Council Estates

MRnotlob606

How do people here find Council Estates? or what are your experiences of them?/

I live in one atm and I find them to be quite noisy. Some the children here should be taught manners and people should know put muzzles on dogs.

Can be a strong sense of community though. There's a lot of people would help you if your stuck.

Peregrine

There are plenty of decent people living in them. However, it has been proven time and again that 100% social housing areas don't work. On top of a larger amount of anti-social behaviour than private housing, they foster stigmas and divides. Which, again, feed back into the causes of anti-social behaviour.

Mixing social housing with private housing by making developers set aside 10-20% of units for local councils to purchase is definitely the way forward.

One eyed Jack

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

How do people here find Council Estates? or what are your experiences of them?/

I live in one atm and I find them to be quite noisy. Some the children here should be taught manners and people should know put muzzles on dogs.

Can be a strong sense of community though. There's a lot of people would help you if your stuck.

My experiences would be pretty much the same, but I don't mind noisy children, and the majority of them are very polite, mannerly and respectful. There's always just that one family though who try and ruin it for everyone else, but as you say - strong sense of community spirit and helping each other out.

GerryDerpy

As said above 100% council housing is a disaster. The risk of getting multiple scum families on the same street is too high.

MilesMorales1

I grew up on one in Birkenhead (In the UK)
Lot of great hard working people there, but a minority dragged the whole area down.

BillyBobBS

Small estates with no more than 100 houses 50% private 50% council are the way to move forward imo. Also employ the Dutch scumtown model where you build one or two massive sinkhole council estates in a city and anyone acting the maggot in other council housing is threatened with eviction and relocation to these areas. Basically these areas are so bad the actual thought of ending up there makes council residents behave that otherwise might not be the case.

Sosurface

Peregrine wrote: »

There are plenty of decent people living in them. However, it has been proven time and again that 100% social housing areas don't work. On top of a larger amount of anti-social behaviour than private housing, they foster stigmas and divides. Which, again, feed back into the causes of anti-social behaviour.

Mixing social housing with private housing by making developers set aside 10-20% of units for local councils to purchase is definitely the way forward.

That doesnt really work though in practice. Especially with the very Irish, very post celtic tiger workaround created to allow developers buy out of the clause. A most unpleasant mix of snobbery and NIMBYism.

limnam

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

How do people here find Council Estates?

The same as "private" estates.

Some good, some bad.

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

I live in one atm and I find them to be quite noisy. Some the children here should be taught manners and people should know put muzzles on dogs.

I live in a private estate atm and see all the above issues.

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

Can be a strong sense of community though. There's a lot of people would help you if your stuck.

Sounds like they're pretty much identical then.

Wheeliebin30

Sosurface wrote: »

That doesnt really work though in practice. Especially with the very Irish, very post celtic tiger workaround created to allow developers buy out of the clause. A most unpleasant mix of snobbery and NIMBYism.

That's not allowed anymore.

Every new build has to be 10% at least.

So you pay full whack mortgage of probably 1200 euro a month while your neighbour pays 40 euro a week for the exact same house.

Excellent.

Collie D

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

That's not allowed anymore.

Every new build has to be 10% at least.

So you pay full whack mortgage of probably 1200 euro a month while your neighbour pays 40 euro a week for the exact same house.

Excellent.

A house which you will own and be able to sell should you choose.

Sosurface

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

That's not allowed anymore.

Every new build has to be 10% at least.

So you pay full whack mortgage of probably 1200 euro a month while your neighbour pays 40 euro a week for the exact same house.

Excellent.

You're a hero. Give yourself a firm pat on the back.

Samaris

Yeah, the bitching about "they didn't pay for their house like I did" stuff gets old after a bit. The person that pays their house out ends up owning a house. They get a significant amount of good deal out of that. The ones that don't, won't, but they get to rent a long-term dry roof over their heads, even if they never own a house.

