So you bought a nice apartment in Dublin for a lot of money...

darkman2

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

Is that fair Not against social housing btw just I always thought that the whole 30% of every estate has to be for "social housing" with all the inevitable problems that come with them is a bit daft and will be devisive for those who actually forked out alot of dosh and have to pay a mortgage. Next door the person may be getting their social housing for nothing. Does not seem fair to me. I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

pebbles21

darkman2 wrote: »

I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

They let Gay Byrne move there .....so yes is your answer!

Biggins

You know, not all families on a housing list are the scum of the Earth!
Talk about tarring all with one brush!
Sorry also to hear that you don't want to live beside an unemployed electrician/fitter/carpenter/whatever and his/her family that has lost their home due to the Celtic Tiger dying!
Must be a great place indeed where you live. I hope so. Everyone should be so lucky.

As for "classes" WTF!!!
The only classes I know are the "employed" and the unfortunate "unemployed"
Any other "classes" can go shove their snobbery up their arse!

JohnnyChimpo

darkman2 wrote: »

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

:eek: Heaven forbid, people from different socioeconomic strata being forced to acknowledge each others' existence :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Building massive ghetto social-housing developments has really worked wonders so far, don't you think?

Atlantic Dawn

An apartment is a glorified flat, if anyone has a problem mixing with others they should buy a detached house with a front and back garden.

Riamfada

I say, jolly good show Biggins. To the hamptons!

darkman2

So it is better to create mini Darndales in every estate rather then just keeping them all together? No point pretending all those 100 units for example are going to be filled with salt of the earth plumbers or electricians. It only takes one family of scumbags to create hell on an estate.

mikom

darkman2 wrote: »

So you bought a nice appartment in Dublin for alot of money..

Yesss.

darkman2 wrote: »

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

* Monocle drops into glass of Champagne *

TskTsk

darkman2 wrote: »

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

I know where you're coming from, but I don't think that the mixing of classes is the issue. Most people living in middle-to-upper class developments don't actually mix with their neighbours anyway.

My own experience of living in an apartment block or housing estate where some of the units were given over to social housing, or rented to social welfare recipients, was that they did not show the same level of respect to their neighbours or the homeplace that owner-occupiers did. On top of that, you had the inevitable resentment that comes with seeing someone get for free what you paid a lot of money for.

I would not suggest that this is going to be the case for all those who've fallen on tough times. It's just the experience of many people out there, and unfortunately that's the sort of experience you don't easily forget.

yoshytoshy

darkman2 wrote: »

So it is better to create mini Darndales in every estate rather then just keeping them all together? No point pretending all those 100 units for example are going to be filled with salt of the earth plumbers or electricians. It only takes one family of scumbags to create hell on an estate.

Theres all types of criminals living in all parts of dublin ,some live on ailesbury road ,some on dorset street.
Just because someone is unemployed or on a housing list ,doesn't mean there going to shoot the place up.

biko

Yes, it's better to spread them thin imo than creating ghettos of poor people.
Just because someone need social housing doesn't make them bad people.

Biggins

darkman2 wrote: »

So it is better to create mini Darndales in every estate rather then just keeping them all together? No point pretending all those 100 units for example are going to be filled with salt of the earth plumbers or electricians. It only takes one family of scumbags to create hell on an estate.

* So when 30% becomes social housing, they are all going to be automatic trouble makers and bring about social chaos every time? WTF?

* Irrespective of their previous possible job status, a lack of one now don't automatically shove them into the "scumbag" zone!

* It only takes one family of rich snobbish pricks to upset all the neighbours too ya know!

Toodle pip...

Cheap Thrills!

its not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiiirrr waaahhhh wahhh boo hoo

Cosmic justice!!! ha! :pac:

tallus

I Wouldn't begrudge anybody a place to live, and not everybodies social circumstances are the same OP.

I would like to know what you meant by

the inevitable problems that come with them

though.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

I lost all sympathy for them just by reading the title.

