social housing in upmarket estate

pgj2015

hi, I am looking to buy a house in a fairly upmarket estate. what im wondering is, do any of you know any cases where the council have bought a house in such an estate and let them to people on rent allowance?

Gatling

The council don't buy houses to rent out to individuals for rent supplement ,
They buy properties to be used for social housing and yes they buy in various estate types

fg1406

My parents live in an upmarket estate and the council bought about 10 houses in an estate of approximately 120. The residents association went bananas but in the end, it kinda worked out. Any families being placed are interviewed and vetted. There is no trouble whatsoever from the council dwellers and to be honest you wouldn’t know which homes were council let ones. The only trouble in the estate is caused by spoilt brat teens of parents who just throw money at them and let them do what they want.

evosteo

fg1406 wrote: »

My parents live in an upmarket estate and the council bought about 10 houses in an estate of approximately 120. The residents association went bananas but in the end, it kinda worked out. Any families being placed are interviewed and vetted. There is no trouble whatsoever from the council dwellers and to be honest you wouldn’t know which homes were council let ones. The only trouble in the estate is caused by spoilt brat teens of parents who just throw money at them and let them do what they want.

I second this from personal experience

Fol20

On the other end of the spectrum, my friend bought a place in an upmarket part of Dublin. There was also a block of apartments put in for social in there and 2 or 3 families from it are causing mayhem in the estate. The kids from the families who actually bought there don’t even play outside due to troublemakers and even after a bunch of anti social complaints, the gardai being called, they are still causing havoc.

Elessar

Prepare to have social housing in every new estate built from 2018 on. 10-30% of housing being built anywhere will now be for social tenants. Builders can't buy themselves out of it anymore. So us, our children and their children will have to play the 'social tenant lottery' where they could potentially be terrorised by the councils finest in their own estate (locations of social housing will not be indicated to purchasers). Expect prices of housing in estates with no social housing to explode.

Thanks Fine Gael.

Gatling

Elessar wrote: »

Prepare to have social housing in every new estate built from 2018 on. 10-30% of housing being built anywhere will now be for social tenants. Builders can't buy themselves out of it anymore. So us, our children and their children will have to play the 'social tenant lottery'

Thanks Fine Gael.

Sinn fein are pushing for up between 40% -70% social housing in new developments .

Plumbthedepths

If you wish to have a certain type of neighbour may I suggest one off housing in the back of beyond. Estates up market or not will always have mix of people. Of course you could always seek to buy in a mature estate. No guarantee however that homes become vacant that either the council or a housing association doesn't buy them.

Colonel Claptrap

Elessar wrote: »

So us, our children and their children will have to play the 'social tenant lottery' where they could potentially be terrorised by the councils finest in their own estate (locations of social housing will not be indicated to purchasers).

We asked and were told which houses the council were taking, before we purchased.

I don't think they can keep it from you.

Skelp

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If you wish to have a certain type of neighbour may I suggest one off housing in the back of beyond. Estates up market or not will always have mix of people. Of course you could always seek to buy in a mature estate. No guarantee however that homes become vacant that either the council or a housing association doesn't buy them.

Well not exactly. Estates in upmarket parts of Dublin have a remarkable habit of escaping the Part V obligations. Thats where the quango heads/smoked salmon Socialists who advocate mixed housing tend to reside.

Skelp

Skelp wrote: »

Well not exactly. Estates in upmarket parts of Dublin have a remarkable habit of escaping the Part V obligations. Thats where the quango heads/smoked salmon Socialists who advocate mixed housing tend to reside.

Any link or evidence for that, Im sure the media would love to here about it, you have 33 posts on boards.

troyzer

Can you tell me where you're planning on living so I can avoid sharing a neigbourhood with fascists?

Cheers.

