Social housing in Dublin 15

chucknorris

Fingal county council have purchased 44 of the new houses in Waterville for social housing.

Good news, bad news or indifferent?

https://twitter.com/CllrMcGuinness/status/666199128175718400

athtrasna

May be seen as nimby-ism but I'm not delighted. I'd be less than happy if I'd bought a new house in that cluster. I think councils should buy before a development is released for sale to the general public as people may have reconsidered buying were they fully informed.

Brenlyn

Would love to know what part of the development it is in I presume that it is the new builds that are being built and not in Brandon Sq that seems to be fully sold out

January

They already have social housing in Waterville. I know a couple living in an apartment there that is owned by the council.

athtrasna

January wrote: »

They already have social housing in Waterville. I know a couple living in an apartment there that is owned by the council.

Not 44 in the one cluster though

Godge

chucknorris wrote: »

Fingal county council have purchased 44 of the new houses in Waterville for social housing.

Good news, bad news or indifferent?

https://twitter.com/CllrMcGuinness/status/666199128175718400

What is David McGuinness saying, or is he waiting to see which way the wind blows?

January

Godge wrote: »

What is David McGuinness saying, or is he waiting to see which way the wind blows?

He's saying while it's a start that there's still a long way to go in stopping this housing crisis.

December2012

I think it's great. In happy that those who need help can get it.

athtrasna

Brenlyn wrote: »

Would love to know what part of the development it is in I presume that it is the new builds that are being built and not in Brandon Sq that seems to be fully sold out

Apparently a new cluster called Rossan Court. David McGuinness is looking for feedback by email if anyone is motivated to seriously comment either way.

handlemaster

They could just buy up houses around D15 instead of buying all together in one lot as you know it will be rund down in a few years bringing the whole neigh ourhood down.lots of houses around the 200k maker

January

handlemaster wrote: »

They could just buy up houses around D15 instead of buying all together in one lot as you know it will be rund down in a few years bringing the whole neigh ourhood down.lots of houses around the 200k maker

Yawn... :rolleyes:

Avondale is the newest social housing project in D15, 100's of houses in one area and all of them council houses, they're built nearly 4 years now and there are no problems, nothing is run down. Maybe, just maybe, people that live in social housing know how to behave themselves these days. The majority of them anyway.

handlemaster

January wrote: »

Yawn... :rolleyes:

Avondale is the newest social housing project in D15, 100's of houses in one area and all of them council houses, they're built nearly 4 years now and there are no problems, nothing is run down. Maybe, just maybe, people that live in social housing know how to behave themselves these days. The majority of them anyway.

Give it time. .

eviltwin

handlemaster wrote: »

Give it time. .

Give it time and what? I live on a council estate - I bought my house so I guess that makes me okay - and the social housing is in great condition, they put my house to shame. These houses will hopefully help some of those people who have found themselves fallen on hard times. Normal people like yourself. Why not give them a chance?

December2012

handlemaster wrote: »

Give it time. .

That's not fair. A large portion of Dublin was originally social housing, Marino, Cabra, Ballyfermot, Coolock, Walkinstown etc. Most of these areas have matured nicely. You can have trouble anywhere, not just in social housing areas

athtrasna

The issue here is that Waterville is almost entirely privately owned housing, with a small number of council owned properties in each development. The council have now purchased 44 units in a single cluster effectively creating a ghetto in the middle of private housing. All this with no consultation with the owners and residents of Waterville, many of whom are in negative equity of hundreds of thousands. People are not happy and the public reps have received a mountain of complaints. It's too late to do anything about it but the underhand nature of this deal will have repercussions at the ballot box and beyond.

eviltwin

athtrasna wrote: »

The issue here is that Waterville is almost entirely privately owned housing, with a small number of council owned properties in each development. The council have now purchased 44 units in a single cluster effectively creating a ghetto in the middle of private housing. All this with no consultation with the owners and residents of Waterville, many of whom are in negative equity of hundreds of thousands. People are not happy and the public reps have received a mountain of complaints. It's too late to do anything about it but the underhand nature of this deal will have repercussions at the ballot box and beyond.

Why should they consult residents? Why would you describe social housing as a ghetto? You do realise a lot of posters here live in these 'ghettos'. It's a horrible way to refer to those areas and says a lot about your attitude to those who live in them. What's your issue here, the fact people will live in the same spec house as yourself for a fraction of the cost or snobbery about the riff raff moving in?

Larbre34

athtrasna wrote: »

It's too late to do anything about it but the underhand nature of this deal will have repercussions at the ballot box and beyond.