Latchy

darkman2 wrote: »

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

Classes ? The concept or the reality ?

tut tut , sounds so very pretentious celtic tiger 20th century ?

darkman2

TskTsk wrote: »

I know where you're coming from, but I don't think that the mixing of classes is the issue. Most people living in middle-to-upper class developments don't actually mix with their neighbours anyway.

My own experience of living in an apartment block or housing estate where some of the units were given over to social housing, or rented to social welfare recipients, was that they did not show the same level of respect to their neighbours or the homeplace that owner-occupiers did. On top of that, you had the inevitable resentment that comes with seeing someone get for free what you paid a lot of money for.
I would not suggest that this is going to be the case for all those who've fallen on tough times. It's just the experience of many people out there, and unfortunately that's the sort of experience you don't easily forget.

Yes, that is my argument...I don't think anyone would be satisfied struggling to pay a mortgage, keep a job and a roof over their heads, and look after their family when a family, esspecially if they do act the prick in the area, are getting the same accomodation for nothing. I can see that frustrating people. Posters above seem to think this does not or won't happen.

They are just being politically correct.

ejmaztec

Biggins wrote: »

* It only takes one family of rich snobbish pricks to upset the entire country too ya know!

Is that the Fingleton family or the Seanie Fitzpatrick family?




:pac:

Biggins

On top of that, you had the inevitable resentment that comes with seeing someone get for free what you paid a lot of money for.

darkman2 wrote: »

Yes, that is my argument...I don't think anyone would be satisfied struggling to pay a mortgage, keep a job and a roof over their heads, and look after their family when a family, especially if they do act the prick in the area, are getting the same accommodation for nothing. I can see that frustrating people. Posters above seem to think this does not or won't happen.

As far as I can see, the only ones to initially cause trouble perhaps stemming from an undercurrent of resentment, is from those that have a self grown "chip on their shoulder" about other self seen "classes".

Those that are frustrated are so because they have a problem that is likely more so to boil over and cause trouble to others - not the families moving in that by far are just damn glad to be given a golden opportunity to perhaps move to a nicer, quieter place from a previous hell-hole they might have struggled to survive in!

...But fcuk no! 'Cos someone has a fcukin' chip on their shoulder, they should be automatically tarred and treated like dirt - and perhaps denied a chance too at integrating amid a nicer community!

Get the fcuk!!!

Dravokivich

the only thing i dont get... according to the news report... it says they are going to build more... surely we've enough built already?

darkman2

Biggins wrote: »

Those that are frustrated are so because they have a problem that is likely more so to boil over and cause trouble to others - not the families moving in that by far are just damn glad to be given a golden opportunity to perhaps move to a nicer, quieter place from a previous hell-hole they might have struggled to survive in!

Or, more likely, being fcuked out of another area for causing trouble:rolleyes:

Victor_M

In my limited experience with social housing I have found that people who are given something for nothing have far less respect and far less appreciation for it.

Biggins

darkman2 wrote: »

Or, more likely, being fcuked out of another area for causing trouble:rolleyes:

O' yes, everyone on the social housing list is in that category.
We're back to that schite again!

ejmaztec

Latchy wrote: »

Classes ? The concept or the reality ?

tut tut , sounds so very pretentious celtic tiger 20th century ?

The whole population is upper class, I thought that was common knowledge.

I think it's the same in the UK, where the most deluded and resentful are the "new money" people, and they always kick up a stink when they think their status is under threat.

PeakOutput

nice troll

bluto63

Mixing of classes is the best idea, rather than segregate them. In the Victorian times the upper class had no idea of the life of the lower class, so any problems that existed just worsened. By keeping them apart as you are pointing to, you're leading society down that road again. Dividing society up only creates problems whether they're race related or class related.

Latchy

ejmaztec wrote: »

The whole population is upper class, I thought that was common knowledge.

I think it's the same in the UK, where the most deluded and resentful are the "new money" people, and they always kick up a stink when they think their status is under threat.

