Would you buy beside social housing?

Deebles McBeebles

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Cleaning Deebles? Really? Don't tell me the maid has been at the cognac again!:eek:

I'm afraid Hilda has been let go. Seems as though she was eyeing up my many leather-bound books. Probably looking to sell them on whatever social housing estate she is renting in. Pshaw!

Mad_maxx

LuasSimon wrote: »

Social housing in more recent times is often rewarding people who never did a days work in their life and expect the state to fund their family’s life’s . Drugs and crime are also common problems .

Meanwhile you work all your life and pay your way and have exactly the same house as these people .

Precisely, the culture surrounding social housing has profoundly changed

Raconteuse

listermint wrote: »

I suppose it corrects the narrative that people in or coming from social housing are scum.

But nobody said that. You know nobody said that. You know people are just saying the risk of anti social behaviour is higher. Which it is. You know this but just want to engage in disingenuous pretending that the OP merely said "everyone who lives in a council estate is a scumbag, amirite?" The intellectual dishonesty and posturing you're indulging in achieves nothing.

Do you still live in a council estate?

listermint

Raconteuse wrote: »

But nobody said that. You know nobody said that. You know people are just saying the risk of anti social behaviour is higher. Which it is. You know this but just want to engage in disingenuous pretending that the OP merely said "everyone who lives in a council estate is a scumbag, amirite?" The intellectual dishonesty and posturing you're indulging in achieves nothing.

Do you still live in a council estate?

But they did say that read over the posts .

sbsquarepants

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

I'm afraid Hilda has been let go. Seems as though she was eyeing up my many leather-bound books. Probably looking to sell them on whatever social housing estate she is renting in. Pshaw!

Oh, the eternal search for good staff!

Mad_maxx

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Salthillprom wrote:

I'm also sick of paying taxes to fund families who produce huge numbers of children and are an 'ethnic minority' and who clog up our A&E's, who have the biggest percentage of their people in jail, even though they only account for 4% of our population. Yup, them. Huge problem. Absolute freeloaders

You probably should do some research into the root causes of long term unemployment, or you could of course continue with your ignorance

You mean the "research" carried out by left wing academics who pick a conclusion and then work their way back.

Salthillprom

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You probably should do some research into the root causes of long term unemployment, or you could of course continue with your ignorance

I am fully aware of the 'root cause'. To call me ignorant based on your ASSUMPTION, shows you to be the ignorant one.

Mad_maxx

banie01 wrote: »

Cyrus wrote: »

i live in a new estate and there is a brilliant sense of community, everyone moved in at the same time, everyone helps everyone out, the ladies have a book club, the lads meet for pints every now and again.

so your point about a sense of community being lost isnt well made.

we don't have any social units however, and i wouldn't have bought here if we did.

I was perhaps a bit too broad in my point.

Some new estates do have really well developed community groups.
Local to me Kilteragh in Limerick would be an example of such.
Some excellent community groups that are driven by a few very commited and hard working residents for the benefit of all.

Given the minimum 10% set aside for social housing however, the belief that people can just pay more and avoid the anti-social, social tenants is a fallacy.

In the usual estate of 2, 3 and 4 bed homes there is going to be a minimum of 10% social housing.

Barring spending on a house on a half acre plot, or in particular high cost developments where the developer has somehow managed to offset their legal obligations, social tenants are a reality in practically every estate and development in the country.

I live in a small cul de sac of @ 14 homes, I bought here in 2006 since then 2 moves have occured in the street. Very settled and everyone does know everyone else.
The sense of community here is fostered by being neighbourly, by helping and sometimes just by a wave.
The local bar is @600mtrs away, it is more of a community hub with walking clubs and the like all radiating from there.

My estate was built mid 80's and is in an area bordered by a student village, a couple of new build estates and a fairly large L.A estate.

The L.A estate is currently being demolished in stages, perfectly good housing stock is being destroyed and the problem tenants from that area are being exported to private estates.

Now given that when the L.A take over their allocation on those new estates, they will move whomever they like into their managed properties.
The belief that there is a possibility to avoid those people by paying a bit extra is a fallacy IMO.

There are people who are hugely problematic tenants, the current L.A policy seems to be to just keep moving those people rather than taking any enforcement action.
Thinking that the issue can be avoided by anything other than luck is naïve.

