Respond coming to my estate, what to expect?

Adventure1

Hi guys,

I live in an estate that currently has around 40 houses which are built and are currently being lived in. There are available sites for a further 25 houses which run opposite/alongside the existing houses. We have just been told that these remaining sites are to be given to Respond who are going to build the houses and use them for social housing.

Needless to say its caused quite a stir among the existing residents. There is some resentment that most of us are working to pay off decent sized mortgages while others will be handed similar houses for free. There are some people here who paid (and are still paying) nearly €400k for their house and they are now going to have approx 33% of houses in the estate on social housing. There are also a couple of really rough social-housing estates in the town - we have a nice quiet community here and there is a concern that this will be disrupted.

Personally, I'm trying to keep an open mind. I have tried to do research on Respond and there does at least seem to be some sort of a vetting/interview procedure. They also talk a good game on their website around building communities, dealing with anti-social behaviour etc but as they say, talk is cheap and Im not sure how much these blurbs reflect the real situation

Does anybody have any experience of Respond housing, how they operate and what we are likely to expect out of this?

Mrs OBumble

You will get social housing tenants, like any other. 90% will be lovely people who are unfortunate in some way (sick, low-skilled, in low-paying jobs due to geography, etc). 5% will be rough around the edges, but OK to have in the neighbourhood. 5% will be the a**holes from hell, and you will be united in praying that they go to prison soon. (Approximate %-ages only).

Respond are a social housing agency, like any other. They will try to build community etc but really they can only do as much as budgets allow and their tenants are interested in. Many tenants will not be interested, because they are too busy working and raising their own kids.

Heart Break Kid

From a social housing area via council myself. They genuinely do take anti social begavior seriously if reported and eviction is a consequence.

The_Conductor

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

From a social housing area via council myself. They genuinely do take anti social begavior seriously if reported and eviction is a consequence.

They have featured via third party complaints, and continue to do so- at the RTB. They are fully aware that they, as an organisation, are responsible for the actions of their tenants- and as they are increasingly being hit in the pocket for anti-social behaviour, whereas in the past they might have turned a blind eye- it is no longer considered acceptable by them, and there are consequences for any tenants who cause trouble in communities- up to and including eviction.

They're a hell of a lot better at dealing with antisocial behaviour- even in the last 6 months- than they were previously.

Feckofff

How soon can you move?

I would be very careful, every town needs a dumping ground for thier difficult tenets.

Existing homeowners need to stand up for what they are effectively working their whole lives for.

Everybody knows the theory but the reality could be very different.

judeboy101

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

The_Conductor

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

Judeboy does have a valid point.
Having 25 social housing units opposite- will seriously affect the value of the other housing stock. People might like to suggest this isn't the case- however, it most certainly is...........

AlekSmart

judeboy101 wrote: »

If you are not in negative equity, you soon will be, so sell up asap. 10% social is bad enough but what you are saying is a disaster.

It is a sad example of how deep Irelands Social Issues have become,that the thread has immediately focused on what many view as an inevitability.

As noted above,the theory of this is well known and publicised,but the practice in Irish terms,has largely been shown to be very wide of the mark.

This is not the fault of the Landlord (in this case Respond),but to a culture of misplaced belief in the dominance of personal freedom without any regard for personal responsibility.

This culture has even been recognized and supported by the decisions handed down by our highest Law Courts,which has facilitated violent,anti-social and downright evil individuals to walk away from their crimes without as much as a backwards glance.

It may well work out for the OP,but as in so much of what constitutes Irish society these days,it all depends on how much of a Betting-Man the OP is.

McGrath5

My heart goes out to you OP.

I'm sure the vast majority of the prospective tenants will be honest, decent people, but unfortunately it only takes 1 family to wreak the place.

If I was in your shoes I would seriously consider selling up, if that is a viable option for you.

jamesthepeach

I have a relative who lives in a lovely little estate.
The cc bought one of the houses there and the family they moved in destroyed the place.
By destroyed I mean destroyed the lovely little neighbourhood with anti social behaviour.
People started to sell and the council eventually got another 2 houses at knockdown prices. You should see the state of the place now. And the relative still lives there as they are in negative equity.

