Residents object to 100% social housing - snobs or realists?

Kermit.de.frog

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dublin-residents-object-to-social-housing-development-1.2598033


Realists in my opinion.

100% social housing schemes should be a thing of the past. Guaranteed increase in trouble.

KERSPLAT!

This should be good :rolleyes:

Panthro

Kermit de frog...
Kersplat...

Kerrect me if im wrong but...I sense a theme..

Gatling

Total nonsense.

Starting to sound like a bunch of paronoia Americans.

Panthro

Gatling wrote: »

Total nonsense.

Starting to sound like a bunch of paronoia Americans.

Ouch!

Smidge

Very same thing happening in other areas of Dublin Kermit..
100% social housing in brand new estates with is against planning but is seemingly being allowed to happen.
Not good for anyone, integration and acceptance into a community as a new neighbour is always key.

I'm not a FF supporter but this is one of the first links I found to this happening elsewhere across Dublin

https://www.fiannafail.ie/major-planning-concerns-as-entire-housing-estate-purchased-by-tuath-housing-mcauliffe/

Bigus

Could be like Panama accounts in reverse ,

wouldn't ye wonder why hardworking people go against the grain , and try to hide the odd gain in case it's taken away from them or their forced to EQUALISE with their non working equals.

StudentDad

This reminds me of a Monty Python sketch ... 'Yes we're all for equality and fairness, but ...'

SD

the_syco

IMO, 100% social housing equals a future ghetto.

MacauDragon

Bigus wrote: »

Could be like Panama accounts in reverse ,

wouldn't ye wonder why hardworking people go against the grain , and try to hide the odd gain in case it's taken away from them or their forced to EQUALISE with their non working equals.

Untermench, please.

Or at least undesirables.

hatrickpatrick

Muppetry from the residents IMO. The reason social housing schemes failed in the past was because they were built in residential islands with no transport links or local amenities / infrastructure, and because they were pretty much entirely abandoned by law enforcement. Not because they were social housing developments. There are full social housing developments all over Dublin which don't have problems with anti social behaviour, those which do, you'll find, are those which were initially built in remote areas relative to the rest of the city and left to fend for themselves.

To put this more bluntly, there won't be an increase in anti social behaviour associated with a new social housing development (or indeed with any residential development) if anyone who begins engaging in it is quickly carted off to jail. Problems arise when criminals are allowed to roam with impunity. No one with previous convictions in the double digits should be walking the streets unsupervised and unsurveilled. That has nothing to do with social housing, and it's as much a problem in fully private estates as it is in fully social ones.

hatrickpatrick

Smidge wrote: »

I'm not a FF supporter but this is one of the first links I found to this happening elsewhere across Dublin

https://www.fiannafail.ie/major-planning-concerns-as-entire-housing-estate-purchased-by-tuath-housing-mcauliffe/

That story is a little different as the focus of it is the fact that people had already paid money for these homes and they were sold anyway. That I do agree with - if people have already paid deposits, it should be illegal for the houses to be sold. A deposit being paid should represent as much of a commitment from the seller to sell to the person who's paid the deposit, as much as it represents a commitment from the payer to buy it.

_Whimsical_

I don't think that 100% social housing schemes are a good idea for society in general,in the present or in the long term. I don't have a whole load of sympathy for those living nearby concerned for house prices but more for those living in such schemes.
100% social housing schemes do tend to attract more social problems. It's been consistently found too that children growing up in 100% social housing schemes tend to have worse outcomes than those that do not. Of course, that does not mean it's true for all children in these schemes, but it creates a statistically significant disadvantage for many.
Why would we go back to a social housing blueprint that we know without doubt results in problems?That we have seen the effect of and have had to work to mitigate the damage of. It's short sighted, lazy planning.

There was an interesting article in the NY Times last week on the effect of your neighbourhood on your life chances. It's a long enough read but the highlights are below.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/upshot/growing-up-in-a-bad-neighborhood-does-more-harm-than-we-thought.html

A recent research paper by Eric Chyn, an economist completing his dissertation at the University of Michigan, explores this idea. Mr. Chyn’s findings have received close attention from economists around the country. (Full disclosure: I am one of Mr. Chyn’s thesis advisers.)

