Should we stop building social housing?

mondeo

When I think of social housing, the first things that comes to mind is anti social behavior, graffiti, teenage gangs being nonconstructive, more Garda resources, litter and generally crap dumped all over the area. It probably comes from either the high unemployment stigma connected to it, boredom, no respect for what your living in because your not paying for it anyways. You won't give a sh!t about anything that you did't work your ass off for.

I own my own home in an OK area of Dublin, I also have another house that I rent out privately. Many times I have been contacted by the local housing / public housing or whatever they call themselves these days to request to rent my house so they could put people from the housing list in it. I always refused because I know the house might get wrecked because the tenants are essentially getting it for nothing. I sought advice on this also, after talking to some other landlords who did this, they strongly advised me to find private paying tenants first, which i did.

rob316

Sprawling housing estates with just council tenants causes anti social problems, where a stigma is attached to an address or area and you are basically tagged trouble.
That has been the major mistake of previous governments. We have created ghettos/projects in some areas.

kowloon

mondeo wrote: »

When I think of social housing, the first things that comes to mind is anti social behavior, graffiti, teenage gangs being nonconstructive, more Garda resources, litter and generally crap dumped all over the area. It probably comes from either the high unemployment stigma connected to it, boredom, no respect for what your living in because your not paying for it anyways. You won't give a sh!t about anything that you did't work your ass off for.

I own my own home in an OK area of Dublin, I also have another house that I rent out privately. Many times I have been contacted by the local housing / public housing or whatever they call themselves these days to request to rent my house so they could put people from the housing list in it. I always refused because I know the house might get wrecked because the tenants are essentially getting it for nothing. I sought advice on this also, after talking to some other landlords who did this, they strongly advised me to find private paying tenants first, which i did.

I had an uncle who owned a large number of properties and he always had some trouble tenant who was in the process of ruining one of his properties. I think in Ireland in particular, renting is seen as a temporary state that is to be moved on from, so there's very little personal investment from tenants. That's even more pronounced when there's no real penalty to messing a place up. I believe his wife got out of property as quick as she could when he died, it wasn't worth the stress.

The Enbalmer

kowloon wrote:

And all these now homeless people, do they somehow know their place and stay off our lawns? If they move to housing provided by the market with no subsidies it'll be a return to densely packed tenements. I can't see that playing out well.

Stop breeding children you cannot afford get employment,save money..buy somewhere to live. It's the way it's worked for generations

Wanderer78

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Stop breeding children you cannot afford get employment,save money..buy somewhere to live. It's the way it's worked for generations

so the birth of most people has been planned?

Gatling

Ush1 wrote: »

There would be more council housing available and more revenue if max rent caps were increased.

I have a close relative who is a housing offer in DCC. Had a tenant paying the max but was actually 4k in arrears. He was a lecturer on 120k and was complaining about having to pay back the unpaid rent.

I would call this going against the "spirit" of social housing, not just the arrears but the discounted rent also.

Only found out recently that compensation payouts are excluded from income thresholds in social housing so you could have a tenant with tens of thousands in the bank and still accessed at minimum on income..

And the idea of one person getting to keep a 3-5 bed property until either they hand back the tenancy or death .

If the rules state your housed on need so if you only need one room you should be then transferred to a one bed at the soonest available time

Mad_maxx

end of the road wrote: »

i believe social tenants are responsible for maintenance of lawns. however unless private rental tenants are expected to be responsible for fixing gutters etc, then council then the council should be responsible for it as part of heavy maintenance. it is not the tenant's house and if something goes wrong, unless they are the specific cause of that going wrong, then it is unfair for it to come back on them because they essentially helped the council out.
evictions won't make those who misbehave etc appreciate anything tbh. if they are anti-social then they are anti-social and proper education of people at a young age is probably the only way to sort that out.
capping benefits ultimately doesn't work. people end up suffering as in the case of children's allowence, children over the cap would likely still be had.

So let's do nothing?

That's grand, you sound like Mr endless generosity, you can pay my chunk of tax so jacinta can have a foreign holiday while her mam ( who, s thirty five) minds the grandkids

mondeo

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Stop breeding children you cannot afford get employment,save money..buy somewhere to live. It's the way it's worked for generations

The more children you have, the better the chance you will get a free brand new house. Your prioritized.

Back in the 70's, 80's people worked their asses off to buy their own home. This changed iwith big social housing developments going up. People became Lazy imo and prefered to try get everything for nothing. Sit down and do nothing, have lots of kids, apply for free house with benefits that would make you question the point in even getting a job at all ?. Seems to have worked pretty well for them to. Maybe the working class are the dummies paying for everything.

end of the road

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Social housing=antisocial problems

anti-social people is what equals anti-social problems. anti-social people won't equal anti-social problems if we have a properly resourced police system which can disrupt and catch them.