It went from a place they loved to one they hate. They often tell me if they could go back to the day that crowd moved and sell up they would do so in a shot

Mrs OBumble

The_Conductor wrote: »

They have featured via third party complaints, and continue to do so- at the RTB. They are fully aware that they, as an organisation, are responsible for the actions of their tenants- and as they are increasingly being hit in the pocket for anti-social behaviour, whereas in the past they might have turned a blind eye- it is no longer considered acceptable by them, and there are consequences for any tenants who cause trouble in communities- up to and including eviction.

They're a hell of a lot better at dealing with antisocial behaviour- even in the last 6 months- than they were previously.

End of the day, though, they can only evict if a judge will support them. Many judges won't after the case in Galway years ago where the to-be-evicted tenant took an extreme step.

So the social housing orgs are getting fined but all that does is reduce the cash they have for housing.

Donal55

Plenty of private landlords renting out to scumbags too. I'd feel a bit more reassured if it was Respond or a local authority renting out the properties.

Wheeliebin30

How did it come to this?

The people who contribute nothing are a law to themselves and are ruining good neighbourhoods and people's lives.

Country is going down a hole quickly.

somefeen

Jesus some amount of snobbery in this thread.

They wont be getting 'free' houses. They still have to pay rent.

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?
Absolutely unreal.

Eric Cartman

OP, I'd sell up , tbh its not the nicest thing in the world to say, but not a hope I'd buy a house in that estate with that much social housing in it, and I'm clearly not alone in that, people who don't mind will still use it as a bargaining tool too.

As said above, 90% of them could be lovely , but it only takes a few horror tenants to ruin the whole thing, sure look at moyross, the estate belongs to 2 families because they chased everyone else out.

All you need is one scrote who's gangland or doesn't care that his kid puts bricks through windows or steals cars and in 5 years time you'll be opening your door to something resembling detroit.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

somefeen wrote: »

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?

If necessary, yeah. The estate I was brought up in was 90% social housing, only a handful were privately owned. I decided it wasn't the sort of place I'd choose to raise a family, so I got qualified and climbed the career ladder. I can afford something nicer. And I'd be mightily pissed off if the council bought the place next door and handed it to a social housing tenant.

Eric Cartman

somefeen wrote: »

Jesus some amount of snobbery in this thread.

They wont be getting 'free' houses. They still have to pay rent.

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?
Absolutely unreal.

you put 30% social housing in an estate - it will probably become a ghetto, only takes a few bad eggs.

you build an estate of 100% social housing - it will probably become a ghetto , only takes a few bad eggs.

the only real difference is that in the first case, it robs hard working people like the OP of the quiet, safe existence that they saved hard to afford and knocks hundreds of thousands if not more off an estates value. Its the lesser of two evils but I'd just rather not have hardship forced upon hard working people to convenience others who don't contribute (be it intentional or through hard luck)

eviltwin

I live beside a Respond estate, never had an issue. Most of the residents seem to be good people, there hasn't been any problems in the 7+ yrs it's been there. The place is very well maintained, it's clean and tidy. Just my experience. I'm a home owner and it's made no difference to my house value from what I can see and I'm happy they are there.

EmoCourt

I'd rather endure a lifetime of sulky racing up and down my road than be called a snob.

The stress of being called a snob would actually ruin my life.

Eric Cartman

eviltwin wrote: »

I live beside a Respond estate, never had an issue. Most of the residents seem to be good people, there hasn't been any problems in the 7+ yrs it's been there. The place is very well maintained, it's clean and tidy. Just my experience. I'm a home owner and it's made no difference to my house value from what I can see and I'm happy they are there.

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc. I really think we would clear up a lot of problems if we started triaging social tenants. If these mixed use developments were exclusively handed out to families that might be in social housing due to only low income / disability who had a history of work and nobody residing there with any criminal convictions then people wouldn't have a problem up to 10% social housing id say. In your case it has obviously worked out well, but all it takes is one nightmare family and it could all come crumbling down.

