Why are the government mixing social housing with private housing?

14dMoney

Would a simpler solution not be to be build dedicated estates for social housing? That way it would keep everyone happy.

gmisk

14dMoney wrote: »

Would a simpler solution not be to be build dedicated estates for social housing? That way it would keep everyone happy.

Er that doesn't really have a history of working out well here...ballymun etc

14dMoney

gmisk wrote: »

Er that doesn't really have a history of working out well here...ballymun etc

Are you suggesting that the cause was the residents?

JustMe,K

I don't see how it would keep everyone happy?

We should go back to social housing being a helping hand for people rather than a 'foreva home'.

Deebles McBeebles

Dedicated social housing estates have been built.

starbaby2003

Ehhhhh because large areas of social housing clustered together have shown it is ineffective. It isolates and stigmatises people living there. There are usually but not always anti social behaviour. People do better in mixed housing developments which is better for society as a whole. Look at Ballymun, Darndale etc ...

14dMoney

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Dedicated social housing estates have been built.

But why are we moving from that model?

Allinall

14dMoney wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the cause was the residents?

I would say so.

Once you allow them bring horses up to the 9th floor there’s no going back.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

But why are we moving from that model?

Dedicated social housing estates are being built but its been outsourced to housing agencies.

Despite you think not all people who are eligible for such housing are scumbags or criminals or welfare claiments

14dMoney

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Ehhhhh because large areas of social housing clustered together have shown it is ineffective. It isolates and stigmatises people living there. There are usually but not always anti social behaviour. People do better in mixed housing developments which is better for society as a whole. Look at Ballymun, Darndale etc ...

That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.

You could look at it like that

Personally I look on it as being fortunate that I'm in a position to own my own home

It's all about perspective

14dMoney

eviltwin wrote: »

You could look at it like that

Personally I look on it as being fortunate that I'm in a position to own my own home

It's all about perspective

Birds of a feather is human nature though.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

Birds of a feather is human nature though.

What do you mean by that?

14dMoney

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you mean by that?

Well people are going to naturally want to associate with people they have similarities with. So for example if there are 10 houses that cost 500k, 9 owned by people pay mortgages, 1 lived in by a couple who pay let's say 30 quid a week, some resentment and isolation will certainly occur.

Apiarist

14dMoney wrote: »

....1 lived in by a couple who pay let's say 30 quid a week, some resentment and isolation will certainly occur.

That would be offset by the feeling of smug superiority, so it may be a net gain for the paying class.

starbaby2003

14dMoney wrote: »

That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.

Why not. Their property remains the same? As they pay a mortgage they are gaining more control of an asset. They can use this as leverage in future if needed. The new model means that all new developments need to give a percentage to social housing. This is very fair as it helps stop social stigma about certain locations and allows for gentrification ( allow the jury is out on whether that is positive or negative)

eviltwin

Depends on the person. I bought my house, two of my closest friends are renting from the council. Our finances and ability to buy property are nothing to do with how we get along. I don't resent them paying less than I do for housing just as they don't resent me having a house.

I'm sure my friends paying high rents don't resent my mortgage being less than half what they pay.

Most people don't think that way. Those who do aren't worth knowing

_Brian

It’s an effort to avoid building slums. By mixing people from different socio economic groups they hope one half will help police the other half and the overall neighbourhood settle at an acceptable behaviour level.

But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway.

Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.

Always Tired

Why don't you just retitle the thread 'I don't want any poor people living near me or having similar housing to me, they should be put in ghettoes or made homeless for all I care.'

Since that's what you clearly mean OP.

Thelonious Monk

Its a bit annoying sometimes. Where i live id say about 25% of the houses are social nowadays. Theres always loads of rubbish outside their houses and they walk around in pajamas during the day etc (the horror!). I guess theyre just useless feckers who would never be able to hold down jobs etc. At the same time im lucky i came from a good family and am financially secure.

Auguste Comte

14dMoney wrote: »

eviltwin wrote: »

What do you mean by that?