I really could not be bothered with looking down my nose at neighbours who are council-renting rather than buying their houses out. Doesn't affect me, I'm paying for my own future and if a side-effect of that is some of the money from buying out being used for the upkeep of the unbuyable houses, that actually doesn't bother me at all. I'll be happy enough if I can afford to pay out my own housing cost (and get a house out of it at the end).

And it is a lot better than the other solution - cram the poor into ****ty blocks or council estates and leave them rot.

GerryDerpy

Collie D wrote: »

A house which you will own and be able to sell should you choose.

So when you rent privately can you get away with 40 a week? Can't sell it on either.

GerryDerpy

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, the bitching about "they didn't pay for their house like I did" stuff gets old after a bit. The person that pays their house out ends up owning a house. They get a significant amount of good deal out of that. The ones that don't, won't, but they get to rent a long-term dry roof over their heads, even if they never own a house.

I really could not be bothered with looking down my nose at neighbours who are council-renting rather than buying their houses out. Doesn't affect me, I'm paying for my own future and if a side-effect of that is some of the money from buying out being used for the upkeep of the unbuyable houses, that actually doesn't bother me at all. I'll be happy enough if I can afford to pay out my own housing cost (and get a house out of it at the end).

And it is a lot better than the other solution - cram the poor into ****ty blocks or council estates and leave them rot.

I'm all for that but you still have the cnuts moaning about inequality in Ireland. Give back your near free accommodation if you want equality.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't have any personal experience with them. My friend lived in one, at the start if I was staying there overnight I wouldn't park my car there but they seemed not to sh1t on their own doorstep in that estate but you'd see mad stuff altogether. Junkies knocking on the door asking for random things, travellers brawling in the green. She liked living there, people stuck together and seemed to get on well.


I live in an estate at the moment but it's private, and I like it. There's one or two rough families that i know of but thankfully the council doesn't seem to have taken over the estate like they've done with a few other private estates in the town. My neighbours are nice, don't live in each other's pockets, kids are well behaved and the area is well maintained.

There is another estate that was built just before the recession, lots of houses empty so the council bought up a lot of them and has basically turned most of it into a council estate. There's a chunk of houses people would have bought before thia happened and now they're left with houses worth a lot less than they paid for them, living in an estate that resembles little beruit

Skihunta13

Collie D wrote: »

A house which you will own and be able to sell should you choose.

Who would buy it when 5 of your neighbours are called John Joe Nevin and all ranging in age from 17 to 70? Kids toys thrown across the driveway. Horses eating off the green.

Collie D

Was obvious as soon as I read the title which way this thread would go.

Not sure why I bothered but I'm out

limnam

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't have any personal experience with them. My friend lived in one, at the start if I was staying there overnight I wouldn't park my car there but they seemed not to sh1t on their own doorstep in that estate but you'd see mad stuff altogether. Junkies knocking on the door asking for random things, travellers brawling in the green. She liked living there, people stuck together and seemed to get on well.

Never seen or heard of any of this in any council estate I lived in.

But in the private estate I do have constant do gooders looking for money for all sorts. Had my bins stolen :eek:. Someone even hurt my feelings once.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I
I live in an estate at the moment but it's private, and I like it. There's one or two rough families that i know of but thankfully the council doesn't seem to have taken over the estate like they've done with a few other private estates in the town. My neighbours are nice, don't live in each other's pockets, kids are well behaved and the area is well maintained.

Can you define a "rough" family? what makes them rough?

I just want to be able to identify any around the place so I can write to the housing committee.

Skihunta13

Collie D wrote: »

Was obvious as soon as I read the title which way this thread would go.

Not sure why I bothered but I'm out

Did someone get offended with reality??? Grow up!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

limnam wrote: »

Never seen or heard of any of this in an council estate I lived in.

Really? There must be more than one council estate in that case.

Collie D

Skihunta13 wrote: »

Did someone get offended with reality??? Grow up!

Not at all. Gerry Derpy made a fair point in response to my post. Yours was just a massive generalisation and not what I'd call reality.

limnam

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Really? There must be more than one council estate in that case.

Thanks for proving the point. There is.

