social housing in upmarket estate

Eric Cartman

Sleeper12 wrote: »

In small amounts social housing can fit in well but I'd also be rightly peed off if I spent a million plus in an upmarket area and 10 percent went to social housing. I'm not sure I'd want to live in an upmarket area now that I think about it.

ohh it can work, but in the kind of "can potentially have no negative impact" kind of way, it certainly wont have a positive impact. I think the social element should be allowed to be up to 8km away when the main houses are to have a sale price of over 500k euro. Theres a lot to be said for a 250k housing estate having a social housing element but handing out houses that most working couples could never afford is madness and people would quite rightly feel annoyed about it.

Sleeper12

Eric Cartman wrote:

ohh it can work, but in the kind of "can potentially have no negative impact" kind of way, it certainly wont have a positive impact. I think the social element should be allowed to be up to 8km away when the main houses are to have a sale price of over 500k euro. Theres a lot to be said for a 250k housing estate having a social housing element but handing out houses that most working couples could never afford is madness and people would quite rightly feel annoyed about it.

Not too many private estates in Dublin where they sell as low as 250k. Some old council estates are fetching much more than that.

I think the house for life needs to be looked at. I like the UK bedroom tax where if you have a council house say 3 bed but you are now a retired couple living alone they tax the empty bedrooms. It encourages people in council homes to downsize as their families get smaller

Eric Cartman

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Not too many private estates in Dublin where they sell as low as 250k. Some old council estates are fetching much more than that.

I think the house for life needs to be looked at. I like the UK bedroom tax where if you have a council house say 3 bed but you are now a retired couple living alone they tax the empty bedrooms. It encourages people in council homes to downsize as their families get smaller

Thats part of my point. If people who work and save to get a mortgage cant afford dublin, why the hell should anyone get an effectively free house there.

khaldrogo

Colonel Claptrap wrote:

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

And can you tell the difference since moving in? Are they obviously council houses?

MSVforever

Fol20 wrote: »

Do you have any article about the dutch atyle system. Id be interested to read about it

It's think he was referring to the "scum villages":

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/roma-family-is-banished-to-amsterdams-scum-village-29557503.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9719247/Amsterdam-to-create-scum-villages.html

Eric Cartman

MSVforever wrote: »

It's think he was referring to the "scum villages":

https://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/roma-family-is-banished-to-amsterdams-scum-village-29557503.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9719247/Amsterdam-to-create-scum-villages.html

Thats exactly what we need, that is the exact thing Ireland needs, put them in the arse of nowhere and send all the problem tenants to them. You wreck a council or hap house - scum village, criminal convictions - scum village, garda complaints - scum village , havent worked in 10 years - scum village, on disability for addiction - scum village, Its the ideal solution for people who society just doesnt want living next to them.


*note im aware scumbag as a name calling is against the rules but im hoping this is ok as its what they are called in the articles.

Here we go

Can someone tell me how the 10% works do the council pay for these or does the builder have to hand over 10% free ? I'd assume if a builder was giving 10% away they would just add an extra 10% on each house that's for sale

Colonel Claptrap

khaldrogo wrote: »

And can you tell the difference since moving in? Are they obviously council houses?

Some are obvious. Others not so much. There has been no antisocial behaviour thankfully. Somebody's running a garage from their front garden and another has a loud pigeon coup out the back. But other than that, you'd struggle to notice unless you really looked.

Eric Cartman

Colonel Claptrap wrote: »

Some are obvious. Others not so much. There has been no antisocial behaviour thankfully. Somebody's running a garage from their front garden and another has a loud pigeon coup out the back. But other than that, you'd struggle to notice unless you really looked.

how many of the kids are teenagers ?

Wheeliebin30

Here we go wrote: »

Can someone tell me how the 10% works do the council pay for these or does the builder have to hand over 10% free ? I'd assume if a builder was giving 10% away they would just add an extra 10% on each house that's for sale

Council buy them from builder.

Here we go

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Council buy them from builder.

And this is mandatory​ for the council to buy 10 of every build has this been costed going forward with ate need to to increase builds to 50k a year so 5k times average house price is what 1 bill a year

Here we go

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Council buy them from builder.

And this is mandatory​ for the council to buy 10 of every build has this been costed going forward with ate need to to increase builds to 50k a year so 5k times average house price is what 1 bill a year

milhous

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Council buy them from builder.

