Social housing UK style

ronbyrne2005

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/article1275296.ece

Pity I'm not a female and could get knocked up and get a nice place for next to nothing. Social welfare recipients should be given bog standard accomodation till they find their feet not luxury apartments.

luckat

Credit to Britain for building good places for council tenants.

bugler

Nice high balcony for the kiddies too.

snubbleste

This is a good thing - they are creating mixed housing developments rather than potential future ghettos.

mikemac

Is a one bed apartment suitable for a family of two.
Surely they need a two bed apartment?

Latchy

Social welfare or not , you would be mad to turn one down if offered to you

starky

Has it actually happened?

Have the Irish finally run out of fellow Irish people to begrudge stuff to? and as a result have to now look to people in other countries to begrudge to make up the shortfall of begrudgery in this country?
Our national quota of begrudgery may, like our income tax receipts have a massive deficient due to the economic slowdown currently under way. I have a feeling Irish people may have to look abroad in the future to claw back the national begrudgery quotas for 2008 and on in to 2009. :-)

I am sorry to say OP that girl in that apartment in the UK probably really does not give a rats what you or any one else thinks, I am sure she is happy as Larry in her nice shiny apartment, I say good luck to her.

gixerfixer

snubbleste wrote: »

This is a good thing - they are creating mixed housing developments rather than potential future ghettos.

+1.This is exactly what should be happening. Good to see as it is vital to see a society developed in the future without ghetto style housing projects spung up all over the place.Now if only we could begin to see this way in Ireland

ronbyrne2005

Yeah lets make developers provide luxury apartments in howth and Dalkey for the single mothers from Darndale and tallaght because "they're worth it". :rolleyes: Then those buying privately get to pay extra as cost of social units gets built into the private apartments.

godtabh

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Yeah lets make developers provide luxury apartments in howth and Dalkey for the single mothers from Darndale and tallaght because "they're worth it". :rolleyes: Then those buying privately get to pay extra as cost of social units gets built into the private apartments.

Social and affordable housing are being provided in some of the big developments in Dun Laoghiare. Check out the Dun Laoghaire Golf Course development

ronbyrne2005

kearnsr wrote: »

Social and affordable housing are being provided in some of the big developments in Dun Laoghiare. Check out the Dun Laoghaire Golf Course development

What incentive would you have to work if you start working full time on say 10-15euro an hour(people in such scenarios tend to have low skill levels/qualifications) you would be worse off as you would'nt see your kids much and lose your luxury subsidise/cheap apartment and get less money than when you were on dole! Bizarre stuff that perpetuates a generational cycle of social welfare dependence. Better to plough resources into primary/pre school education in disadvantaged areas to stop the cycle of social welfare dependence and underperformance educationally/professionally.

stovelid

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Better to plough resources into primary/pre school education in disadvantaged areas to stop the cycle of social welfare dependence and underperformance educationally/professionally.

Big shiny schools can mean fcuk all if you live in an area with high crime, parental neglect, deprivation and low educational expectations.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Yeah lets make developers provide luxury apartments in howth and Dalkey for the single mothers from Darndale and tallaght because "they're worth it". Then those buying privately get to pay extra as cost of social units gets built into the private apartments.

Most of these arguments masquerade as social concern, but are really jealously at the (fatuous) perception that somebody might be getting something you want yourself.

ronbyrne2005

stovelid wrote: »

Big shiny schools can mean fcuk all if you live in an area with high crime, parental neglect, deprivation and low educational expectations.



Most of these arguments masquerade as social concern, but are really jealously at the (fatuous) perception that somebody might be getting something you want yourself.

No, social housing should be mixed into good areas to prevent ghettos etc but no need for them to be in real upmarket areas as there may actually be a social stigma to being socially housed in a luxury area. Also social housing in luxury developments could be sold for it's high value and a much greater number of social units purchased in nice but not real upmarket areas. A flat in Dalkey may cost 500k but half that in a nice but not luxury area nearby in Dublin so twice as many could be bought to house social housing recipients, its a waste of resources really as little extra benefit to a social housing recipient living in Dalkey versus say Bray.

stovelid

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

but no need for them to be in real upmarket areas as there may actually be a social stigma to being socially housed in a luxury area..