Well people are going to naturally want to associate with people they have similarities with. So for example if there are 10 houses that cost 500k, 9 owned by people pay mortgages, 1 lived in by a couple who pay let's say 30 quid a week, some resentment and isolation will certainly occur.

They can always sell up and buy somewhere else if they want.

Another item is the long list of reasons I wouldn't live in an estate. It's a total disgrace really, private owners should not be forced to live in the same estates as those in social housing and all the issues that go along with them.

Especially as they are getting the houses free or at a massive discount while the private owner is paying for their own house, paying for the social house through taxation and having to put up with living in the estate with them.

This rule of developers having to put in social housing should really be challenged.

Thelonious Monk

Arya Rhythmic Vaccine wrote: »

Another item is the long list of reasons I wouldn't live in an estate. It's a total disgrace really, private owners should not be forced to live in the same estates as those in social housing and all the issues that go along with them.

Especially as they are getting the houses free or at a massive discount while the private owner is paying for their own house, paying for the social house through taxation and having to put up with living in the estate with them.

This rule of developers having to put in social housing should really be challenged.

Right but for the good of general society it's better off mixing instead of creating sink estates.

gmisk

14dMoney wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the cause was the residents?

Partially along with lack of infrastructure,investment etc

14dMoney

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Right but for the good of general society it's better off mixing instead of creating sink estates.

The sink estates are caused by the residents. Suggesting that private homeowners have a duty to mix with people who would devalue their homes is dreadfully unfair.

Feisar

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Why not. Their property remains the same? As they pay a mortgage they are gaining more control of an asset. They can use this as leverage in future if needed. The new model means that all new developments need to give a percentage to social housing. This is very fair as it helps stop social stigma about certain locations and allows for gentrification ( allow the jury is out on whether that is positive or negative)

It doesn't remain the same though. Rightly or wrongly it devalues the asset.

Thelonious Monk

14dMoney wrote: »

The sink estates are caused by the residents. Suggesting that private homeowners have a duty to mix with people who would devalue their homes is dreadfully unfair.

Maybe unfair but it's the right thing to do in my opinion

misterme123

There are so many threads like this. Ridiculous stuff like would you live beside someone on the dole, or would you date someone earning less than you. It's amazing how many people seem to live in a little middle class bubble. Surely even wealthy people here have some friends/family on social welfare.

14dMoney

misterme123 wrote: »

There are so many threads like this. Ridiculous stuff like would you live beside someone on the dole, or would you date someone earning less than you. It's amazing how many people seem to live in a little middle class bubble. Surely even wealthy people here have some friends/family on social welfare.

No this thread is more based on the fact that house prices plummet once the council buys houses in a private estate.

eviltwin

misterme123 wrote: »

There are so many threads like this. Ridiculous stuff like would you live beside someone on the dole, or would you date someone earning less than you. It's amazing how many people seem to live in a little middle class bubble. Surely even wealthy people here have some friends/family on social welfare.

They probably disown them

I would have thought living through the recession would make us all a bit more humble, a bit more grateful for what we have and more emphatic to people who find themselves in a bad place.

hatrickpatrick

Everyone seems to assume, without directly coming out and saying it in most cases, that the drugs, unemployment and violent crime issues in the old social housing estates were because the types of people who tended to be accommodated there were scumbags to begin with. I've always hypothesised though that part of the problem was "postcode discrimination" - in other words, and I've heard this directly from people who used to live in some of those estates, that it didn't matter what your qualifications were or how well you presented yourself; if your CV had St Teresa's Gardens or Railway Street as your address (to take two well known examples) you simply weren't getting called for the interview at all to begin with. In that context, doing drugs (to escape the misery of daily life) and selling them (to make some money after any legitimate avenue to revenue was essentially barred off for you) was bound to be appealing to at least some of those residents. The violent crime tended to follow, because the nature of the black market in any trade is almost always violent (Alcohol during US prohibition caused the same issues with violent crime, to take a well known example)

So in short, it wasn't so much that council complexes congregated a lot of people together who has a propensity for being assholes, it was more that having a council address inherently made a person less likely to be accepted for schools, jobs, programs etc that they would sign up to, and that in the vacuum of decent opportunities for self betterment, the Dunnes who initially introduced drugs to the scene in Dublin 8 and Dublin 1 just saw a gigantic niche for people who were both desperate for money and desperate for escapism.