Do council pay full price or cost price? Is it part of the planning permission process?

BBFAN

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If the builder has to provide social housing, let's say 30 houses, they can still buy 30 houses down the road instead of giving social housing in a prime area. They have been doing this for decades now in Dublin and the councils have been quite happy with the setup.

They are not allowed to do this anymore, very strict rules about it.

Sleeper12

BBFAN wrote:

They are not allowed to do this anymore, very strict rules about it.

I find it hard to believe that a development where the housing are going for a million each that any will be going as social housing regardless of any new rules. The council couldn't afford to buy property in this price range. There must be a get out clause. Maybe the developer buys twice as many homes down the road for the council. The councils were very happy with the way things were before. They got 10 percent of development or the equivalent amount of housing up the road.

What is the new rule supposed to achieve? The council can't afford to but high end housing nor do they wont them

Ronaldinho

bubblypop wrote: »

I have two friends who refuse to pay for bins, neither are social housing tenants.

Out of curiosity / nosiness why did they refuse to pay for bins?

Were they renting or owner occupiers?

johnnyskeleton

Col_30 wrote: »

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

Social housing should be built on council owned land and that land shoild be purchased for the best price the coouncil can get. But instead we underfund councils and force private developers to provide them if they build a private estate. This put developers off building in areas where the margins are tight. So ultimately nothing gets built, leading to high prices high rents and homelessness.

Its a great strategy, and so the current government has decided to double down on it.

Sarn

Is this the reason why we are seeing more devlopments of mixed housing and apartments? The social and affordable allocation will go into the apartments rather than the houses? In some areas even the apartments could be eye watering in price.

LotharIngum

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Social housing should be built on council owned land and that land shoild be purchased for the best price the coouncil can get. But instead we underfund councils and force private developers to provide them if they build a private estate. This put developers off building in areas where the margins are tight. So ultimately nothing gets built, leading to high prices high rents and homelessness.

Its a great strategy, and so the current government has decided to double down on it.

I think a lot of people actually think that these are free house.


They are NOT free houses. Somebody has to pay for them to be built and that is not the builder.


The cost of building these houses is passed on to the neighbours who are paying full price for their houses. And that full price is inflated due to them having to subsidize to social and affordable allocation.

Higher percentage of social and affordable houses = Higher prices for those paying for the other houses.

Its not the builder that is providing the money for the social and affordable allocation, its the neighbours who are paying for it in their inflated house prices..

L1011

LotharIngum wrote: »

I think a lot of people actually think that these are free house.


They are NOT free houses. Somebody has to pay for them to be built and that is not the builder.


The cost of building these houses is passed on to the neighbours who are paying full price for their houses. And that full price is inflated due to them having to subsidize to social and affordable allocation.

Higher percentage of social and affordable houses = Higher prices for those paying for the other houses.

Its not the builder that is providing the money for the social and affordable allocation, its the neighbours who are paying for it in their inflated house prices..

The builder is paid for the social houses by the obtaining council.

They may increase the cost of other houses to get a higher total % margin on the development.

oceanman

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats exactly what we need, that is the exact thing Ireland needs, put them in the arse of nowhere and send all the problem tenants to them. You wreck a council or hap house - scum village, criminal convictions - scum village, garda complaints - scum village , havent worked in 10 years - scum village, on disability for addiction - scum village, Its the ideal solution for people who society just doesnt want living next to them.


*note im aware scumbag as a name calling is against the rules but im hoping this is ok as its what they are called in the articles.

do you really believe any government in this country would ever sign off on something like that?......not a hope in hell

LotharIngum

L1011 wrote: »

The builder is paid for the social houses by the obtaining council.

They may increase the cost of other houses to get a higher total % margin on the development.

Yes they are bought at cost price. The builder has to make money from the development. The profit he would have made on those houses is added to the price of the other houses costing the buyers the money.

The cost price that is paid by the council comes from the taxes of those people who have to actually buy houses.

tretorn

Re not wanting to pay the bin charges its mainly social housing tenants who dont want to pay for anything in my view who wont pay.

I walk through private housing estates and I dont see scraping of dinner thrown on the ground. Nor do I see hedges stuffed with black sacks, I see this in the park beside the social housing estate. I dont see boarded up houses in the private estates and nor do I hear chidren screeching until its dark in school time in the private housing estates either.