Not necessarily. If the acquistion in such a block violates their own policies of social mix and appropriate scale, they could be forced to divest some or all. Buying the units would have been a decision by the Council executive, as in most things the Councillors are powerless, but of course they should have been more on top of their brief. Even if the whole Council changed at the ballot box, the executive could carry on with this policy regardless.

athtrasna

eviltwin wrote: »

Why should they consult residents? Why would you describe social housing as a ghetto? You do realise a lot of posters here live in these 'ghettos'. It's a horrible way to refer to those areas and says a lot about your attitude to those who live in them. What's your issue here, the fact people will live in the same spec house as yourself for a fraction of the cost or snobbery about the riff raff moving in?

My reference to ghetto is in the sense of an area of minority in the middle of majority. Maybe oasis would work too. Waterville is almost entirely privately owned.

My issue is that there was a development plan for Waterville and this deviates from that. Owners spent significant sums of money based on the plan and it has been changed without warning or consultation. This is the issue I have. There are social houses all over Waterville but at low concentration. 44 houses together is a massive change

December2012

athtrasna wrote: »

The issue here is that Waterville is almost entirely privately owned housing, with a small number of council owned properties in each development ............. All this with no consultation with the owners and residents of Waterville, many of whom are in negative equity of hundreds of thousands

So what? Its nobody else's business.

January

athtrasna wrote: »

My reference to ghetto is in the sense of an area of minority in the middle of majority. Maybe oasis would work too. Waterville is almost entirely privately owned.

My issue is that there was a development plan for Waterville and this deviates from that. Owners spent significant sums of money based on the plan and it has been changed without warning or consultation. This is the issue I have. There are social houses all over Waterville but at low concentration. 44 houses together is a massive change

Oh well, plans change, there is a homeless crisis. Housing is needed, so what if you weren't consulted. 44 houses is a small number and it shouldn't cause any major issues with your precious haven of houses.

eviltwin

athtrasna wrote: »

My reference to ghetto is in the sense of an area of minority in the middle of majority. Maybe oasis would work too. Waterville is almost entirely privately owned.

My issue is that there was a development plan for Waterville and this deviates from that. Owners spent significant sums of money based on the plan and it has been changed without warning or consultation. This is the issue I have. There are social houses all over Waterville but at low concentration. 44 houses together is a massive change

I don't see what difference it will make. They will be the exact same houses as the rest of the development, they are not going to look different. The only difference will be how the occupiers came to have them and clearly you have an issue with the idea of social housing clients in your area. The reality is we have a major housing issue and its probably only going to get worse. It makes no sense to have people in bed and breakfasts or hotels long term and if they can be accommodated in a proper home then its a good thing.

Gaspode

OK lets not get personal - attack the post not the poster. This is a tricky issue - we all scoff at NIMBYism until something arrives on our own doorstep!

handlemaster

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't see what difference it will make. They will be the exact same houses as the rest of the development, they are not going to look different. The only difference will be how the occupiers came to have them and clearly you have an issue with the idea of social housing clients in your area. The reality is we have a major housing issue and its probably only going to get worse. It makes no sense to have people in bed and breakfasts or hotels long term and if they can be accommodated in a proper home then its a good thing.

If you bought a property and then all a sudden all around you became social housing the value of your property would go down. How sympathic would you be then ?

December2012

I genuinely wouldn't worry. I was brought up in social housing and the area matured very nicely. No hassle or trouble either.

Gererreh Tona

December2012 wrote: »

I genuinely wouldn't worry. I was brought up in social housing and the area matured very nicely. No hassle or trouble either.

It's the exception rather than the rule in fairness. Look at the council estate parts of Ballyfermot/Finglas/Crumlin/Drimnagh/Tallaght. They are still plagued by anti-social behavior and crime 50-60 years later.

December2012

I disagree. Plagued is a very strong word. You are talking about suburbs with huge populations

Rosser

December2012 wrote: »

I disagree. Plagued is a very strong word. You are talking about suburbs with huge populations

And anti social problems to match the population which is why a mix of private and public housing is actually desirable. On the other hand where a development is going to be mixed it's not unreasonable for people to know what they are buying in to.

root69

Everywhere i read on topic of social housing it is common to find reference to a percentage of social houses among private housing.

Does anyone knows if tese values are somewhere written down?

Secondly, why the concern to keep a low % to social housing?

ongarboy

root69 wrote: »

Everywhere i read on topic of social housing it is common to find reference to a percentage of social houses among private housing.

Does anyone knows if tese values are somewhere written down?

Secondly, why the concern to keep a low % to social housing?

It used to be 20% obligation for developments but during the Celtic tiger, developers had the option to "buy out" the social obligation percentange and have it swapped onto other land. It would mean developers could command a higher market price for the new homes if buyers knew there was no social component (google NIMBYism if you want to know why people would think that way - some of the posts on this thread are clues too). Of course that went against the principle of genuine integration of public and private mixed housing as those "buy outs" usually were reassigned to places which were fully or majority council housing occupied, thus increasing the ghetto scenario the councils were trying to avoid. I understand new legislation is trying to combat this per attached.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/new-law-means-builders-must-provide-social-housing-1.1948543

root69

Thank you for you opinion. And the information on the link is quite explanatory.