SCOOP 64

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If necessary, yeah. The estate I was brought up in was 90% social housing, only a handful were privately owned. I decided it wasn't the sort of place I'd choose to raise a family, so I got qualified and climbed the career ladder. I can afford something nicer. And I'd be mightily pissed off if the council bought the place next door and handed it to a social housing tenant.

This is happening more and more, my sister inlaw lives in a private estate for years, nice 4 bed detach houses, neighbour put their house up for sale ,was for sale for some time, then sold sigh went up, they sold it too the council, they are now just waiting to see their new neighbours move in.

Eric Cartman

EmoCourt wrote: »

I'd rather endure a lifetime of sulky racing up and down my road than be called a snob.

The stress of being called a snob would actually ruin my life.

Id much rather take some leftist calling me a snob than be anywhere near the type of people who engage in sulky racing, Ill take one word on a screen over my house being burned out for copper any day.

somefeen

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy wrote: »

If necessary, yeah. The estate I was brought up in was 90% social housing, only a handful were privately owned. I decided it wasn't the sort of place I'd choose to raise a family, so I got qualified and climbed the career ladder. I can afford something nicer. And I'd be mightily pissed off if the council bought the place next door and handed it to a social housing tenant.

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

EDIT: Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

Eric Cartman

somefeen wrote: »

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

EDIT: Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

working or not, if 100% social housing causes ghettos as you mentioned before, at what percentage does it not cause ghettos and why.

ED E

somefeen wrote: »

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

EDIT: Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

No, its not the same.

If Mr Landord has a crappy tenant, he evicts him and he's eventually gone. If a Council evicts a tenant they then have to go back and house them again. Problem doesn't go away. Thus the council is far less motivated to do anything.


Social housing at anything above 10% is lunacy.

uck51js9zml2yt

Where would people like these people to live?
I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial.
I know a few working people who are!


Edit: just to point out that the op has 4 posts in 4 months and makes unverified statements and hasn't been back on thread in 2 days! The result is a lynch mob!

Donal55

Devon Stale Roadblock wrote: »

Where would people like these people to live?
I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial.
I know a few working people who are!

Plenty here equate those as track suit wearing single mothers or hand bag snatchers.

Eric Cartman

Devon Stale Roadblock wrote: »

Where would people like these people to live?
I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial.
I know a few working people who are!

if you could guarantee just the working ones without shady pasts or families then I doubt anyone would ever complain about them being there.

The baby factories with 7+ kids and boyfriend off the books, intergenerational never worked a day in their lives, drug addicts / alcoholics , gangland affiliated or career criminals should all be sent to live in some heavily monitored fenced off (for our safety) community in rural leitrim.

As I said above, triage them and give different units depending on what they're doing. The stereotypes didn't come from nowhere.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

somefeen wrote: »

That attitude is sickening to be honest. Social housing tenant does not equal criminal.

And its not 'handed' to the tenant. They still have to pay rent and their lease will have conditions, same as if a private landlord bought the place next door.

At a rate equivalent to what it would fetch on the open market, or would it be linked to the tenants income?

somefeen wrote: »

Social housing tenant doesn't also equal not working. people have a bizzare notion that only the unemployed live in social housing

I didn't specify.

eviltwin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc. I really think we would clear up a lot of problems if we started triaging social tenants. If these mixed use developments were exclusively handed out to families that might be in social housing due to only low income / disability who had a history of work and nobody residing there with any criminal convictions then people wouldn't have a problem up to 10% social housing id say. In your case it has obviously worked out well, but all it takes is one nightmare family and it could all come crumbling down.

No idea but from what I can see most people work. It seems to be largely eastern European living there but nice families, a lot would go to the same school as my son and they are very respectable. They are not scum just because they live in social housing, just people not in a position to buy homes or pay rent around here.

Grolschevik

Devon Stale Roadblock wrote:

Where would people like these people to live? I'd assume many of them are working and unable to get a mortgage...let's think positively for a change as not everyone needing social housing is out of work and not every unemployed person is antisocial. I know a few working people who are!