The children in the private housing estates arent obese for the most part and teacher will tell you they bring healthy lunches to school. The social housing children quite often buy unhealthy lunches on the way to school and this generally means they are late for school. They leave school with poor qualifications and become parents by the time they are eighteen, three or four children later they are in their own social housing while children from the private housing estate are graduating from college and will live with Mammy and Daddy until they are thirty because they cant afford to buy and now cant even afford to rent either.

This country is utterly screwed. The young professionals cant move on with their lives so most wont have families and if they do get to procreate they will have only two children max. The welfare dependent will go on having children because each child is literally a cash cow to more entitlements and then all these children have to be supported eventually by the children of the working people, how is this going to be possible.

Sleeper12

tretorn wrote: »

Re not wanting to pay the bin charges its mainly social housing tenants who dont want to pay for anything in my view who wont pay.

That's a mighty big statement to make


You do know that originally there were wavers for low income families right?


Low income families didn't have to pay yet there were 10s of thousands who refused to pay. Yes, the vast majority of these were in private homes & these weren't on low income either.



When the water charges were in just as many private as social homes didn't pay. There were protests outside private estates as well as council estates.


You've made a very big generalization in that statement without giving it an ounce of thought.

fletch

Sleeper12 wrote: »

When the water charges were in just as many private as social homes didn't pay. There were protests outside private estates as well as council estates.

Really? Strange that there weren't near as many protests about the LPT as water charges....I wonder why that was? (I think we all know the answer to that)

Cyrus

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that a development where the housing are going for a million each that any will be going as social housing regardless of any new rules. The council couldn't afford to buy property in this price range. There must be a get out clause.

there is definitely a get out,

if you think about it logically they are too expensive for the council and also less desirable to prospective purchasers, so im not sure what the get out is, but there is one.

Sleeper12

fletch wrote:

Really? Strange that there weren't near as many protests about the LPT as water charges....I wonder why that was? (I think we all know the answer to that)

Ah, you forget your modern history.

Again 10s of thousands, maybe even 100s of thousand, of private homes didn't pay the household charge. It was only when the collection was handed to revenue did these home owners pay. Without revenue being brought in the LPT might never have succeed. There was a massive non payment of the household charge originally.

Sleeper12

Cyrus wrote:

there is definitely a get out,

I was pretty certain that there was but stating so here would invoke calls for a link that I can't provide.

Cyrus wrote:

if you think about it logically they are too expensive for the council and also less desirable to prospective purchasers, so im not sure what the get out is, but there is one.

This is my point too. The council doesn't want 10 percent of homes in an estate valued over half a million let alone a million. It suits the council better not to have to shell out crazy money for the council home.

ELM327

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats exactly what we need, that is the exact thing Ireland needs, put them in the arse of nowhere and send all the problem tenants to them. You wreck a council or hap house - scum village, criminal convictions - scum village, garda complaints - scum village , havent worked in 10 years - scum village, on disability for addiction - scum village, Its the ideal solution for people who society just doesnt want living next to them.


*note im aware scumbag as a name calling is against the rules but im hoping this is ok as its what they are called in the articles.

I completely agree with you.

You get your free/subsidised house but you don't get something of equal value or prestige as people working and paying for it.



But I could not help but be reminded of this clip

Eric Cartman

oceanman wrote: »

do you really believe any government in this country would ever sign off on something like that?......not a hope in hell

Build it as a social housing project and don't say who'll go there , everyone clebrates hundreds of social housing being built, the first inkling they'd ever have of what its for is when the high security doors, anti vandal lighting , razor topped palisade fencing and the 200th CCTV camera went in. That and the acompanying 24 hour garda station with a 1 holding cell to 4 apartment ratio went in.

Like a kind of soft prison , give everyone a PO box somewhere without a crap address and a free bus to the nearest town if they can prove theyre going for work. If you make it 5 years continuously employed and without ending up infront of a judge then you get to go back to a nicer house.

Think of the relief that all the good working tenants in social housing would get , no more anti social nonsense, lower crime rates and a restored image of the decent people in the social housing system. The honest people in social housing would only see upsides to it. Would also move the heroin problem in dublin and the crack epidemic in tallaght away from hard working people, our tourists and children.

Put in a probation service office, psycologist, detox and addiction treatment centre, training centre, offer all the help in one place