Don't forget that when they first imported drugs to Ireland, they specifically targeted these complexes in Dolphin's Barn and Summerhill. They didn't even bother selling anywhere else at first. So the problems which led to the outbreak of drugs and drug related crime were clearly not only already in place, but evident to people who knew what they were doing business wise.

It's very difficult to find any sources which talk about anti social behaviour being a bigger problem in council estates than in the general Dublin population prior to the 1980s, which is when the drugs were first imported into these estates. As far as I'm concerned, that's a major indicator pointing towards this hypothesis.

14dMoney

eviltwin wrote: »

They probably disown them

I would have thought living through the recession would make us all a bit more humble, a bit more grateful for what we have and more emphatic to people who find themselves in a bad place.

If you're able-bodied, you've no excuse to be unemployed in this climate.

eviltwin

14dMoney wrote: »

If you're able-bodied, you've no excuse to be unemployed in this climate.

In theory

VinLieger

I wonder why the term Ghetto has such negative connotations? Nope cant figure it out.....

14dMoney

eviltwin wrote: »

In theory

No, in practice. Most of the unemployed lads now and days would sleep on the ground if there was work in the bed.

Graces7

misterme123 wrote: »

There are so many threads like this. Ridiculous stuff like would you live beside someone on the dole, or would you date someone earning less than you. It's amazing how many people seem to live in a little middle class bubble. Surely even wealthy people here have some friends/family on social welfare.

The need for help with housing can happen to anyone, through d isability or chronic illness, through old age, through the kind of financial issues that are common.

There is no one type of person; and yes I am a pensioner in social housing. Some of the generalisations here are....I was in council housing in the UK for a while because of disabling illness. Many of my school and university lived in council estates; hard working good folk. salt of the earth.

Some folk are wearing blinkers.

It goes wrong when a ghetto is created. Which is what some folk here want to happen.

lalababa

Mixed A. council and B.affordable and C.private is the way to go imho. A little bit of A , a little bit more of B, and a good lump of C. And any As acting the maggot dealt with severly. The B's & C's will influence the A's overtime.
If you put all A's together there is a tendency for things to go downhill.
And the loophole (if still there) of a developer being able to buy out the social clause should be abandoned.
I would suggest a mix let's say out of 100 houses, that there be 5to10 As, 10to20 B's and 70to85 Cs. And all mixed up over the estate.

Padraig Mor

_Brian wrote: »

But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway.

Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.

QFT.

While it would be completely incorrect to suggest that a majority of those living in council houses are scumbags, it is without doubt that the vast majority of scumbags live in council houses, or other free / subsidized accommodation. I think very few middle class people mind living near poor people - but they sure as hell don't want scumbags for neighbours.

There should be no council houses mixed in with private buyers due to the high risk of scummers - of which only a tiny number are required to destroy an estate. However, some of the points above re mixing social strata etc are correct and I believe that 'private' housing estates should have a significant portion of affordable housing whereby low waged working people can buy a house at a large discount (of, say, 50%) but will, crucially, pay for and own it themselves, thus investing them in the area and its community.

If we continue to insist on giving free houses to those who refuse to find work, they should be located in 100% social estates.

FTA69

JustMe,K wrote: »

I don't see how it would keep everyone happy?

We should go back to social housing being a helping hand for people rather than a 'foreva home'.

No that’s the last thing we need to do, create estates as dumping grounds for the unemployed, addicted and the general poor etc. What’s far better for society is people mixing; social housing was largely a success in London because it was mixed and in areas that also had wealthy people - in other words a healthy type of society.