The general answer from the keyboard wannabe libertarians around here is 'move them to a ghost estate in Cavan, free up valuable city space for middle-class workers'.

Then they'll complain (because their quasi libertarian ideology is internally inconsistent and often muddled up with anti immigrant rhetoric, too) that they can't find an Irish cleaner, or barista, etc and that "dey tuk ur jobs" sort of rhetoric.

A healthy city and society requires a diversity of class, skills, and ethnicity. Enough of the NIMBY "I'm in negative equity in my 400k house and the social tenants next door are getting a free gaff with a gold-plated toilet."

I swear to Christ, I've never met anyone in real life who holds the sort of views that seem disproportionately represented on Boards.

votecounts

Plenty of people working get social houses, a fella i know works for paddy power and he got one a few months ago. Although i think the whole estate is social housing, it looks well and no trouble, just people getting on with their lives

chicorytip

votecounts wrote:

Plenty of people working get social houses, a fella i know works for paddy power and he got one a few months ago. Although i think the whole estate is social housing, it looks well and no trouble, just people getting on with their lives

This is unfair, in my opinion. A working person - albeit on a low wage - can obtain virtually free accommodation for life yet an unemployed or disabled person will be refused if he/she has assets valued in excess of thirty thousand euro - money which could be either savings or inherited.

CruelCoin

somefeen wrote: »

They wont be getting 'free' houses. They still have to pay rent.

Typically €50 p/w

In this market that's as close to free as makes no difference.

We have ghost estates in Leitrim/Roscommon/Carlow but the poor lambs don't want to move too far from mammy, so the state must pony up 4/5 times the value.

On an equal spend, there would be no homelessness crisis if those empty houses were settled instead of letting them rot.
Beggars who feel like they should choose have created that particular crisis.

Seriously, those empty houses were essentially paid for by the average taxpayer when they were subsumed into NAMA.
Far as i'm concerned, i've already paid for sufficient social housing stock to solve the current issues.

CruelCoin

somefeen wrote: »

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?

Nobody wants to keep "the poors" at arms length.
The problem is that a higher than normal slice of poor people tend to be ****birds, whether you want to admit it or not.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread. It takes one ****ty family, one, to ruin a neighbourhood, and people have the right to be concerned over what they work hard to pay for.

Graham

Mod Note let's not turn this into a social housing/tenant bashing.

uck51js9zml2yt

CruelCoin wrote: »

Typically €50 p/w

In this market that's as close to free as makes no difference.

We have ghost estates in Leitrim/Roscommon/Carlow but the poor lambs don't want to move too far from mammy, so the state must pony up 4/5 times the value.

On an equal spend, there would be no homelessness crisis if those empty houses were settled instead of letting them rot.
Beggars who feel like they should choose have created that particular crisis.

Seriously, those empty houses were essentially paid for by the average taxpayer when they were subsumed into NAMA.
Far as i'm concerned, i've already paid for sufficient social housing stock to solve the current issues.

Move them to Leitrim and then what?
Do those who are working give up their jobs in Dublin and become unemployed in kinlough or ManorHamilton?

CruelCoin

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc.

Proper vetting takes a long time to do. and as is the case for ANY state or semi-state, if they do not spend their entire budget, then they often don't get the same budget for next year.
State bodies go into a spending spree in the second half of the year, most of it utter waste to try ensure equal funding the following year.
What this means for vetting, is that it's often rushed to ram people into houses and spend them bucks.

jamesthepeach

People who have actually bought their houses tend to care about they value of that house and so would not do anything that might hurt that value of the value of the general area.

People who haven't ..... Well we all can have a drive around and figure out which houses in any areas are lived in by those who actually bought them and which ones aren't.

Mrs OBumble

Eric Cartman wrote: »

is there any kind of vetting procedure etc.

There is garda vetting, so that Respond etc know what convictions a person moving in has.

But I suspect there are no real rules about what crimes (and how long ago) disqualify someone from getting a house. Because it's just too hard eg is murdered one person 15 years ago (lover's rage, assessed by probation as low risk of re-offending) better or worse than 5 recent convictions for possessing cannabis? Is either bad enough that they don't get council housing - in which case, where do they go?