Nail on head and the irony being that many of these '' new money people '' will originally have come from the poorest of backgrounds themselfs

And reminded of a quote

A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess.

A. Philip Randolph

PeakOutput

Latchy wrote: »

A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess.

A. Philip Randolph

sweet we are in a democracy after all

Ickle Magoo

darkman2 wrote: »

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

Is that fair Not against social housing btw just I always thought that the whole 30% of every estate has to be for "social housing" with all the inevitable problems that come with them is a bit daft and will be devisive for those who actually forked out alot of dosh and have to pay a mortgage. Next door the person may be getting their social housing for nothing. Does not seem fair to me. I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

I think developers can just pay the council not to have to have social housing - or they can build/pay for more units in a less salubrious area.

On a side note, some of the worst neighbours I've ever had were home owners while some of the nicest on welfare/in social housing...I wouldn't automatically assume that their having a mortgage guarantees good neighbours - ime some property owners have less respect for their property and neighbours because they consider themselves well within their rights to do what the hell they want as owners, than people who have to make sure they don't fall out with a landlord...

Biggins

PeakOutput wrote: »

sweet we are in a democracy after all

Untill the Chinese government takes over anyway! :pac:

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

...some property owners have less respect for their property and neighbours because they consider themselves well within their rights to do what the hell they want as owners, than people who have to make sure they don't fall out with a landlord...

Well put.

starbelgrade

darkman2 wrote: »

And then...

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/treasury-holdings-signs-on-for-social-housing-development-456199.html

Is that fair Not against social housing btw just I always thought that the whole 30% of every estate has to be for "social housing" with all the inevitable problems that come with them is a bit daft and will be devisive for those who actually forked out alot of dosh and have to pay a mortgage. Next door the person may be getting their social housing for nothing. Does not seem fair to me. I wonder if a new estate was built in Ballsbridge does this rule apply?

Is this mixing of classes really going to work?

The laws regarding social & affordable housing were brought into effect under very noble pretences - the idea being that instead of ghettoising lower paid workers, or the unemployed, that all new developments would include a level of 'social inclusion'.

In practice however, this has not always been the case. Your question about Ballsbridge is one area where it has not & does not work. In 'high end' developements, it has often been the case that developers, instead of allocating a percentage of houses/ apartments to social & affordabale, have instead paid "contributions" to the local council in order to avoid "bringing the prices down" of the other houses / apartments. In essence, a pay-off - not a backhander, but a pay off.

Another area where the scheme falls down is the income test. The scheme was set up to help lower paid workers to get onto the property ladder, however the income levels are as follows;

* Single income household: If your gross income (before tax) in the last income tax year was €40,000 or less, you are eligible.

* Two income households: Multiply the gross income (before tax) of the higher earner in the last income tax year by 2.5 and add the gross income of the other earner in the last income tax year. If the answer is €100,000 or less, you are eligible.

As you can see, the criteria for a "lower paid worker" are actually reasonably high & don't take into account any other factors such as personal saving or investments.

And finally, one has to question the relationship between local authorities, government policy, developers & the banks. In an inflated hosuing market, the policy was to get so called lower paid workers to take out mortgages from the banks - albeit at a reduced cost - to line the pockets of developers & bankers even more.

Yes, in theory, social & affordable housing is a great idea, but in practice, it has been in so many cases, a major fail.

wolfpawnat

I am a 23 year old student nurse in UCD, I have a 14 and a half month old son, his father is a 26 year old veterinary student in UCD. We both worked when we were teenagers part time and we both worked as archaeologists for a while too (he has a degree in it) we paid taxes and came from okay backgrounds (his is better than mine). As he is in college he cannot give me money to raise our son and then I depend on Social Welfare, this also means I am on the housing list in Dublin. Does this mean I a scumbag wanting to sponge dole for my life and not do a days work, no!

I live in a set of apartments where I am the apartment below the pent house one, they drive an Aston Martin Vantage and a BMW 3 series. They are loud, noisy, inconsiderate and have late night parties! I watch a dvd and go on the internet, the only noise out of my apartment is when my son who is learning to walk accidently bumps to the floor or throws a tantrum. Who is the more annoying neighbour?