The Enbalmer wrote: »

Stop breeding children you cannot afford get employment,save money..buy somewhere to live. It's the way it's worked for generations

it doesn't work any more by the looks of it. times have changed and the cost of living has gone up.
people have always had children they technically couldn't afford and they always will.

mondeo wrote: »

The more children you have, the better the chance you will get a free brand new house. Your prioritized.

Back in the 70's, 80's people worked their asses off to buy their own home. This changed iwith big social housing developments going up. People became Lazy imo and prefered to try get everything for nothing. Sit down and do nothing, have lots of kids, apply for free house with benefits that would make you question the point in even getting a job at all ?. Seems to have worked pretty well for them to. Maybe the working class are the dummies paying for everything.

what changed is house prices got higher, and modernisation meaning a lot of the old type jobs became redundant.
people didn't just become lazy nor did social housing developments have anything to do with the reduction in people being able to save to buy a home, nor did they have anything to do with people having lots of kids, such people having always existed. even in the 70s and 80s, there were those unable to save for a home and those who didn't work.

Mad_maxx

mondeo wrote: »

When I think of social housing, the first things that comes to mind is anti social behavior, graffiti, teenage gangs being nonconstructive, more Garda resources, litter and generally crap dumped all over the area. It probably comes from either the high unemployment stigma connected to it, boredom, no respect for what your living in because your not paying for it anyways. You won't give a sh!t about anything that you did't work your ass off for.

I own my own home in an OK area of Dublin, I also have another house that I rent out privately. Many times I have been contacted by the local housing / public housing or whatever they call themselves these days to request to rent my house so they could put people from the housing list in it. I always refused because I know the house might get wrecked because the tenants are essentially getting it for nothing. I sought advice on this also, after talking to some other landlords who did this, they strongly advised me to find private paying tenants first, which i did.

Don't do it, I have a house ( cost 72k) leased to Limerick Council for over a year now, money is good and working people would not rent the house, it's in a quiet tucked away street but very close to a notorious estate ( one of the worst in the country) and the inhabitants of said estate pass by on the way to town.

Anyway, the council put a scumbag single mum in the house who hosts raves every few weeks and keeps the entire street awake, I inspected the house once since last July, carpet ripped off the stairs, most of the furniture gone, house filthy, backyard full of rubbish.

The council use those long term leasing plans to house problem tenants.

My house cost very little and the yield is 12% but no way should anyone dream of doing such a thing with a remotely valuable property

Mad_maxx

rob316 wrote: »

Sprawling housing estates with just council tenants causes anti social problems, where a stigma is attached to an address or area and you are basically tagged trouble.
That has been the major mistake of previous governments. We have created ghettos/projects in some areas.

No, we didn't enforce law and order. That's why those estates are what they are.

Suppose you subscribe to the idea of a percentage of social housing in new estates too?

That's another of those PC article's of faith.

Mad_maxx

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so the birth of most people has been planned?

My fiancé and I planned both ours, we even planned how far apart they would arrive

RocketRaccoon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so the birth of most people has been planned?

With the majority of these people? Yes! Pop out more childer = more money from the government.

The Enbalmer

Wanderer78 wrote:

so the birth of most people has been planned?

They used to be..after all it used to be a big expense for the parents,not a way to get a bigger house off the taxpayer.

You can buy condoms everywhere now and birth control and morning after pills on the medical card.

end of the road

Mad_maxx wrote: »

No, we didn't enforce law and order. That's why those estates are what they are.

Suppose you subscribe to the idea of a percentage of social housing in new estates too?

That's another of those PC article's of faith.

oh absolutely i support it. it's not a pc anything but an integration policy in the aim of eradicating what bit of classism that does exist in ireland.
oh i absolutely agree we didn't enforce law and order to a sufficient standard to deal with the social problems but there was a lot more we didn't do i'd bet.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

With the majority of these people? Yes! Pop out more childer = more money from the government.

they get money per child, but i can't imagine it is actually profitable for them once all of the money is added up and the costs of those children are actually paid for. so if it is the case people are having babies just to get money, they probably find that out quite quickly.

Graces7

rob316 wrote: »

Can anyone actually afford market rents?

frankly doubtful. I steered clear of council accommodation for many years as I prefer to choose where I live, but had to change that idea . I keep an eye on daft and it is hard reading