Varik

mariaalice wrote: »

Any link or evidence for that, Im sure the media would love to here about it, you have 33 posts on boards.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/developer-not-providing-social-housing-at-ballsbridge-site-1.3335690

Col_30

Varik wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/developer-not-providing-social-housing-at-ballsbridge-site-1.3335690

Should social housing only be allowed in less desirable areas? Maybe list them to help people out.

Skelp

mariaalice wrote: »

Any link or evidence for that, Im sure the media would love to here about it, you have 33 posts on boards.

Not quite sure what the relevance of the number of posts I have on boards has to do with that fact.

Do you really genuinely believe that Councils don't do deals with developers to swap land/cash to ensure there is no social housing in the wealthiest parts of Dublin. This has been going on for the last 15 years. I didn't think there was anyone in the country that didn't know that was a fact.

jim salter

troyzer wrote: »

Can you tell me where you're planning on living so I can avoid sharing a neigbourhood with fascists?

Cheers.

Ever have the property next to you (semi-detached) handed to a traveller family for them to destroy it and cause serious problems with you and your property?

No? Then STFU

abcabc123123

Elessar wrote: »

Prepare to have social housing in every new estate built from 2018 on. 10-30% of housing being built anywhere will now be for social tenants. Builders can't buy themselves out of it anymore. So us, our children and their children will have to play the 'social tenant lottery' where they could potentially be terrorised by the councils finest in their own estate (locations of social housing will not be indicated to purchasers).

Sounds like good policy to me.

troyzer

jim salter wrote: »

Ever have the property next to you (semi-detached) handed to a traveller family for them to destroy it and cause serious problems with you and your property?

No? Then STFU

I've lived next to social housing units before. They weren't destroyed.

Huntline

mariaalice wrote: »

Any link or evidence for that, Im sure the media would love to here about it, you have 33 posts on boards.

What does the number of posts gave to do with thus thread?

Graham

Huntline wrote: »

What does the number of posts gave to do with thus thread?

Mod Note

Nothing at all, let's not drag the thread off topic in that direction please.

The poster provided one link about one development so has proved their point still think its a minor issue overall, if anyone is concerned they should buy in a development built before 2010.

Do a few bits of investigation social housing managed by housing associations are very well managed.

Mrs OBumble

mariaalice wrote: »

Do a few bits of investigation social housing managed by housing associations are very well managed.

They are. But the effect is that the council managed areas get higher concentrations of the tenants who the housing associations won't take. So you end up with even more ferals in close quarters with each other.

Spreading them across all estayes sounds good, but you can end up with social tenants in high end areas who have nothing in common with their neighbours.

And if you think no ome knows who is who - ask the kids in the local school. They know which families have dearer birthday parties, toys, food, clothes and holidays every year.

Yes but my point is that the developer can give the social housing portation of the development to a housing association which is more carefully managed, but I am not sure how a purchaser could find out if the social housing bit has gone to a housing association or the local council.

power pants

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

mariaalice wrote: »

Do a few bits of investigation social housing managed by housing associations are very well managed.

They are.  But the effect is that the council managed areas get higher concentrations of the tenants who the housing associations won't take.  So you end up with even more ferals in close quarters with each other.

Spreading them across all estayes sounds good, but you can end up with social tenants in high end areas who have nothing in common with their neighbours.  

And if you think no ome knows who is who - ask the kids in the local school.  They know which families have dearer birthday parties, toys, food, clothes and holidays every year.

From my experience social housing tenants often appear to have more disposable income when it comes to clothing their kids in the best brands, fancy holidays and all things communion party orientated

ted1

mariaalice wrote: »

Any link or evidence for that, Im sure the media would love to here about it, you have 33 posts on boards.

the councils are left with buying expensive ones. which offers poor return, they are now avoiding buying such place.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dalkey-developer-seeks-516-400-per-social-housing-apartment-1.3213313

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/council-pays-out-25m-for-d4-social-housing-36429396.html

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1537474/dublin-city-council-quizzed-over-value-for-money-as-it-splashes-e480k-to-buy-%C2%ADluxury-two-bed-apartment-for-social-housing/

Ray Palmer

power pants wrote: »

From my experience social housing tenants often appear to have more disposable income when it comes to clothing their kids in the best brands, fancy holidays and all things communion party orientated

Yeah I notice how well dressed and tanned the kids are up in Darndale.