You mention the word ghetto, which i understand to describe the high or full concentration of social houses. So in this thread this was being discussed that all houses of a cluster are dedicated to social housing. Are we saying the government/council is building the scenario that originally was trying to avoid?

Why the councils want to avoid these high concentration of social housing?

December2012

Rosser wrote: »

And anti social problems to match the population which is why a mix of private and public housing is actually desirable. On the other hand where a development is going to be mixed it's not unreasonable for people to know what they are buying in to.

So all the population in social housing causes anti social problems?

Rosser

December2012 wrote: »

So all the population in social housing causes anti social problems?

Well now do you honestly think that was what I was saying?

Do you dispute that areas of exclusively social housing have anti social issues in the higher percentile because it's an absolute fact that they do, Google to your heart's content if you doubt it.

That is not to say it's all the population in fact the overwhelming majority are not but there is a higher concentration of a small number who cause problems.

December2012

Rosser wrote: »

And anti social problems to match the population.

This is what you said.

root69

Right... i think it is very easy to just grab someones post and words and turn the focus on that... the thread becomes a dispute of wording about who said what and the original topic is lost...

From this thread we were trying to understand the impact to a surrunding area, if any, of social housing.

Definition, purpose, social contribution, demographic, geography and concentration vs distribution... all input around that will help clarify the main topic...

Does anyone knows why high concentration of social houses is not desirable?

root69

Rosser wrote: »

Do you dispute that areas of exclusively social housing have anti social issues in the higher percentile because it's an absolute fact that they do, Google to your heart's content if you doubt it.

If you read ASB Strategy (very short document)--attached., page 6, Section 4, paragraph "Allocation" and "Strategic Allocation".

Unless i am understanding what i read incorrectly and this it has noting to do with social housing.

Please let me know if you read different

wildlifeboy

rabble rabble stupid generalising

Gaspode

Warning #2. Lets keep it on topic, drop the sweeping generalities and discuss the OP like grownups please.

wildlifeboy

Sorry Gaspode, although I do think that there will be an elemant of anti social behaviour which is endemic in social housing

Gaspode

What do people (on this thread) mean by social housing - are we talking about the affordable homes that the developers set aside on new developments or are we talking the old council/corporation estates? I see them as two separate things, but it seems like they're one and the same reading some of the posts above.

January

They're talking about local authority council housing. Which is what has been bought in Waterville. Not affordable housing.

athtrasna

Gaspode wrote: »

What do people (on this thread) mean by social housing - are we talking about the affordable homes that the developers set aside on new developments or are we talking the old council/corporation estates? I see them as two separate things, but it seems like they're one and the same reading some of the posts above.

In the context of this thread I mean that the council has bought 44 houses (worth in the region of 350k each) in the middle of a private development and is going to house 44 families in them who will pay minimal rent to the council for them.

Having spoken to a lot of my neighbours since the announcements the major concerns are twofold while almost being the same. One being the possibility that troublesome/undesirable tenants may get some of the houses leading to anti social behaviour in the area. The other is that because the new tenants aren't struggling to pay 350k mortgages, they may not be so proud of their area and they may not respect the area, the planting, the walls etc.

I've also spoken to people in some of the closer clusters to Rossan Court and their big worries are property values and tenant selection. Part of Waterville is still in almost 100% negative equity so property values are very stressful at the best of times.

Gaspode

Well as someone from a local authority area which had a bit of a bad rep, I think most of the fears stated here are perhaps a tad, nay even a smidgeon, over-stated. Sure local authority areas do have in general a high percentage of people who would behave in anti-social behaviour, but they are still a small section of the general population of those areas. It's just that the scumbags are really really bloody scummy and drag the name of their areas down disproportionately.
IME, the majority of people in authority housing are fine and just want to live their lives in peace and quiet, same as people in privately purchased housing.

Rosser

December2012 wrote: »

This is what you said.

How about 'proportionate to'?

root69

Well. These type of housing needs to exist. That is why there is a contribution that each developer should and fair enough..

The question is regarding the concentration of these houses. There are plans in place that strategise concentration and distribution of houses. I found council planning that goes back 10years.. surely oug of date, but the point is that these are in place to attempt to deal with whatever obstacles can come from high concentration.... obstacles which are not known to me today.

The latest news on that area of waterville, show a high concentration. One all cluster, instead of spread accross all of waterville.

Even if the people entitle to those properties follow the selection criterias, which are also stated in documents, the fact is that these houses were announced not as social houses in waterville, but as a all cluster dedicated to social type houses. All for the need of advertising.