The LA are more likely to house scum quicker, that way they have the local leftist politicians off their back

Mad_maxx

Salthillprom wrote: »

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You probably should do some research into the root causes of long term unemployment, or you could of course continue with your ignorance

I am fully aware of the 'root cause'. To call me ignorant based on your ASSUMPTION, shows you to be the ignorant one.

The " root cause" is open to debate, wanderer has a conventional leftist fixed idea as to what it is of course

Salthillprom

listermint wrote: »

This is not true.

The majority of social housing does not have unemployed people in it.


How are people allowed to put out absolute lies without facts.

Your gas.

I'm referring to census figures that were quoted in a DoHPLG document. Most are unemployed.

ELM327

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The " root cause" is open to debate, wanderer has a conventional leftist fixed idea as to what it is of course

So he does, he always does. Remember, capitalism either a) doesn't exist or b) is the root cause, depending on his agenda at the time

Mad_maxx

ELM327 wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The " root cause" is open to debate, wanderer has a conventional leftist fixed idea as to what it is of course

So he does, he always does. Remember, capitalism either a) doesn't exist or b) is the root cause, depending on his agenda at the time

The root cause is difficult to establish as those who carry out research are overwhelmingly wed to an ideological dogma whereby anyone engaging in anti social behaviour is at all times a victim of the market economy

I personally believe the sharp rise in a culture of fecklesness is due to the overly generous welfare state, combined with the downgrading of the traditional ideal surrounding the family unit, both developments were cheered on by the left with wild enthusiasm

tomwaits48

This must be a weekly thread at this stage

InTheShadows

Sagats_knee wrote: »

I also grew up in social housing. And had the pleasure to live in social housing again in several areas as an adult with my wife.

I wouldn’t buy directly adjacent a council estate. For every normal decent family living there, there are absolute scumbags who are above the law to contend with.

We left social housing after we got tired of having our windows being stoned, our things being set on fire, our letterbox being stuffed with fireworks, our council neighbours above us bringing back the contents of the pub at closing time for a Skanger party complete with full DJ at 4 am during weekdays REGULARLY, the constant drug dealings and drugs related fueds going on outside, men on ladders smashing all the street lights at night and the cameras, people getting the absolute crap knocked out of them outside my front door, police refusing to come, drug dealer neighbors having their house smashed up, being threatened at knife point by another neighbour for asking him to lower his hard house music which was at nightclub levels regularly, people fly tipping in my garden, robbed cars being burnt out in front of the house, car windows and mirrors being smashed regularly, not being able to go outside when it’s dark, the list goes on and on and unless you lived it you wouldn’t believe the half of what went on.

The question isn’t about hate, it’s about wanting to live with decent people who have a sense of community and social responsibility, and while the majority of council tenants are just that, the ratio of Scumbag and drug dealer to normal people is too high in council areas. The government is a large scale enabler of these social issues. They can do what they want without repercussions and you have to suck it up and go to work, in order to keep funding their Skangers lifestyles.

Of course you did.

Cina

I bought in a massive new estate and there are quite a few social houses here for sure. A number that have been given to asylum seekers also.

There haven't been any issues at all and they're generally very friendly.

I think it's fine when they make up 10% of the overall state, it encourages them to act better, the problem is when full estates are social housing then it usually ends in disaster. As with most things, it's important to integrate these people into society instead of isolating them.

banie01

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I personally believe the sharp rise in a culture of fecklesness is due to the overly generous welfare state, combined with the downgrading of the traditional ideal surrounding the family unit, both developments were cheered on by the left with wild enthusiasm

Without meaning to sound dickish, but given your dismissal of left wing academia, and I do agree that with social science in particular quite often the work is a "backwards" in that evidence is made to fit a hypothesis rather than the other way around

Do you have any right wing research to back up that personal belief?
Or is it ok to afford it the same weight of consideration as you seem to do academic research?

Raconteuse

InTheShadows wrote: »

Of course you did.

What grounds do you have for accusing them of lying?

"I don't like their post" will not suffice.

Raconteuse

The refusal (twice) to answer my question ("do you still live in a council estate?") speaks volumes.