I don't think you have actually interacted with social housing tenants given your description.

ted1

ted1 wrote: »

the councils are left with buying expensive ones. which offers poor return, they are now avoiding buying such place.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/dalkey-developer-seeks-516-400-per-social-housing-apartment-1.3213313

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/council-pays-out-25m-for-d4-social-housing-36429396.html

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1537474/dublin-city-council-quizzed-over-value-for-money-as-it-splashes-e480k-to-buy-%C2%ADluxury-two-bed-apartment-for-social-housing/

Your links just negates the argument of the poster who said developers were avoiding social housing in 'upmarket' areas such as the one mentioned in the articles Dalkey, Dún Laoghaire, and D4 albeit extremely expensive social housing.

friendlyfun

The way some people treat people from council estates is like as if they're rodents or some sort of venereal disease.

STB.

mariaalice wrote: »

The poster provided one link about one development so has proved their point still think its a minor issue overall, if anyone is concerned they should buy in a development built before 2010.

Do a few bits of investigation social housing managed by housing associations are very well managed.

A different poster provided a link to your ridiculous request of "Any link or evidence for that". One link is any link. Google the rest yourself, it still will not help your argument.

As regards your other points you have not got a clue.

Pre-2010 developments were still obliged to build social housing units in big developments. Secondly, the Councils went in and bought units pre-2010 that were not part of the initial allocation for social housing and handed them over to your so called "well organised" agencies.

Social Housing organisations are not well managed in my experience. Infact they don't give a shít about complaints made directly to them by management companies and or individuals. I can tell you that first hand having had to deal with a looper and the respective agency for far too long.

It is you who needs to do a bit of research.

STB.

Gatling wrote: »

Sinn fein are pushing for up between 40% -70% social housing in new developments .

What a great idea.

They can sit at home all day in their pyjamas watching sky box sets whilst you and I go out to pay for it.

Sinn Fein indeed.

STB.

STB. wrote: »

A different poster provided a link to your ridiculous request of "Any link or evidence for that". One link is any link. Goof=gler the rest yourself, it still will not help your argument.

As regards your other points you have not got a clue.

Pre-2010 developments were still obliged to build social housing units in big developments. Secondly, the Councils went in and bought units pre-2010 that were not part of the initial allocation for social housing and handed them over to your so called "well organised" agencies.

Social Housing organisations are not well managed in my experience. Infact they don't give a shít about complaints made directly to them by management companies and or individuals. I can tell you that first hand having had to deal with a looper and the respective agency for far too long.

It is you who needs to do a bit of research.

What every about your situation it is a fact that housing associations are well run and do deal with issuer quicker, that does not mean that some are not well handled. The poster tried to imply there is widespread organised avoidance of the social housing provision.

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/part_v_of_the_planning_development_act_2000_guidelines_jan_2017.pdf

https://www.housingagency.ie/housing-information/a-property-developer.aspx

STB.

mariaalice wrote: »

What every about your situation it is a fact that housing associations are well run and do deal with issuer quicker, that does not mean that some are not well handled. The poster tried to imply there is widespread organised avoidance of the social housing provision.

Thats not what he/she said. Go back and have a look.


Your statement about well run housing associations is nonsense. Tell that to the directors of management companies who have had to deal with complaints from residents and in turn deal with these so called well run housing organisations. I can tell you first hand they dont give a hoot.

STB.

STB. wrote: »

Thats not what he/she said. Go back and have a look.


Your statement about well run housing associations is nonsense. Tell that to the directors of management companies who have had to deal with complaints from residents and in turn deal with these so called well run housing organisations. I can tell you first hand they dont give a hoot.