A cynical person might think that the vetting is mainly so the guards can check that mutually incompatible families aren't housed in the same estate - since they know the troublemakers far better than the council do.

Involvement of a voluntary housing organisation like Respond can mean a slightly better overall tenant profile. But there is always the risk of getting one family who have been so bad that they're being kicked out of a council house - and because they cannot be directed to sleep under a hedgerow any more, they have to be put in a house somewhere and there's a deal that the voluntary housing company will take them in return for something else.

somefeen

Alright so I'll leave you all to your snobby ignorant opinions.

Opinions which I am sure you formed using the same mental faculties that you used to decide that buying a house, in a housing estate was a good idea while you have so much concern about who your neighbours might be and how they might affect your property value.

Jesus Wept

Commoner garden snobs. Buy a house with a long driveway or get on with your life.

The_Conductor

somefeen wrote: »

What do you want, keep all the poor people away from you and keep making ghettos?
Absolutely unreal.

30 out of 65 properties are to be 'social housing units'.
There are 40 properties thus far- 4 of whom were given to the council as social housing units, and one of which was purchased by the council on the open market. The second phase of the development- a further 25 units- are being handed over to 'Respond' to build and manage. So- its roughly half the estate that is going to be social housing units.

This is in breach of Department guidelines- and goes against statements from the housing organisations (where they explicitly state that social housing should not comprise more than 20% of any given estate and should be integrated in the estate, rather than in a contigious block).

This *is* creating a ghetto situation- its not that people are unfairly looking at the situation- it is quite incredibly hard not to view a 50:50 mix as ghettoisation.

It is possible that there may be lovely tenants in the properties- and hopefully that is the case- however, it only takes one shower to ruin it for everyone else.

At very least the Department guidelines should be implemented (everywhere)- which is min 10% social housing units, max 20%- and no two contigious units should be social housing units- i.e. they must be integrated in the development.

The_Conductor

somefeen wrote: »

Alright so I'll leave you all to your snobby ignorant opinions.

Opinions which I am sure you formed using the same mental faculties that you used to decide that buying a house, in a housing estate was a good idea while you have so much concern about who your neighbours might be and how they might affect your property value.

Playing devils advocate here- the prescribed mix of property types- has inevitably tipped the owner occuppiers into significant negative equity situations. I accept that you don't think this is an issue- however, from a financial perspective- it will go against any of them if/when they ever look for a loan for something- or indeed, if they ever try to sell their property.

I don't have any issue with social housing per se- I do have an issue with the creation of ghettos (I'm old enough to remember when Tallaght was built- and indeed the council estates in Clondalkin and Lucan during the 60s and 70s). The current proposal is a 50% social housing level- which tramples willy nilly over the concept of integration of socially deprived tenants in the community (and esp. if they are in a single contigious block- as 25 of the 30 units in the OPs estate are going to be).

Social housing- is a common good- however- lumping it together- has been tried and acknowledged to be an awful idea- yet, this is what we keep revisiting.

PAKNET

Grolschevik wrote: »

The general answer from the keyboard wannabe libertarians around here is 'move them to a ghost estate in Cavan, free up valuable city space for middle-class workers'.

Then they'll complain (because their quasi libertarian ideology is internally inconsistent and often muddled up with anti immigrant rhetoric, too) that they can't find an Irish cleaner, or barista, etc and that "dey tuk ur jobs" sort of rhetoric.

A healthy city and society requires a diversity of class, skills, and ethnicity. Enough of the NIMBY "I'm in negative equity in my 400k house and the social tenants next door are getting a free gaff with a gold-plated toilet."

I swear to Christ, I've never met anyone in real life who holds the sort of views that seem disproportionately represented on Boards.

Well is it any wonder you don't come across opinions like that when that's your attitude in response.

