Why there are so many junkies (chavs/knackers)in Dublin?

Nermal

alastair wrote: »

That was just an 'out-of-sight-out-of mind' exercise that did nothing but brush the continuing problem under the carpet of the outer boroughs.

That *is* solving the problem. The problem isn't the existence of junkies & scumbags, it's their proximity to areas I have to be in.

alastair

Nermal wrote: »

That *is* solving the problem. The problem isn't the existence of junkies & scumbags, it's their proximity to areas I have to be in.

Well, in a world revolving solely around you, it might be mistaken for a solution, but; it doesn't.

Tony EH

Dublin Spur wrote: »

But we can all agree than Manhattan was cleaned up in the 90s/00s ?

That's the main point here and the same could be done with Dublin.

The danger and filth of the north inner city can be fixed - it's not impossible, as the NYC experience proves.

...and to what end?

Gentrification means that nobody can live in Manhattan now, unless they're uber wealthy (or "lucky" to have been born in the projects that remain standing). People who had lived in the city all of their lives suddenly couldn't after Giuliani got rid of rent controls - when costs shot through the roof - and now they're finding they can't survive in the Boroughs either. My cousin showed me a post for a one bed aparment in Brooklyn a while ago. It was 3000 a month. There are people work up to three jobs just to pay their rent and bills, in the likes of Queens.

Your clensed utopia has actually been a nightmare for residents, where obscene amounts of money have to trade hands just to put a shitty roof over your head.

Crime may have gone down, but so has ordinary people's ability to rent an apartment and they can forget about owning one.

The "NYC experience" operates on more than the single level you have in your head.

Has it been worth the trade off? Many New Yorkers I know, my age, older and younger, who's families/friends have been scattered far and wide would say no.

Bonniedog

alastair wrote: »

Once again - NY state is not NYC.

Do you think you are talking to a fkn 7 year old?

I've posted stats that prove that crime fell dramatically in NY as incarceration rates increased dramatically.

Now, you produce your sources or just stop really.

You are actually defeating your own argument as crime rates and incarceration rates in the city totally skew the overall state picture. So in other words there is even GREATER correlation between jailing and drop in crime in the boroughs than the state picture indicates.

But, no doubt you will produce some evidence at some stage :-)

alastair

Bonniedog wrote: »

Do you think you are talking to a fkn 7 year old?

I've posted stats that prove that crime fell dramatically in NY as incarceration rates increased dramatically.

Now, you produce your sources or just stop really.

You are actually defeating your own argument as crime rates and incarceration rates in the city totally skew the overall state picture. So in other words there is even GREATER correlation between jailing and drop in crime in the boroughs than the state picture indicates.

But, no doubt you will produce some evidence at some stage :-)

I suspect even a seven year old would concede that not only was evidence clearly linked to, when it’s right under your nose, but grasp that NYC’s lower incarceration rates, and higher falls in criminal activity do NOTHING but confirm that the picture of higher incarceration levels and lower falls in criminal activity elsewhere in the state really don’t make any case for the notion of ‘zero tolerance’ or ‘lock em all up’.

tricky D

Mod note

@Bonniedog: don't post in this thread again.

Do not respond to this message on thread

Dublin Spur

Nermal wrote: »

That *is* solving the problem. The problem isn't the existence of junkies & scumbags, it's their proximity to areas I have to be in.

Agreed - tourists and shoppers shouldn't feel threatened - we need a clean safe city center that we can be proud of.

An out of the way ghetto for scumbags is not ideal but its better then the current scenario.

Dublin Spur

Tony EH wrote: »

...and to what end?

Gentrification means that nobody can live in Manhattan now, unless they're uber wealthy (or "lucky" to have been born in the projects that remain standing). People who had lived in the city all of their lives suddenly couldn't after Giuliani got rid of rent controls - when costs shot through the roof - and now they're finding they can't survive in the Boroughs either. My cousin showed me a post for a one bed aparment in Brooklyn a while ago. It was 3000 a month. There are people work up to three jobs just to pay their rent and bills, in the likes of Queens.

Your clensed utopia has actually been a nightmare for residents, where obscene amounts of money have to trade hands just to put a shitty roof over your head.

Crime may have gone down, but so has ordinary people's ability to rent an apartment and they can forget about owning one.

The "NYC experience" operates on more than the single level you have in your head.

Has it been worth the trade off? Many New Yorkers I know, my age, older and younger, who's families/friends have been scattered far and wide would say no.