Some have issues, some don't. Exactly the same as the private.

Skihunta13

Collie D wrote: »

Not at all. Gerry Derpy made a fair point in response to my post. Yours was just a massive generalisation and not what I'd call reality.

You are the one painting all with the one brush! Just because you know one decent council estate family does not mean they are all decent.

Collie D

Skihunta13 wrote: »

You are the one painting all with the one brush! Just because you know one decent council estate family does not mean they are all decent.

What are you on about? I'm well aware there are good and bad in council estates. I didn't say anything to remotely imply otherwise...and you're still generalising. But good to see you accept there is "one decent council estate family". You're making progress

Wheeliebin30

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, the bitching about "they didn't pay for their house like I did" stuff gets old after a bit. The person that pays their house out ends up owning a house. They get a significant amount of good deal out of that. The ones that don't, won't, but they get to rent a long-term dry roof over their heads, even if they never own a house.

I really could not be bothered with looking down my nose at neighbours who are council-renting rather than buying their houses out. Doesn't affect me, I'm paying for my own future and if a side-effect of that is some of the money from buying out being used for the upkeep of the unbuyable houses, that actually doesn't bother me at all. I'll be happy enough if I can afford to pay out my own housing cost (and get a house out of it at the end).

And it is a lot better than the other solution - cram the poor into ****ty blocks or council estates and leave them rot.

Most people have bought their social house for up to 60% discount.

The figures are there on Dublin city council website.

Pretty sure if people went to buy a car and seen someone getting the same one for a fraction of the cost they would feel ripped off, no?

Or is everyone content to pay more for stuff than others?

Yourself isit

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Most people have bought their social house for us to 60% discount.

The figures are there on Dublin city council website.

Pretty sure if people went to buy a car and seen someone getting the same one for a fraction de the cost they would feel ripped off, no?

Or is everyone content to pay more for stuff than others?

Council houses should never have been sold. That's different from letting people live in one.

Skihunta13

Collie D wrote: »

What are you on about? I'm well aware there are good and bad in council estates. I didn't say anything to remotely imply otherwise...and you're still generalising. But good to see you accept there is "one decent council estate family". You're making progress

I said you know 1 decent council estate family.

My point is as soon as you introduce council houses into a private estate you seriously devalue all houses in that estate. House should gain in value. What makes it worse is the cause of your house being devalued only pays €40 pr week.
No they will neverown the house but whats the advantage in that when it will be valued well below market value!

Wheeliebin30

Yourself isit wrote: »

Council houses should never have been sold. That's different from letting people live in one.

Well they were and they still are.

For a 60% discount compared to private sales.

It's unfair no matter how people try sugar coat it.

limnam

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Most people have bought their social house for us to 60% discount.

The figures are there on Dublin city council website.

Pretty sure if people went to buy a car and seen someone getting the same one for a fraction de the cost they would feel ripped off, no?

Or is everyone content to pay more for stuff than others?

Utter nonsense.

Do you feel ripped off if the pensioner getting on the bus doesn't pay and you do?

Someone paying for bread and milk with unemployment benefit ?

You're in your position, they're in theirs. If you prefer there's join the gravy train. :rolleyes:

Wheeliebin30

Skihunta13 wrote: »

I said you know 1 decent council estate family.

My point is as soon as you introduce council houses into a private estate you seriously devalue all houses in that estate. House should gain in value. What makes it worse is the cause of your house being devalued only pays €40 pr week.
No they will neverown the house but whats the advantage in that when it will be valued well below market value!

The majority of council estates are lived in by people who now own the houses.

Don't believe this spin that just because you have a mortgage you will own the house unlike someone renting.

Eventually they get the option to buy the house.

Wheeliebin30

limnam wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

Do you feel ripped off if the pensioner getting on the bus doesn't pay and you do?

Someone paying for bread and milk with unemployment benefit ?

You're in your position, they're in theirs. If you prefer there's join the gravy train. :rolleyes:

What about the people are who able bodied, never worked a day in their lives or who pop out 4 kids expecting to be housed for life.