People know damn well if they dare even question any aspect of social housing like this they'll be immediately labelled a snob, a NIMBY, capitalist pig, or whatever buzzword chant is flavour of the month - your and the other posters reaction has demonstrated this perfectly so why would anyone even attempt to try discuss their view in real life with you!

maynooth_rules

Heart Break Kid wrote: »

From a social housing area via council myself. They genuinely do take anti social begavior seriously if reported and eviction is a consequence.

Perhaps its just my county council but they have been hopeless responding to anti social behaviour among some of the social houses in our estate. Our estate committee is being purposely ignored by the CC and despite anti social incidents happening every week or so with one particular house, they do nothing. In fact most of the officials that we have got a chance to speak to don't even know their own anti social policy

The_Conductor

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Perhaps its just my county council but they have been hopeless responding to anti social behaviour among some of the social houses in our estate. Our estate committee is being purposely ignored by the CC and despite anti social incidents happening every week or so with one particular house, they do nothing. In fact most of the officials that we have got a chance to speak to don't even know their own anti social policy

Lodge a third party case with the RTB.
After the council are tied up fighting these cases, someone somewhere will have a flash of inspiration- and cop that its the person they who are defending who is the problem, not the community..........
Maynooth has more than its fair share of social housing (it has the highest number of social housing units per head of population in any major urban centre anywhere in the country- the council need to keep the locals on board- when you have one family spoiling it for everyone else- it needs to be hit on the head, hard.)

Lodge a third party case with the RTB- they can impose a determination order on the council- along with a sizeable fine.

B00MSTICK

Hi all,

Not related to Respond but in a similar vein so looking for thoughts/opinions

We were all set to buy in a new development in Clongriffin, contracts have been provisionally signed but no deposit has been lodged to our solicitor yet.

There is already ~130 social housing units in the area directly adjacent to the development and a friend mentioned to us that at least 1 additional apartment block will be bought by the Iveagh Trust. According to the statement on their website this will add another 84 units. (http://www.theiveaghtrust.ie/?p=3740)

I suppose my question would be do you think we should go ahead with the purchase?

There does seem to be quite a high concentration of social housing in the area and going by the finger-in-the-air calculations this would indicate that we could have ~10 'completely undesirable' families living in the immediate vicinity.
This is on top of outstanding anti-social behavior such as party in the local park and the vandalising of the DART station.

As already mentioned in this thread, if things even start to go down that road I can see the value of our 300k+ home dropping quite quickly.
Although the way prices are going even old houses in traditionally 'rough' areas like Cabra, Crumlin, Clondalkin etc. seem to be hovering around the 250k+ mark and thats just the asking price, excluding any refurbishments and a pitiful BER.

I know it might sounds like I've already made my mind up, but the area I'm currently living in has had 2 gangland related murders in the recent past and certainly has a large percentage of undesirables and I'm still happy enough to stay here. (Herself less so..) If the right property came up for the right price I'd even consider it.

From my side I can see the sense that having one block makes the management a lot easier. I've no idea on the total number of units in the area but given the current climate I doubt the developers would willingly give over the 10% requirement? Unless the Iveagh Trust would be paying top dollar?

Sorry for the long post - just trying to get my head around it all...

The_Conductor

Honestly- with your description- including the 3 recent gangland murders- is this somewhere you would feel safe and happy to bing up children?

B00MSTICK

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- with your description- including the 3 recent gangland murders- is this somewhere you would feel safe and happy to bing up children?

It was only 2 (only!) but point taken.

I walk by the area every so often and never really feel threatened but I guess deep down I do know that I wouldn't want to raise a family here.

Any thoughts on the Clongriffin situ? I'm pretty sure even the booking deposit is still refundable at this point.

MysticMonk

Dont do it. New social housing areas will eventually become worse than the old social housing areas ever were. The rough areas you mentioned are in reality now established,settled areas(not all areas by any means..do your research.

They are usually well built three bed houses with free hold title and gardens that are now being bought up by people who recognise the value they can represent..dont be blinded by BER certificates either. Often older houses only require internal insulation as many if not all would have central heating and double glaze windows.

An area with close to 200 new social units is going to become a hotbed of trouble very quickly and you will regret it.