Why are they knocking perfectly good houses in St Marys park?

irishvamp90

Im reading the limerick leader last weeks and they have pics of houses being knocked in st marys park is this not a total waste of money?how does this help all the people of limerick?regeneration should not be about one area but should do something to do good for the whole city.A total disgrace:mad:

topper75

Where are you getting this 'perfectly good' idea from? they were built of concrete in the 40s and are crumbling - have you ever been in one? They have to go anyway regeneration or not.

Berty

Its because the council feel that our money is better spent building houses for people who do not contribute to society instead of keeping beds in hospitals.

irishvamp90

i believe the limerick leader said they were having trouble knocking them down because were so well built,my father tells me all the older houses are pretty solid.im sure decent people live in them but what does that do for me and other people?

Firefox10

Berty wrote: »

Its because the council feel that our money is better spent building houses for people who do not contribute to society instead of keeping beds in hospitals.

I agree. But is this not an investment for the future of these area's? It will be interesting to see indeed.

Berty

Firefox10 wrote: »

I agree. But is this not an investment for the future of these area's? It will be interesting to see indeed.

From WIKI

Investing is the active redirection of resources: from being consumed today, to creating benefits in the future; the use of assets to earn income or profit.[2]

It is the redirection of resources from being consumed today. It does not create benefits in the future. The assetts will not earn any income.

It does increase the living standards of people in the area in some way. That is not to say that their living standards were sub par. Nearly all those houses were recently upgraded with brand new FREE gas heating systems and now they are going to be in a pile of rubble.

Clap Clap County Council and regeneration committee. :mad:

I will tell you, IMHO, what is a good investment for the area and for everybody in society. MEANS TESTING FOR HOUSES. The council and HSE and other housing agencies should means test people living in those houses and up for new houses and if they breach a treshold then give them notice of eviction.

irishvamp90

why cant they just leave the houses there and spend money on extra guards for the area..but also inculde areas like raheen etc because raheen/dooradoyle is going have problems in a few years the amount young scum round there now shur

Berty

Extra Gardai does not equal less crime in certain areas.

Certain elements of society do not respect the Gardai, the power of the Gardai and care little about the ERU because everybody knows they are afraid to fire one round off because of the masses of red tape.

Its not really criminal activity that begets Limerick its bad name it is the scum element. It does not necessarily have to equal crime but just being a scumbag is enough to give the city a bad name.

Dressing like a scumbag, hanging around in packs on the streets of Limerick City, talking like a scumbag, making people feel intimidated, drinking cider with no tops on in public parks and the list goes on. All these things(although not criminal) give our city a bad name.

Can Gardai tackle these problems? No, and if you believe that they should they you live in cloud cookoo land.

Everybody thinks of St Marys park and similar estates as the pits of society and it is because of the large element living there that disrespect normal laws of social integrity.

Throwing your rubbish on the green across from your house, in a trolley, burning in on the green because you are too cheap to get a wheelie bin. Allowing people to write on your walls and not bother to clean it off. Keeping horses in your shed, tying them to the lampost on the green, having your neighbours house boarded up because they decided they no longer wanted to live there and burnt their own house down. Having Gardai constantly mounting checkpoints entering and leaving the area because of the "element".

Having the ERU drive down the street and a neighbour strolls into the middle of the street and fires off a sawn off shotgun and the ERU do nothing about it. They just drive off.

All of those things and more all add up to having the area to be given a bad name.

Will a new house cure their problems? Never!

ilovecars

Berty wrote: »

Its because the council feel that our money is better spent building houses for people who do not contribute to society instead of keeping beds in hospitals.

MOST people of St. Mary's Park do not want to move.. Half of them own their houses, people who contribute to society by working and paying tax.. The council are knocking the place whether people want to move or not.. It is not a choice whether they own their houses or not.. please don't tar everyone with the one brush..

Berty

59% are privately owned and although a majority it cannot be said that "most" are privately owned. Most would be 75% or more.

It could not be argued that 59% or 41% contribute or do not. You can contribute or not contribute living in both. It costs around €25-45 per week to live in a coucil house(depending on amount of rooms) and €57(ish) for a socially affordable housing scheme.