Don't ever DARE say I am a scumbag because I am on that list, before this recession I was from the "middle class", but now due to being on welfare I somehow got demoted to "dole monkey" by some boardsie!!!

El Weirdo

Can I just say that social housing tenants do not get their homes "for nothing"? The rents are based on the household's income.

gurramok

El Weirdo wrote: »

Can I just say that social housing tenants do not get their homes "for nothing"? The rents are based on the household's income.

In this thread, i'm trying to figure out why bother working when someone next door respectable or not can get the exact same apt for significantly reduced rent. If they are scammers/dole careerists, its adding salt to the wound.

Anyone explain why bother working in this case when I can just join them on the housing list and yet get the same apt?

starbelgrade

El Weirdo wrote: »

Can I just say that social housing tenants do not get their homes "for nothing"? The rents are based on the household's income.

True, and I'll also point out that Social & Affordable does not only apply to nice apartments in Dublin. There are also nice apartments outside Dublin. There's actually a whole world outside the capital, amazingly enough.

Ickle Magoo

gurramok wrote: »

In this thread, i'm trying to figure out why bother working when someone next door respectable or not can get the exact same apt for significantly reduced rent. If they are scammers/dole careerists, its adding salt to the wound.

Anyone explain why bother working in this case when I can just join them on the housing list and yet get the same apt?

The other way of looking at it is to put yourself in their shoes...if you lost your job or had to give up work to look after a partner/child/parent and went on a social housing list, would you like to live in a ghetto or visibly impoverished and under-serviced area or in a normal street/apartment block/house?

bonerm

Grimes wrote: »

I say, jolly good show Biggins. To the hamptons!

Wait, what are you meant to be there? British or American?

As for these people getting free social housing? Pure Baltic Avenue! :mad:

questioner

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/

Abrasax

starbelgrade wrote: »

There's actually a whole world outside the capital, amazingly enough.

Pics or GTFO.

ronaneire

I suppose the fact we're meant to be all God's Children.
Live and let live!

billybigunz

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I am a 23 year old student nurse in UCD, I have a 14 and a half month old son, his father is a 26 year old veterinary student in UCD. We both worked when we were teenagers part time and we both worked as archaeologists for a while too (he has a degree in it) we paid taxes and came from okay backgrounds (his is better than mine). As he is in college he cannot give me money to raise our son and then I depend on Social Welfare, this also means I am on the housing list in Dublin. Does this mean I a scumbag wanting to sponge dole for my life and not do a days work, no!

I live in a set of apartments where I am the apartment below the pent house one, they drive an Aston Martin Vantage and a BMW 3 series. They are loud, noisy, inconsiderate and have late night parties! I watch a dvd and go on the internet, the only noise out of my apartment is when my son who is learning to walk accidently bumps to the floor or throws a tantrum. Who is the more annoying neighbour?

Don't ever DARE say I am a scumbag because I am on that list, before this recession I was from the "middle class", but now due to being on welfare I somehow got demoted to "dole monkey" by some boardsie!!!

So like a lot of couples you are both students. The difference here is that you have to state to pay for your lifestyle because you made the decision to have a child. I don't like that part of social welfare.

Biggins

billybigunz wrote: »

So like a lot of couples you are both students. The difference here is that you have to state to pay for your lifestyle because you made the decision to have a child. I don't like that part of social welfare.

...We both worked when we were teenagers part time and we both worked as archaeologists for a while too (he has a degree in it) we paid taxes...

Quick to over look that bit aren't we!
Maybe they had a child while working and studying. Never knew that would turn out to be like a crime!

questioner wrote: »

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/american-murder-mystery/6872/

Pity one has to go all the way to the USA for that, considering their gun laws, their much different social welfare system, their huge wider range of ethnic communities, etc...

Interesting point made in it:

A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.

