detached house in Blackrock sells for more than an 18th century chateau in the south of france on twenty acres of land.... well, I'm thinking that that is the problem, rather than a programme designed to ensure everyone has housing which is better than shantytowns and slums.

It's not cynicism at all; it is a fine example of grab-all-you-can Ireland, but who is going to change things?

mike65

The price of housing in the country is clearly mad... but what caused it? Mainly 2 things - 1) Years of under-investment in the nations housing stock, 2) The Celtic Tigger and er demographics/social changes.

Okay thats 3.

My mums house cost 34,000 pounds/43,000 euro in 1994. The same houses are now on the market at €190,000!

Mike.

seamus

Originally posted by mike65
My mums house cost 34,000 pounds/43,000 euro in 1994. The same houses are now on the market at €190,000!

Mike.

You can take it waay back to show what's happened. Parents bought a house in 1980 for £30,000. A neighbour moved in in 1990 and bought an identical house for £45,000. In 2000 we sold ours for £350,000. Last week another neighbour sold their house (identical except we had a conservatory) for €650,000. That's not inflation, it's madness.

shotamoose

Originally posted by klaz

Seems to me, you were taking the moral and ethical standpoint.

Maybe the point was a bit subtle, so here it is again. I think the arguments about mixed communities and the right to a decent home are clearly moral arguments - they're about rights and the type of society we want to create. Merely pointing out that someone is refusing to even engage with these arguments is not 'moralising', any more than pointing out that someone refuses to take part in a religious discussion is proselytising.

And you're more than welcome to your opinion. Its odd though, that i don't have a right to mine.

Oh you're perfectly welcome to your opinion, bigoted as it is. It just shouldn't carry any weight when it comes to deciding where social renting tenants get to live. If you had some sort of a reasonable argument to make about a particular development, that should carry some weight, but simple prejudice? No, obviously not. If we allow bigots to decide where other people get to live, why stop there? Why not let local people decide whether people of certain nationalities or ethnicities are allowed work in their town? And so forth.

I don't see much difference in those decisions/judgements and objecting to a certain type of people moving in.

You don't see much difference in you making a choice about where you get to live and you making a choice about where other people get to live? Well I'm sorry, but there's a very big difference.

I just have problems with those classes that have a tendacy to cause trouble.

And that is discrimination. When it involves such a broad range of people as social renting tenants, it is gross discrimination.

There's a basic lack of logic in some of the arguments being put forward in this thread. Basically, "Council tenants are bad because they live in bad neighbourhoods. Therefore they will be bad even if they live in good neighbourhoods". This completely ignores the rather basic idea that where people live has an influence on how they behave. Put it this way - if they cleared all the worst families out of the worst neighbourhoods in the country and made their homes available to nice, respectable people like your good self - would you want to move in? Wouldn't you turn up your nose at the oppressive grey blocks, the lack of amenities, the acres of crushing sameness? Wouldn't you worry how your kids (hypothetical situation here maybe) would turn out in such an environment, with all that poverty and unemployment about? And if you had no choice but to live there but were suddenly offered a way out into a much nicer neighbourhood, wouldn't you be angry at the people who wanted to keep you in your poverty ghetto with the rest of your kind they hate so much?

I agree totally that housing & land in Ireland costs way too much.

Then you must also agree that more and more families who in the past would have been able to afford to buy on the market must now turn to sub-maret housing or even - shock horror! - social housing if they want a home of their own? So the class of people you want to stop moving into your area is not only very large but growing to include more and more middle class families. Confused? You should be.

shotamoose

Originally posted by ixoy
Now I know X and family may not be social misfits and could be very hard working but there are clear and proven links between socio-economic backgrounds and behaviour associated with ghettos. You can try and spin it as much as possible, but we alll know it exists. I can fully understand the point being raised that mixing the backgrounds is quite possibly one of the best ways to address it but surely you can see why it's "but not in my area"?

Yes, I can see why, I just don't think that's a good reason. If we're agreed that there are at least potentially very large social benefits to mixed communities - and we're talking about breaking the link between people's poor backgrounds and their behaviour and therefore life chances - I don't see why we should let people who are (i) already doing fine and (ii) by their own admission acting out of naked self-interest, block it from happening.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by daveirl
What I want to stop is when a new estate is being built identical houses being sold at a lower price.

Is that what's happening in this case? May have missed something but I didn't see anything indicating that they were all identical units.

You don't want to go too far in the other direction either and draw enormous distinctions in quality between the market housing and the market housing, as that undermines the idea behind mixed-tenure development - that residents are not so markedly class-segregated.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Well if those buying on the market don't like it they can always go elsewhere I suppose.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.