LOL.

I doubt the social housing residents would be the most aggrieved parties here.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

A flat in Dalkey may cost 500k but half that in a nice but not luxury area nearby in Dublin so twice as many could be bought to house social housing recipients, its a waste of resources really as little extra benefit to a social housing recipient living in Dalkey versus say Bray.

Maybe the social housing recipients are from that particular general area?

The local authority don't buy the houses so the cost issue is a red herring; the developers are supposed to provide them as part of a social housing obligation, if they haven't managed to buy themselves out of the obligation instead.

The general impression here seems to be punitive: social housing recipients don't deserve accommodation in trophy areas, especially if 'real' (i.e working, married) can't afford them.

How Strange

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

No, social housing should be mixed into good areas to prevent ghettos etc but no need for them to be in real upmarket areas as there may actually be a social stigma to being socially housed in a luxury area.

So what are you saying exactly? Who would suffer the social stigma, the rich people or the social housing applicant? What do you define as a good area and a luxury area?

You seem to be saying integration is all well and good but don't let the lower classes into the nicest areas; lets keep those for ourselves.

Also social housing in luxury developments could be sold for it's high value and a much greater number of social units purchased in nice but not real upmarket areas. A flat in Dalkey may cost 500k but half that in a nice but not luxury area nearby in Dublin so twice as many could be bought to house social housing recipients, its a waste of resources really as little extra benefit to a social housing recipient living in Dalkey versus say Bray.

Why?

It really seems that you're a snob who doesn't think that people who qualify for social housing 'deserve' to live in nice areas.

I may envy the people who got social housing down around Grand Canal Dock because I'd love to live there myself but I wouldn't begrude them as this is an indiction of successful social integration.

I think that if these luxury areas aren't given over to some social housing then the area becomes homogonised. Personally, I think there should be social housing in areas like Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Malahide, Dalkey, Killiney. Everyone has a right to live in these areas even those on low incomes or unemployed.

ronbyrne2005

How Strange wrote: »

So what are you saying exactly? Who would suffer the social stigma, the rich people or the social housing applicant? What do you define as a good area and a luxury area?

You seem to be saying integration is all well and good but don't let the lower classes into the nicest areas; lets keep those for ourselves.


Why?

It really seems that you're a snob who doesn't think that people who qualify for social housing 'deserve' to live in nice areas.

I may envy the people who got social housing down around Grand Canal Dock because I'd love to live there myself but I wouldn't begrude them as this is an indiction of successful social integration.

I think that if these luxury areas aren't given over to some social housing then the area becomes homogonised. Personally, I think there should be social housing in areas like Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Malahide, Dalkey, Killiney. Everyone has a right to live in these areas even those on low incomes or unemployed.

Whats the incentive to work hard to EARN your way to the best areas if you can get there by living off of others? What your proposing sounds like communism "All comrades will be allowed live in the best parts of Moscow even though there are only 5,000 houses there and 5 million of our citizens want to live there":rolleyes:

merrionsq

How Strange wrote: »

So what are you saying exactly? Who would suffer the social stigma, the rich people or the social housing applicant? What do you define as a good area and a luxury area?

You seem to be saying integration is all well and good but don't let the lower classes into the nicest areas; lets keep those for ourselves.

Why?

It really seems that you're a snob who doesn't think that people who qualify for social housing 'deserve' to live in nice areas.

I may envy the people who got social housing down around Grand Canal Dock because I'd love to live there myself but I wouldn't begrude them as this is an indiction of successful social integration.

I think that if these luxury areas aren't given over to some social housing then the area becomes homogonised. Personally, I think there should be social housing in areas like Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Malahide, Dalkey, Killiney. Everyone has a right to live in these areas even those on low incomes or unemployed.

People have a right to live where-ever they want? How does that work? Can I pick a spot on the map, and tell "The Government" to find me a house there?

Social housing is necessary, but only as a last resort. It shouldn't be a "default" option. I know a single mother who turned down a nice apartment, which the HSE wanted to rent for her from a private landlord. She held out for a house. That's the sort of welfarist mentality that develops.

Social housing creates social problems.