It has long been clear that children from troubled neighborhoods have worse outcomes as adults. But it has been much harder to disentangle whether these neighborhoods cause the later disadvantage, or whether the hardships that lead families to bad neighborhoods are the problem.

The federal government’s Moving to Opportunity experiment has provided the clearest evidence yet on the effects of leaving a bad neighborhood. From 1994 to 1998, this large-scale social experiment invited low-income families living in public housing to enter a lottery that could reshape their lives. Echoing the approach that medical researchers take to clinical trials, the lottery randomly assigned a kind of experimental treatment to winners, while the losers served as a control group. The winners received housing vouchers that helped them pay the rent if they moved out of public housing. The losers stayed in public housing for as long as they remained eligible.

Lottery winners and losers were both tracked over the ensuing years, and an important study last year by the Stanford economist Raj Chetty, with Nathaniel Hendren and Lawrence F. Katz of Harvard — a study I’ve previously written about — found that children who moved when they were young went on to enjoy substantially higher earnings than people of similar ages whose parents lost the lottery. (Another disclosure: Mr. Katz was my Ph.D. adviser.)

The random assignment of slots in this program means that we can be confident that these differences result from moving. But Mr. Chyn argues that this experiment substantially understates the importance of neighborhoods. The problem, he says, isn’t in comparing those who win the lottery with those who lose.

Rather, he argues that both the treatment and control groups had already partly inoculated their children against the effects of bad neighborhoods. Only a quarter of the families that were eligible for the lottery actually applied for it, and Mr. Chyn says the applicants were particularly motivated to protect their children from the negative effects of a bad neighborhood.

Smidge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That story is a little different as the focus of it is the fact that people had already paid money for these homes and they were sold anyway. That I do agree with - if people have already paid deposits, it should be illegal for the houses to be sold. A deposit being paid should represent as much of a commitment from the seller to sell to the person who's paid the deposit, as much as it represents a commitment from the payer to buy it.

Makes not a blind bit of difference in this case as the entire estate(despite having previously been for public sale and deposits taken)have now gone 100% per cent to Tuath for housing (refunds were/are given to previous buyers)
So you are right, it WAS illegal but hey, someone got around that wee loophole

CruelCoin

Realists.

Anyone not supping the PC coolaid knows full well that a 100% social housing scheme with an overwhelming majority of unmployed is a disaster in the making. As an earlier poster said, ghetto in the making.

markpb

Smidge wrote:

Makes not a blind bit of difference in this case as the entire estate(despite having previously been for public sale and deposits taken)have now gone 100% per cent to Tuath for housing (refunds were/are given to previous buyers) So you are right, it WAS illegal but hey, someone got around that wee loophole

What's illegal about it?

JackieBauer

I'm sure the travellers will be licking their lips at this proposal.

Gatling

CruelCoin wrote: »

Realists.

Anyone not supping the PC coolaid knows full well that a 100% social housing scheme with an overwhelming majority of unmployed is a disaster in the making..

And who said the majority was unemployed

Eugene Norman

Dedicated state building of council housing is one thing. This is something else entirely.


The developer, Grandbrind Ltd, was unable to sell them at a profit on the open market.

That's hard to believe. In any case the state has intervened to prop up house prices once again. If these were on the market then prices would be that much smaller. This is a zero sum game since these houses were built for the private sector not built in a dedicated fashion for the state.

darkpagandeath

Has this ever worked anywhere large numbers of council houses ? I'm realist. But I also think a bit of housing price drop is the issue.

Howard the Duck

If sport has taught me one thing it's that 110% is the maximum you can give not 100%, so i would like to see 110% social housing. Come on government you can do better!

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

"The developer, Grandbrind Ltd, was unable to sell them at a profit on the open market."