The point is that cities can be cleaned up
Dublin can be cleaned up
But nothing is being done - there's no plan
The north inner city has been a kip since the establishment of the state and it still is nearly 100 years later, 100 yards from O'Connell St is a ghetto, It's plain wrong in my opinion.

alastair

Dublin Spur wrote: »

The point is that cities can be cleaned up
Dublin can be cleaned up
But nothing is being done - there's no plan
The north inner city has been a kip since the establishment of the state and it still is nearly 100 years later, 100 yards from O'Connell St is a ghetto, It's plain wrong in my opinion.

You’ve demonstrated you don’t understand the north inner city whatsoever. You think that it needs more private housing, when the vast majority of housing in the area is already private. You have no idea what’s going on with regard to urban renovation in the area, and you hold some bizarre belief that city council tenants shouldn’t be allowed remain living in the city, and rather should be shipped off to some suburban sink estate to appease your particular sensibilities. As someone who chooses to live in the said ‘ghetto’, and who can differentiate between council tenants and those who actually choose to cause grief for their fellow citizens, I’d have to say your ideas about society are pretty distorted, and not in any way useful. Suggest you stop being afraid of being around people with a lower income to yourself, or substance abuse problems, and realize they’ve as much right to be part of the city as you have. Then you might be able to focus on the actual problems of anti-social behavior by a minority of the city’s population.

Dublin Spur

alastair wrote: »

You’ve demonstrated you don’t understand the north inner city whatsoever. You think that it needs more private housing, when the vast majority of housing in the area is already private. You have no idea what’s going on with regard to urban renovation in the area, and you hold some bizarre belief that city council tenants shouldn’t be allowed remain living in the city, and rather should be shipped off to some suburban sink estate to appease your particular sensibilities. As someone who chooses to live in the said ‘ghetto’, and who can differentiate between council tenants and those who actually choose to cause grief for their fellow citizens, I’d have to say your ideas about society are pretty distorted, and not in any way useful. Suggest you stop being afraid of being around people with a lower income to yourself, or substance abuse problems, and realize they’ve as much right to be part of the city as you have. Then you might be able to focus on the actual problems of anti-social behavior by a minority of the city’s population.

I think its a shame that you're making this personal, accusing me of different things. You don't know me, therefore you know know that I do voluntary work in the community but I suppose you can say what you like.

All I have ever done is comment on the environment that surrounds me every single day. I work beside Foley St / Talbot St. The danger and filthiness of the north inner city is a fact, not an opinion.

Why should I not voice my disappointment and embarrassment regarding this part of the city ? If I did't love my city I would't care. Its shocking to see how bad it is between the open drug dealing, chronic littering, petty crime and general anti-social threatening behavior. Nothing has changed over the years which is why I can only conclude that nothing is being done to tackle the issue.

Wouldn't it be nice to have O'Connell St as the proud focal point of the city instead of a shabby dangerous and filthy thoroughfare. Times Square was once like that but they sorted it out. They can sort Dublin out too but nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

alastair

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I think its a shame that you're making this personal, accusing me of different things. You don't know me, therefore you know know that I do voluntary work in the community but I suppose you can say what you like.

All I have ever done is comment on the environment that surrounds me every single day. I work beside Foley St / Talbot St. The danger and filthiness of the north inner city is a fact, not an opinion.

Why should I not voice my disappointment and embarrassment regarding this part of the city ? If I did't love my city I would't care. Its shocking to see how bad it is between the open drug dealing, chronic littering, petty crime and general anti-social threatening behavior. Nothing has changed over the years which is why I can only conclude that nothing is being done to tackle the issue.

Wouldn't it be nice to have O'Connell St as the proud focal point of the city instead of a shabby dangerous and filthy thoroughfare. Times Square was once like that but they sorted it out. They can sort Dublin out too but nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

It’s a pity that you equate a response to your posts with something ‘personal’. I’ve done nothing but engage with your ideas, laid down in text. Fair play for whatever voluntary work you do, but it doesn’t negate the flawed posts you make.

Plenty is being done, as already pointed out to you, but if you close your eyes to it, or suggest that residents be moved out simply because they happen to live in local authority housing, then the problem is more about your perception than the actual facts on the ground. You’re entitled to your perception of course, but anyone else is equally entitled to point out it is wrong.

Dublin Spur

alastair wrote: »

It’s a pity that you equate a response to your posts with something ‘personal’. I’ve done nothing but engage with your ideas, laid down in text. Fair play for whatever voluntary work you do, but it doesn’t negate the flawed posts you make.

Plenty is being done, as already pointed out to you, but if you close your eyes to it, or suggest that residents be moved out simply because they happen to live in local authority housing, then the problem is more about your perception than the actual facts on the ground. You’re entitled to your perception of course, but anyone else is equally entitled to point out it is wrong.