Isn't education a great thing!
One day a social welfare claimant, soon to be something else more important given a chance in life.

starbelgrade

Abrasax wrote: »

Pics or GTFO.

The world beyond The Pale..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/images/2007/05/11/gambia_trees_465x349.jpg.

bonerm

starbelgrade wrote: »

The world beyond The Pale..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/images/2007/05/11/gambia_trees_465x349.jpg.

I keep meaning to check out Cork city some day.

starbelgrade

bonerm wrote: »

I keep meaning to check out Cork city some day.

Cork city...

http://www.asbestos-news.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dump.jpg

havana

darkman2 wrote: »

Yes, that is my argument...I don't think anyone would be satisfied struggling to pay a mortgage, keep a job and a roof over their heads, and look after their family when a family, esspecially if they do act the prick in the area, are getting the same accomodation for nothing. I can see that frustrating people. Posters above seem to think this does not or won't happen.

They are just being politically correct.

well I for one don't feel one ounce of resentment to any of my neighbours who may have been fortunate to have got their apartment for less than I did - social housing or otherwise. And I'd like to think my neighbours who paid more than me don't resent me. I'm too busy enjoying my life, getting to know my neighbours and my 'glorified flat' to be worried what someone else pai or what their financial situation is.

stepbar

Treasury Holdings..... pacifying NAMA with a soother.....

ejmaztec

In an ideal situation, people who are being terrorised by their anti-social scumbag neighbours, and can't escape, should be the first ones to be found suitable social housing.

The end result should be that all of the anti-social ones end up being collected together in one location, where fatal "accidents" would be the order of the day. When they've all been wiped out, the place could be bull-dozed and turned into a park.

Biggins

Originally Posted by darkman2
They are just being politically correct.

Jesus, your very handy with the broad statements aren't you!
That the best you can do or level you can reach?

As Havana pointed out very well - some of us just don't have chips on our shoulders.
Thats it - end of story! Shove "political correctness" - its about having some fcuking kop-on!

quicklickpaddy

Ok reading through this thread I'd be more inclined towards the majority of posters saying that there is a large amount of snobbery in the OPs post.

On the other hand I think that view has been exaggerated. When the OP mentioned classes and asking whether they should be mixed, everyone was shocked and appauled and the idea of classes but the same people thanked another post saying that classes should be mixed.

I think it's fair enough to have some sort of resentment towards somebody getting something you have been working your entire life to afford for free (and not that they shouldn't get it - it's just a fair enough feeling to have).

And also, it's very naive and overly PC to assume that everyone acts the same. For example, my girlfriend has an apartment on St. Anothony's Road, Rialto. The majority of that road/area are council houses and then there are apartments up the top. Last night, coming home on there were fights both at the Luas stop (a minute from her apartment) and outside her apartment. I was genuinely worried about her because she called me when she saw them and stayed on the line until she was in.

You can call snobbery all you like but the simple fact is - you are more likely to encounter trouble in an area with council houses even though clearly you can't tar everyone with the same brush and say that everyone in council houses are scumbags. Credit where credit is due, during the day there seems to be a fairly tight sense of community - but at the same time I have been egged just cycling by minding my own business before.

darkman2

Biggins wrote: »

Jesus, your very handy with the broad statements aren't you!
That the best you can do or level you can reach?

As Havana pointed out very well - some of us just don't have chips on our shoulders.
Thats it - end of story! Shove "political correctness" - its about having some fcuking kop-on!

I think it is you that needs to take your head out of your arse. See all those burnt out cars in sink estates - all the gangland murders -the **** that is made of the local areas in which social housing is the norm - the lack of respect for anything or anyone? You want to live in one of these sh*tholes? You want that experience foisted on hard working, responsible people to placate your ivory tower left wing nonsense? I expect the old lazy left wing chesnut - "it's not everyone" - you must understand that the reality is that it is a substantial minority of people in communities like that we are talking about - a very substantial minority. And that is the reality. End of story.

You know it and I know it.