I would be interested to know what Tuath paid for the houses? Did they pay above market value?

wexandproud

absolute ghetto in the making ,There were two areas down here right in the middle of town that were almost 100% social housing and were by no means ''residential islands '' , they became almost no go areas . The same thing in a village outside town . A nice little village , supermarket ,doctor , school and lots community spirit , the local authority bought up lots of houses in an estate for social housing , now the place is a kip . people who have lived there for 20 yrs or more trying to sell up but cant even get an offer on their houses
Anybody with 'an open mind ' will know that there are examples of this not working all over the country . There was something on the news during the week about a development of , i think about 60 or 70 houses being built as 100% social housing , it would be interesting to go back and have a look every 5yrs or so and see how it pans out , It would at least prove what side of the discussion is correct .. i know what side my money would be on

Coat22

This is why we'll have a homeless crisis for another 20 year in Ireland - the dithering over what to do on social housing and the "let integrate them into society" opinions that mean rather than a mass solution, local authorities pick up the odd house here and there to house people in.

Social housing works. It provides an instant(ish) solution to the need to house people who can't (or won't) afford it themselves. The anti social element of social housing is not the houses or estates themselves but the individuals who, even if you stuck them on Shrewsbury Road would wreck the place and cause trouble.

Its long past the time for selective "integration" - its time to start mass developments again or simple 2 and 3 bed semis and terraced housing to solve our social problems and deal properly with the anti social behaviour once it arrives rather than keeping everyone homeless to address the problems of a few trouble makers.

Badly Drunk Boy

Gatling wrote: »

And who said the majority was unemployed

I think he meant to say that the majority are on the dole, not that they aren't working. :pac:

lawlolawl

wexandproud wrote: »

absolute ghetto in the making ,There were two areas down here right in the middle of town that were almost 100% social housing and were by no means ''residential islands '' , they became almost no go areas . The same thing in a village outside town . A nice little village , supermarket ,doctor , school and lots community spirit , the local authority bought up lots of houses in an estate for social housing , now the place is a kip . people who have lived there for 20 yrs or more trying to sell up but cant even get an offer on their houses
Anybody with 'an open mind ' will know that there are examples of this not working all over the country . There was something on the news during the week about a development of , i think about 60 or 70 houses being built as 100% social housing , it would be interesting to go back and have a look every 5yrs or so and see how it pans out , It would at least prove what side of the discussion is correct .. i know what side my money would be on

Yeah, i've seen it on a smaller scale in the development that i live in. Place was grand until two houses got "social housing" tenant.

These are terraced houses and one guy two doors plays the drums day and night. His next door neighbors contacted his landlord and the council and were basically told to call the police any time he starts up. The police said that unless they actually catch him doing it at a "socially unacceptable time" then there is nothing that can be done. Of course he stops straight away when the police arrive outside his house so they never catch him. he may as well be playing the drums in my spare room so i can only imagine how loud it is in his direct next door neighbors house.

The other family have 3 young kids (between 6 and 10 i'd say) and a baby and the kids are left outside until 11pm or later most nights. They are in and out of gardens, breaking all the small trees etc in the green areas and generally just being a pain in the hole. The parents are rough as **** and you will get a mouthful of abuse if you say anything to them about the kids. They have two broken down cars outside their house and a trailer full of junk out on the road as well. The cars had all the windows smashed and tires slashed a few months back because apparently they are feuding with another scummer family who show up to wreck their stuff occasionally. The police visit them at least once a week.

This estate was only built in 2008/2009 and used to be a really quiet because it was a mixture of older people and people who have to go out and work because they are paying mortgages.

Moving these people into the area has made it demonstrably worse. It isn't "social housing" it's ruining life for normal people by moving garbage in next to them. An area miles away from everyone else would suit these people better. Build ghettos for them to wreck rather than spreading the ghetto around.