Your right, the poster was just using a snide stereotype to make a point


"Well not exactly. Estates in upmarket parts of Dublin have a remarkable habit of escaping the Part V obligations. Thats where the quango heads/smoked salmon Socialists who advocate mixed housing tend to reside".

Ronaldinho

pgj2015 wrote: »

hi, I am looking to buy a house in a fairly upmarket estate. what im wondering is, do any of you know any cases where the council have bought a house in such an estate and let them to people on rent allowance?

Have you a specific house in mind? No harm in going out to the area every day or couple of days at differing times if you are seriously interested. Get a feel for what it's like.

As an aside, I think some people need to get off their high horse. For most buying a house is the biggest financial decision of their life and you don't want to **** that up by, for example, having the quality of you and your family's life being wrecked by problem neighbours. We can all chime in about how likely or not that is to happen based on personal experience but doing due diligence on a hundred of thousands of € purchase is the sensible thing to do.

Ronaldinho

Ronaldinho wrote: »

Have you a specific house in mind? No harm in going out to the area every day or couple of days at differing times if you are seriously interested. Get a feel for what it's like.

As an aside, I think some people need to get off their high horse. For most buying a house is the biggest financial decision of their life and you don't want to **** that up by, for example, having the quality of you and your family's life being wrecked by problem neighbours. We can all chime in about how likely or not that is to happen based on personal experience but doing due diligence on a hundred of thousands of € purchase is the sensible thing to do.

You are correct, but its the stereotyping of everyone in social housing that is irritating.

L1011

Skelp wrote: »

Not quite sure what the relevance of the number of posts I have on boards has to do with that fact.

Do you really genuinely believe that Councils don't do deals with developers to swap land/cash to ensure there is no social housing in the wealthiest parts of Dublin. This has been going on for the last 15 years. I didn't think there was anyone in the country that didn't know that was a fact.

The rules have been significantly tightened and the council may refuse a swap entirely if they want

power pants

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Yeah I notice how well dressed and tanned the kids are up in Darndale.

I don't think you have actually interacted with social housing tenants given your description.

I have.

Eric Cartman

Skelp wrote: »

Well not exactly. Estates in upmarket parts of Dublin have a remarkable habit of escaping the Part V obligations. Thats where the quango heads/smoked salmon Socialists who advocate mixed housing tend to reside.

+1 , Ive noticed that anyone advocating for more social housing doesn't live within 1km of it.

Eric Cartman

Col_30 wrote: »

Should social housing only be allowed in less desirable areas? Maybe list them to help people out.

Yes.

But also what do you think makes those areas become less desirable in the first place ?

Social and affordable housing should be next to each other, that makes sense, but its a complete kick in the face to somebody spending 650k+ on a house to have the neighbours handed the same thing for 30 quid a week.

It's disgusting the way some posters on here seem to think that council tenants are like ****e on their shoes.
Jesus, why do people think no one in council houses work?
It's clear to me that the majority of posters here have never even stood in a council estate, definitely wouldn't ever speak to a person living in a council house.

It's unbelievable that people actually think like that.

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes.

But also what do you think makes those areas become less desirable in the first place ?

Social and affordable housing should be next to each other, that makes sense, but its a complete kick in the face to somebody spending 650k+ on a house to have the neighbours handed the same thing for 30 quid a week.

No it's not.
The person that bought their house, owns it. It is there's to do whatever they want with it. It's an asset for them.

The council tenant is just that, a tenant. So what if it costs 30 Euro a week, they will never own it, it will never be theirs.

Eric Cartman

bubblypop wrote: »

It's disgusting the way some posters on here seem to think that council tenants are like ****e on their shoes.
Jesus, why do people think no one in council houses work?
It's clear to me that the majority of posters here have never even stood in a council estate, definitely wouldn't ever speak to a person living in a council house.

