'FREE' HOUSE FOR CHRISTMAS

myshirt

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

There's a catch

You have to spend the rest of your life in Sixmilebridge Co Clare

You nailed it. That's where they get you.

khaldrogo

eviltwin wrote:

And I live on a council estate as do my children, they aren't automatically feral because of where they happen to live.

Absolutely not. There is an exception to every rule.

There were 3 council estates in a mile radius if where I grew up. A good 80% of the social issues in the area were due to these areas.

There were also good decent people in these areas but not enough

Pithythefool

_Dara_

Tefral wrote: »

I know its not PC to say that but...

NIMAN wrote: »

It may be controversial, but...

No offence but...

noaddedsugar

Obvious Otter wrote: »

We need affordable housing... Rising our social welfare bill is completely unsustainable.

You do realise that a lot of people who will be moving into those houses will be on HAP now. I don't see how funnelling money to landlords is any better than the council buying/building houses and them slowly being paid for by tenants.

Del2005

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Eh social housing has nothing to do with social welfare.

It all comes from the same pot so it's the same. Increasing the spending on social housing means that somewhere else gets cut or more often the squeezed middle get another tax increase.

Del2005

corner of hells wrote: »

I thought the estate management checks are quite strict nowadays.. with no recent convictions and no serious ones.

Getting convictions for anti social behaviour is extremely rare in this country, so the vetting is a farce if only based on conviction and not reported issues.

Ulysses Gaze

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think everyone who rents that type of housing is an anti social degenerate?

If even two houses are, there goes the neighbourhood.

corner of hells

Del2005 wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

I thought the estate management checks are quite strict nowadays.. with no recent convictions and no serious ones.

Getting convictions for anti social behaviour is extremely rare in this country, so the vetting is a farce if only based on conviction and not reported issues.

What I meant was not about anti social behaviour, I thought estate management checks nowadays are particularly strict in relation to criminal convictions, no recent serious ones , no serious drug offences or sexual assault.

Grab All Association

A convicted rapist was housed by Tipperary County Council near Thurles despite objections from other resident in the estate. The rape victim in this case committed suicide.

There's little to no vetting carried out. Garda vetting unit is based not far from the Thurles Municipal Offices.

Clue to who it was search Rape, flat, Templemore

Fann Linn

Obvious Otter wrote: »

We need affordable housing... Rising our social welfare bill is completely unsustainable.

As against paying €250,000 to a Cork hotel to look after 8 families for a couple months.

Ralf and Florian

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

I'd like to think they'll be vetting tenants beforehand.

That’ll lead to claims of discrimination. On grounds of race, culture, colour, religion (delete as applicable).

It’s not considered a good idea to house too many of the same type of people together. It leads to ghettos.

end of the road

Tefral wrote: »

28 council houses in one estate... well that will end well.

I know its not PC to say that but the people alongside them who got a mortgage for their houses is who i feel sorry for.

it's nothing to do with pc. pc is irrelevant here.
people who got a mortgage took a gamble. they knew when they took out a mortgage that the value of the property can go up or down. you don't have a right for your property to remain at the same value. that's the reality.

BillyBobBS

Del2005 wrote: »

It all comes from the same pot so it's the same. Increasing the spending on social housing means that somewhere else gets cut or more often the squeezed middle get another tax increase.

People who live in social housing pay rent to the council. It's not welfare. They are tenants and many pay off the price of the house over the years they are living there.

BillyBobBS

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

If even two houses are, there goes the neighbourhood.

Not true.

Fox_In_Socks

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing to do with pc. pc is irrelevant here.
people who got a mortgage took a gamble. they knew when they took out a mortgage that the value of the property can go up or down. you don't have a right for your property to remain at the same value. that's the reality.

Should it be a gamble? If I work for 30 years and funnel some of that money into something like a house, the hope that I have, is that what I have worked for, isn't all for nothing. If there is no stability in the future, then how can you plan for the future?

end of the road

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Should it be a gamble? If I work for 30 years and funnel some of that money into something like a house, the hope that I have, is that what I have worked for, isn't all for nothing. If there is no stability in the future, then how can you plan for the future?

in an ideal world it wouldn't, and shouldn't be a gamble. however the reality is while we operate property on the basis of free market economics, then it will be a gamble, as various forces dictated by the market will decide it's value. so continuing with the current system, which is likely necessary to a good extent, means it has to be a gamble.

Vizzy

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Should it be a gamble? If I work for 30 years and funnel some of that money into something like a house, the hope that I have, is that what I have worked for, isn't all for nothing. If there is no stability in the future, then how can you plan for the future?

And what are you going to do when the house next door is purchased privately and, as a previous poster put it, "little Johnny,now 2, grows up and goes feral" ?

Chrongen

eviltwin wrote: »

I've lived beside one of these estates for 10 years, never had an issue. Most of the residents are working people, its not scumbag central.

"My neighbourhood is not scumbag central" :pac:

While I agree that it only takes one family to ruin a neighbourhood, that holds true for both private and council estates.

I don't know how anyone can object to families being housed where they pay rent to a council landlord. I'm sure they don't object to families moving in and paying rent to a private landlord.

The antidote to social problems isn't to keep families homeless.

RustyNut

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

Should it be a gamble? If I work for 30 years and funnel some of that money into something like a house, the hope that I have, is that what I have worked for, isn't all for nothing. If there is no stability in the future, then how can you plan for the future?

But you will still have your house, that's what you paid for.

BillyBobBS

eviltwin wrote: »

I've lived beside one of these estates for 10 years, never had an issue. Most of the residents are working people, its not scumbag central.

I grew up on a council estate and guess what, most of the residents where working people. It wasn't scumbag central. Funny thing is the estate we live in now is private and social and only one household is full of scumbags and that's privately owned.

The threat of the council moving social housing tenants out if they misbehave means we see no trouble. Before we bought our house several years ago the council removed a family from a unit because of the threat they posed to others in the area. I'm not saying all social housing tenants are angels of course they aren't but to label many because of the actions of a few is downright ignorant.

I don't label every banker a crook because of the actions of a few, do you?

SuperSean11

_Dara_ wrote: »

No offence but...

Reminds me of the classic "I ain't racist but *insert racist comment*"

RDM_83 again

How many people in social housing are employed in Ireland*?The whole "paying rent" thing is rather meaningless in real terms if its only 20-30 euro a week.

I know in some parts of the UK a decent proportion of people in social housing are actually employed but IMO thats actually an issue too as for places like that if your a mid to low paid normal worker you'd never be able to afford to buy yourself but people who are worse of ironically can get permanent housing.

Personally I'l be harsh and say I don't think the emphasis should be on social housing, the emphasis should be on Affordable housing a priority housing for key workers, many younger people who aren't in the best paying jobs make huge sacrifices to buy a house, they aren't wealthy people they end up moving home to parents or buying many miles from their jobs and support networks but since they earn a modest wage they are cut out of both the overheated private market and too "wealthy" for the social housing