Or am I just referring to pensioners because I'm cruel?

Even though I never mentioned pensioners.

Skihunta13

limnam wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

Do you feel ripped off if the pensioner getting on the bus doesn't pay and you do?

Someone paying for bread and milk with unemployment benefit ?

You're in your position, they're in theirs. If you prefer there's join the gravy train. :rolleyes:

That pensioner probably worked their ass off when this country was poor and so had no chance to save or avail of a decent pension scheme. And now living in huge inflation times!

limnam

Skihunta13 wrote: »

That pensioner probably worked their ass off when this country was poor and so had no chance to save or avail of a decent pension scheme. And now living in huge inflation times!

Maybe they never worked a day in their life.

It's not really relevant. Everyone has different circumstances and you sholdn't be juding yours against theirs.

If you want a house for 40e a week.

Pack in your job get on the SW and the housing list.

Let us know how you get on.

limnam

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

What about the people are who able bodied, never worked a day in their lives or who pop out 4 kids expecting to be housed for life.

Or am I just referring to pensioners because I'm cruel?

Even though I never mentioned pensioners.

I brought up pensioners, the point was you're not been ripped off because they have a free bus pass are you?

Able bodied people who refuse not to work should be dealt with accordingly.

Kids or no kids.

You won't get an argument from me on that.

Skihunta13

limnam wrote: »

Maybe they never worked a day in their life.

It's not really relevant. Everyone has different circumstances and you sholdn't be juding yours against theirs.

If you want a house for 40e a week.

Pack in your job get on the SW and the housing list.

Let us know how you get on.

They more than likely did work everyday of their working life as there was no hand outs back then like there is now.
Why would i pack in my job. I earn a decent wage, work very hard for it, pay for everything myself. I was not raisedwith a silverspoon either. I was given the same opportunity in life as everyone else. I took my opportunities and did not rely on the state to fund me.

Samaris

The selling of council houses was a problem, albeit not for the very passing sensation of "that's so unfair". It was part of the house-buying act under Thatcherism and was seen as a boost to spreading wealth in terms of ability to own a valuable asset through part of the community that had little chance of it otherwise. That gives a boost to people later when it comes to, say, educating their children, and ultimately ends up good for society.

The problem is that it resulted in far less houses available for those who needed them in a new generation. And the houses that were left tended to be pretty undesirable for one reason or another (including poor access to services, to employment and/or to schools), with the better ones being bought up by tenants as was their right. Those who were left or who came into the system from a new generation, got a very raw deal.

That resulted in a massive need for new social housing and when housing -was- sold on, as housing is in general, the "first refusal" clause for the council resulted in many council houses being leased to the council from private landlords. Which is a bit daft.

It wasn't a bad idea in theory, but it really didn't work well in practice. An objection of "it's not fair, they get more help than I do!" is a pretty shallow argument against it though.

Boaty

Councils giving houses to young parents who have never worked and who's parents have never worked a day in their lives is completely wrong and is just continuing the spiral.
Giving houses to familys that have a history
of not working results in lazy attitudes therefore poor parents and results are children that in 10-15 years time are criminals.

Part 5 Social housing ( Ie 10% of a new built estate) should not be given to people who make up the labour force but decide not to work.

limnam

Skihunta13 wrote: »

They more than likely did work everyday of their working life as there was no hand outs back then like there is now.
Why would i pack in my job. I earn a decent wage, work very hard for it, pay for everything myself. I was not raisedwith a silverspoon either. I was given the same opportunity in life as everyone else. I took my opportunities and did not rely on the state to fund me.

To get a fabulous house for 40e a week.

It sounds like you think it's a great life.

It sounds like you also got lucky.

Don't pat yourself on the back too much.

limnam

Boaty wrote: »

Councils giving houses to young parents who have never worked and who's parents have never worked a day in their lives is completely wrong and is just continuing the spiral.
Giving houses to familys that have a history
of not working results in lazy attitudes therefore poor parents and results are children that in 10-15 years time are criminals.