DJDC

It really seems that you're a snob who doesn't think that people who qualify for social housing 'deserve' to live in nice areas.

I may envy the people who got social housing down around Grand Canal Dock because I'd love to live there myself but I wouldn't begrude them as this is an indiction of successful social integration.

I think that if these luxury areas aren't given over to some social housing then the area becomes homogonised. Personally, I think there should be social housing in areas like Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Malahide, Dalkey, Killiney. Everyone has a right to live in these areas even those on low incomes or unemployed.

Great solution to generational social benefit dependency Prof.Karl Marx :rolleyes:

Why does everyone have a right to live in these areas? Thats like saying everyone has a right to drive an 08' Merc and enjoy holidays to the Tropics every year. Your socialist rhetoric is spouted by the SWP and Sinn Fein every General Election and luckily that they dont get anywhere, long may that continue.

ixoy

How Strange wrote: »

I think that if these luxury areas aren't given over to some social housing then the area becomes homogonised. Personally, I think there should be social housing in areas like Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Malahide, Dalkey, Killiney. Everyone has a right to live in these areas even those on low incomes or unemployed.

No they shouldn't - you should aspire to better yourself to be able to afford a place. Work towards a goal rather than have it handed to you without even trying.

I mean I'd love to live in those places too but I don't think I understand why I haven't got there yet - I haven't earned it yet. I think houses should be more affordable for certain but the top end of living? That should be for those who've worked to achieve it and certainly not for those who have done very little to achieve anything.
'Tis perhaps time to move this topic to humanities...

stovelid

merrionsq wrote: »

I know a single mother who turned down a nice apartment, which the HSE wanted to rent for her from a private landlord. She held out of a house. That's the sort of welfarist mentality that develops.

Funnily enough, any of the single mum bashers on boards always seems to know lots of shrewish, devious, delinquent single mothers. You should watch the company you keep. Do they know you're on here slagging them off?

DJDC wrote: »

:
Why does everyone have a right to live in these areas?

Nobody has the right to anything. Social housing initiatives are city-wide and don't take into account the jealously and sense of entitlement that particular trophy areas invoke.

merrionsq

Donnybrook has a corpo estate called Beechill. Other parts of Donnybrook like Pembroke Cottages (in between Herbert Park and Kiely's pub), and Beaver Row (beside the Dodder) used to be corpo also until they were sold on.

Ballsbridge is right beside Ringsend, once all corpo housing. Killiney is right beside Ballybrack, etc.

stovelid

merrionsq wrote: »

Donnybrook has a corpo estate called Beechill. Other parts of Donnybrook like Pembroke Cottages (in between Herbert Park and Kiely's pub), and Beaver Row (beside the Dodder) used to be corpo also until they were sold on.

Ballsbridge is right beside Ringsend, once all corpo housing. Killiney is right beside Ballybrack, etc.

Agreed.

So it's not always single mums from "Darnadale and Tallaght" electing to hoover up the posh gaffs. It could well be local residents who apply for social housing?

ronbyrne2005

stovelid wrote: »

Agreed.

So it's not always single mums from "Darnadale and Tallaght" electing to hoover up the posh gaffs. It could well be local residents who apply for social housing?

So the daughter of multimillionare couple living in Ballsbridge who happens to be a single mother should be given a house/apartment in that area cos she was born and raised there? Limited reources would be better off being spent buying properties for social housing in ordinary average areas not highly expensive areas as you would get more bang for your buck.

stovelid

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Limited reources would be better off being spent buying properties for social housing in ordinary average areas not highly expensive areas as you would get more bang for your buck.

They are not buying anything.

We are talking about a obligation levied on builders to provide social housing in new developments.

Granted, the builders can buy out of the social housing obligation. So perhaps that money could be used to make larger, social housing-only estates in cheaper areas like the vastly successful similar experiments of West Tallaght, Darndale and Ballymun.

Building sink estates in bulk for the poorly off is exactly what integrated social housing strives to avoid.

I agree with it on principle, but whether or not it will be ultimately successful, I can't say. What I do know is that concentrating the poorly-off in sink estates does not.

ronbyrne2005

stovelid wrote: »

They are not buying anything.