Gatling

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

I think he meant to say that the majority are on the dole, not that they aren't working. :pac:

Don't have to be on the dole to get social housing a lot of people on the housing lists are on low paid incomes

Samaris

Gatling wrote: »

Don't have to be on the dole to get social housing a lot of people on the housing lists are on low paid incomes

In After Hours, all lower class are on the dole and are probably scum. There's a lot of "dole-collecting classes"/"non-working class" type commentary in here.

syklops

Tate Zealous Math wrote: »

"The developer, Grandbrind Ltd, was unable to sell them at a profit on the open market."

I would be interested to know what Tuath paid for the houses? Did they pay above market value?

I sense a Fianna Fail tent at the galway races type of scenario. In a market which has a massive shortage of properties, the developer couldnt sell any of them? Either they were doing it wrong, or something is wrong with those houses, or we are not hearing the full story.

lawlolawl

Gatling wrote: »

Don't have to be on the dole to get social housing a lot of people on the housing lists are on low paid incomes

I presume they have to hand back the house once their situation improves, like if they get a raise or a new job with better pay?

Chips Lovell

"Housing crisis! Shocking stuff! Something must be done!"

Something is done

"Not in my back yard!"

BoJack Horseman

'Social housing' is an oxymoron.

They are often anything but social.

Del2005

Coat22 wrote: »

This is why we'll have a homeless crisis for another 20 year in Ireland - the dithering over what to do on social housing and the "let integrate them into society" opinions that mean rather than a mass solution, local authorities pick up the odd house here and there to house people in.

Social housing works. It provides an instant(ish) solution to the need to house people who can't (or won't) afford it themselves. The anti social element of social housing is not the houses or estates themselves but the individuals who, even if you stuck them on Shrewsbury Road would wreck the place and cause trouble.

Its long past the time for selective "integration" - its time to start mass developments again or simple 2 and 3 bed semis and terraced housing to solve our social problems and deal properly with the anti social behaviour once it arrives rather than keeping everyone homeless to address the problems of a few trouble makers.

We can't deal with anti social behaviour until our "justice" system is fixed and that'll never happen as too many people are making money with the current joke of a system.

Snickers Man

Anyone noticed that this is in THE NORTHSIDE of Dublin and the people objecting are NORTHSIDERS who don't like the value of their property or their quality of life on the NORTHSIDE being devalued and downgraded?

Can we expect harrumphing editorials about the innate snobbery, lack of concern for their fellow man, I'm-all-right-Jack, petty one-upmanship and totally undeserved self importance of residents of this area from our journalistic intelligentsia aka the usual suspects, Clifford, Power, Waters, Harris, O'Connor etc etc?

Nah. But wait till something similar happens south of the Liffey. :D

Gatling

lawlolawl wrote: »

I presume they have to hand back the house once their situation improves, like if they get a raise or a new job with better pay?

No they pay a higher rent

syklops

lawlolawl wrote: »

I presume they have to hand back the house once their situation improves, like if they get a raise or a new job with better pay?

That would have to be one hell of a raise. Most people on the housing list are perpetually disadvantaged. For every one whose situation improves to the point they dont need to be on it anymore there are dozens who stay on it for life.

Walter H Price

Don't agree at all with 100% Social housing in areas that are majority private ownership. If they have to built , build them on their own.

i'm currently house hunting and actively avoiding any areas of the city that have large amounts of social or council housing for obvious reasons i.e crime , anti social behavior , neglect of properties , unemployment etc... i don't want those kind of people as neighbors or my kids in school with their kids.

I would be livid if when we get a house in a decent area having saved for over 2 and half years if the government just decided to land a 100% social development right in the middle of the place , devaluing in the house and creating all those issues we'd of had in the first place just buying in one of those less desirable areas. totally understand and sympathize with the residents concerns here.

NIMAN

Let's be honest, most of us will call these folk snobs because the houses aren't near us, but if they were, we'd all be more the realist.

Emme

There should be a social housing scheme for young working couples who are not yet earning enough to get on the property ladder. Surely established home owners would not object to this? For example, Mary and Pat in their 50s, a teacher and a garda who were able to buy their own house in the late 80s should not object to Siobhan and Conor in their late 20s, also a teacher and garda but unable to buy their own house at current prices.