Part 5 Social housing ( Ie 10% of a new built estate) should not be given to people who make up the labour force but decide not to work.

Wheeliebin thinks most council houses are now "owned" you can't own a council house if you don't work.

GerryDerpy

The only reason I agree with social housing is because it maintains order and prevents chaos. See the water protests for a case study on what happens if you threaten the lazy people's cushy lifestyles.

Richard Hillman

From my experience they go through peaks and troughs. You have to wait for some scumbag kids to grow to an age where they go to prison or become drug addicts.

It is amazing how difficult it is to evict these families. Out of my estate and the neighbouring estates of about 300-400 houses. If the council chucked out 2-3 families it would make a world of difference for the entire area.

Each of these families cost probably knock off about 10-20k on each property value. You should be able to sue them for your property loss.

It is genuinely a case of the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.

limnam

GerryDerpy wrote: »

The only reason I agree with social housing is because it maintains order and prevents chaos. See the water protests for a case study on what happens if you threaten the lazy people's cushy lifestyles.

Really, as there was many people from private estates protesting here.

You know, hardworking people who would actually be hit by the charges.

If you're not working, have fck all, why would you care? You're most likley not going to have to pay them anyway.

Boaty

limnam wrote: »

Really, as there was many people from private estates protesting here.

You know, hardworking people who would actually be hit by the charges.

If you're not working, have fck all, why would you care? You're most likley not going to have to pay them anyway.

Yeah working as professional protestors.

Samaris

Funny how people only seem to know council estate residents where no-one works and they're all scamming the system. All of the people I can think of from council housing estates in my home town (generally parents of people I went to school with who lived in the council estates in the town) work pretty hard in generally low-paying jobs to provide for their families. My anecdotal evidence against someone else's anecdotal evidence, sure.

But I guess they don't count, everyone knows that only the middle class and above who work every day for a living deserve help from the State. If they're going to work in low-paying jobs, they deserve all they get, ofc.

At least society is consistent in one respect. There's always contempt for the poorer people in society.

limnam

Boaty wrote: »

Yeah working as professional protestors.

huh

I'm talking about residents, home owners and renters in private housing estates. What are you on about.

Richard Hillman

Samaris wrote: »

Funny how people only seem to know council estate residents where no-one works and they're all scamming the system.

What? How did you work that out?

limnam

Richard Hillman wrote: »

What? How did you work that out?

You should be able to figure it out by going back through the posts you thanked.

C'mon, you're a bright boy.

Berserker

limnam wrote: »

To get a fabulous house for 40e a week.

It sounds like you think it's a great life.

That is very unfair on people who have to save massive deposits and fork out €1K+ a month on mortgage repayments so they can have a home of their own. Can working people; those who will never be able to afford to a home of their own, for example available of that scheme? I grew up beside a council estate and never really had any issue with it.

limnam

Berserker wrote: »

That is very unfair on people who have to save massive deposits and fork out €1K+ a month on mortgage repayments so they can have a home of their own. Can working people; those who will never be able to afford to a home of their own, for example available of that scheme?

I'm not sure if the scheme still exists, but the one that was available.

A friend of mine who worked full time in a bank on a decent enough salary was able to buy one on the scheme.

So I guess the answer is yes? you would have to check your own circumstances against the scheme.

Pkiernan

Peregrine wrote: »

There are plenty of decent people living in them. However, it has been proven time and again that 100% social housing areas don't work. On top of a larger amount of anti-social behaviour than private housing, they foster stigmas and divides. Which, again, feed back into the causes of anti-social behaviour.

Mixing social housing with private housing by making developers set aside 10-20% of units for local councils to purchase is definitely the way forward.

Ecellent way to proliferate criminal activity.

Richard Hillman

limnam wrote: »

You should be able to figure it out by going back through the posts you thanked.

C'mon, you're a bright boy.

Nope. Haven't seen anybody say that the only people they know from council estates are unemployed and scamming the system. It was a made up argument and passive aggressive trolling to muddy the thread,