The entirety will be moved around the city at different times. It would be obtuse of you to imagine that if a family was re-housed in Monaleen that they would want to move back to an area swarming with crime. If you were moved from a house worth(by Limerick CC) €116,000 and were put in a house worth €280,000(example) with better schools, amenities, neighbours(direct or indirect) transit abilities, would you move back.

The link will show you the laughable ideas the regeneration project has. I will eat my own hat if they follow through on all theirs plans. A bridge from Thomondgate to St Marys Park and onwards to the Mill road. Oh Come on. Thats two bridges which could costs easily €100Million+ each.

http://www.limerickregeneration.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Physical_Regeneration_StMarys_Park.pdf

Look at the Mill Road. A lot of St Marys park now live there because the council "bought them out". They did not want to move back.

I bet most of the owners of the 59% of houses are laughing at us mugs now paying over the odds for our houses whislt the council have to give them a fortune to move out of their houses which are still worth €116,000ish.

Im sure if they do move back they will feel right at home. They are building an equestrian centre in St Marys Park.

Its tar not tie btw. :rolleyes:

ilovecars

Maybe they will move out here to newport!
Bet they would'nt crib bout my dog barking and i'd say i would'nt have to listen too them abuse there partners as people from st marys park have respect for one another!! and i said HALF of the people own their houses.. not most.. and by the way i don't think 190 grand is considered over the odds..

source

ilovecars wrote: »

Maybe they will move out here to newport!
Bet they would'nt crib bout my dog barking and i'd say i would'nt have to listen too them abuse there partners as people from st marys park have respect for one another!

huh???

sceptre

Berty wrote: »

59% are privately owned and although a majority it cannot be said that "most" are privately owned. Most would be 75% or more.

In most known universes, "most" is "more than half".

(see what I did there?:))

tomcollins97

There is one thing I have been wondering… The houses that people are currently in are concrete built so will have a certain element of sound proofing, both internally and between houses. Now, I have not looked at the plans, but I can only assume that the new houses will have stud internal walls and like a lot of modern houses sound proofing between homes will not go up to the 1st floor. I would have a concern that noisey neighbours may cause a whole lot of other social issues for the people living in these ‘regeneration’ homes. I know myself how annoying it can be when my neighbours have the TV up loud or play loud music at night, but at least I can request nicely that it be turned down without fear of what their reaction would be.

I was also thinking that it would be great to link social housing to ‘good’ behaviour, i.e. if you are an anti-social member of society who doesn’t clean up you act after a number of warnings; you will end up in the smallest, ****tiest hosing available, or better still, communal bed-sit style homes. But I suppose this would be unconstitutional… It’s a pity that good behaviour isn’t enshrined in the Irish Constitution – they country would be a better place if it was.

Delphi91

irishvamp90 wrote: »

Im reading the limerick leader last weeks and they have pics of houses being knocked in st marys park is this not a total waste of money?how does this help all the people of limerick?regeneration should not be about one area but should do something to do good for the whole city.A total disgrace:mad:

I happened to be in the Mayor's office earlier on this year, the day after the Regeneration report came out and I remember asking him would it go ahead in the light of budget cutbacks/recession, etc.

His answer at the time was that the houses in St Mary's Park were made of mass concrete which has a life span of approximately 75 years and that irrespective of whether the Regeneration had happened or not, they would have been replacing them at some point in the not too distant future anyway.

Please don't attack me if what I've said in terms of mass-concrete life-span is not correct - I'm only repeating what I was told!!

irishvamp90

I hope it doesnt go ahead because building houses does nothing for the decent people like me,my parents and you.The money should be spent on all urban areas of limerick.If thats the case you will have to replace lots of houses

tantipie

my parent's own there house as does my sister,,they didnt get any free gas/heating or anythin into there houses,,they work very hard for what they have,,not everyone is doing or dealing drugs down there,,or involved in any crime.plus they are the ones not benefiting(sp) there not going to re housed to a nice area with a house worth 200 grand plus and they have been told that,,only the people who rent are getting that,,:(

irishvamp90

I hear many of them complaining about getting a new house.....

irishvamp90

tantipie wrote: »

my parent's own there house as does my sister,,they didnt get any free gas/heating or anythin into there houses,,they work very hard for what they have,,not everyone is doing or dealing drugs down there,,or involved in any crime.plus they are the ones not benefiting(sp) there not going to re housed to a nice area with a house worth 200 grand plus and they have been told that,,only the people who rent are getting that,,:(

glad to hear good reply tantipie.do you agree its a waste aswell?