It's unbelievable that people actually think like that.

If you have an estate with detached 4 and 5 bed homes costing 600+ grand in private ownership , the chances of your neighbours being antisocial layabouts with drink or drug problems or up at all hours on the weekday blaring music and not looking after the outside aesthetic of that house / cutting the grass etc.... are very low, like single digit percentage low.

When you introduce social housing into the mix you might be very lucky and get a working couple who are just below an income threshold who still appreciate the good fortune they had, you might get a little less lucky and have a single mother with a load of kids who just doesn't have the time or resources to keep the house looking well but is quiet and the kids well behaved, or you could get unlucky and get a criminal family, a mother who doesn't care who lets her kids run riot , drug addicts, alcos, people that Peter Casey doesn't like, so not only do you have to live next to that hell , your house has probably had 50k knocked off the asking for the privilege.

no social housing = <10% chance of nightmare neighbours
social housing = complete tossup between good, under resourced or nightmare.

Eric Cartman

bubblypop wrote: »

No it's not.
The person that bought their house, owns it. It is there's to do whatever they want with it. It's an asset for them.

The council tenant is just that, a tenant. So what if it costs 30 Euro a week, they will never own it, it will never be theirs.

If you had the option to buy a house for 650k or get to live in the same house and have all your maintenance done on it for the rest of your life for 30 quid a week, what would you pick ?

Eric Cartman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If you had the option to buy a house for 650k or get to live in the same house and have all your maintenance done on it for the rest of your life for 30 quid a week, what would you pick ?

Well, considering it's not that easy to get 'all the maintenance done ' !
I would prefer to own my own house.
I couldn't care less what anyone else paid for their house in the same estate or even if they pay 30 Euro a week.
It doesn't affect me at all.

fussyonion

Jesus, I never realised the amount of snobs on here.

L1011

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 , Ive noticed that anyone advocating for more social housing doesn't live within 1km of it.

I challenge you to find me a housing estate of more than 10 units that is not within 1km of social housing within the GDA. There may be some, but I doubt it.

Eric Cartman

L1011 wrote: »

I challenge you to find me a housing estate of more than 10 units that is not within 1km of social housing within the GDA. There may be some, but I doubt it.

Well I never specified estates, I know thats the topic of conversation but I just said the likes of Paul Murphy (Goatstown) Clare Daly (Malahide) didn't grow up around social tenants at all, although ill have a look, I'm now interested to see.

Viscount Aggro

All it takes is a few bad families to tarnish an estate.
Ive had experience with this sort of scum.
Going to the guards is useless, once they single you out for special treatment.
Only thing they understand is, having their head taken clean off their shoulders.

L1011

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Well I never specified estates, I know thats the topic of conversation but I just said the likes of Paul Murphy (Goatstown) Clare Daly (Malahide) didn't grow up around social tenants at all, although ill have a look, I'm now interested to see.

I'd guess that the majority of people advocating for more social housing live in an estate, though. The majority of the country do (look at urban vs rural population percentages) and I don't think the sole advocates for more social housing are farmers and those living in one-offs!

Markcheese

Elessar wrote: »

Prepare to have social housing in every new estate built from 2018 on. 10-30% of housing being built anywhere will now be for social tenants. Builders can't buy themselves out of it anymore. So us, our children and their children will have to play the 'social tenant lottery' where they could potentially be terrorised by the councils finest in their own estate (locations of social housing will not be indicated to purchasers). Expect prices of housing in estates with no social housing to explode.

Thanks Fine Gael.

I feel your pain... Council house Tennants? The shame of it...
Everybody plays neighbour lottery Wether your a farmer in the sticks or someone living in a council estate... You don't know who ll move in, could even be someone from a foreign country...

Iamlegend24

Col_30 wrote: »

Should social housing only be allowed in less desirable areas? Maybe list them to help people out.

Yes ! It's not fair saving for years to buy a house and have a lazy arse next door.