Well what ever is being done has not improved the environment that I see around me over the past 10 years or so.

Other cities managed to successfully weed out the scum, we should be able to do the same, that's all I have ever said.

Effective solutions are difficult but new thinking needs to be employed that makes the area a safer and cleaner place to live, work and visit.

Tony EH

Dublin Spur wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice to have O'Connell St as the proud focal point of the city instead of a shabby dangerous and filthy thoroughfare. Times Square was once like that but they sorted it out. They can sort Dublin out too but nobody seems to be doing anything about it.

Personally speaking, I don't ever want to see O'Connell Street get even remotely like Times Square, or the new 42nd Street (Disneyland).

Both are bloody awful.

Dublin Spur

Tony EH wrote: »

Personally speaking, I don't ever want to see O'Connell Street get even remotely like Times Square, or the new 42nd Street (Disneyland).

Both are bloody awful.

neither do I.....

Times Square is cleaner and safer than O'Connell St and it used to be awful - that's the point I was making.

Tony EH

I understand your point.

However, "Cleaner" isn't everything. That's the point I'm making.

alastair

O‘Connell street isn't even particularly littered, let alone 'filthy'.

blue_blue

North Inner City is being worked on. Not sure if you guys follow current affairs or read newspapers but the plans are contained in the Mulvey Report that was published earlier this year. https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/ImageLibrary/20170218MulveyReport.pdf

italodisco

I live in north inner city and I'll be confident enough to say there's no hope for it.

They haven't only started trying to fix the area, this is going on years now.

It's an absolute kip.

Take it from a local, it's a waste of taxpayers money trying to do anything with the place.

Ste-

alastair wrote: »

O‘Connell street isn't even particularly littered, let alone 'filthy'.

Not with litter but with the miscreants of society it is.

MysticMonk

Ste- wrote: »

Not with litter but with the miscreants of society it is.

The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..and still the various governments and campaigners want to give them more free money and more free houses.

Dublin Spur

MysticMonk wrote: »

The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..

I've no real problem with that, its always going to be a factor of society to some extent. I just have an issue with it being so close to the country's main thoroughfare. Move the problem away from the tourists and shoppers and clean up the area. It would be amazing to see the area for fill it's full potential. Living so close to O'Connell St should be a privilege, like living beside Oxford St in London is.

You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city. We have never tackled this issue in Dublin and it doesn't look like we are close to doing so any time soon.

I guess we just have to put up with it and occasionally moan about it on internet message boards

Tony EH

MysticMonk wrote: »

The net result of inter-generational welfare dependency and "social" housing..and still the various governments and campaigners want to give them more free money and more free houses.

So, if we get rid of welfare and social housing, then we will get rid of crime.

Genius.



Thank christ you're not in any position to make any real decisions on the matter so.

wakka12

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I've no real problem with that, its always going to be a factor of society to some extent. I just have an issue with it being so close to the country's main thoroughfare. Move the problem away from the tourists and shoppers and clean up the area. It would be amazing to see the area for fill it's full potential. Living so close to O'Connell St should be a privilege, like living beside Oxford St in London is.

You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city. We have never tackled this issue in Dublin and it doesn't look like we are close to doing so any time soon.

I guess we just have to put up with it and occasionally moan about it on internet message boards

Is oconell street really our 'main thoroughfare'
Maybe in the past..
Dame street is much more like a main street for Dublin than O connell street is or ever has been for several decades now

alastair

Dublin Spur wrote: »

You don't find the same squalor beside Oxford Street as you do beside O'Connell St. I'm pretty sure there were slums in the Oxford Street area once upon a time but they sorted it out because it was the right thing to do for the city.

Nope, the two streets have completely different heritages. Dublin was always much more compact than London, and a combination of limited new building, and the influx from the famine, essentially packed most of the northside’s Georgian housing stock with tenement occupation. London’s west end, and Oxford Street in particular, was planned and built with a new affluent Londoner in mind, while the poor were primarily corralled into the older stock in the east end. London grew, while Dublin essentially stayed within the same geographic territory until well after the Free State was established. There is at least a two hundred year record of low income residential housing right in the city centre, and that’s the reality of the city. If ‘sorting it’ involves the mass deportation of long established families, then that’s been done - with mixed success, to a point where the residential figures for the inner city are a fraction of what they once were. Just look at the numbers of people who lived on Gardiner Street and Summerhill, right up the the 70’s, compared to today. The entire north-east inner city area has a population of a mere 18,000, according to the Mulvey Report, and that would include the boosted ‘non-national’ population of the last 10/15 years. That’s actually a pretty low density for capital city living.