Social housing needs to be built en masse and made available to working people who live in the cities.

14dMoney

lalababa wrote: »

Mixed A. council and B.affordable and C.private is the way to go imho. A little bit of A , a little bit more of B, and a good lump of C. And any As acting the maggot dealt with severly. The B's & C's will influence the A's overtime.
If you put all A's together there is a tendency for things to go downhill.
And the loophole (if still there) of a developer being able to buy out the social clause should be abandoned.
I would suggest a mix let's say out of 100 houses, that there be 5to10 As, 10to20 B's and 70to85 Cs. And all mixed up over the estate.

So you admit that the social problems stem from column A?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

_Brian wrote: »

It’s an effort to avoid building slums. By mixing people from different socio economic groups they hope one half will help police the other half and the overall neighbourhood settle at an acceptable behaviour level.

But it’s a mistake, it just causes strife and lowers the value of non social housing and after a time the councils end up buying many of the additional houses increasing the % of social housing and the result is the same anyway.

Yes, yes not everyone who lives in a social house is trouble, but a massive % are professionally unemployed on a generational level.

If the house is your home, does that matter? If you buy after social housing is mixed in, you’ll have gotten it for cheaper too. And house values fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.

14dMoney

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If the house is your home, does that matter? And house values fluctuate for all kinds of reasons.

Because who wants to lose money?

misterme123

Padraig Mor wrote: »

QFT.

While it would be completely incorrect to suggest that a majority of those living in council houses are scumbags, it is without doubt that the vast majority of scumbags live in council houses, or other free / subsidized accommodation. I think very few middle class people mind living near poor people - but they sure as hell don't want scumbags for neighbours.

There should be no council houses mixed in with private buyers due to the high risk of scummers - of which only a tiny number are required to destroy an estate. However, some of the points above re mixing social strata etc are correct and I believe that 'private' housing estates should have a significant portion of affordable housing whereby low waged working people can buy a house at a large discount (of, say, 50%) but will, crucially, pay for and own it themselves, thus investing them in the area and its community.

If we continue to insist on giving free houses to those who refuse to find work, they should be located in 100% social estates.

Most poor people don't want anti-social neighbours either.

14dMoney

misterme123 wrote: »

Most poor people don't want anti-social neighbours either.

I'm sure that they don't. However if you pay for your own place, it's not unreasonable to expect your neighbors to have paid aswell.

pablo128

You could buy a house in a new development where the builder guarantees no social housing will be included. A year down the line, your neighbour decides to emigrate or whatever and rents the house out to travellers on HAP.

Tough luck.

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

That's not really fair on the people who buy privately though.

Life's not fair shocker.

Auguste Comte

The snob is strong in some.

InTheShadows

14dMoney wrote: »

I'm sure that they don't. However if you pay for your own place, it's not unreasonable to expect your neighbors to have paid aswell.

Why?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

14dMoney wrote: »

Because who wants to lose money?

There’s no guarantee anyone will make a profit on the house they bought if they resell it. None at all. For many reasons. So people probably shouldn’t be fretting about the potential selling price of their home. Especially if they buy in a mixed estate and benefit from a lower asking price themselves. Obsession with house prices and house-flipping contributed to the bubble. Maybe people should worry about it less.

14dMoney

pablo128 wrote: »

You could buy a house in a new development where the builder guarantees no social housing will be included. A year down the line, your neighbour decides to emigrate or whatever and rents the house out to travellers on HAP.

Tough luck.

Luckily landlords as a general rule of thumb, have more than 7 brain cells, so this rarely, if ever happens.

14dMoney

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

There’s no guarantee anyone will make a profit on the house they bought if they resell it. None at all. For many reasons. So people probably shouldn’t be fretting about the potential selling price of their home. Especially if they buy in a mixed estate and benefit from a lower asking price themselves. Obsession with house prices and house-flipping contributed to the bubble. Maybe people should worry about it less.

There's no guarantee, but why throw another spanner in the works which is guaranteed to devalue a home?