NIMAN

Emme wrote: »

There should be a social housing scheme for young working couples who are not yet earning enough to get on the property ladder. Surely established home owners would not object to this? For example, Mary and Pat in their 50s, a teacher and a garda who were able to buy their own house in the late 80s should not object to Siobhan and Conor in their late 20s, also a teacher and garda but unable to buy their own house at current prices.

Don't think anyone would argue about this happening, but I think they are more worried about a street full of dolites with little or no prospect of getting jobs, raising a new generation of benefit claimants.

Thats whats scaring people.

wexandproud

Samaris wrote: »

In After Hours, all lower class are on the dole and are probably scum. There's a lot of "dole-collecting classes"/"non-working class" type commentary in here.

thats not true , quiet the opposite actually and you know it .
in reference to another post , s/he is correct in saying you don't have to be on the dole to live in social ,and there are many people on the dole for genuine reasons and they should be housed . However you take a look at any estate where there is a large amount of social housing and you will find an above average amount of scumbaggery

Gatling

Emme wrote: »

There should be a social housing scheme for young working couples who are not yet earning enough to get on the property ladder.

You have people /couples already working and on social housing lists and living in social housing .

Should people in one housing estate get to vette and choose who lives in another estate

lawlolawl

Gatling wrote: »

You have people /couples already working and on social housing lists and living in social housing .

Maybe your experience is different than mine, but i can honestly say that i don't personally know and have never known anyone who was working that was living in social housing.

BoJack Horseman

Samaris wrote: »

There's a lot of "dole-collecting classes"/"non-working class" type commentary in here.

1 in 5 adults of working age are living in households where no one is working
(or "low work intensity", as per their parlance).

Data is here...

Ireland is the highest in the whole EU.
So, yes... it is indeed an issue.

Del2005

Emme wrote: »

There should be a social housing scheme for young working couples who are not yet earning enough to get on the property ladder. Surely established home owners would not object to this? For example, Mary and Pat in their 50s, a teacher and a garda who were able to buy their own house in the late 80s should not object to Siobhan and Conor in their late 20s, also a teacher and garda but unable to buy their own house at current prices.

What about Bob the butcher or Mary who works in a crèche who can't afford to buy at current prices? Why should public sector employees get preferred deals on purchasing a home?

Gatling

Walter H Price wrote: »

i don't want those kind of people as neighbors or my kids in school with their kids.

May I suggest the moon

Boom_Bap

As someone who grew up in the area, I done most of my teenage drinking in the field where the houses are being built. I probably got my first non-solo handjob there as well, it's a horrible place for houses to be built irespective of them being social houses or not.

The particular spot on the Beaumont Road is a traffic nightmare at rush hour, the bus routes had to be changed there to go against the traffic. They just added an extra junction with traffic lights and probably about 100 new cars to the road.

That alone is going to be the first point of trouble, locals will point it to being the residents of Thornwood, commentators will say it's the residents complaining about it being social housing.

steddyeddy

I DON'T think 100% social housing is a good idea. I believe housing estates should be mixed and more importantly the children should be educated together.

Walter H Price

Gatling wrote: »

May I suggest the moon

i get living in Dublin unless you go the private route u will more then likely end up with kids from rougher parts in all schools , but i think u can find a few areas still were there are less working class estates etc.. no issue with housing being provided in these last few good areas to young professional couples but not social welfare recipients , Single Mothers , immigrants etc ...

BoJack Horseman

Walter H Price wrote: »

i get living in Dublin unless you go the private route u will more then likely end up with kids from ruffer parts in all schools , but i think u can find pleanty of areas still were there are less working class estates etc.. no issue with housing being provided in these last few good areas to young professional couples but not social welfare recipients , Single Mothers , immegrants etc ...

Walter's primary school teachers should hang their collective heads in shame.

"ruffer".... pertaining to sounding like a dog.

Richard Hillman

It only takes 1-2 families to turn the place into a war zone.

The problem that these estates have and the reason people would have genuine concerns is that these families would need to commit war-crimes to get evicted.