tomcollins97

tantipie wrote: »

my parent's own there house as does my sister,,they didnt get any free gas/heating or anythin into there houses,,they work very hard for what they have,,not everyone is doing or dealing drugs down there,,or involved in any crime.plus they are the ones not benefiting(sp) there not going to re housed to a nice area with a house worth 200 grand plus and they have been told that,,only the people who rent are getting that,,:(

How does that work? If you own a house in the middle of a rented terrace does everything get knocked around you but your house is left??

tantipie

oh they've been offered a house in Ballananty,,will only re house them in a house same value as there own!!but people that are renting are getting houses bought for them in the likes of Corbally or out the country.other option is to hold out and take one of the new ones when they are built\\

tantipie

i'm not agreeing irishvamp,,have you ever been in a house down there.no way would i call them a perfectly good house,,as far as i know the concrete has a life span of 70 yrs and then starts to deteriorate

tomcollins97

tantipie wrote: »

oh they've been offered a house in Ballananty,,will only re house them in a house same value as there own!!but people that are renting are getting houses bought for them in the likes of Corbally or out the country.other option is to hold out and take one of the new ones when they are built\\

I see - hardly seems fair. I suppose you have to look at it a bit like a compulsory purchase order when roads etc are being done - even if you don't want to move the most you get is what the government deem your house to be worth. Why the govt. is spending extra on rental homes is anyones guess.

If they opt for one of the new ones where do they go whilst the old are knocked and the new are built?

irishvamp90

tantipie wrote: »

i'm not agreeing irishvamp,,have you ever been in a house down there.no way would i call them a perfectly good house,,as far as i know the concrete has a life span of 70 yrs and then starts to deteriorate

okies...well can you see why people in other areas dont see the logic of building new houses?that doesnt stop scumbags...the money should be used more long term for garda etc in ALL areas.Are they 70 years old now?im sure the quality of houses is never 100%,there is old houses in cahverdavin,raheen,etc im sure were slapped up

tantipie

tomcollins97 wrote: »

I see - hardly seems fair. I suppose you have to look at it a bit like a compulsory purchase order when roads etc are being done - even if you don't want to move the most you get is what the government deem your house to be worth. Why the govt. is spending extra on rental homes is anyones guess.

If they opt for one of the new ones where do they go whilst the old are knocked and the new are built?

dont know yet,,haven't been told so far,,

Flaccus

Talk to anyone involved with regernatation or close to it in the Moyross community centre and they reckon it's not going ahead anyway, at least on the scale they are claiming. Looks like they have feck all funds and they are only paying lip service. Maybe a few will benefit out of it, but that's all and some of the more troublesome scum who are renting will prolly get 200k euro+ houses near you and I, if they leave the areas targeted for regen. In fact it's already been happening under the social rehousing scheme ever before regeneration came along. Since regneration started some of the more large scale trouble makers have been interviewed and asked where they want to live and about land for their horses, despite a spokeperson for regernation going on Live95FM and saying the undesirables would be put in secure short term accomodation e.g. hostels and not get a new house in their neighbourhood. I know this for a fact. Meanwhile while feck all is happening, the 7 jokers heading up regeneration are driving around Limerick in 09 mercs, and have 500euro a week each in food expenses. A disgrace. Another example of the gov. wasting money.

baza1976

irishvamp90 wrote: »

okies...well can you see why people in other areas dont see the logic of building new houses?that doesnt stop scumbags...the money should be used more long term for garda etc in ALL areas.Are they 70 years old now?im sure the quality of houses is never 100%,there is old houses in cahverdavin,raheen,etc im sure were slapped up

Hi Irishvamp,

This is a long one!!!

Every man and his dog knows that there should be more money spent/used for garda etc...