We are talking about a obligation levied on builders to provide social housing in new developments.

Granted, the builders can buy out of the social housing obligation. So perhaps that money could be used to make larger, social housing-only estates in cheaper areas like the vastly successful similar experiments of West Tallaght, Darndale and Ballymun.

Building sink estates in bulk for the poorly off is exactly what integrated social housing strives to avoid.

I agree with it on principle, but whether or not it will be ultimately successful, I can't say. What I do know is that concentrating the poorly-off in sink estates does not.

Eh councils buy private houses in private areas all the time exactly for the reason that sticking everyone on SW into one big estate ends in disaster. Councils buy houses in many nice parts of the city and rent them cheaply to SW recipients from the area. The council do acquire properties in new developments but these developments have to be paid for and this results in less money for landowner (not a bad thing!) or more expensive price per unit for those buying privately by themselves in same development. It depends on exact details of scheme but these housing units that councils get in new private developments are'nt built for free ! Even if council does'nt give the developer a penny for the units there is still a cost to either/or landowner,private buyers, councils resources due to opportunity cost of holding smaller number of more expensive units.

ronbyrne2005

And they are buying even if they don't hand over cash for units in private developments. They grant planning permission for higher densities etc which is a valuable asset to a developer, don't confuse abscence of cash transfers for not paying for/buying something. Complex economics at play which im sure will bore everyone if we dwell on it too much.

godtabh

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

What incentive would you have to work if you start working full time on say 10-15euro an hour(people in such scenarios tend to have low skill levels/qualifications) you would be worse off as you would'nt see your kids much and lose your luxury subsidise/cheap apartment and get less money than when you were on dole! Bizarre stuff that perpetuates a generational cycle of social welfare dependence. Better to plough resources into primary/pre school education in disadvantaged areas to stop the cycle of social welfare dependence and underperformance educationally/professionally.

Some people have pride

stovelid

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Eh councils buy private houses in private areas all the time exactly for the reason that sticking everyone on SW into one big estate ends in disaster. Councils buy houses in many nice parts of the city and rent them cheaply to SW recipients from the area. The council do acquire properties in new developments but these developments have to be paid for and this results in less money for landowner (not a bad thing!) or more expensive price per unit for those buying privately by themselves in same development. It depends on exact details of scheme but these housing units that councils get in new private developments are'nt built for free ! Even if council does'nt give the developer a penny for the units there is still a cost to either/or landowner,private buyers, councils resources due to opportunity cost of holding smaller number of more expensive units.

Ton be honest, I don't know the drill about buying or renting private accommodation for social renting. Obviously, it would seem to make more sense to buy or rent cheaper accommodation.

Do local authorities purchase or rent luxury properties in trophy areas to rent out to social housing recipients? Not a challenge; I'd just be interested to know.

As for houses provided for by developers as social obligation, I don't really care about the extra cost incurred by private buyers as a result of this. It's not as if the properties are bargains to begin with anyway.

Also: how many developers have actually provided social housing units in 'high-class' developments rather than paying off the local authority? Again, not a challenge, I don't know, but I can't imagine it's that many? AFAIK, integrated social housing has not been successful because of this?

I should stress that I mean social housing, not affordable.

What is your main beef anyway? Is it that social welfare recipients don't 'deserve' to live in trophy areas and should be in 'bog standard' accommodation as you put it, or that you are purely worried about the cost-effectiveness of integrated social housing?

Victor

While there may be social housing in "luxury" developments, it doesn't necessarily follow that those units will have hte gold taps and the €800 wash hand basins.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

No, social housing should be mixed into good areas to prevent ghettos etc but no need for them to be in real upmarket areas as there may actually be a social stigma to being socially housed in a luxury area. Also social housing in luxury developments could be sold for it's high value and a much greater number of social units purchased in nice but not real upmarket areas. A flat in Dalkey may cost 500k but half that in a nice but not luxury area nearby in Dublin so twice as many could be bought to house social housing recipients, its a waste of resources really as little extra benefit to a social housing recipient living in Dalkey versus say Bray.

Actually, a developer on Ailesbury Road paid Dublin City Council €500,000 per apartment because the council didn't want / need social housing there.