MartyMcFly84

I am struggling big time to find anything near the city centre where I work that I can possible afford, or even get a mortgage that would give me a realistic chance to bid. Property in Dublin goes for normally way above asking price and its just draining. Renting is worse again as its way over a monthly mortgage payment.

I work full time and study at night, and currently commute 1.5 hrs into the city centre then again at night after night school normally get home at 11pm. I would love to be able to afford something in the city centre. It would add 3 hours at least to my day. Its hard to see so many people living for free where others cannot dream of affording. I count myself lucky that I have some savings for a deposit. Many people working in Dublin are paying half their net wages on rent alone.

I have been looking at places 2 hours outside Dublin at new builds, the developer said 10% has to be public housing but this is set to rise to 20%. I could be in a situation where I have worked hard, saved,commuted, studied put myself in debt for 30 years and the person beside me can get his house for free. I am normally not a jealous kind of person but cant help but feeling resentment.

There has to be a different way to deal with this. People need to be incentivised to work. Many of the issues around social welfare, is that many of these people are better off not working than if they worked full time in a lower paid job. Why should they bother? When they dont have to do anything and will get a houses, medical cards, subsides for bills, and the dole. I would guess that many would have as much disposable income as someone on the average wage in Ireland or not far off after rent, and bills are paid for.

I have heard people turning down jobs out of fear of loosing their benefits.

Lux23

I am in that exact same situation, Marty but at the same time, I firmly believe social housing should be a part of every new estate so we don't create pockets of poorly resourced areas where the social ills of poverty become the norm. I am an example of someone who grew up in a council-owned house in a private estate when we first moved in some of our neighbours turned their noses up at us and had the same silly attitude as you do. But both my parents worked, they just didn't earn enough to buy their own home and they certainly weren't living for free! Thirty years later, I wish this option was available for me.

So Marty, why not write to your local representatives and ask them when there will be an affordable housing option for you in your area? Because believe me, moaning about those living in council houses is exactly what politicians want to hear because it takes the onus off them to get off their asses and do something about the housing crisis that is affecting you just like those on the streets.

wakka12

Lux23 wrote: »

I am in that exact same situation, Marty but at the same time, I firmly believe social housing should be a part of every new estate so we don't create pockets of poorly resourced areas where the social ills of poverty become the norm. I am an example of someone who grew up in a council-owned house in a private estate when we first moved in some of our neighbours turned their noses up at us and had the same silly attitude as you do. But both my parents worked, they just didn't earn enough to buy their own home and they certainly weren't living for free! Thirty years later, I wish this option was available for me.

So Marty, why not write to your local representatives and ask them when there will be an affordable housing option for you in your area? Because believe me, moaning about those living in council houses is exactly what politicians want to hear because it takes the onus off them to get off their asses and do something about the housing crisis that is affecting you just like those on the streets.

I agree. But 100% social housing blocks should not be practically filling the city centre.
Social housing off stephens green, st patricks cathedral, charlemont, should be for the reserve of people who can afford such valuable space. Those least contributing to society should not be occupying the most important land in the city. Social housing should, as you say be part of a mixed income development, in areas outside the CBD but with good transport connections. Areas of similar distance to phisborough, rathmines, harolds cross, are ideal areas for social housing

BillyBobBS

strandroad wrote: »

Lots of social housing and methadone clinics located in the city centre in comparison to other cities.

What's social housing got to do with it?

Lux23

wakka12 wrote: »

I agree. But 100% social housing blocks should not be practically filling the city centre.
Social housing off stephens green, st patricks cathedral, charlemont, should be for the reserve of people who can afford such valuable space. Those least contributing to society should not be occupying the most important land in the city. Social housing should, as you say be part of a mixed income development, in areas outside the CBD but with good transport connections. Areas of similar distance to phisborough, rathmines, harolds cross, are ideal areas for social housing

But it is there already? Are you saying we knock it all down? As time goes on and they age, then yes I think they should be sold off to the highest bidder but with the proviso that a certain percentage is for affordable housing, not necessarily social housing, but affordable. I don't want Dublin turning into a place where only the rich can live, f*** that.

wakka12

Lux23 wrote: »

But it is there already? Are you saying we knock it all down? As time goes on and they age, then yes I think they should be sold off to the highest bidder but with the proviso that a certain percentage is for affordable housing, not necessarily social housing, but affordable. I don't want Dublin turning into a place where only the rich can live, f*** that.

Yes knock it down, many council social developments do not efficiently use site density anyway. They are already aged buildings and look absolutely manky and destroy the look of the city centre anyway. Id have no problem with the redevelopment being partly social/affordable housing, but 100% social housing blocks off our most important squares, thoroughfares and business areas is ridiculously stupid