But do you see the point regarding the state of these 70 year old houses.. the city council have to duty to it's tenents in this respect.
These houses have no cavity just a solid lump of concrete... these houses are full of dampness.. the piping carrying water is 70 years old and it's not made of fancy ould plastic piping like you have in the areas you mentioned above as plastic only came to the fore 60 years ago after the houses were built... the wiring of a lot of these house is vey dangerous.. single core cabling!!!
so your comment comparing these houses to the areas you mentioned above are way off IMHO..

again regarding the wiring if you were renting form the council during the 80's they re wired your house but if you were buying it you would have to look after it yourself...
again in the late 80's and early 90's people who were renting got central heatin put in for free but if you were in the process of buying your house .. tough look... tis went agin for PVC windows in the late 90's and early naughties... so here you can see that people who couldnt afford to move from the area but still wanted to secure their own home came out worse.. if you wanted to stay on the dole and not buy the house you win....
ANd it's happening again now with the rezoning... the people who are renting are been offered nice houses in so called nicer areas... fair enought hey still pay rent on these house.. but the folk who tried to o good and secure a roof over their heads aren't been so lucky... they offer people face value!!! but where would you go woth face value for a house in St Mary's??? they will give you €40,000 and a house to rent if you want to stay there or you wait on and when a new house is built they will take your house and give you a house to rent in the new St Mary's.... and you won't get apenny for the house you took... anyone good at math here??

rant rant rant... only cause i care:o

baza1976

Berty wrote: »

59% are privately owned and although a majority it cannot be said that "most" are privately owned. Most would be 75% or more.

Thats the biggest load of b######s I've ever heard on this site...
If there is an equiv of a darwin award on this site for saying something dumb you have won it matey..
jeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz

sf147

irishvamp90 wrote: »

I hope it doesnt go ahead because building houses does nothing for the decent people like me,my parents and you.The money should be spent on all urban areas of limerick.If thats the case you will have to replace lots of houses

The money is being spent on the urban area's of Limerick, that need it. All you have to do spend time in any of the suburbs around Limerick and compare it to any of these estates that are being regenerated and you can see that money is being spent where it is needed most.

Also, define 'decent people'? You're happy to call yourself and your family 'decent' but not those who live in the St Mary's Park? That's a pretty broad and closed minded assumption isn't it? There are lots of very decent people who live in the area's that are being regenerated, many of whom are older, retired people, who have contributed greatly to society down through the years. Just because a criminal element has taken their area hostage, due to a failing of our criminal justice system btw, they do not deserve any less respect than any other 'decent person'.

This regeneration project is a ray of hope for many ordinary people who have had to suffer in these estates for far too long.

irishvamp90

Then why not just leave the decent people in st marys park in their houses as they stand,then up rooting them and wasting money on building a new house.Get the scum out of their houses

for example if they knock and rebuild say 40 houses what does that actually solve?

grenache

baza1976 wrote: »

Thats the biggest load of b######s I've ever heard on this site...
If there is an equiv of a darwin award on this site for saying something dumb you have won it matey..
jeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzz

this is the typical sort of reply that annoys the sh*t out of people. You have called his comment dumb and bullsh*t, but you haven't explained why you think that. If you're going to criticise another poster's comment, at least be constructive about it, pleeeeeeezzzzzzz!

irishvamp90

does anyone agree with me at all?bazz26 im pretty sure the decent people of at marys park would prefer just to stay where they are,just get the scum sorted.my house was build in 1980 and im sure the quality of it isnt 100%,has an old fuse box etc buts its a solid house

Flaccus

Well, I've spoken to friends in the Moyross region who own their houses, lived there all their lives and would prefer to stay. A family member who works in social services says the same and has indicated people who've been interviewed about it feel the same.

There is a lot of sceptisicm about regeration financially too, especially when the funds required to pull it off effectively are just not there anymore, and there are a lot of other spending anomalies going on with the way it's been managed. FAS anyone ???

There is also the question of where the people who cause trouble are going to go. It's not into short term secure accomodation (aka hostels) anymore as the head of regernation said was going to be the case (about 12 months ago). He said (along with politicians) these people will not get new houses in the regenerated areas. Oh no. They've earmarked these troublemakers for new houses outside the regenerated areas though they will deny it. Of course it's all academic. I think only houses which are old/decrepit will get knocked, I don't think any new houses will ever be built in their place. The regeneration committiee will just pay lip service, make promises, and maybe a few deserving people might get new houses out of this. And those scumbags who are renting who want to move out, will do it anyway through the social rehousing scheme which has been the case for many years.

baza1976

grenache wrote: »

this is the typical sort of reply that annoys the sh*t out of people. You have called his comment dumb and bullsh*t, but you haven't explained why you think that. If you're going to criticise another poster's comment, at least be constructive about it, pleeeeeeezzzzzzz!