Patrick2010

Raconteuse wrote: »

The refusal (twice) to answer my question ("do you still live in a council estate?") speaks volumes.

To quote the poster....


We left social housing after we got tired of having our windows being stoned,

Raconteuse

Patrick2010 wrote: »

To quote the poster....


We left social housing after we got tired of having our windows being stoned,

It was Listermint whom I asked twice though, not that poster.

Mad_maxx

Cina wrote: »

I bought in a massive new estate and there are quite a few social houses here for sure. A number that have been given to asylum seekers also.

There haven't been any issues at all and they're generally very friendly.

I think it's fine when they make up 10% of the overall state, it encourages them to act better, the problem is when full estates are social housing then it usually ends in disaster. As with most things, it's important to integrate these people into society instead of isolating them.

The notion that people from poor backgrounds need to be house trained by the middle class is deeply condescending yet that is now the received wisdom

The reason problems develop in council estates is a failure of policing

Mad_maxx

banie01 wrote: »

Mad_maxx wrote: »

I personally believe the sharp rise in a culture of fecklesness is due to the overly generous welfare state, combined with the downgrading of the traditional ideal surrounding the family unit, both developments were cheered on by the left with wild enthusiasm

Without meaning to sound dickish, but given your dismissal of left wing academia, and I do agree that with social science in particular quite often the work is a "backwards" in that evidence is made to fit a hypothesis rather than the other way around

Do you have any right wing research to back up that personal belief?
Or is it ok to afford it the same weight of consideration as you seem to do academic research?

Irish academia doesn't have any Conservative thinkers, same as the media here

AulWan

Yes, I grew up in a council estate and bought in a private development about ten minutes walk from my family home.

I'm now kind of regret that I didn't just apply to buy the family home from the Council, as it is much larger. Great neighbours, better then the private neighbours I have now, but that is the luck of the draw.

The area is always being slated by people who have never lived there and would never choose too - thats fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

But I always think its pretty ignorant when people talk down about an area they have no first hand or personal experience off.

sbsquarepants

Mad_maxx wrote: »

The notion that people from poor backgrounds need to be house trained by the middle class is deeply condescending yet that is now the received wisdom

The reason problems develop in council estates is a failure of policing

Bullshít.

It's a failure of parenting. Drink, drugs, just not giving a rats arse whatever the "reason" it's down to parents just not bringing up their kids to have any respect for the area or the people in it, any respect for anything in fact.

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Bullshít.

It's a failure of parenting. Drink, drugs, just not giving a rats arse whatever the "reason" it's down to parents just not bringing up their kids to have any respect for the area or the people in it, any respect for anything in fact.

and what are the main causes of addiction problems?

lola85

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Bullshít.

It's a failure of parenting. Drink, drugs, just not giving a rats arse whatever the "reason" it's down to parents just not bringing up their kids to have any respect for the area or the people in it, any respect for anything in fact.

That’s the problem with this country, no personal responsibility.

Always someone else’s fault.

banie01

Mad_maxx wrote: »

Irish academia doesn't have any Conservative thinkers, same as the media here

So, No?

Deebles McBeebles

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's a failure of parenting. Drink, drugs, just not giving a rats arse whatever the "reason" it's down to parents just not bringing up their kids to have any respect for the area or the people in it, any respect for anything in fact.

Certainly seems to be the case and would explain how entire familes from the worse off areas go on to be good people who contribute while others, multiple generations in most cases, do not.

sbsquarepants

Wanderer78 wrote: »

and what are the main causes of addiction problems?

A fondness for drugs?:rolleyes:

There's a certain type of person who is a perpetual victim, of circumstance, of poilcy, of poverty, of this that and the other. Where do you draw the line and say you know what, you chose to buy vodka instead of nappies - maybe you're just a shít mother!

We all have our sob stories - we don't all use them to absolve ourselves of any and all responsibility.

Wanderer78

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A fondness for drugs?:rolleyes:

There's a certain type of person who is a perpetual victim, of circumstance, of poilcy, of poverty, of this that and the other. Where do you draw the line and say you know what, you chose to buy vodka instead of nappies - maybe you're just a shít mother!

We all have our sob stories - we don't all use them to absolve ourselves of any and all responsibility.

ffs, theres an enormous amount of information out there on addiction and their causes