Go back and read it again... esp the part in "BOLD" .... If you still can't understand why I called it dumb come back to me..

Oh Yeah I didn't call it "bullsh*t", I called it "boll##ks"...

tantipie

grenache wrote: »

this is the typical sort of reply that annoys the sh*t out of people. You have called his comment dumb and bullsh*t, but you haven't explained why you think that. If you're going to criticise another poster's comment, at least be constructive about it, pleeeeeeezzzzzzz!

to me it looks like berty's comment on 59% not being most was the problem,,he said 75% was considered most:eek:

grenache

tantipie wrote: »

to me it looks like berty's comment on 59% not being most was the problem,,he said 75% was considered most:eek:

75% IS most! What would you consider 'most' to be?

grenache

baza1976 wrote: »

Go back and read it again... esp the part in "BOLD" .... If you still can't understand why I called it dumb come back to me..

Oh Yeah I didn't call it "bullsh*t", I called it "boll##ks"...

The comments in BOLD print are not even yours, they are Bertys that you've just highlighted! So no, i still cant understand why you think they're dumb, because you've not said so yourself. You've merely said his comments are stupid, without giving a REASON why you are of this opinion.

Berty

I often put my name into the Boards.ie search function to see who is making references to me and this page came up.

My opinions are merely my own. My facts are taken from the Regeneration Office website.

I have nothing more to say on this subject/this thread.

baza1976

grenache wrote: »

75% IS most! What would you consider 'most' to be?

I would consider anything greater then 50% to more, most, greater what ever you want it spelt to you.

baza1976

grenache wrote: »

The comments in BOLD print are not even yours, they are Bertys that you've just highlighted! So no, i still cant understand why you think they're dumb, because you've not said so yourself. You've merely said his comments are stupid, without giving a REASON why you are of this opinion.

I didn't say his comments were stupid.. I said it was "dumb"...

Yes I know they are bertys comments, and my comment was about them...

My reason, as someone else with a higher intelligence than yours has already pointed out is regarding the statement about what is most.........jezzzzzzzzz your hard work.......

grenache

baza1976 wrote: »

I would consider anything greater then 50% to more, most, greater what ever you want it spelt to you.

So you're agreeing with my viewpoint that 75% is most then

baza1976 wrote: »

I didn't say his comments were stupid.. I said it was "dumb"..........

And the difference is?? You're being slightly pedantic there.

baza1976 wrote: »

Yes I know they are bertys comments, and my comment was about them........

Yes we've established that.

baza1976 wrote: »

My reason, as someone else with a higher intelligence than yours has already pointed out is regarding the statement about what is most.........jezzzzzzzzz your hard work.......

And you're even harder work! You've still given no explanation as to why you think his comments are 'dumb'. The whole point of these boards is the expression of opinions and the backing up of them. You've expressed an opinion but not backed it up. Or is that too hard for you to grasp?

ilovecars

grenache you are a spastic... THERE i said it..

tantipie

well it looks to me that grenache has put no input into this topic at all and only came in to pass a comment on someone elses comment,,nothing at all about the thread title??

Mr E

ilovecars wrote: »

grenache you are a spastic... THERE i said it..

ilovecars infraction for personal abuse... THERE i did it.

grenache

tantipie wrote: »

well it looks to me that grenache has put no input into this topic at all and only came in to pass a comment on someone elses comment,,nothing at all about the thread title??

Yep, you're dead right. But i did manage to pick a hole.

ilovecars

Mr.E you are a complete arse bandit.. stick your infraction wherever the **** you like.. WANKER.. there i said it and did it.. PLEASE BAN ME.. thank you and good luck..

Mr E

OK. :rolleyes:

baza1976

grenache wrote: »

Yep, you're dead right. But i did manage to pick a hole.

go pick your hole troll

Mr E

Jesus lads stay on topic or I'll close the thread. Last warning.

grenache

baza1976 wrote: »

go pick your hole troll

i'm still awaiting your explanation. You cant slag off someone elses posts, calling them contenders for Darwin awards, and then not back up your condemnation with a reason. Articulate yourself.

baza1976

grenache wrote: »

i'm still awaiting your explanation. You cant slag off someone elses posts, calling them contenders for Darwin awards, and then not back up your condemnation with a reason. Articulate yourself.

I'm sorry, I don't understand???